Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 199: Line 199:
::The notability test for politicians at the municipal level, even in Toronto, is not "because they're technically verifiable as having held office, they're guaranteed articles and exempted from actually having to show substantive press coverage" — the press coverage ''is'' the notability test. Not just one or two glancing namechecks of their existence in articles about other people: coverage ''about them'', which enables you to write a genuinely ''substantive'' article. That's the thing you're missing: the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors of the preamalgamation era simply do ''not'' always have the same depth or volume of press coverage that the Core Toronto councillors had. NPOL #2 explicitly ''says'' the notability test is ''press coverage'', so the includability knife cuts on how much ''press coverage'' the person can or cannot show. I'm not making up my own special notability rules here, either: AFD ''consensus'' already decided all of this, and I'm just ''reporting'' the way it works. I'm not inventing my own notability tests at all — I'm simply ''telling'' you what the state of Wikipedia consensus around the notability of municipal politicians ''is''.
::The notability test for politicians at the municipal level, even in Toronto, is not "because they're technically verifiable as having held office, they're guaranteed articles and exempted from actually having to show substantive press coverage" — the press coverage ''is'' the notability test. Not just one or two glancing namechecks of their existence in articles about other people: coverage ''about them'', which enables you to write a genuinely ''substantive'' article. That's the thing you're missing: the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors of the preamalgamation era simply do ''not'' always have the same depth or volume of press coverage that the Core Toronto councillors had. NPOL #2 explicitly ''says'' the notability test is ''press coverage'', so the includability knife cuts on how much ''press coverage'' the person can or cannot show. I'm not making up my own special notability rules here, either: AFD ''consensus'' already decided all of this, and I'm just ''reporting'' the way it works. I'm not inventing my own notability tests at all — I'm simply ''telling'' you what the state of Wikipedia consensus around the notability of municipal politicians ''is''.
::All of that said, there ''are'' certainly going to be some individual cases where a municipal politician in a preamalgamation suburb actually ''did'' get enough press coverage that you can actually write and source a genuinely substantive article — that's a different matter, and will be judged on its own merits. But the suburban mayors or reeves or councillors do ''not'' all get an automatic free pass over NPOL just because their municipality got annexed by Toronto at a later date: for mayors and reeves and councillors in preamalgamation Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York or Leaside or Swansea, the notability test they would have to clear is the ability to write and source enough substantive content about them to credibly demonstrate that they should be considered a ''special case'', and the ability to minimally source the fact that they existed is ''not'' enough in and of itself. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
::All of that said, there ''are'' certainly going to be some individual cases where a municipal politician in a preamalgamation suburb actually ''did'' get enough press coverage that you can actually write and source a genuinely substantive article — that's a different matter, and will be judged on its own merits. But the suburban mayors or reeves or councillors do ''not'' all get an automatic free pass over NPOL just because their municipality got annexed by Toronto at a later date: for mayors and reeves and councillors in preamalgamation Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York or Leaside or Swansea, the notability test they would have to clear is the ability to write and source enough substantive content about them to credibly demonstrate that they should be considered a ''special case'', and the ability to minimally source the fact that they existed is ''not'' enough in and of itself. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
:::So what's the difference in your mind between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967? Its powers didn't change, the members of its executive committee had as much authority before 1967 as after. All that changed was the number of constituent municipalities was reduced. But a Metro Councillor pre-1967 was no less important figure than one after 1967, particularly if they were on the executive committee. And I think you continue to misunderstand what metropolitan government was for the purposes of the "metropolitan city" test. The boundaries of the "metropolitan city" before 1998 when amalgamation occurred *were* the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, not the old city of Toronto. If you look at population figures it was the figures for *Metro* which were given, not of the old city. [[Special:Contributions/157.52.12.31|157.52.12.31]] ([[User talk:157.52.12.31|talk]]) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
:::So what's the difference in your mind between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967? Its powers didn't change, the members of its executive committee had as much authority before 1967 as after. All that changed was the number of constituent municipalities was reduced. But a Metro Councillor pre-1967 was no less important figure than one after 1967, particularly if they were on the executive committee. And I think you continue to misunderstand what metropolitan government was for the purposes of the "metropolitan city" test. The boundaries of the "metropolitan city" before 1998 when amalgamation occurred *were* the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, not the old city of Toronto. If you look at population figures it was the figures for *Metro* which were given, not of the old city. You also completely misunderstand what happened in 1998. The City of Toronto ''did not'' '''annex''' North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke etc - all the submunicipalities within Metropolitan Toronto were dissolved and amalgamated into the new "megacity". This is completely different than say, the old City of Toronto's annexation of Parkdale in 1899 or of Yorkville, or other communities that were annaexed. [[Special:Contributions/157.52.12.31|157.52.12.31]] ([[User talk:157.52.12.31|talk]]) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


== New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada ==
== New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada ==

Revision as of 19:05, 21 March 2019

Main
page 		  Talk
page 		  Article
alerts 		  Deletion
talks 		  Articles
to improve 		  Requested
articles 		  Vital
articles 		  Featured
content 		  Portal

This WikiProject is under the scope of WikiProject Canada.

Shortcuts
    Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject Canada

    Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français)

    Cyclopaedia of Canadian Biography

    Full transcriptions of two volumes of the Cyclopaedia of Canadian Biography (1888 and 1919) can now be found at Project Gutenberg. They may be useful sources for biographical articles for Canadians who are lesser known today. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57724 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53635 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzulo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Supply Management

    Can someone check Supply Management, I feel like Oceanflynn may be making edits in Good faith by posting only sources that are favorable to supply management and deleted content that seems unfavorable. I feel like he might be violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines and come off as Disruptive editing. Thanks, 134.117.249.113 (talk)00:58, 21 September 2018 UTC

    François Protat

    There's been a bit of an edit war over the past week about whether Genie Award-winning cinematographer François Protat is alive or dead. There were no sources shown at all the first time he was edited to reflect him as dead, so it got reverted — and then today, somebody returned him to dead on the basis of a French language source which speaks of his disparition. The problem is that while "disparition" can be translated as death in some instances, it's much more usually used to mean disappearance in the sense of being reported missing — and even the person who added the source did so with the edit summary "assumed dead", meaning even they don't really know for sure. Obviously there's something wrong here, and we need another source which does a better job of clarifying whether he's dead or just missing, but I've been completely unable to find anything else.

    Does anybody either know where to find a better source than I've been able to find, or have some insider information either way? Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we just say "missing and presumed dead", if that's what the source says? "Reported dead" is probably not accurate and I agree should not be used here. The source given is the only recent news I'm able to find, and it does read like an obituary. He's not old enough for the presumption provision in WP:BDP. Also, I'd expect there to be more buzz about it if he has in reliable fact died. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that I'd expect more reliable sources to be reporting his death if he were confirmed dead, but at the same time if he had simply disappeared I'd also expect there to be reliable source reporting of that (think back to Claude Jutra in 1986, or George Smitherman's husband in 2013: their disappearances got coverage.) But the source isn't actually saying "missing and presumed dead" either — it literally just says "disparition", and then leaves it up to the reader to interpret which of the two meanings it intended to communicate. I agree that the source probably means that he died, but only if you imagine me drawing out the word probably into a miasma of vocal fry the way people do when they're trying to say they can't commit to certainty. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, disappeared (or disparu in this case) does not mean dead; he may have simply 'gone off the grid' in some way. PKT(alk) 22:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a source we can use as referencing per se, but somebody has located a Facebook post from Protat's son which states that he died. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this settled-down? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, better sources have now been located to confirm that he actually died. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Removing lists of judges from articles on Superior/Provincial courts

    This would involve removing a lot of content from each of a couple dozen articles, so I thought I'd float it for discussion first in case anyone objects. Currently, every article for a Superior or Provincial court in Canada (see the corresponding rows of links at Template:Courts_of_Canada) includes a list of current and former judges. In many cases, these lists are very long (e.g. Supreme Court of British Columbia). I would like to remove these lists. They take up a lot of space, and I think provide more detail than is appropriate for Wikipedia. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, a person is typically included in a list of people only if they meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. And per WP:JUDGE, a judge is presumed notable if they've held "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". The provincial courts of appeals are provincewide, but the superior/provincial courts are not. (I'm inclined to still keep references to current and former Chief Justices of these courts, where they exist.) Dindon~enwiki (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see this RfC. At this point it's just a comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant RfC in the generic sense of the word, not WP:RFC. Colin M (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The superior trial courts certainly are province-wide. Why do you say they aren't? --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a provincewide system, yes, but the jurisdictional area of a judge on it is not provincewide. Provinces are divided into several distinct regions (eight in Ontario, frex), which each have their own distinct set of superior court judges who can only hear superior court cases in that specific area and don't normally have jurisdiction outside of it unless they're given a special temporary secondment to another area. So the system is provincewide, but each individual judge on it is not a provincewide titleholder for the purposes of our notability criteria for judges. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the case for Ontario but it is not the case for either BC or Saskatchewan, which are the two courts which triggered this discussion. In BC, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the province (Supreme Court Act, s. 9(2)), and s. 3(2) provides that "The court may be held before the Chief Justice or before any one of the judges." Same for Saskatchewan: s. 9(1) of the Queen's Bench Act provides that the Court "has original jurisdiction throughout Saskatchewan" (s. 9(1)), and s. 9(3) provides that: "(3) Judges have jurisdiction throughout Saskatchewan." For those two provinces, the judges of the superior trial courts meet the notability requirement of jurisdiction throughout the Province. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar wording exists in the Provincial Court Act of BC, governing the Provincial Court of British Columbia. "The court and every judge have jurisdiction throughout British Columbia...", "The court may sit at any place in British Columbia...". In practice, it seems like the justices of the Superior court work within a particular county (see the parentheticals in this directory) - the Supreme Court act even has clauses relating to residency requirements. I think the idea that every judge in BC is notable violates common sense. The wording of WP:JUDGE is not crystal clear on this point, but my understanding of the phrase "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is that it refers to the highest court of the state/province (so the courts of appeal in Canada, and state supreme courts in the US). Colin M (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back to this issue, I have to disagree with Bearcat's statement that Superior Court judges in Ontario don't have province-wide jurisdiction. There are regional divisions of the Court, and judges are assigned to sit in those regional divisions, but that doesn't mean they lack province-wide jurisdiction. An order of a judge applies throughout Ontario. For example, if a company in financial difficulties has assets in Kingston, Toronto and Windsor, and a judge sitting in Toronto issues an order affecting the assets of the company in favour of the creditors, that order applies to the assets in Kingston and Windsor. It's not necessary to have the order re-issued by a judge in the regional divisions to make it apply in Kingston and Windsor. Residency and regional divisions do not limit jurisdiction. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to ColinM's point, I don't find the definition of judge in the "notability" guideline to be ambiguous: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". That's not tied in any way to the court hierarchy. Given that court hierarchies are such a common feature of the court system, if the point of the notability criteria were to only cover the highest court in a province or state, it would have said so. Instead, it uses the term "province wide". As the examples given illustrate, trial courts in Canada have province wide jurisdiction. So, I don't see any ambiguity there. However, I take your point - is province wide jurisdiction enough to say that someone is notable? Instead of approaching this as an ambiguity and then doing workarounds on a case-by-case basis, perhaps what we should be doing is establishing a notability guideline for the Canadian judiciary? There is one specifically for US judges: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, so why not one for Canadian judges, based on our court system? --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    42nd Parliament, House of Commons, political parties etc.

    How many vacancies are their now? I believe it's five, but not sure. If its five? then we've got some updating to do on several articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're correct, GoodDay - the 3 ridings with by-elections this month (York-Simcoe (my riding), Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Burnaby South), and now Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. PKT(alk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The 42nd Canadian Parliament, House of Commons of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, to name a few articles & related templates, will need updating. I will commence to do so, later today, unless there's objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's five. People completely missed Sheila Malcolmson's resignation from the House, for example — I've been concentrating mainly on Juno and Canadian Screen Award content lately, so I wasn't checking in on whether other people were staying on top of political stuff that wasn't specifically brought to my attention, but after her provincial by-election win last week I noticed that she had never actually been removed from the House of Commons template at all. I note that people were much better about updating things at the provincial level — by the time I heard the results, her article and the riding article had already been updated appropriately, but I had step in to fix the navboxes. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jody Wilson-Raybould

    Just a heads-up, due to the sensitivity of the current matter, I've applied a week of semi-protection to Jody Wilson-Raybould to prevent drive-by IP vandalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call, Bearcat.....PKT(alk) 18:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Future RMs

    If I can figure it out (someday) how to do it? I'll be opening RMs at 30th Alberta general election & 43rd Canadian federal election articles. Barring an extremely rare, unforeseen situation? those elections are going to take place in 2019. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Partisanism, again

    Earlier today, an anonymous IP removed sections from the articles about Ontario MPPs Lisa MacLeod and Amy Fee which addressed the recent controversy around the Ontario Autism Program. They alleged in their edit summaries that the sections were "biased information" added by an "angry parent", but (a) they offered no real evidence that they actually knew the identity of the editor who had added it, or any reason why "angry parents" couldn't still have valid points, and (b) I'm not seeing any obvious evidence that the content was editorializing anything not supported by the sources being cited for it.

    I ran an IP lookup on the editor, and it gave me a domain ID beginning with "pctnon", which seems at least potentially suggestive of a server directly associated with the political party ("Progressive Conservative T-? N-? ONtario") — so while I can't definitively prove anything, this may need some attention for possible conflict of interest editing.

    At any rate, I don't personally see an obvious bias problem with the content. For the moment, I've reverted the IP and placed temporary semi on the pages to prevent it turning into an edit war — but since I've been concentrating mostly on film-related rather than political content lately, I'm aware of the autism controversy from the news but not all that familiar with the deep details. So I'd like to ask if a couple of other contributors could look over the articles to see if they can identify an NPOV problem I'm not seeing. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a quick look at the material you restored in both articles, Bearcat, and I see nothing wrong with it - the text reflects what I have seen/heard in the news, and it appears to be properly referenced. The IP who deleted it has no basis for claiming that an "angry parent" was involved. PKT(alk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That "pctnon" appears to be simply Bell's internal code for "Picton, Ontario", so it's not evidence of COI. Indefatigable (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed change to lead sentence at territorial article

    Pls see .....Talk:Territorial evolution of Canada#Lead change.--Moxy (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    March 2019: Vive la Francophonie

    In connection with International Francophonie Day on the 20th, WikiProject Women in Red is focusing on Francophone Women throughout the month. Help us to increase coverage of Canadian French speakers in English and/or in French, turning red links into blue.--Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposing deletion for about 40 articles on Manitoban judges

    I've found around 40 articles on judges who I think fail notability. They all follow similar patterns:

    • Created by User:MBueckert
    • The subject is a judge on either the Provincial Court of Manitoba or Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. As I said in an earlier discussion here, this does not create a presumption of notability via WP:JUDGE (see also this AfD).
    • The article generally has just one reference, that being a government press release announcing their appointment to the court.
    • The article's content restates (and, unfortunately, sometimes copy-pastes) the information from the press release. It gives the date of their appointment, who they replaced (and why that person vacated the position), and gives some routine facts about their background prior to the appointment (where they went to school, what law firms they worked at, whether they did any teaching, what areas of law they specialized in, possibly some kind of community engagement or volunteering that they do)

    Some examples include: Frank Aquila, Kelly Moar, Lee Ann Martin, Patti-Anne Umpherville, Sidney Lerner (full list here) I don't think these articles even put forward any claim that their subject is notable (other than the fact that they're judges), which is why I hope they're uncontroversial candidates for proposed deletion (also because of the unanimous outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carena Roller). But I'm putting this forward as an informal "proposed-proposed deletion". If anyone comments here within the next week disagreeing with my proposal, I'll hold off on prodding these articles until we reach consensus (or, if we can't, I'll go through WP:AFD instead of WP:PROD). Colin M (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another potential option is to create a List of judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba (or some such) and to redirect all the pertinent articles there (likewise for Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba). In my opinion, such as list should include only basic information, not biographical details; for example, name, date of appointment, who they replaced, date they vacated office, etc. Whether such a list is desirable or useful is the question. For reference, we have Category:Lists of Canadian judges, but nothing there is analogous to such a list. An analogue for the US is List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri; see also Category:Lists of judges of Australian superior courts, and as an example List of judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland. I agree that articles about individual judges for whom there are no third-party references don't pass the notability threshold. (Note: that Queensland article links to numerous pages about individuals, most of them suffering from the same problem as these articles.) Mindmatrix 16:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My gut feeling is that such list articles would not be useful (and would also be a nightmare to maintain for certain Provincial/Superior courts that have hundreds and hundreds of judges). Also, WP:LISTPEOPLE suggests that stand-alone lists of people should generally only include notable people. Thanks for the pointers to related articles. I think I'll need to do some more research to get a feel for how the hierarchy of courts in other countries relate to the Canadian system to make a proper comparison. List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri seems to be talking about a federal court, so I don't think it's directly comparable to this case. Colin M (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I just went ahead and added the PROD template to these pages. If anyone's arrived here via one of them, I'm happy to discuss. Colin M (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @RebeccaGreen: Hey there, I see you've removed some or all of the PROD templates for these articles. You posted a comment on each of their talk pages as well, but I think it would be simpler to discuss the matter here. For reference, here's the comment you posted on the talk pages:

    I think this needs to go to AfD, at the very least. On my reading of WP:JUDGE, he would indeed be presumed notable, as he is a judge of a provincewide court, which is specifically covered by that notability guideline: "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". I will de-PROD all the articles of judges of provincial courts for the same reason.

    I don't know if you saw the link to this discussion that I included in the PROD message, but if not, I'd encourage you to read what I wrote above, and particularly the links to this earlier discussion of WP:JUDGE and this AfD, since I think they address your concern. In short, despite what the name suggests, the "Provincial Court of Manitoba" is actually a collection of trial courts spread around the province. A Provincial Court judge sits in a particular district (e.g. Winnipeg, Dauphin, Thompson) and hears cases from that region. The only judges in MB who have a "provincewide" office are the justices of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the province's highest court. Other provinces follow a similar pattern. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply Thank you for pinging me here. I did see this discussion; I had not seen the earlier discussion, but I have now read it. It does not address my concerns - or at least, I see no agreement in the discussion, and I agree with the editors who pointed out that the WP:JUDGE guideline says nothing about court hierarchies. Yes, I did de-prod all the articles- I did not believe they are uncontroversial deletions, a view which is reinforced by reading that earlier discussion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on drug name

    Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ready, set, lick

    With the news about actor Boyd Banks licking a TV journalist live on the air, there's naturally been a drive-by IP egging frenzy on his article today, much of which has crossed the WP:NPOV line into calling him a creep — and, yeah, somebody who would actually do something like that probably is a creep, but it obviously isn't Wikipedia's role to call him that in our editorial voice. For the moment, I've inserted a neutral statement about it, referenced to a proper reliable source, and placed sprot on the article for a week — but I also checked the page statistics, and noted that it had zero page watchers when all of this was starting to go down. It's obviously got one now (raises hand), but wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to add the page to their watchlists to help keep things under control once the sprot expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Watching, but just wanted to observe that that is an excellent protection log summary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Properly sourced weatherbox for BC town?

    Could I get others points of view of whether this weatherbox is sufficiently sourced please. There doesn't appear to be any climate data available from Environment Canada for this location. Thanks Air.light (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada ‎

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada.--Moxy (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Election results templates

    A user has caught, and listed for deletion, a bunch of election results templates for the 2013 British Columbia general election that aren't actually in use. However, the actual problem isn't that they're redundant or useless — they just haven't actually been applied to the pages that election results templates are meant for, but rather each district/MLA pair is hardcoding the 2013 election results in-page instead of actually calling these templates. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_28#Unused_British_Columbia_provincial_election_2013_templates.

    The templates should actually be used in lieu of hardcoded results tables, precisely so that the MLA's article and the district's article can't be edited in contradictory ways, so really the only problem here is that the creator of the templates never finished the job of actually adding them to the relevant articles at all.

    So, since there's a fairly large cluster of templates involved and I'm not overly inclined to tackle the whole job by myself, I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help go through the list of templates to make sure they're actually being applied where they're supposed to be. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I can help with that, Bearcat. Some of the templates themselves need a bit of work. PKT(alk) 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Vancouver neighbourhood categories

    I've created and populated Category:Coal Harbour, Category:Kitsilano, and Category:West End, Vancouver. Please feel free to add and remove entries appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Election graph

    I wanted to raise a discussion about File:Canada federal elections.PNG, an image that's currently used only in a disused navbox template that's up for a deletion discussion. That navbox's deletion is justified, so that's not the question I want to raise — rather, I have questions about whether it's worth retaining this particular image at all.

    The image, for the record, is a bar graph depicting the popular vote breakdowns in every Canadian federal election. However, there are significant problems with it:

    1. The old pre-1942 Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives and the contemporary Conservatives all use the same colour shade, while only Reform and the Alliance are singled out for separate colours. However, we've had this argument before in other places: yes, it is technically true that the modern Conservatives are the legal successor of the old PCs, but they're also the legal successor of Reform and the Alliance — so the 21st-century Conservative Party has to be denoted with a different shade of blue than any of its predecessor parties, because it's deceptive to treat it as continuous with the PCs but not continuous with Reform and the CA.
    2. Specifically in the span between 1993 and the PC/CA merger, however, the PCs are handled completely differently: instead of being given the normal colour they have everywhere else, they're simply buried in the "other/independents" colour. This is marginally defensible in 1993, due to the loss of official party status, except that the NDP didn't have official party status in that parliament either but are still denoted with their normal NDP colour — and in both 1997 and 2000, the PCs did have official party status but are still being othered instead of using their standard colour. So, basically, what the template is implying is that the PCs simply ceased to exist in 1993 before reemerging in 2004 as exactly the same party they used to be, with no indication of any Reform/CA continuity at all — and that's just not what happened.
    3. The image hasn't actually been updated at all since 2008, and is missing the two most recent federal elections.

    So, my question is this: is it worth getting somebody to fix it so that it can be repurposed somewhere, or should we just have it deleted outright as an inaccurate image that doesn't have enough utility to be worth fixing? Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, never mind. I just checked the article that would be the most obvious potential candidate for repurposing this, List of Canadian federal general elections, and it already has a different bar graph on it to convey the exact same information. That graph is still missing the 2015 election (though it does have 2011), but avoids the Conservative continuity sins. So I'm just going to list this for deletion instead of trying to get it fixed, since there's already another template in place. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Signage and Freedom of Panorama

    Apparently all images that include signage in Canada requires a WP:Fair use rationale, and is not covered by freedom of panorama (Commons:COM:FOP Canada). According to WikiMedia Commons, such should be deleted from Commons (such as Commons:COM:Deletion requests/File:Décarie Hot-Dogs de Montréal.jpg).

    If this is carried out quickly on Commons over all Canadian images, many will be deleted, unless quickly reuploaed to EN and FR wikis with FURs attached to illustrate our various Canadian articles.

    The reuploading would seem to be an important matter for WPCANADA/QUEBEC on EN.wiki and FR.wiki

    -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What did the original image look like? If it was a shot of a building and not of just the sign, perhaps the Commons deletion request was wrong? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a shot of the storefront, with the sign of the shop at the top, and part of the neighbouring business and 2nd floor apartment and sidewalk visible. Most of the photo was the store window looking into the restaurant. I find that COMMONS deletes things for very odd reasons. PD are deleted because someone relinquished their own rights so COMMONS doesn't accept that a person can give something to the public. A company releases photos from their portfolio, but COMMONS deletes the photos because the division releasing the photos isn't the same company, even though they share the same street address. It would not surprise me if COMMONS just deletes any Canadian photos with signs in them as an ongoing task whenever one is noticed. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry did not see this before....it's shock....we have been dealing with this guy for years ....will find more info.--Moxy (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indigenous law categorization, and capitalization of Aboriginal

    Two discussions started in the context of the Canadian Law WikiProject that could use some broader input.

    Any input there would be appreciated, and maybe Aboriginal capitalization could be useful as part of this project's style manual too. Sancho 16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rideau Hall's official resident

    This isn't something that I'm going to overly dwell on. But, it does appear odd, to have Rideau Hall described as the official residence of the Canadian monarch and governor general, when via CBC, CTV reporting & writings, it tends to be mostly described as the Canadian governor general's official residence. At the very least, WP:WEIGHT would seem to favor the governor general's status as RH's official resident. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The monarch has never lived there, even when she visits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Augimeri

    Bit of a situation on Maria Augimeri's article where I could use a bit of assistance. When I recently viewed the article, the results of the 2018 election (in which she was defeated by James Pasternak under the new 25-ward model) were not being written about in a properly encyclopedic tone, but were covered only in terms of directly quoting her own personal thoughts on how she felt about getting defeated rather than actually describing what happened or why. The exact content was:


    Now, this is obviously not the kind of tone in which we should be writing about politicians, so I rewrote the section more neutrally:


    Today, however, an IP number with no prior edit history has been revert-warring me, flipping the text back to the soundbite version, on the grounds that "Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased at all times. The use of public domain content should not be frowned upon nor discouraged." Except that (a) quotations are not "public domain" content, and (b) my more encyclopedic descriptive text is the more appropriately neutral and unbiased version, and the "Maria Augimeri's personal diary" version is not. However, it's not clearcut vandalism, so I can't just semiprotect the article or pull rank as an administrator if it gets to WP:3RR.

    Is anybody willing to assist? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a bit more about her thoughts on the defeat (blaming the reorganization), but in an encyclopedic manner. I've added the page to my watchlist as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reeves and mayors of former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto (moved from project page)

    Question: how do those below meet WP:CANSTYLE#Municipal politics and then WP:POLITICIAN? Hwy43 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All the reeves and mayors listed were in office after the creation of Metropolitan Toronto in 1954 and thus also had seats on Metro Toronto Council (ie they were Metro Councillors). According to WP:CANSTYLE#Municipal politics: "City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities". Metro Toronto, by definition, was a major metropolitan city therefore the reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto are deemed notable. Ffolkways (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That criterion refers to the city council, not necessarily the Metro council. Metro councillors can still clear the bar if they can be reliably sourced well enough to clear GNG, but they do not all collect an automatic notability freebie just for existing just because Toronto's city councillors do — and as has been illustrated several times in the past, Metro councillors aren't guaranteed to always clear GNG on their sourceability across the board. Some do, yes, but many don't. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The exclusion in the referenced section excludes sub-units such as Mississauga, but does not necessarily exclude super-sets such as Metro Toronto. It should be noted that Metro Toronto had the same geographical limits as the amalgamated City of Toronto and some functions such as policing were administered at the Metro level.--Big_iron (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the old boundaries of Metro correspond to the current boundaries of the city is irrelevant to the notability of a Metro councillor. They weren't the boundaries of the city in their own time, so a Metro councillor does not get retroactively massaged into a "global city" councillor just because the boundaries of the city were expanded in 1998 — a pre-amalgamation Metro councillor from any of the former suburban municipalities still has to clear the county councillor test, not the "global city councillor" test, and the "county councillor" test has no automatic freebies for anybody anywhere in the absence of extremely high nationalizing sourceability. The only surefire way to make a Metro councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is if they were from Core Toronto, and thus served on both the Metro and Toronto city councils simultaneously — and even then they're fundamentally notable because city, not because Metro — but for a Metro councillor from Etobicoke or Scarborough or Swansea or Leaside or the Yorks, it's "show enough coverage to make them more special than most other county councillors or bust".
    Metro councillors do not get a retroactive application of the Toronto City Council notability test just because the boundaries of the city changed later on — they have to be sourced and substanced well enough to make them special cases. The "global city" test that gets Toronto's city councillors in the door only applies to Toronto City Council itself — it does not apply to Metro, or to the municipal councils of the former suburban cities that got amalgamated with Toronto in 1998. Municipal council of the core city only, limited to whatever boundaries delimited the core city in their own time. Prior to 1998, the only people who get the "global city council" freebie are the ones whose wards are numbered on this map. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bearcat:, @Big Iron: is correct. The fact that the boundaries of Metro Toronto were only later adopted by the City of Toronto is completely irrelevant. You are completely dismissing or minimizing what Metropolitan Toronto was and its importance. Metro wasn't some county council, Metropolitan Toronto was the largest municipality in Canada and the Metro level of government was the senior level responsible for the TTC, the Police, Public Works and the most important functions of the municipality. The mayors and reeves of the constituent parts of Metro were senior politicians who sat ex officio on Metro's executive committee and chaired various Metro boards. They were the most important municipal politicians in the city, much more so than say the junior alderman for Toronto's Ward 4. The senior politicians of Toronto City Council sat on Metro (ie the Mayor, Controllers, and senior alderman (wards had two aldermen) and Metro Council had much more power than Toronto City Council. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "That criterion refers to the city council, not necessarily the Metro council." - Bearcat, you're splitting hairs and making a distinction without a difference. Metro Council was a municipal council, a metropolitan council, and was, as the article Metropolitan Toronto states, an "upper tier" level of municipal government. It was superior to its constituent city, town, and borough councils and was made up of senior members of each (and later directly elected members. The mayors and reeves (before 1967) were all meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges by virtue of being "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.12.31 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No, by and large the suburban mayors and reeves before 1967 don't all meet the NPOL criteria: the core part of the notability criterion, the one that the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors have a problem passing as a rule, is the "who have received significant press coverage" part of the equation. Even for members of Toronto City Council proper, the notability test still isn't "automatic inclusion freebie, with no reliable sourcing required, just because the person exists" — the notability test still lives or dies on how much press coverage they get in the role, and a person who didn't get enough press coverage to clear that bar can still get deleted. (For instance, if there were ever a councillor who won their seat on election night but then died the next morning, so council had to fill the seat with a by-election or an appointment before the election winner had even actually been sworn in as a councillor at all, then that person would not get to keep an article just because they had technically won the election, because they had never actually held the office at all.)
    The "metropolitan city" test in CANSTYLE is the boundaries of the city proper. The only people who get the global city pass of NPOL are those who sat on Toronto City Council itself. Not Etobicoke City Council, not Scarborough City Council, not North York City Council, not Metro Council — prior to Megacity, the councillors in Old Core Toronto are the only ones who get the global city pass. I've actively checked ProQuest when suburban Metro councillors have come up for discussion, however — and as a rule, the pattern that applies in most cases is that Metro councillors from Core Toronto almost always did have enough press coverage to clear NPOL #2, mainly because they simultaneously sat on Toronto City Council and got coverage in that context, but Metro councillors from the former suburbs very often didn't get as much coverage as the downtowners did. It's not about whether Metro was "superior" or "inferior" to the city — it's about the depth and range and volume of media coverage that the respective levels of government got, and important or not, Metro councillors just didn't necessarily always get as much media coverage as city councillors did.
    When former Metro Councillor Bob Sanders came up for AFD a couple of years ago, the level of press coverage needed to support an article about him simply wasn't there. When Betty Sutherland (the person who sparked this discussion in the first place) came up for AFD earlier this year, the press coverage needed to support an article simply wasn't anywhere to be found: the article was resting far too strongly on primary sources and photographs, with very little reliable or notability-supporting media coverage, and even when I searched ProQuest the depth and volume of media coverage that had to be there to save the article simply wasn't there.
    The notability test for politicians at the municipal level, even in Toronto, is not "because they're technically verifiable as having held office, they're guaranteed articles and exempted from actually having to show substantive press coverage" — the press coverage is the notability test. Not just one or two glancing namechecks of their existence in articles about other people: coverage about them, which enables you to write a genuinely substantive article. That's the thing you're missing: the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors of the preamalgamation era simply do not always have the same depth or volume of press coverage that the Core Toronto councillors had. NPOL #2 explicitly says the notability test is press coverage, so the includability knife cuts on how much press coverage the person can or cannot show. I'm not making up my own special notability rules here, either: AFD consensus already decided all of this, and I'm just reporting the way it works. I'm not inventing my own notability tests at all — I'm simply telling you what the state of Wikipedia consensus around the notability of municipal politicians is.
    All of that said, there are certainly going to be some individual cases where a municipal politician in a preamalgamation suburb actually did get enough press coverage that you can actually write and source a genuinely substantive article — that's a different matter, and will be judged on its own merits. But the suburban mayors or reeves or councillors do not all get an automatic free pass over NPOL just because their municipality got annexed by Toronto at a later date: for mayors and reeves and councillors in preamalgamation Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York or Leaside or Swansea, the notability test they would have to clear is the ability to write and source enough substantive content about them to credibly demonstrate that they should be considered a special case, and the ability to minimally source the fact that they existed is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's the difference in your mind between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967? Its powers didn't change, the members of its executive committee had as much authority before 1967 as after. All that changed was the number of constituent municipalities was reduced. But a Metro Councillor pre-1967 was no less important figure than one after 1967, particularly if they were on the executive committee. And I think you continue to misunderstand what metropolitan government was for the purposes of the "metropolitan city" test. The boundaries of the "metropolitan city" before 1998 when amalgamation occurred *were* the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, not the old city of Toronto. If you look at population figures it was the figures for *Metro* which were given, not of the old city. You also completely misunderstand what happened in 1998. The City of Toronto did not annex North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke etc - all the submunicipalities within Metropolitan Toronto were dissolved and amalgamated into the new "megacity". This is completely different than say, the old City of Toronto's annexation of Parkdale in 1899 or of Yorkville, or other communities that were annaexed. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada

    Good day all, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [1]. Please make sure to check your spam folder for the confirmation email since it seems to always go there. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=888839863"