There's a discussion at [[Talk:Windsor Light Music Theatre#Notability]], if anyone is interested. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at [[Talk:Windsor Light Music Theatre#Notability]], if anyone is interested. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
== Pinehouse Photography Club ==
[[Pinehouse Photography Club]]
Maybe you heard of it or maybe you haven't. Although I have no association to the club anymore, as I did create it in 2017, I wanted to create the page because of all the notability they have received. Hope someone can help look it over, propose changes and even add pertinent information from a neutral perspective
Thank you very much!!--[[User:Dreerwin|Dreerwin]] ([[User talk:Dreerwin|talk]]) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, it's actually very little used and rarely consulted by active Wikipedians at all — in actual practice, it basically serves almost entirely as a place for anon IPs, who can't create articles themselves, to post redlink requests for articles that mostly aren't likely to ever actually happen. 1997 Canadian Flying Loon Loonie? Detroit-Windsor vibrations? National quotient (meaning "number of people per electoral district (riding)", and thus not a topic that will ever actually warrant its own article as a separate topic from electoral district (Canada))? Smalltown shopping malls with no discernible notability claims beyond just existing? In actual practice, it just becomes a list of permanent redlinks that almost no active editors ever actually even try to deal with or respond to at all — and it's also where the recent "Reeves and mayors of former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto" slapfight came from, because there was a discussion there that nobody paid any attention to until it got repasted here.
So my question is, if we're not going to start actually doing anything productive with it, then is there any value in even keeping it at all anymore? Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely out of date. I'd go for a trim/review/cull of what's there, those examples you gave could go. But maybe there is some value there, so I'd hesitate to delete it completely. I had never looked at it before you mentioned it. I'm probably not the only lazy one. :-) I could take a go at it. I have access to Canadian Newsstand/Globe and Mail/Toronto Star archives, so I could make some decent guesses at feasible ones. Alaney2k (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so, a month on. Is there any consensus on this issue? I would suggest keeping the tab, but automatically culling any requests that are more than a year old. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blank it in favour of a message redirecting editor to this board to make a request for an article, which can either be created by an interested editor if deemed notable, or declined due to lack of notability. While the request may have served a useful purpose in the formative years of this WikiProject, it has gone stale and become ignored. Hwy43 (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop at nothing, say the right things when electioneering...
Just a heads-up to everybody that the cyclical election year onslaught of campaign brochure articles about as yet unelected candidates in the 2019 Canadian federal election has already begun. In addition to a bunch that have either already been deleted or are still at AFD as of today, I've literally caught eightnine ten more within the past few hours alone. And it warrants mention that so far, except for one Green they've otherwise been entirely Conservatives so far, created by a cluster of at least three four users who aren't quite literal WP:SPAs, but are pretty close to it as creating articles about Conservative candidates seems to be their primary interest right now.
As always, of course, WP:NPOL does not grant notability to candidates — a person has to win the seat to derive notability from a federal election, not just run for it — but as we also know, in the year of an election we have a constant eruption of these campaign brochure articles anyway. So just a reminder to everybody to be vigilant about watching out for candidates trying to use Wikipedia as a campaign platform.
I've speedy deleted one outright on procedural grounds, as the creator had started it in draftspace but then copy-pasted it directly into mainspace without a proper AFC review, but eight of the other nine have already been listed for AFD and the other one will be momentarily. So you can check Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians if you want to see the articles that I've caught. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFD has actually deprecated the idea that candidate names routinely need to be redirected to an election-related article — it still happens sometimes if there are grounds to believe that a particular candidate is a more plausible search term than usual (e.g. some US gubernatorial candidates), but there's no consensus that it's required or useful for most candidates anymore. It was never very good at doing what it was designed to do (i.e. blocking the creation of standalone articles because we thought newbies were less likely to know how to edit a redirect than they actually are) in the first place, and not infrequently interferes with much more notable people with the same name. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think an editnotice or a hidden comment discouraging editors from creating pages on the as-yet-non-notable candidates should suffice. It should be a great idea to inform people especially if they're new to WP. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The conservatives are sending out campaign brochures in meatspace too. I may have written a complaint to Elections Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:: well done on the discussion thread title. You couldn't sneak that song lyric by me undetected. I may. Be paranoid. But. Not an. Android. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:Joeyconnick has been removing MLA lists from various BC provincial ridings that an anon user has been adding, citing it is duplicate information (with the election results) (e.g. here). I think the actions are harmful, as I'm sure the anon sees that these lists exist everywhere else on Wikipedia (especially on other ridings), and may be discouraged from editing in the future. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included, as unlike the election result tables, they show terms of office and which legislature the members sat in. Anyone want to back me up here? -- Earl Andrew - talk19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harmful? That's an interesting and provocative word choice. Maybe my reverts will encourage them to make less problematic edits?
"Problematic edits" in that, beyond the duplicated information, there's also significant problems with: rowspan, MOS:DATERANGE, and non-standard table formatting in all the edits. And apparently they can't even be bothered to read and employ MOS:HEAD (namely, sentence case for section headings). And the party colours should be next to the party names, not the MLA (as they are in the election results tables). So if these are suitable for inclusion—and honestly I remain unconvinced they provide any relevant new info and "this exists elsewhere" is a very poor argument to continue propagating them—then at the very least they should be done properly. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page exists as a place where potential changes to how the MLA tables are formatted can be discussed. However, it is not your prerogative to arbitrarily deem that the existence of such tables is "doing it wrong", as you did in your edit summaries — such tables are mandatory, and are not duplication of the election results tables as they present a different subset of information in a non-redundant way. So, again, you're free to propose changes in how we format the MLA list templates in election articles — but you're going to be running the risk of a temporary editblock for disruption if you continue to remove them from articles entirely instead of discussing potential improvements to them. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the content, I agree with Earl Andrew - the short table of MLAs or MPPs (depending on the province) is useful information about the history of a riding. If there's a formatting issue, editors should help to fix the formatting. PKT(alk)21:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Keep. I find it very handy to have lists of all the members for a riding, especially since the re-jig of the Library of Parliament webpages has made it much less user-friendly to find that info at the federal level, for example. Having lists of members, federal and provincial, is a good part of the articles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PEI 2019 general election 'update'
The extension (not by) election was just held for Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park, today & was won by the PC candidate. This gives the PC minority government a total of 13 seats in the legislature. Seeing as this 'was not' a by-election, the results would be treated a being part of the general election results. I've made some adjustments to related articles, but I'm not completely sure how to implement this (I assume) unique situation in Canadian politics. Any help, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely unprecedented, as there have been a few other similar instances in the past, but it is rare. However, other than some of the terminology we use to describe the situation, it otherwise doesn't have to be handled any differently than a conventional general election or by-election — basically everything else works exactly the same way as any other new MLA winning the seat any other way, and all we really have to do is describe the unique aspects of it. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed some errors on the Council of Canadian Academies Wikipedia page. Listed below: They've changed "Board of Governors" to "Board of Directors"; A majority of the Board of Directors are not appointed, only 6 out of 12; They've now published over 50 assessments; Under "see also", the Science, Technology, and Innovation Council is listed but this organization no longer exists; Under Presidents... Peter Nicholson is incorrectly listed as Dr., and; Janet Bax was intern President until January 31, 2016 not February 1, 2016.
Same as Buzfuz. Though that said, I'm far from convinced by the argument that we have any uniquely Canadian needs that the merge-target template somehow can't handle. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern would be that the regular template does not allow for enough customisation for Canadian terminology. I have run in with that issue in other templates designed by US-pedians. They may think, in good faith, that the template works for other jurisdictions but it actually doesn't. I will take a look at the model one and see if I can find any issues. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of "order" in bios of Prime Ministers
An editor has been removing the number from the "order" parameter in the bios of the Prime Ministers, without explanation. If you check out the bios of Mackenzie King, Clark, and others, they no longer state if they were the 10th Prime Minister, the 16th PM, etc. I would have thought that if there is a parameter for the order to hold the office in the template for the inbox, that's a general consensus that this information is relevant and useful, but I thought I would raise it here before going on a revert campaign. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The troublesome editor-in-question is @Discospinster:, who's been trying to re-insert mistaken edits by @Vaze50:. He's been removing numberings & capitalizing prime minister to Prime Minister, in the intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on the ANI thread: as per the template documentation, order numbers should be included only "when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources". Is that the case for PMs? I'm not sure: various sources do give numbers, but those numbers are different (for example Parliament differs from ours) and some don't give numbers at all (eg. Canadian Encyclopedia). It definitely isn't the case for cabinet ministers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers used in the wiki articles match the numbers the PMs themselves have used:
bio for Justin Trudeau on his PMO web-page states that he is the 23rd Prime Minister.
Didn't find a personal web-page for Pierre Trudeau, but the Canadian Encyclopedia article refers to him as the 15th PM.
That matches the numbering used in the articles, where PMs who served separated terms (Macdonald, Meighen, King and Trudeau père) don't get additional numbers. Seems a pretty well-established numbering system, if the PM and the former PMs use it themselves. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BT
Does Breakfast Television (Citytv Toronto) really need its own standalone article as a separate topic from Breakfast Television everywhere else? It's referenced five-sixths to primary sources and non-reference clarifying notes rather than reliable sources, and even the one footnote that was technically a reliable source is a dead link I can't recover because the publication is an out of business zombie whose website still exists but can't be searched anymore. Which means it's not well-sourced as notable at all, and it's liberally peppered with unencyclopedic bumf like "Many people had reached out and showed their love for Kevin as he was signing off for one last time" — and of all the different BTs across Canada, Toronto's is the only one that has its own standalone article, while all of the others are just addressed by the omnibus article with no separate content forks to expand on their section in the omnibus article at all. And by the same token, neither CTV Morning Live nor Global News Morning have content forks for any individual edition of the show as a separate topic from the franchise overview either. So I'm not convinced that BT needs two articles instead of one, but I wanted to ask what other people think rather than merging them arbitrarily. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merge them. The Toronto version was the original and aired more than a decade earlier than the others, but it's all one brand - it merits one article describing the main show and its spinoffs, not a separate article for each one or any one in particular. It's all in desperate need of updating, too: the Toronto section of Breakfast Television is still describing a recruitment drive from 2006 as though it's ongoing, several of the "now known as" station names are years out of date, and all the unencyclopedic fluff needs to be trimmed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages
I few years back (may be 5 years ago) I proposed redirecting Canadian related project talk pages to this page with no luck (CAN roads was the main hold out that could be omitted from this proposal if need be ..but no real action there either now). Here we are many years later with most Canadian sub project inactive for years. I am proposing keeping the projects as they have vital info and stats but redirecting their talk pages here so that questions and notices are seen by us here - thus we can reply or react where need be.--Moxy🍁20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I would suggest posting a redirect discussion notice on each of talk pages of the WikiProjects that would be affected by the proposal; I do not think this decision should solely be made here without consulting the participants of these WikiProjects (especially if they may not be watching this talk page). Mkdwtalk22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CanRoads, communities, geography and provincial WikiProjects for the same reasons as five years ago (@Moxy: please supply a link to that past discussion for all of us). I use these WikiProject talk pages when doing work on highways, communities, geographies, and provincial articles. As stated before, although it appears there is little activity on these, that doesn't mean they aren't watched or that their editors are not active furthering the WikiProjects. In fact, when I post notices about proposed deletions, having the additional eyes at the provincial, communities, geography and CanRoads WikiProjects are very helpful in addition to the watchers at CanTalk. There is a volume issue at CanTalk where things can get overlooked and missed among all the activities. Not all watchers at these individual WikiProject talk pages are CanTalk watchers, so we would lose their valuable input on matters such as proposed deletions, mergers, etc. By redirecting these talk pages, we cannot compel their watchers to chart watching CanTalk. This proposal removes an opportunity to directly engage with those editors that are most interested in topics at the provincial, community, geography and highway levels. Bottom line is the activity in these WikiProjects should not be judged by reviewing the revision histories of their talk pages.
If these are redirected, then I ask what workaround is there to engage these other watchers? Mass pinging lists of editors from the WikiProjects is not the answer. That would be clunky and amateurish.
Indifferent to major cities WikiProjects. I support deletion of the entireties of WikiProjects for any sub-provincial geographies aside from these major cities, such as there are for the Okanogan and some united counties in Ontario, if they still exist. They should have never been WikiProjects in the first place. Hwy43 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care about most of the locations and I suspect that having a lot of cross-talk will cause a lot of editors like me to simply ignore the discussions, thereby missing the small amount of content in which they are actually interested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Walter brings up a good point. A cross-talk page is not good. You think it will be better for all Wikiprojects, but it actually won't be. Hwy43 also brings up a good point. There is no point in bringing this up. This the second time bringing this up and it looks like it will be another oppose. You should think about not proposing this again. You will get the same result. Having these talk pages as is is not doing any harm. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!06:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think redirection is necessary, but I'd support adding a disclaimer to some pages along the lines of "This WikiProject may be inactive. Consider posting a discussion notice at WP:Canada to reach a wider audience." BLAIXX12:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Blaixx here, with respect to the provincial and community working groups. A note advising users they'd be better off asking for help on the central notice board (this page) would be more useful. I also agree with Hwy43 regarding CanRoads and such: they're fine, just leave them be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ottawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100001:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canadian Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100001:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of First Nations governments move proposal
I've been updating and creating a fair amount of Indigenous geography content lately, starting with Alberta, where every Indian reserve now has its own page and its own locator map. As I work through the morass of redlinks, it seems to me like there are a few community standards that have never been established. For instance, First Nations band governments (which are groups of people) and Indian reserves (which are geographical entities) are often conflated in first-pass stubs. Because many bands own multiple reserves (i.e. Bigstone Cree Nation) and some reserves are owned by multiple bands (i.e. Blue Quills First Nation Indian Reserve), each should ideally have its own article, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency among those that already exist. To make it easier, I've extensively redeveloped Template:Infobox First Nation.
So, this is all just a heads-up that a lot of this work runs the risk of re-opening old discussions that never achieved consensus. Here's a link to a proposal I'd especially like to notify everyone about:
I don't think this is a particularly contentious suggestion, but it's an old and large page, so I thought it was worth a ping. "First Nations governments" could refer to band governments, tribal councils, unrecognized Indigenous entities, or historical Indigenous polities: an unworkably large and diverse group. "First Nations band governments" refers to a finite set of about 620 entities, recognized by the federal government. In practice, the article already only lists band governments, so this name change would just make its already-existing scope more clear.
Federal band recognition is not a morally ideal process (groups such as Alberta's Aseniwuche Winewak Nation have been denied Indian status largely because the government never bothered to send a Treaty party to meet them). But I think this change would also benefit coverage of unrecognized First Nations, because it would allow scope for a complementary List of unrecognized First Nations in Canada to be created, equivalent to List of unrecognized tribes in the United States (although probably smaller).
One last note: unless I've really missed something, "First Nations" constitutionally does not include "Inuit" and the Nunavut section of this article should be removed.
There's certainly no reason why a First Nations band and its reserve can't have separate articles — the issue is that we haven't always been able to support standalone articles in all cases, as there isn't always very much reliably sourceable content to say about the band and the reserve as separate topics. So it's not ideal, but redirecting a reserve to the name of the First Nation that inhabits it is still preferred to either a redlink or an unreferenced stub. This is the same reason why we can't always support standalone articles about every named community in Canada as a separate topic from the municipality that it's part of — there just aren't always enough decent references for submunicipal neighbourhoods or communities to allow us to say anything more than "this is a place that exists, the end". If you have access to better sources for First Nations reserves than the norm, you're absolutely free to convert them from redirects into standalone articles — but the quality of the referencing that is or isn't available to support a standalone artice is the determining factor, not "separate articles are always mandatory no matter how bad the referencing is". Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say something about scope but your "last note" maybe clarifies it. Anyway, would it be better for the list to be a List of Indigenous governments in Canada? (If that's the appropriate term, I'm not very knowledgeable in this) Or are you just starting with the First Nations and maybe planning to move on to other Indigenous groups later? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distinguished Artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theprussian (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Em dashes vs en dashes (again) in electoral district articles
Also, could anyone help identify which are the larger lakes in Canada? A ranking of lakes by size, by province? To help direct editors to work on more important rather than least important potential topics for Wikipedia. The List of lakes in Quebec article helpfully gives a list of those with more than 400 square kilometres (150 sq mi) area, which all have articles, but how can the next biggest layer of lakes be identified? It cites a 2005 Statistics of Canada publication, "Principal lakes, elevation and area, by province and territory", which maybe identifies more of the bigger ones, but seems not to be available online anymore. I can't find it at the Statistics website. Help! --Doncram (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a mess up
At the 42nd Canadian Parliament article, we've a mess up. In the table concerning seat changes over the life of the 42nd parliament, we've got August 16, 2019 as when the NDP dropped from 41 to 40 seats. Yet, the party currently has 39 seats. What happened to the 40th NDP MP & when? GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link? I couldn't find it. Does it have a list of current MPs anywhere? The list I did find on the Parliament website had clearly not been updated since the 2015 election. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is a standard style - I've seen a variety of them. They've evolved as the years go by. In my opinion, the style used for the Tununiq#2017 election looks rather cleaner and better organized than the other in this case. PKT(alk)11:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other boxes have a column for party colour, at the left hand side. That means nothing for Nunavut elections, since they don't have parties. The 2017 box looks cleaner and I think should be used for the other Nunavut elections as well. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's been any formal consensus established for which style to follow in Nunavut elections. The greyboxed version indeed resulted from the fact that most other Canadian legislative elections are partisan, so their election results tables have a colourbox at the beginning of the row to denote the party colours — so when we started actually adding results tables to Nunavut electoral districts, we just kept the established format from partisan elections with the existing "independent" colour used across the board. I really don't think there's ever been a formal discussion to establish a consensus that the greybox format was preferred over the 2017 alternative — it just started that way because reasons and then mostly stuck because of inertia. So if somebody actually wants to tackle converting the greyboxed versions over to the 2017 format, there's no reason why they couldn't — I agree that the 2017 alternative actually does look cleaner and better organized, and just having a constant stack of grey boxes isn't useful in a jurisdiction where every candidate is always a greyboxed independent. Each district could simply have a note added to clarify why there aren't party affiliation colours in the results tables, if anybody's concerned that the inconsistency with federal, provincial and Yukon elections might actually cause any confusion for the uninitiated. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also, thanks for raising this discussion; I missed the news of the initial by-election entirely, so this discussion alerted me and I got David Qamaniq's article in place since nobody else had started it yet. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 version is what I've been using for municipal election articles which are also non-partisan, so it would make sense to use it for consistency sake. -- Earl Andrew - talk01:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, however, that if people do want to go ahead with converting the other election tables to the 2017 format, the one minor change I would make to the 2017 template is adding a crossbar where it can either link to the election article or mention the exact date of the by-election the way the greybox version does — because if we switch the formatting of the tables, the article currently offers no other way to link to the election articles at all, and just adding a line of text before each table to provide that link in prose would be bad article design. But that's not difficult to add. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up to everybody, I've noticed a new issue that we have to watch out for when it comes to town and city populations.
As many of you already know, we've had a longstanding issue with editors who failed to understand the definition of population centre making changes to the population centre lists to reflect the municipal populations instead of the correct "population centre" populations — well, in the past few weeks I've seen several examples (most recently Pembroke, Ontario) of people making the same conflation in the other direction, replacing municipal populations with population centre populations in the city articles. And in the case of Pembroke, while the original number was the correct city figure, it was always cited to the population centre data instead of the municipal data even before the editor tried to change it, which means people are sometimes even using the wrong sources outright.
One of the many failings of Wikipedia's category software is that it provides good navigation to sub-categories, mediocre navigation to parent categories, and no navigation at all to sibling categories. Hence the widespread use of category navigation templates such {{Navseasoncats}} for chronology categories.
While working on Canadian chronology categories, I noticed that since Canada has a fairly stable set of provinces and territories, it would be suitable for something like {{AllIrelandByCountyCatNav}}, in this case to provide navigation between categories by province or territory of Canada. So I created {{CanadaByProvinceCatNav}}, which uses a a Lua module to achieve the goal.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada (shortcut: WP:CAN10K) will soon be hitting its third-anniversary mark. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims. Barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox park maps
I'm looking for some guidance on how to display a smaller scale map for an article I've been working on in the past few weeks, Living Prairie Museum. Another article with the Infobox parks template does display the correct scale, Kildonan Park. But whatever I do, it either displays nothing, or a map of all of greater Winnipeg. Was the red outlined map for Kildonan Park done manually or are they somehow auto-generated based on some parameter. I already have the coordinates inline,title in both articles. Thanks in advance. Jimj wpg (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the quick reply. There is a 'headquarters location' already. Can I delete that and replace with 'coordinate location', or keep both? Jimj wpg (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still having problems. I looked at how the Imported Spanish Wikipedia was done. Whomever did that edit, the map doesn't display on es.wikipedia.org either. And the Infobox for Living Prairie now displays a JSON error:<mapframe>: The JSON content is not valid GeoJSON+simplestyle. Am completely lost on this. Jimj wpg (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BINGO! I got it working! Had to delete the Spanish map reference in Wikidata, it wasn't working either. I notice I can select the zoom on the map itself. Pretty cool. The key in the LIving Prairie Museum article was to delete the Spanish Wikidata item and insert '| mapframe-zoom:
Maybe you heard of it or maybe you haven't. Although I have no association to the club anymore, as I did create it in 2017, I wanted to create the page because of all the notability they have received. Hope someone can help look it over, propose changes and even add pertinent information from a neutral perspective
Thank you very much!!--Dreerwin (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
