==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force]]==
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force]]. [[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] <sup>[[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Soumya-8974|contribs]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]</sup> 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force]]. [[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] <sup>[[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Soumya-8974|contribs]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]</sup> 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
== Gillette's operations in Canada ==
Hello! Erin here with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. I've submitted a request [[Talk:Gillette#Operations_in_Canada|here]] to update the [[Gillette]] Wikipedia article's [[Gillette#Canadian_headquarters|Canadian headquarters]] section. Until very recently, this section was unsourced. The newly added source is helpful for confirming a few details about the company's operations in Canada, but does not quite verify the specific text within the article, so I've drafted replacement text based on sourcing. Can editors please review and update the page since I cannot? Thank you! [[User:EA.Ketchum|EA.Ketchum]] ([[User talk:EA.Ketchum|talk]]) 15:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The article Today Just Got Better was created in 2011 three years after the launch of the eponymous advertising campaign. Given that Frank and Gordon have an article, I didn't raise it as an issue at the time. But it's not clear to me what would make a branding slogan English Wikipedia-notable (that is, meeting English Wikipedia's standards for having an article). Remarkably, Bell Canada's front page currently still uses the slogan and it appears in BCE's 2019 annual report (and seemingly in 2020 quarterly SEC filings). So a 12-year old slogan is I suppose real-world notable. But should English Wikipedia have an article on it? Most of the article isn't really about the slogan or the campaign, though I'm not sure how much more it could be discussed without just becoming an echo of Bell's publicity. isaacl (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Notified WikiProject Marketing & Advertising and WikiProject Business.) isaacl (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My personal problem is that I'm not familiar with the standards at deletion discussions regarding branding slogans. Can anyone provide any guidance? Given that there are journalists covering Bell's every move, and advertising journalists that cover all things PR-related, I'm pretty sure I could find some sources. But I don't know what is considered routine coverage in this area during deletion discussions. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It fails the basic notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article is completely unreferenced, so it has no reliable sources. And it's been that way since 2011, when someone tagged it for both lack of sources and not meeting notability. If no-one has fixed it up in nine years, that's also an indication of lack of notablity, to my mind. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not sure of the standards for having an article have been met, which makes it controversial to me, at least. In good faith, I have to be able to satisfy myself that the standards are not met, and I find it difficult in a topic area where I'm unfamiliar with the standards. isaacl (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does the article have? Whoever put the article up provided absolutely none, and in the nine years since the tag was put on it, no-one else has provided any. It's not like there's a special standard of notablility for advertising campaigns. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Context makes a difference in evaluating sources, though. Take the Mountain Equipment Coop's "Good Times Outside" advertising campaign. It's covered in [1] and [2], which I believe are trade magazines. Sometimes trade magazines aren't considered sufficiently independent from the subjects they cover; I don't know what's the case for these specific magazines. A graduate thesis examined the campaign, so there has been some academic analysis of it; does this qualify as appropriate coverage? The best guide to what is acceptable is what has actually gotten accepted at article for deletion discussions, and so if there is anyone who can provide some guidance, it would be appreciated. isaacl (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to notice that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not list CBC. I use it all the time, reflexively, and I am pretty confident it's an RS—but it would be great to have that confirmed (or not!) by the community. There are ~15,560 hits for "cbc.ca" on WP. Would there be any interest in setting up an RfC for the CBC at WP:RSN? Or is that superfluous? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A rough draft I pulled together from recent precedents at WP:RSN is here; anyone should feel free to edit. Seems like the actual text of the RfC is typically fairly short—probably more complex to get it listed as an RfC than to actually write the request itself. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, on further though, I don't know that the Canadian media examples I listed do come under "Stellar". I trust them to try hard to get things right, not to lie, and to make corrections to mistakes, but you still have to have caveats about editorials, opinion pieces, headlines, and such. I don't know that any media source wouldn't be subject to those. I recently had a discussion with an IP who attempted to claim that the Beothuks "are most noticeably known for being killed off for fun by European Colonists" based on the wording of a the title of a 60-year-old Maclean's article. Meters (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list you're talking about is not a universal list of all "standard acceptable sources" that we can use at all — it's a reference list for the consensus status of a particular subset of sources whose reliability comes up at the RS noticeboard for frequent debate. That is, the CBC not being listed there isn't an indication that the CBC isn't accepted as a reliable source — the CBC not being listed there is an indication that its status as a reliable source isn't controversial. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to create two new bio-stubs: MPPs for Upper Canada and MPPs for Province of Canada
Hope everyone's having a good start to your weekends.
I picked up a topic recently from the Requested Articles tab here and wrote a starting article for Charles Allard. If someone has some spare time, please can I request another pair of eyes (and hands / fingers) to look at this article and make any additional edits as necessary.
I don't see it as useful, and I was the one who initiated the prior discussion about it that Mindmatrix linked to, but there wasn't enough participation in that discussion to call it a binding consensus per se. I'll certainly back you up if you want to remove it, and certainly nobody in the earlier discussion defended them at all, but we're short of being able to say that there's a genuinely firm consensus against those links rather than just a leaning tendency. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a recent wikibrowse, I noticed that several of the "List of premiers" pages include "acting premiers" in their list: British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island; Alberta also has one premier as having a brief stint as an "acting premier" before their normal term. The problem is that I can't find any basis for these people being "acting premiers". This list of BC premiers, from the Legislative Library, does not include any of these acting premiers in the list, nor does this Quebec list from the National Assembly (I couldn't find equivalent lists on the Ontario or PEI legislature's pages, unfortunately). A cursory look at some of the figures in question doesn't illuminate, either; William John Hanna is listed as an acting premier of Ontario, but his page on the Dictionary of Canadian Biography makes no such claim— surely this would be enough of a career highlight to mention? I'm left wondering where any of this information is coming from; I doubt it's vandalism, but maybe it's editors misreading a source, or placing too much weight on something, or even original research in determining who was running things after a premier passed away. Without any sources it's hard to know what's going on here.
Does anyone have any insight or information into this, or should all these "acting premiers" be removed from the pages? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the wiki article says for Premier Davie of BC: "When Smithe died in 1887, the lieutenant-governor asked Davie to become Premier but he fell ill within months and left for California to recuperate. In his absence, Provincial Secretary John Robson ran the government on a day-to-day basis, though Davie kept in touch through letters. He returned in May 1888, but his health was in a poor state, and he ultimately died in office." That provides support for Robson being listed as 'Acting Premier' but unfortunately it's not cited. Maybe something similar for the other examples of 'Acting Premier' that you've identified? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see this mentioned on both Davie and Robson's DCB pages, so this one— at least— can be reliably sourced. But even so, is running the day-to-day functions of the government enough to be included among the rest of the premiers? We have had plenty of acting prime ministers, but that's understood to be a temporary managerial role rather than interim head of government. Obviously there are different circumstances at play (Robson running the government when there is no premier vs Mitchell Sharp directing efforts while Trudeau is temporarily unavailable) but it still seems to be affording the job more importance than it really had. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I was reading through the vital article list, and I generally agree with the whole list, but why is Marc Garneau a vital historical figure? He's definitely accomplished (transport minister and astronaut), but I don't think he's on the same level as Terry Fox and Louis Riel. Am I missing something here, or is everyone fine with me removing him from the list? TheKaloo (Talk to me) 15:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sowny: can take a look. I have TPL membership, which includes Globe and Mail and Toronto Star archives going that far back. I wonder if the Wikipedia library card covers this. Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's now done for 1899 Toronto municipal election and after but we could always have articles for pre-1899 elections - back to 1834 if possible. I think at some point, after Covid, someone would need to go to the City archives since newspapers only go back so far (The Star was founded in 1891 but the Globe was founded in 1844 - not sure if ProQuest goes back that far) - and the scans for some years are difficult to read. Sowny (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe-specific database does go all the way back to 1844, though it's impossible to be absolutely certain that every issue is in there and nothing's ever been missed. The OCR indexing also may suck sometimes; I can personally attest to there having been times when I searched on a person's name, got no results at all, and then searched on a related term (e.g. actor→movie title) only to then turn up sources that did contain the very name I had "unsuccessfully" searched on the first time. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Percentage of valid votes in election boxes
Hello, I think we need to develop a community consensus as to what percentage we should be using for valid votes in election result boxes. Do we want to use 100% (to show that the total % of valid votes adds up to 100%), or do we want it to show the percentage of total votes that are valid? I used to prefer the former, but I've recently changed my mindset, and whenever I update or correct an election box, I go with the latter. This is mainly because this is what Elections Quebec does (no other elections agency has a preference that I'm aware of). Recently, User:Omertop has begun changing election boxes in various provincial electoral district articles so that the valid vote percentage is "100.0", and I think we should come up with a consensus as to what we should be using going forward.-- Earl Andrew - talk04:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this discussion. I think a key difference between Elections Quebec's approach and Earl Andrew's proposed approach is in the presentation. Note that the Elections Quebec table at the link above lists total vote values in a single, visually-separate box; it does not list those *total* vote values in cells aligned with the cells of *valid* vote totals above, as is the case on the Wikipedia pages in question. Listing a "Totals" line in such a manner in table-cell format usually implies summation, and if the addition is inconsistent, it could lead to a perception that the data in these tables is unreliable. My reason for editing in this manner is that, outside of edits by Earl Andrew, it appears that Canadian elections pages already universally use the 100% approach, and not the percentage-of-total-votes-that-are-valid approach. I would put forward that this is a more-than-sufficient consensus to codify this approach here.-- Omertop - talk05:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every elections agency that I'm familiar with (e.g. PEI 2019) the percentages are of valid votes cast, not total votes nor eligible votes, and whether or not a total is displayed they add up to 100. If we're going to add a totals row below the results table, then it should follow the format of the lines it's summarizing: valid votes cast beside percentage of valid votes. Since it's a total, it's 100 by definition, but then it's also redundant: it's always 100 so there's no point writing it out. Nonetheless, writing a total of valid votes and then putting beside it a statistic based on a different calculation is not how tables should work. Actually I like Quebec's approach: list the results in table form without a totals row and then list the summary numbers below, not aligned with the table and with descriptions of what the numbers mean. Can we do that instead? I know it would be a huge overhaul. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you brought up its redundancy, because that is another reason I don't like having it always say 100. I disagree that the "total valid votes" is a line summarizing the above information per se. But, I can see why it might be confusing. Anyway, I'd rather not change things too much with the presentation. -- Earl Andrew - talk14:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour Ivanvector's approach if it were as easy as snapping our fingers and making it so, but the immensity of such a task seems out-of-proportion to the goal of only slightly tweaking something that hadn't really been an issue until a single user unilaterally adopted a new style based on personal preference. Surely we can agree that, whatever approach is settled on in the long-term, the inconsistencies in comparable data points within and between pages should be remedied in the short-term. If consensus ultimately coalesces around Ivanvector's approach in the long-term, that's fine, but given that the New Brunswick election is on Monday and full preliminary results will be available by midnight ADT, can we settle on an approach in the interim? It's obvious that I favour the status-quo "100% approach" for now, given that it's essentially the universal style on Canadian election results pages, and if consensus settles on something else in the future, we can make the changes then. I just don't want the New Brunswick electoral district pages to get messier or more inconsistent based on potential post-election editors basing their edits on two different styles / data points with two different meanings.-- Omertop - talk20:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, it was not my 'unilateral choice'. In fact, once upon a time I was doing what you were doing, and changing other people's edits to be "100.00". Then I had a change of heart. What we have is inconsistency, it is by no means 'universal' on Canadian election articles. I brought this here so we could come up with a consensus, one way or the other. No need for personal attacks. -- Earl Andrew - talk20:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of being consistent, I agree with you both: with Omertop that we should be consistent, and with Earl Andrew that we currently are not. Short-term, I prefer 100%, for the reason that a totals row should total the same things in each column. Long-term, I think it should actually be somewhat trivial to code the templates so that they can support pages as currently coded as well as supporting code for a Quebec-style statistical summary. In fact maybe we already can do that with a caption field or something, I'm not really very familiar with how the templates work. Maybe I'll try to sandbox it, but definitely not before tomorrow. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see one questionable move, which they explained on the talk page. It was probably wrong, probably moreso to have done that move without discussing first, but a perfectly fine WP:BOLD edit (as a one-off). Their other move of Section 96 to Supreme court is perfectly reasonable: they split out that section from the preamble to the Constitution page and then modified it to be a (stubby) article about the Canadian definition of supreme court; nothing wrong with that. They even attributed their c&p split. Going back more, they moved a COVID-related page from one awkward title to a different awkward title, a minor wording change. Before that they moved a draft out of their userspace but didn't actually retitle it. Then, going all the way back to 2011, they moved Developmental impact of child neglect in early childhood which had been created in title case (they fixed it). Continuing backwards there's another move from userspace draft, then quite a bit of activity approving AFC submissions, more caps fixes, ... I think 2010 is far enough back. What do you suppose the problem is? I don't get it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) (courtesy ping KuduIO) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious whether the editor is a law student. The article Superior court (Canada), which KuduIO created a couple of days ago, is pretty technical, and sourced to a court case rather than secondary and tertiary sources. The subject was already covered at Superior court#Canada in a more understandable way (although again, with only primary sources). At the very least, the new article should have a list of the names of all superior courts in Canada. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't people leave us to do what is best for our articles? Dame non content editors. Anyone remember the talk we had about not adding junk like animals and minerals and birds and so on?--Moxy🍁01:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: Should the term "viceroy" be used as a synonym for "Governor General" or "Lieutenant Governor" in articles on Canadian government?
I have a question pertaining to Eric Duncan, specifically whether it's important for his article to state that he is "the first Conservative MP to be elected as openly gay."
The first and most immediate problem with this is that the Conservative Party is not a thing that just magically emerged out of nowhere — it's a party that resulted from the merger of two former political parties, one of which had the openly gay Scott Brison (and previously the not-out-at-the-time Heward Grafftey, and let's not forget the elephant in the room either) in it. But it seems like the Conservative Party likes to play both sides of the fence: they're a continuation of the old PCs when it serves their purposes to pose that way (e.g. past editwarring on Wikipedia over the Conservative election template colour), and a totally new thing that isn't a continuation of the old PCs when that's more convenient (e.g. when you want to hand Eric Duncan a special "historic first" badge.)
But even more importantly, "first LGBT X" is not a distinction where you get to keep slicing smaller and smaller pieces of pie so you can keep doling out historic first status to more and more people because the true historic breakthrough is long gone. Once Svend Robinson broke the pink ceiling in 1989, each individual party doesn't get to assign any special historic firstness to its own first LGBTQ caucus member to be elected after Svend — for instance, Réal Ménard's article doesn't ascribe him any special status for having been the first Bloc Québécois MP to come out, or for being the first openly gay MP from Quebec, but just gives him what he legitimately is: #2 overall behind Svend. And while Brison's article does currently ascribe him with having been the first Progressive Conservative MP to come out as gay, that was added today by the same person who's trying to give Eric Duncan a rainbow cookie. It was never stated in Brison's article at all before the last 24 hours, and is not citing any reliable sources to support the claim that it would be a historically noteworthy distinction in and of itself — his legitimate historicity is as the first LGBT cabinet minister, and he gets no special brownie points for having been the first gay member of any particular party caucus per se. Every LGBT MP after Svend is just one more LGBT MP, not their own special party-specific reset of historic firstness.
The bottom line is, Eric Duncan being the first out LGBTQ MP with his particular political party, when numerous other LGBTQ people sat in the House of Commons before and/or alongside him and several of those sat with one of his own party's legal and ideological predecessors so Duncan is really just the first one to postdate the merger, is not of any special historic significance that warrants having special attention called to it. But I don't want to get sucked into an editwar, so I wanted to ask for outside opinion. For the record, I'd have no problem with saying that he's the only LGBTQ person currently serving in the Conservative caucus — but ascribing him with firstness hinges on a technicality more than an objective fact, and isn't historically significant regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC
IMO, being the first "X within a party" is only notable if being X represents a notable shift or about-face for the party. So if a party has a history and reputation of being homophobic, their first openly gay member would indeed be noteworthy, even if there have been other gay members in other parties. I leave it up to other editors if the Conservative Party qualifies for that. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a need for that sort of judgement. For instance, first female Liberal MP or first female Liberal cabinet minister is notable even though their election/appointment doesn't signify a notable ideological shift or about face for the party. It just happens that thee first female MP overall belonged to another party (Agnes MacPhail of the Progressives) and the first female cabinet minister was a Tory; but being the first Liberal woman MP or cabinet minister is still notable. Sowny (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading in a book or article sometime that Judy LaMarsh was the first woman Liberal cabinet minister and elsewhere that Alan Grossman was the first Jewish person in an Ontario Tory cabinet and Stuart Smith the first Jewish leader of the Ontario Liberal Party so whoever wrote those books or articles evidently thought it was notable. I don't know if any reliable source has made a similar comment about the first gay Tory MP. Sowny (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to anecdotally report that some source somewhere has offhandedly mentioned a fact is not the same thing as showing that the fact has received enough analysis in enough sources to be deemed significant. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sowny, when you wrote I don't know if any reliable source has made a similar comment about the first gay Tory MP, were you referring to Eric Duncan or to Scott Brison? As Bearcat noted above, Brison was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, which became the Conservative Party of Canada. Under subsection 423(2) of the Canada Elections Act, a merged party is essentially a continuation ("successor") of each of the merging parties. I agree with Bearcat that "first LGBT X" is not a distinction that should be sliced smaller and smaller. In the case of Eric Duncan in particular, it's actually incorrect to call him the first out gay Conservative MP. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I requested updates to the article on Canadian film producer and philanthropist Jeff Skoll at Talk:Jeffrey_Skoll#Request_for_Filmography that editors of WikiProject Canada may like to review. The article's "Filmography" is out-of-date and incomplete, so I posted a revised "Filmography" on the article talk page for others to consider. I work with the Jeff Skoll Group. With my conflict of interest, I will be careful to work with Wikipedia editors to build consensus on updates in place of directly editing the article. Thank you. JSG Lindsey (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of documentation for Infobox province or territory of Canada
The lack of documentation for {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}} seems to be causing a problem on the British Columbia article. There is a parameter, Legislature = that has pointed to Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for as long as I've been editing the article. Recently someone pointed out at Talk:British Columbia#Parliament of British Columbia that "The Constitutional Act 1867, for the initial provinces, says that the respective Legislatures consist of the Lieutenant Governor (i.e. representative of the sovereign) and the Legislative Assembly" which is why the parameter should be pointing to Parliament of British Columbia instead. I checked the other provinces and unsurprisingly, they all point to the respective legislative assembly for the province, save the outlier: Quebec, which is obviously the National Assembly. Now I don't like the "well this is what they're doing over there" argument, but without lack of documentation, there really isn't much to go by. Any suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment by Trackratte at Talk:British Columbia is entirely correct [4]. In the Westminster system, the term "legislature" includes both the sovereign's representative and the house (or houses) that deliberate on legislation. It is incorrect to use the terms "legislature" and "legislative assembly" interchangeably. The legislature for Canada is Parliament, consisting of the Crown, the House of Commons, and the Senate. The legislature for British Columbia is defined in law as "the Lieutenant Governor acting by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly" (Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c. 238, section 29 [5]). If you peruse B.C.'s Constitution Act ([6]) you can see that the terms "Legislature" and "Legislative Assembly" are both used, to mean different things. The terms are not interchangeable.
Further primary sources:
Reasons of Chief Justice Lamer in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319 [7]:
As stated by Maingot, it is the Houses of Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies, and their members, that hold and exercise parliamentary privileges. It is important here to distinguish the Houses of Parliament and the legislative assemblies from the broader legislatures of which they are a part. In the case of a province, for example, the legislature is made up of the legislative assembly and the Crown's representative in the person of the Lieutenant Governor. The legislature cannot hold and exercise parliamentary privileges, as such privileges include the rights of the members of the legislative assembly as against the Crown's representative.
Terminology for [Nova Scotia] House of Assembly, published by the Office of the Legislative Counsel, Nova Scotia House of Assembly [8] see definitions of "Legislature", "House of Assembly", "Legislative Assembly", and "Legislative Council".
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Parliament vs. Government [9]:
Parliament is the legislative or law-making body, responsible for debating, amending and passing laws. At the federal level it is comprised of the Monarch, represented by the Governor General, the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. At the provincial level, parliament refers to the Monarch, represented by the Lieutenant-Governor, and the elected Legislative Assembly. Parliament has a responsibility to hold the government accountable.
The Legislature of British Columbia is composed of the Lieutenant Governor and 87 elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).
Constitution Act, 1867: see sections 69 and 71 [11] defining "Legislature for Ontario" and "Legislature for Quebec" respectively. Notice that those provisions track the language of section 17, defining "Parliament" [12].
Constitution Act, 1982: Part V (Procedure for Amending the Constitution of Canada) [13] Read sections 38 to 46 and notice that the terms "legislative assembly" and "legislature" are used to mean different things. Specifically, a legislative assembly can make "resolutions" but a legislature makes "laws". The term "legislative assembly" is used analogously to "House of Commons" (in sections 38 and 43, for example), while the term "legislature" in section 45 is used analogously to the term "Parliament" in section 44. Just as the House of Commons is a component of Parliament, each province's legislative assembly is a component of the province's legislature.
Also it's worth noting that the term "legislative assembly" is generic; each province has a legislative assembly even if its formal name is something other than "Legislative Assembly". For example, the National Assembly of Quebec is a legislative assembly, as demonstrated by the provisions I referred to above in the Constitution Act, 1982.
So you concede that experts are aware of the distinction between "legislature" and "legislative assembly", but Wikipedia should adopt the usage of non-experts who incorrectly confuse the terms? That's not what the WP:COMMONNAME guideline you linked to says. (And in any event, that's referring to article titles, not information in an infobox.) Would you say, "technically there is a distinction between cement and concrete but most people aren't aware of that, so in infoboxes we should use those terms interchangeably." Mathew5000 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I concede that you have shown there is a technical distinction, and it's not one we use here. I would say that we should continue to link to the legislative assembly for each province and from that article, link to the more technical term for the simple reason that we should be following the principle of least astonishment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "not one we use here". Wikipedia should use accurate terminology relating to provincial law-making bodies. That essay you linked to does not advise using inaccurate terminology. If you think the word legislature is too confusing or technical, then change the parameter name to "legislative assembly". But as long as the parameter name displays in the infobox as "Legislature", the information or link supplied should be about the legislature. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In common usage, the legislature would be considered to the elected body sitting the in the legislative assembly or similar building. As long as we do not surprise the average reader, the link should be about that body, not the technical, constitutional one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the reader is surprised (i.e. learns something new) that is not a big but a feature in that the whole purpose of an encyclopedia is to learn about the subject you wish to lookup/read about. You yourself have acknowledged the factual state of affairs, so to purposefully include false information or to present it in a factually misleading way is counter to WP. The fact of the matter is that a Legislature creates laws, a legislative assembly does not have the authority to create laws only to pass bills. A Legislature has two or more constituent bodies, where as a legislative assembly is one of those constituent bodies. Mathew5000 in this case is entirely correct. trackratte (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any other place in BC known as "Fairmont", and the only image in the Fairmont category certainly appears likley to have been taken at Fairmont Hot Springs. Meters (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely a picture taken at Fairmont Hot Springs. The name is often contracted to "Fairmont" in everyday use, either out of convenience, or to disambiguate the actual springs (which are inside a gated resort compound) from the town. Awmcphee (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a proposed residential retirement community development called Maple Lake Estates. See the municipal plan (here) and its Appendix A (here). Someone saw the roads cut into the woodland, put 2 and 2 together and lost their mind. Pyrope19:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a preference for which photos are used for politicians?
I've noticed that, from time to time, the photo used to illustrate a politician for elections or in lists of ministers is chronologically out-of-sync: the photo shows them as much older, or much younger, than they were at the time they held their position. As a quick example, on Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Jason Kenney is represented by a photo of him from 2019— when he actually held the post from 2008 to 2013. I understand that often our hands are tied by what photos are available in the public domain, but sometimes there actually are contemporaneous photos (or close to it) available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons for use— to go back to the Kenney example, there's several photos of him from 2008–2014 found on Wikimedia Commons. To me, when listing people who held certain posts (ministers, leaders, etc) it makes sense to use a photo of the person at the moment they held that post (or at least close to it) for proper context, and using more recent photos can obscure that or make it look like everyone was very old when they took a job. I've changed a few of these in the past, but as I keep running into it I wanted to know the community's opinion of this— so as not to be leading a one-man crusade. I apologize if this is covered by a policy or style guide somewhere; I looked but couldn't find anything to that effect. If there is one, and I just missed it, please point me in the right direction. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been considered important on Wikipedia that photos necessarily have to be specifically reflective of what the person looked like at one particular time — as long as it's depicting the correct person and isn't an erroneously labelled photo of somebody else entirely, it's never been a principle of Wikipedia that the photo had to age-match their holding of any particular role, such that a photo of Jason Kenney in 2019 couldn't be used in an article where Jason Kenney was technically 10 years younger than he is now. If you'd like to shoot for a consensus that we should move in that direction, you could always initiate an WP:RFC somewhere relevant to our photo policies, but as it stands there isn't and never has been any policy to that effect in force until now. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kawnhr raises a good point, though. In an article like List of prime ministers of Canada the three photographs of William Lyon Mackenzie King are from the three different periods he served as prime minister. It would improve that article, if the image of John Turner dated from the 1980s, rather than 2018, and if the pic of Kim Campbell were from the 1990s rather than 2012. Even though Wikipedia's policies don't require it, editors can change to a more contemporaneous photo without first initiating an RFC. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is true as well, but it isn't always possible to find a photo that both fits those parameters and is usable under Wikipedia's copyright rules. To be uploaded to Wikipedia, a photo has to fit into one of two specific copyright types: either its owner released it under Creative Commons, GFDL or public domain provisions, or it's justifiable under fair use rules if it has other preexisting copyrights on it — but "this is what the person looked like at one particular point in time" isn't a valid fair use rationale in and of itself, so if you tried to upload somebody else's photo of "John Turner in the 1980s" or "Kim Campbell in the 1990s" on fair use grounds it would get deleted. And even their official government portraits aren't usable, because those are under Crown copyright and can't be reconciled with any of our acceptable copyright rules because Crown copyright forbids commercial reuse.
For contemporary people, and topics like buildings or natural features whose appearance isn't as time-dependent, it's possible sometimes to get lucky and find existing photos whose owners have already released them under Wikipedia-compatible copyright provisions, so that we can take and upload them freely — but as a general rule, the only surefire way to guarantee that a Wikipedia-compatible image can be found is to pull out your own camera and take one yourself. And in the absence of time machines, it's impossible to do that in order to secure a photo of what John Turner or Kim Campbell looked like 30 or 40 years ago — your only chance of doing that depends on finding a photo that was already under CC, GFDL or PD release, and your chances of finding one like that from 30 or 40 years ago are nearly nonexistent. That said, after 50 years a Crown copyright photo does lapse into PD, so for older figures like Wilfrid Laurier we can just grab the official government portrait — but in the Turner/Campbell eras, we can't yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assist with a rollback at Terence Young (politician)
Earlier today, I had to spend a considerable amount of time removing a very large number of incorporated towns and cities from List of communities in Ontario.
The traditional practice has always been that towns and cities get listed at the separate List of municipalities in Ontario, while the "communities" list is for unincorporated places, such as city neighbourhoods or settlements within townships — but obviously a lot of editors don't correctly recognize or understand that distinction, and think that "communities" is supposed to be a list of every populated place regardless of its municipal status. I don't see how an indiscriminate list would be useful or valuable for us to maintain, however: we need lists that distinguish places by type and status, not just one giant catch-all list of every named place in the entire province (which would literally run into the thousands). But after I removed the incorporated municipalities from the list, it took less than one hour for an anonymous IP to come along and start trying to add some of them back to the list.
Accordingly, I wanted to ask if there is (a) any support for moving the page to the clearer title List of unincorporated communities in Ontario or List of unincorporated settlements in Ontario, and/or (b) anybody who's willing to help watchlist the page for misplaced additions. If we go with the page move, we can then turn the more general "communities" title into a "list of lists" that directs readers to the lists of cities, towns, villages, municipalities, unincorporated communities and the like instead of directly listing any places itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea. I'm not sure about including (urban) neighbourhoods, though (maybe if they are former municipalities or standalone communities).-- Earl Andrew - talk18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current title is easy to misread and surely the source of the confusion here, and that moving the page to "unincorporated communities" would be a good idea. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was clearly outside backup for moving the page to clarify its scope, I've done so, and converted the old title into the "list of lists" I suggested. However, willing watchlisters would still be welcome just in case this doesn't actually resolve the problem in the long term. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a section for military-related articles which need improvement
There are quite a few military related articles of relative significance, such as Regular Force and Fortissimo Sunset Ceremony which have relatively little information. The is full of articles that have less importance than these bigger ones. I tried to bring attention to some more important ones by putting them in the list of articles that need improving, but I did not add all of the ones which I wanted to, because I do not want to fill up the government and politics section. Would it be OK if I made a new section specifically for military-related articles which cover "bigger" topics that need to be improved? CplKlinger (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal geography question: Victoria Square
Hoping someone familiar with Montreal geography may be able to help? I see Victoria Square, Montreal is at the border of Downtown Montreal and Old Montreal. Is there an official boundary? Does the boundary place the park in one or the other, or split down the center?
This website created by the city of Montreal shows Victoria Square being just outside of Old Montreal, but on the border. Another map here shows the same thing. I believe this area is considered to be part of the Quartier international de Montréal nowadays. But historically it really is a pretty clear dividing line, with areas south and east of the square being Old Montreal, but north and west being Downtown. --MTLskyline (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Situations like this are exactly why I'm not convinced that we should be categorizing topics by submunicipal neighbourhood at all, but I'm not prepared to wage that battle unilaterally. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems absolutely inappropriate to me, but I wanted to solicit input on whether other people agree with me or not as Wikipedia does not actually have any explicit policy against this. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia at large might have issues with the fanart, but 'might' is the key word. I am making no judgements, because I find Wikipedia's rules about images to be highly complex and arcane. Jeangagnon is clearly using photographs to create the fanart, but those photographs may or may not be acceptable to Wikipedia, and using an image of an image might run afoul of legalities that I don't understand. I would recommend putting this issue up for consideration at the appropriate Administrator/Bureaucrat level. PKT(alk)16:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the copyright question, if the artwork is obviously copied from a specific non-free image (haven't checked whether this is the case), it would be a derivative work and non-free. Whether this is appropriate stylistically would be a secondary question. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong in principle with using high quality illustrations when free photographs aren't available. In this case in particular there may be some copyright issues though. – Anne drew21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're definitely either traced or instafiltered, and I've initiated the deletion discussions at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/2020/10/17. I started out nominating them one by one, and then once I realized just how many there are I just bundled all the rest into a single mass batch nomination — so if you want to see all the discussions, just do a search for my username on that daylog. (I also caught a couple of otherwise unrelated (but also CC-noncompliant) screenshot images at the same time, and nominated those as well, but my name will mostly get you these cartoony fan-art images. And there were also a couple that had already been nominated for deletion by other people as well.) But for the absolute height of "hell to the no", feast thine eyes on File:Marc Lepine.jpg. I get why somebody would want to do that, but an WP:NPOV encyclopedia has absolutely no business whatsoever condoning it. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that Marc Lepine image was actually being used on a couple of projects, thanks to autogenerated Wikidata infoboxes. I removed it. Spicy (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up in case anybody hasn't heard yet, the results of the name change referendum in Asbestos, Quebec have been announced, and the new name will be Val-des-Sources. We're going to have to watch this for the next little while, however: the name change is not official until it actually gets approved by the provincial government of Quebec, but obviously there's some risk in the meantime of people trying to move the article prematurely.
So just a request for people to keep an eye on this over the next little while. We shouldn't move the article until the name change is formally approved, but we should try to stay on top of when that happens so that we can move it quickly when that time comes. The French article, for the record, has not been moved yet, but the body text has been edited as if the name change is already a fait accompli and then dialed back to something more accurately reflective of current reality. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those that know where to look for the provincial decision and will monitor for it, note that once approved, check if there is an effective date different than the approval date. If it is approved October 30, 2020, but the approval doesn’t have an effective date until January 1, 2021, then that is the trigger, not the earlier approval date. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any ideas for improvements on this? I found it surprisingly difficult to find a good, recent, general overview of the Canadian mining industry as a whole, but I did the best I could on a first pass. Would welcome any thoughts or additions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Harper, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Username6892(Peer Review)21:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
R.M. Vaughan
Over the past week, anonymous IPs have been editing our article about writer R.M. Vaughan to prematurely denote him as dead, when he had been reported missing but no sources at all were stating that he had been found dead yet. Sadly it was announced in the media today that he has been found dead, and the article was updated accordingly; however, now an anonymous IP has been reverse-editwarring to make the article say that he's not dead.
This is obviously stupid and unproductive, and I've applied three days of semi-protection to put a lid on it for the moment — however, the page is not all that highly watched, so I just wanted to ask if anybody's willing to add it to your watchlists to keep an eye on this in case it returns once the sprot expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A new editor is adding content on a six-day cannabis character controversy from two years ago that is neither enduring per WP:NOTNEWS nor encyclopedic. I reverted with a similarly-crafter edit summary but I was reverted. I have since reverted again, elaborating on the previous edit summary and dropping a level-1 warning on the editor's talk page. As I am not very active these days, can we get another set or two of eyes to watchlist and monitor Leduc, Alberta please? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether to list this source at WP:RSN, though I believe discussion is warranted given I see it is cited in quite a few articles. The website has a pretty obvious right-wing bias, as shown by the stories easily accessible from the homepage of the website ([15][16][17]). I do not think it is reliable because of its use of The Post Millennial as a source (see [18]) and misinterpreting the WHO's health guidelines without correction ([19], see prior reality check about the WHO's advice). Username6892(Peer Review)18:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on "Third parties (Canada)"
(I'm raising this here because the page in question does not seem heavily trafficked, and because it affects other pages, too.)
I'd like to bring the project's attention to Third party (Canada), and specifically how that term is defined. To wit: a federal or provincial political party that is not usually considered to have a realistic chance of forming a government but has seats in the federal House of Commons or a provincial or territorial legislature.
The problem I have is that (as the article admits), it seems to have be used in analogy to the American phrase— but the party systems are very different in the two countries, and "third party" is a poor fit for Canadian politics. In the US, parties other than the Big Two are lumped together as "third parties" because they're about as equally as relevant and viable (which is to say: they're not); but in Canada, parties other than our Big Two have varying levels of support and relevance. Relatedly, there are often more than three parties in Canadian politics: there are four provinces (Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick) that have or have had four parties represented in the legislatures recently, while the federal House of Commons currently has five— and has, at multiple times in the past, had up to six.
Moreover, I'm not sure this definition of "third parties" is actually in widespread use. Certainly, you don't hear much punditry about the NDP, the BQ and Greens as a collective group, since they have wildly different levels of support, relevance. In provinces with strong duopolies you can get these sorts of takes, but in the one example I could find, [the term used is "smaller parties".
The page isn't even consistent with its definition, actually; despite stating in the lead that it's a catch-all for any party below the Big Two, the page goes on to track and list the parties that literally have third place in their respective province. So is "third parties" an actual term, or is this page just a non-discriminate collection of information? It's unclear.
The main reason this bugs me is that this use has creeped in to Template:Infobox Canadian Parliament, meaning it gets used on pages like 43rd Canadian Parliament; the BQ and NDP are both "third parties" (not just in the infobox, but also in the prose!). Again this just seems like a poor way to describe them, and not in-line with how people actually talk about them (let alone Parliament itself).
IMO, we should dispense with this definition of "third party" and adjust the pages accordingly (such as replacing it in the infobox with "official party status", which both better describes the situation and is doubly relevant as specific Canadian terminology). But I welcome community input. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's definitely junk. While the term "third party" does get used in Canadian politics, it is not a catchall term for every party but the "big two" — it simply refers to the party that happens to currently be in third place in House standings, as opposed to the Official Opposition. Federally, that's currently the Bloc Québécois; in the past it has been the NDP, Reform and/or the Liberals. In Ontario, it's currently the Liberals; in BC it's currently the Greens, and on and so forth. You're correct that as written, this article is importing an American sense of the term into Canadian politics, where it doesn't belong — and for added bonus, the article hasn't even really been fully updated, with the table at the bottom listing several incorrect party leaders (and in more than one case not even the correct party.) It's a mess, and it needs to be scrubbed clean for sure. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried to tag Cooperatives Secretariat for deletion, and argues on its talk page that there's no evidence this purported part of the Canadian Government exists. If it does, there certainly isn't much. All I've found online is one 2001 document (using the French language name) here. There's some mention of parts of the government talking about cooperatives, but not really this specific secretariat. This suggests the organisation is small, and of such triviality that its own government doesn't talk about it - not every sub sub committee or department is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Can anyone find any real references for this? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk18:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FAR notice
I have nominated Kellie Loder for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmBacon20:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Federal Election Results in X
I'm not sure whether these pages, as they are now, meet WP:LISTN. There are disagreements between pollsters regarding which areas to count as regions within their polls (see some Ontario-specific polls [20][21][22][23]), though Toronto as a region seems to have universal agreement, so I believe the 2 pages ("Central" and "Suburban") should be merged. Many of the border choices in the articles seem needlessly arbitrary including the one mentioned above. Username6892(Peer Review)01:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Wonderbra for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro6420:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance required with Template:Canadian first minister list
The other day I noticed that on List of premiers of Saskatchewan, the link for the 2020 election is red— which confused me, because I knew that 2020 Saskatchewan general election definitely existed. A closer look revealed the issue: the link was heading to Saskatchewan general election, 2020— the old format for elections— which does not exist (even as a redirect). As the election links are not entered by users but generated by the template itself based on some inputs, I thought it would be a good idea to modify Template:Canadian first minister list/mandate to produce the correct link (rather than rely on a redirect). So I did exactly that.
Everything seemed fine— the Sask page was giving a blue link— until, a bit later, I was on List of prime ministers of Canada and noticed all the links had gone red. What had happened? Well, it turns out that the "mandate" code was making links for "XXXX Canadian general election" rather than federal election. By the looks of it, this page has always been pointing to "Canadian general election", but the reason it never returned broken links before is because there were redirects set-up for each in the old format (ie: someone had set up "Canadian general election, XXXX" to direct to "Canadian federal election, XXXX"); and consequently, the reason they're breaking now is that there are not redirects to the new format. Seeing that I had created more red links than I fixed, I reverted my change.
Now, obviously, there's a workaround for this: just make new redirects (a single one for Sask would be the easiest way forward). But it seems to me like it would be a good idea to modify the template's code that it doesn't require editors make these redirects, so the code generates the correct links for where it should lead. The "mandate" code tracks 'jurisdiction' (which is how it knows which name to put into the links), so in theory it should be able to do "if:Canada then:federal, else:general", but I have zero idea how to do actually code this.
In short: I think Template:Canadian first minister list/mandate should have its election link template changed from [JURISDICTION] general election, [YEAR] to [YEAR] [JURISDICTION] [FEDERAL/GENERAL] election, to 1) conform to the current format we use for election page titles and 2) not require editors to create redirects to point it where it needs to go when the generator can't account for something.
Does anybody know how to code this, or know anyone else who could, or at least point me in the direction of where I might find someone who could? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Erin here with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. I've submitted a request here to update the Gillette Wikipedia article's Canadian headquarters section. Until very recently, this section was unsourced. The newly added source is helpful for confirming a few details about the company's operations in Canada, but does not quite verify the specific text within the article, so I've drafted replacement text based on sourcing. Can editors please review and update the page since I cannot? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
