Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject Canada
Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français)
||Wikimania 2017, the 13th annual international conference of the Wikimedia movement, is being held in Montreal! The conference will run from August 11–13 (with the pre-conference on 9–10) around the Centre Sheraton Montréal. If you're interested in exploring the global free education movement in more detail and meeting fellow Wikiproject Canada editors, this is a great opportunity. General registration will be opening soon.
Do we number the premiers?
Just curious, do we number the premiers? At the article John Buchanan (who was Nova Scotia's 20th premier, serving from 1978 to 1990), @Mewulwe: seems to think not. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a pre-Wikipedia source that describes him as such? Mewulwe (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we commonly number the premiers. Examples are easily found. PKT(alk) 14:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Uh, if "we" means Wikipedia, of course. GoodDay himself added most of them. But the question surely is, is it a fixed practice in Canada in the same way U.S. presidents are numbered? Surely not. The only references to numbered premiers of Nova Scotia I find on Google Books contradict each other, with both Buchanan and MacLellan referred to as 24th premiers, with no hits at all for any other number. This clearly indicates that those two cases were just arbitrary counts, which naturally depending on the counting system can yield different numbers. There is zero evidence of a fixed system, and arbitrary numbers don't belong in infoboxes. Mewulwe (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- WHY are you only deleting from Buchanan, while leaving the numbering for all the other NS premiers? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- As many sources describe Stephen McNeil as the 28th premier, then counts back to Buchanan being the 20th. Note that Nova Scotia counts Mcdonald twice (12th and 14th), as he's served non-consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I suggest you check the edit history of the NS premiers-in-question. Last month, an IP messed up their numberings. I've just restored them as they were. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Because you're reverting, as I told you before. I'm just sending a signal. Only once you finally stop the insanity, can things be cleaned up. Why do you think sources describe McNeil as the 28th and no such earlier numbering can be found? Because everyone mindlessly copies from Wikipedia. And where does "Nova Scotia" count Macdonald twice? Seems to me it's just whoever numbered the Wikipedia list who did it. Mewulwe (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- So, all the news people who describe McNeil as the 28th premier of Nova Scotia, are doing so because of Wikipedia? I recommend you seek a consensus to get the numbering system removed from all provincial/territorial premiers. Leaving on the Canadian Prime Ministers numbered. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I've asked @Moxy: to weigh in. He's got a better handle on this stuff. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mewulwe, wrote, "But the question surely is, is it a fixed practice in Canada in the same way U.S. presidents are numbered? Surely not." Absolutely it is normal practice, and not just for provincial Premiers. As I responded earlier, examples abound. I have yet to find a provincial Premier (or a Lieutenant Governor or Governor-General) whose ordinal number isn't indicated in their article and/or infobox. And if there is one whose ordinal number isn't there, I would add it. PKT(alk) 00:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to have a hard time reading. You're even quoting what I say only to ignore it and repeat your point about practice on Wikipedia rather than practice in Canada. Mewulwe (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- First, don't be insulting, it doesn't help your case nor build consensus. Yes, I ran over your point - we typically don't refer to the ordinal numbers of major public/political figures in day-to-day conversation in Canada. Wikipedia, however, is a global reference work; it is not meant to reflect day-to-day conversation, it is meant to keep track of minutia that people can refer back to when they want to check on details. PKT(alk) 14:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, if these numbers were objective facts, there would be no problem. But they depend on arbitrary numbering systems. Mewulwe (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mewulwe:Have you tried to look? There are many lists like list of premiers of British Columbia and all you have to do is click on the individual entries to see what the entries look like. The spot check I made shows that for BC it does (except those that have served multiple, nonconsecutive terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- See above. Mewulwe (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can't find a numbered source Province of Nova Scotia, - canadianencyclopedia.\ - PARLIAMENT of CANADA....that said...does this fall under WP:CALC? Do people dispute that so and so was the 12th or whatever ect...?--Moxy (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not WP:CALC. Different counting systems lead to different numbers. And in any case it shouldn't be put in the infobox in a way that gives the false impression of it being an official or common practice equivalent to the U.S. presidents' numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Many sources have McNeil as the 28th premier, Dexter as the 27th premier, etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the Macdonald is counted twice, to bring the numbering up to 28. Mewulwe, if you're so opposed to numbering on Infoboxes, then open up an Rfc for the entire Wikipedia. Right now, under your argument, numberings should be deleted from all the Canadian provicinal/territorial premiers infoboxes. Your opening up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on this matter, would be less time consuming, then your creating these mountains out of molehills per article disputes. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes they should be all deleted, so why are you adding more instead? We had a central discussion before, hence . Mewulwe (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I DID NOT add the numberings. I merely RESTORED the numberings, that used to be there. IF you're so sure of yourself? then go ahead and DELETE the numberings from ALL the Canadian provincial & territorial premiers infoboxes. PS: Don't be too surprised, if others revert your deletions, though. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Restoring them is as good as adding them in the first place. So someone did what you're asking me to do - remove all the numbers. And yet you restored them. So I'm not wasting my time removing dozens of numbers, since indeed "others" (i.e. you) will revert me. But I'll keep removing individual numbers as I come across them. Mewulwe (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Removing them because a pre-Wikipedia source cannot be found is not a valid reason to remove them though. Wikipedia relies on RSes. We cannot determine whether they are using Wikipedia or not. We must trust that they have editorial oversight.
- Removing them from all provinces because there may be some ambiguity in one province is also not a valid solution. Read: don't drag the rest of the country into your quarrel.
- If sources can be found that give numbering, COUNT is appropriate to work backward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Blind reliance on supposed RSs is stupid, when it is often more than clear they are copying from Wikipedia. We can't effectively cite ourselves and then put the blame on others. Of course every entity has to be looked at individually, but it is an issue that is affecting not only all of Canada but the world, and the fact is that outside of the U.S., this whole practice of numbering officeholders is exceedingly rare. Mewulwe (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Stupid? The foundation of Wikipedia is stupid. Great. I stopped reading after that. WP:BURDEN is on you to show that they are copying from Wikipedia and you can't do it. WP:STICK applies. Add the numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Gee, I wasn't aware that "blind reliance on supposed RSs" is the foundation of Wikipedia. I thought WP:IAR was more foundational. You are only proving my point with your blockheaded sticking to some rule even where it leads to manifestly absurd results. Since it is naturally almost impossible to prove that any particular source is copying from Wikipedia, you just put your head in the sand and pretend this doesn't happen. It is more than sufficient evidence if numbers can only be found for Wikipedia-age officeholders and practically none before. Mewulwe (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Open up a discussion at a Wikipedia-wide forum, if you don't like the way things are done. Your practice of 'edit warring' on individual articles to make a WP:POINT is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- We've been there. The policy is in place, you're ignoring it. Mewulwe (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. Ignoring reliable source by stating that we have a "blind reliance" on them and stating that they are supposedly reliable sounds a lot like original researc to me. Tackling the second first. If you don't think a source is reliable, take it to WP:RSN. If you want RS changed, take it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Mewulwe, again STOP removing the numbering from John Buchanan's article. You're merely being disruptive at this point. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need a few more inputs, say from @Resolute:, @Bearcat:, @Djsasso:, @Moxy: etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Mewulwe, consensus seems to be against you here. Until you can prove the sources are not reliable, you should not be changing this.
- I would ague that if you don't stop, the next option for the community would be to request a topic ban on Nova Scotia premiers (a fairly narrow topic). Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm honestly indifferent on whether we number premiers or not. Consequently, my position would be to retain status quo. I will add that IAR is not a valid justification for removing them in this instance, however. Resolute 00:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Popular pages.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
- The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
- The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
- The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, The Community Tech Team, through Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Senate Conservative Caucus
The page Senate Conservative Caucus has popped up today. I have proposed it for deletion since this caucus is in no ways independent or autonomous from the main Conservative parliamentary caucus, but is actually part of it, unlike the Senate Liberal Caucus which is not recognized by the main Liberal Party. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- While I agree with the PROD, in that the article is unsourced and should be slightly more substantial. That the Senate Conservative Caucus is not independent or autonomous from the main Conservative parliamentary caucus is not my understanding. That was the case when the Mike Duffy affair happened. The Senate Conservative Caucus sat separately, but they did answer to the PM (and possibly the PMO). Is there some support for their ties to the house caucus? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The Senate Conservative Caucus is a component of the larger Conservative parliamentary caucus, but it also meets on its own and elects its own officers. For example, on March 28, Senate Conservatives elected Larry Smith as their leader, and is able to expel members as per this article. The article is a stub that needs sourcing, otherwise, it can be merged with Conservative Party of Canada. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- The recent Stephen Greene incident shows that the Senate Conservative Caucus can make news independent of the overall party. I would rather the article be merged to a Conservative parliamentary caucus article (if one exists) then to the main CPC one, since we shouldn't stuff every possibly notable Conservative thing onto there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Of course they will act autonomously on some issues such as electing a leader in their chamber the same house elected Candice Bergen as opposition house leader, but they do not drive separate policies from the CPC. They are not at all independent the way the Senate Liberals are. Charles lindberg (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if one is independent of the other at all. As long as it passes the WP:GNG, for which recent and earlier news coverage would almost certainly suffice, it's a valid article. I fail to see why this content on the history of Conservative Senators and their leadership elections should clutter up the main CPC page. We're not obligated to shove every little detail about Conservatism in Canada there when they can be validly spun-off as their own articles.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Two editors have removed the PROD and Charles keeps putting it back. If you want a deletion discussion please open an AFD. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's there because of the discussion going on here, and one prominent user (Walter Görlitz) has already agreed it should stay there. Charles lindberg (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- If there's a discussion going on then there needs to be an AFD. PRODs are only if the deletion is not controversial (ie no discussion needed). It's not that complicated. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion" - is that clear enough for you? The fact that there is a "discussion going on" in not a reason to keep a PROD in place, it's actually a reason for removing it and proceeding with an AFD instead. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it may be best Charles gets a mentor as they seem to have problems all over.--Moxy (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
PMs in the infoboxes of Opposition leaders
IMHO, the prime minister should be excluded from the infobox of the leaders of the opposition section. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the cabinet & so shouldn't be treated as a cabinet minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Infobox: links to PM & their numbering
Howdy. @Discospinster: has been linking both the Prime Ministers office & its numbering to just one link - List of Prime Ministers of Canada. For years, we've had separate links - the numbering to the List article & the office to Prime Minister of Canada. Which should we go with? GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- The former, per MOS:LINK. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I adopted what you did with some of the governors general infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a conflict on whether to include all the seats in the Senate and House of Commons for the Bloc, or just the seats from Quebec. I am proposing just the seats in Quebec as shown here, since the party only runs candidate in that province and pushes secessionism. There is precedent for this with the Scottish National Party infobox in which only Scottish seats are highlighted in the graph. Thoughts? Charles lindberg (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO, we should include the entire Senate & House of Commons seats. This give a more accurate look of how many seats the BQ have in each respective body. The BQ is treated as a federal political party. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it gives an inaccurate view of how many seats they have, since the Bloc does not run candidates anywhere else in Canada. including all 338 seats makes it look like they compete for those seats when they certainly do not. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- But, the can compete for all 338 seats & the can have a party member appointed to the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- But, they* do not, because their goal is to separate from Canada... Charles lindberg (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yet they can. We're not going to agree on this, so best we let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I would start by asking what is done with other Canadian parties? We should follow that precedent. The goal is to indicate their relative size in each house, not to indicate their relative power in their electorate. Sure, they'll never run a candidate in BC, but that just means they'll never win that seat. They have made choices going in to an election. In the past, when the NDP and Liberals were trying to defeat the Conservative parties, they were deciding on whether they should run candidates in all ridings. The NDP has decided not to run candidates in some ridings so as to not split those votes. (For the record, the Liberals steadfastly refused to not run a candidate in a riding that they had no chance of winning). In those cases, would you want the NDP's number of seats reflect the number of candidates they fielded or the percentage of power they had? It would always be the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, in the event the Liberals and the NDP chose not to run candidates in certain ridings, I agree that nonetheless all seats should be shown on their graph, however the Bloc is significantly different in that they are a strictly regionalized party trying to secede from Canada, unlike the Liberals and the NDP. Gilles Duceppe even said during a televised leaders debate in 2011, that he would "certainly not" want to be Prime Minister of Canada. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- An analogue is the Scottish National Party which has its House of Commons seats graphed out in the manner that Charles advocates. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- This does seem like the perfect analogue, both parties are regional, and have the intention of seceding from their countries. Charles lindberg (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. I wouldn't repeatlink Quebec in the infobox though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Change has been made accordingly, Quebec only linked once. Charles lindberg (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- For the purposes of the main infobox on a political party's article, what's relevant is not the ratio of seats they won to seats they actually competed in as candidates; it's relevant in certain other contexts, absolutely, but not that one. Rather, the germane fact, in that particular spot, is the ratio of seats won to seats that exist — the key piece of information that particular piece of the infobox is meant to convey is "how much power does this party have in the House of Commons?" Had the Charlottetown Accord passed in 1992, and there were accordingly certain classes of language-related legislation that had to pass a special "double majority" provision (i.e. a majority of the House and a majority of the Quebec contingent), then there would certainly be cause for a field to denote their percentage of Quebec seats in particular — but even then, that would still be supplementary information to their percentage of the whole HoC and not an outright replacement for that. The fact that the party's goal is to secede from Canada is not relevant; they haven't successfully accomplished that yet, so they still sit in a 338-seat legislative body and not a 78-seat one. Bearcat (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the key piece of information is the degree of influence the party has within the legislative body and so the total number of seats in the House of Commons should be given as context, not just the number of seats in Quebec. isaacl (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I think both should be included, both have merit, it does not have to be one or the other. Charles lindberg (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Charles lindberg: - As a consensus has not yet been reached, can you please revert your changes? isaacl (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted the changes; until a consensus agreement has been reached to make any changes, the page should be left at the status quo. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- They have banned Charles.....just need to watch out for socks.--Moxy (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Over the past few weeks, an anonymous IP has been persistently adding content to our article on Ottawa city councillor Allan Hubley, concerning his early pledge when he was elected in 2010 to only serve two terms in office and criticizing him for not openly reaffirming that promise 1.5 years ahead of the 2018 municipal election. And further, both their writing tone and the placement of the information right in the introduction directly imply that this lack of reaffirmation is one of the most salient and important facts that a reader would need to know about Hubley, more important than even his anti-bullying work following his son's suicide.
But for one thing, obviously very few politicians would ever announce their intentions to run again or not barely halfway through their term in office — that's normally a thing you announce one way or the other a few months before the election campaign, not a few years before. And for another, if he does decide in 2018 to go back on his pledge and run for a third term on council, it's for his voters to decide whether that's an issue or not, not us. Simply put, it's an WP:NPOV violation for Wikipedia to maintain any content about such trivial piffle at all yet — if he does decide to run for a third term, and a voter backlash against him for that gets into the news, then it would become appropriate for us to maintain some neutral, non-commentary content about that backlash. But the anonymous IP appears to be trying to stir a preemptive backlash against the possibility a full year before any reasonable person would actually expect Hubley to announce his intentions one way or the other, and that's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.
I've reverted their changes several times now, and applied temporary sprot to keep anonymous IPs off the page for the time being, but (a) it's nowhere near serious enough to justify permanent protection, and (b) the anon has already tried to sneak around the sprot by registering the inflammatory username "Bearcatisstupid" (I've already blocked that account for violating username policy, but they may try again under other usernames.) But I've been the only person who's ever actually caught this when it happened, so I wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to add the article to their watchlists to monitor for it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've added Allan Hubley to my watchlist. PKT(alk) 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Another one for the watchlisters
Following the Elliott Moglica situation a few months ago, in which Moglica himself used extensive sockpuppetry to try to defend his own self-created promotional WP:AUTOBIO and was editblocked accordingly, an anonymous IP has started trying to readd Moglica's name to the list of alumni of Niagara College again (which he also tried to do numerous times before the article actually existed in the first place, despite being told more than once that the list wasn't allowed to contain redlinks.) I've already applied an editblock on the basis of the Moglica SPI, but of course other IP numbers may also try to do the same thing ($6 per month to a VPN provider is all it takes, and his persistence about it in the past strongly implies that he won't just stop this time either.) So is anybody willing to add Niagara College to their watchlists to monitor for this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist and Moglica is on my radar. freshacconci (✉) 15:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- The more the merrier...grin Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Plans to update page for Chartered Professional Accountant
Along with other work I'm doing for Canadian pages, I'm planning to start an overhaul of the Chartered Professional Accountant page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Professional_Accountant) given how out of date the information is and how complicated the merger has been. If anyone has feedback or suggestions as I work my way through the details, I'd be happy to collaborate and discuss. SaturnsRings27 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
New templates for politics
We have new redundant templates being made again. Template:Justin Trudeau series-Template:Andrew Scheer series-Template:Elizabeth May series ....these type of boxes have been deleted by this project in the past.......as simply regurgitation of info in the main box and the fact it causes (in mobile view) readers to have to scroll even more before the lead is seen. I personally think our infoboxs on politicians are already overwhelmed with info......last thing we need is a second box regurgitating the same info, links and images. What do others think of theses redundant infoboxs .......should we spam them all over or nip this in the butt? We all like pretty boxes...but does it help or just repeat stuff?--Moxy (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think for some of them it could be seen as spam and it is not that helpful, however for the Stephen Harper one, it does include a lot valuable information in a neat way that's easy to read and understand. Like the links to pages about his term as Prime Minister of Canada. As well as his elections, and the merger that he accomplished while leader of the Alliance. None of this is available in the infobox. I agree with Moxy, that this is probably just useless spam for people like Scheer and May since they haven't really done anything that can't be accurately shown in an infobox, however I don't think the same can be said for Harper or Trudeau. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also, about the mobile view thing, these don't show up in mobile view, its a sidebar. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- What I see is a bit of Wikipedia:Gaming the system ...after #Political infoboxes was clear with no consensus to spam all links in the infobox you have now created a new type of box that goes under the infobox to by-pass the no consensus and link everything...we have bottom templates for this purpose. Thinking a mentor might help with all the conflicts your in all over. Its not normal that over 60 percent of an editors edits are contested.--Moxy (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Will these be used in one article or many? If one, then they don't need to be templates at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can speak for Charles...but the Americans have them in every related article see here. Perhaps they can be used in this manner but just not on main pages that have infioboxs already. My main concern is boxes over propose text. Editors involved in creating great leads and source propose text are not a fan of overhauling our readers with boxes over propose text.--Moxy (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Another reason not to be an American. Or two, depends how you count. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- LOL.....they do lots of template spam click show at Meryl Streep#External links....just nuts.,--Moxy (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I think they should go on major articles associated directly with the person where they can be of most value, like Premiership of Justin Trudeau, and Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government, etc. nothing frivolous. Charles lindberg (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I would advocate a moderate use of the sidebar the way it is used for Theresa May, Malcolm Turnbull, and Matteo Renzi rather than excessive use of the U.S. politician series'. Charles lindberg (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Formal request has been received to merge: McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom into Burano (building); dated: 15 May 2017. Proposer's Rationale: ...the creator of the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom article strongly objects ... this may require a third party to determine consensus. Discussion is at Talk:McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom#Merger proposal. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald?
Are we going out of our way to confuse people? 3rd Canadian Ministry called 2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald? Anyone ever seen this name structure before?--Moxy (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- That article page move should be reverted back to 3rd Canadian Ministry. The editor who moved it, has been making quite a few changes in Canadian articles without discussion, lately. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dame did not notice it was just moved......was bringing it up because Education board has 3rd Canadian Ministry listed as an assessment soon.....but the link was to 2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald. I see who was involved now....wasting alot of our time they are...noone likes having to fix so many problem edits.--Moxy (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've reverted all the page moves accept 2nd Ministry of Sir Robert Borden, which needs an administrator to move it back to 10th Canadian Ministry. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ohhhh i see many just moved....wow great job "speedy" GoodDay. --Moxy (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Charles lindberg: we'd like your participation here, concerning why you think the articles needed to be initially moved. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Advice on terminology...
A quick favour to ask... Does anyone involved in this project have a good understanding of when it is most appropriate to use adjectives/nouns such as First Nation, Aboriginal peoples, Indigenous peoples, Indian, Métis or Inuit in the context of Canadian history? Normally, I'd just follow the secondary sources, but I'm very conscious that the preferred terminology has evolved even over the last couple of decades. I'm having problems in drafting as a result, and any advice - or perhaps being pointed at a helpful link which might summarise current best practice - would be very gratefully appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Generally, First Nations, Métis and Inuit are the preferred terms, even when dealing with historical subjects, unless it's a quote from the time period. If you can be or need to be specific you can use individual group names (Dene for example) but when talking about the larger groups, those three terms are your best bet. I have seen Aboriginal and Indigenous used but Indian is now considered wrong (in Canada -- in the US I believe it's still used). Personally, I always just go with First Nations, Métis and Inuit for consistency and accuracy. freshacconci (✉) 17:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'd second what Freshacconci said. On the other hand don't stick an s at the end of Inuit. There is a guide from Public Works and Government Services Canada here. There may be one for First Nations or Métis as well but I get an error when trying to search. Just to make things worse there are rare places where Inuit can be written as inuit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- VMT! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- remember to use "Inuk" in the singular, and if only referring to two people, "Inuuk". For modern/accepted spelling of First Nations people consult their ethno-pages (some have remained at old/disused spellings since a rampage by someone in Alberta to title them all with their colonialist names; most BC tribe names have been fixed, but not all. Wiki-inertia and closings of RMs etc by closers/admins from the UK/Eire ignorant of Canadian English usages and norms and contempt for Canadian rebuttals are why.2001:569:72C0:BC00:55F2:908E:9EB2:6B5D (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Aboriginal or Indigenous
Given the above section I found it interesting to come across this so quickly. So are we supposed to be using Aboriginal or Indigenous? Even the government doesn't know what it is doing and uses both at the same time, INAC. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- We talked about this a few months ago....personally I have NP moving Aboriginal articles to indigenous. But it seems we are waiting on the first legislation identifying the term or using it. We have organizations switching back and forth on the term.-- Moxy (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The federal department has changed its name. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've proposed a name change from Aboriginal peoples in Canada to Indigenous peoples in Canada over here. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I listed a bunch more at Talk:Indigenous peoples in Northern Canada#Requested move 3 June 2017. I didn't realise that some were being moved as I wrote it up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- There are also a number of Categories that need to be moved i.e. Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada and many of its subcategories. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was going to wait on those until the articles were done. Then it is much easier to change the categories. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Changing First Nations to Aboriginal
Just a heads up. I couldn't find it in the archive but I'm sure this came up before we have a shifting IP that inappropriately changes First Nation to Aboriginal, see here. Almost all the changes are not correct and need reverting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Ontario general election, 2007
A user named Kndimov has been editwarring over the photograph of John Tory that's being used in the infobox at Ontario general election, 2007, persistently reverting back to a significantly older image than the one that's been on the article quite stably for at least two years. Initially their argument was that because the election took place in 2007, the image used in the box had to date from 2007 and the later image was inherently invalid — as if his appearance has changed all that much? — and then when they were reverted because that's not a rule, they rereverted with the new argument that "I vote for the older one" with no reason given at all why it was actually preferable.
I don't want this to be a one-on-one edit war, so I was wondering if anybody's willing to come weigh in one way or the other about which image should be used. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
reference links on BC L-G bios need updating
The reference link to the LG website is now a 404, would be the same on other similar pages. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Wallace
All former L-G bios on the LG site are now at http://www.ltgov.bc.ca/gov-house/history/timeline.html some maybe in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, quite a few are I'd think.
he's of interest right now as he was viceroy in the 1952 and 1953 elections; '52 has some parallels to the current "interregnum of sorts" in BC.... as of today [http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/politics+27uncharted+territory+legislature+poised+tussle+over/13425353/story.html this is the current non-issue in the media0, I'm curious to see what Wiki has for BC election coverage; it ain't over yet, the election is...but not the resulting impasse..... 2001:569:72C0:BC00:55F2:908E:9EB2:6B5D (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Just added a new page on the Honorific "Maitre" which seems to be in use in only English Canada outside of the Francophone world of Quebec, France, etc. Take a look and add as necessary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C3%AEtre Namtug (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
R v Jordan (2016)
R v Jordan is q Supreme Court of Canada legal precedent with ramifications that are already reverberating across the country. Some very serious criminal cases have already being dismissed even though they were in the pipeline before the Jordan verdict. Murder, sex assault cases among those tossed due to delays in Canadian courts I would hardly classify this topic as low on the importance scale. As for it merely being of import to Canadians, two men have had their second degree murder charges dismissed. One is about to be, and the other already has been, deported back to their home countries. Quebec murder suspect set free due to trial delays to be deported within weeks Man accused of killing Montrealer with a machete returns to U.K. Maybe we can take a 'sober second look' on the classification of this article. For some context here is an article that Wikipedia: Law has rated as mid level in importance. R v Smith. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Happy Canada Day everyone! The article for the Chinese-Canadian businessman Michael Ching (businessman) has been nominated for AfD. You're welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ching (businessman). -Zanhe (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Bet you haven't heard that term in a while. We need a photo of them. If you don't know what they are, you are not Canadian. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have an issue I need to raise regarding List of visible minority politicians in Canada. It's a valid list in theory, obviously, but in actual practice it's been wandering off the path from what visible minority means in reality to include anybody who has any form of hyphenated-Canadian connection to a non-European country at all. I know that the term doesn't exactly map to "people of colour" per se, but it's also not meant to include people of "traditional" European descent who merely happen to have been physically born somewhere other than Europe proper.
For instance, I've already had to remove Gérard Deltell, a completely white guy of completely European descent who merely happens to have been born to parents who were Algerian pieds-noirs (i.e. the European colonists of Algeria) of French and Spanish and Italian, not native Algerian, descent; John Rodriguez, a completely white guy of completely European descent who merely happens to have been born in Guyana, at a time when it was still a European colony with a large population of European settlers, whereas ethnically Guyanese people would normally be classed as black; and Vic Toews, a white guy who may have some actual Latino descent by virtue of having been born in Paraguay, but it isn't verified by our article about him (his father was a German immigrant to Paraguay and his mother's ethnicity isn't stated, but circumstantially the evidence isn't strong as her maiden name was Peters), and certainly isn't visible in his physical appearance at all (and, like Rodriguez, he isn't "Latino" just because he was physically born in South America if we can't source any ethnically Latino heritage for him.) I haven't removed, but am still iffy about, the likes of André Arthur and Sarkis Assadourian, who are Armenian and thus Caucasian and white, and Tony Clement, who's Greek (the difference between a Cypriot-Greek and a Greece-Greek being one of nationality, not of ethnicity, so being technically from Cyprus doesn't ethnically separate him into a different "visible minority" group distinct from all the Greek politicians that aren't included in the list.)
I do wonder if it's really a useful list at all — is there really much value to a single common list of every MP who's of non-European descent, rather than splitting them up into smaller and less editwar-prone lists like "List of Black Canadian MPs" or "List of Latinx Canadian MPs" or "List of Arab Canadian MPs"? That's a discussion for another time, however, as I'm not prepared to mount any sort of argument that it should be deleted outright. The main thing here is that, at minimum, the list needs to be reviewed to ensure that everybody who's listed on it belongs there. I haven't seen any problematic entries besides the ones I mentioned above, but it still needs a few more eyes to ensure I haven't missed anything. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this list is highly problematic. At least one person, Michael Chong, would likely object to his inclusion on the list. He self-identifies as an un-hyphenated Canadian, ... his father just happens to have been born in Hong Kong. Although some members are clearly qualified for inclusion, others are open to question. What ethnicity constitutes "visible"? Why does Spanish Chilean or Spanish Columbian heritage qualify but not European Spanish? What fraction of one's parentage qualifies one for inclusion in a minority?
- At the very least, should we remove people such as Meili Faille and Keith Martin whose WP pages do not clarify their "visible minority" status? Tunborough (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everybody that we're going to need increased scrutiny on the article about Julie Payette. Leaving aside the standard possibility of vandalism that's already pretty well controlled, there's now the new risk of somebody prematurely denoting her as the incumbent GG as of today — which she isn't yet, as the date of the initial announcement and the date of actual investiture aren't one and the same. So just a reminder to everybody to be on the lookout for this — the article has 49 watchlisters as of right now, but I'm willing to bet those are mostly NASA geeks watchlisting her because astronaut, who thus might not be familiar with the political issues the Canadian politics geeks know to watch out for now that she's a political figure as well. So just a reminder to everybody to be vigilant. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Naming conventions on articles on federal Ministers (positions), departments and problems with Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth
It appears that the titles of articles on federal Ministers use the current styles of the position (e.g. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship instead of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). I wonder if it may be wise to use the "actual" title of position (e.g. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Minister of Industry) for these articles since they are provided by law and don't change easily by government of the day. I understand WP:COMMONNAME might ask for the currently commonly used name referred to by government and media; however as WP:OFFICIAL explains as one rationale to use the common name: "Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current." In this case the statutory names change more slowly and would only change with significant government restructuring.
If we don't change the naming convention, then we need to fix the articles. Some articles problematically refer to the statutory names as previous or former names when they are still the official names in law.
As well, the articles related to the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs have misleading information (perhaps due to the confusing common names/styles). Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs still exists but styled as the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth is also misleading since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth does not exist (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Youth are separate positions); and it's wrong to say it's "previously" the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs when the Minister of ICIA still exists. (I'm trying to restructure these articles.)
In a similar vein, it might be better to apply the statutory names for the federal departments (e.g. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada as Department of Industry (Canada)).
At least, the statutory names for ministers and departments should be reflected in the article and infobox.--Zhantongz (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Zhantongz: I agree. If COMMONNAME is going to change every four years, this is a case where OFFICIALNAME makes more sense. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Due to today's announcement of criminal charges against Thunder Bay mayor Keith Hobbs, I'm requesting some willing watchlisters to assist in watching the article for BLP issues. I've applied semi-protection for the time being to prevent drive-by IP assassinations, and of course we can always up it to full protection if needed — but for the moment, registered editors are not blocked from editing the article. At present, however, there are only four people on all of Wikipedia watchlisting the article including me — so we need additional sets of eyes to monitor the WP:BLP-related legal sensitivities. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Monarchy of Canada
There's a discussion continuing for over a month here, more input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
August 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
A new WiR initiative starting in August
There's been a recent rewrite on this article by an IP editor. It looks like some constructive changes and updates, but also a lot of removal of critical information on the company (revisions). I don't have a whole lot of time to examine the changes, but thought I'd flag it in case some else does. The Interior (Talk) 00:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I simply wanted to let you know that Wikimedia Canada has put a new concept in place: WikiClubs. They are local groups of Wikimedians in a given city or region that gather to encourage local participation, meeting other Wikimedians, sharing resources and organize activities. If you are interested, please see the website. Some WikiClubs are already starting to organize themselves in some cities.
Do not hesitate to contact me for more information. I will also be at Wikimania for those who are going or are from the Montreal region. Thank you, Amqui (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Calgary airport question
Hello, I have been editing Calgary International Airport's article in an attempt to make it a Good Article. However I'm stuck at the large Airlines and Destinations table. Per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, "the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." Would this statement violate WP:V? It's a lot of information with no clear reference that a reader can access. Searching the timetables can be a tedious process, for example with all of WestJet's destinations from Calgary.
These tables have been the subject of many discussions over at WP:AIRPORTS, including an RFC that pointed to my question. I'm not looking for a full-blown detailed discussion at this time (I'd do that at WP:AIRPORTS), but I am looking for some advice from editors outside the airport-editing sphere and without any such biases. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I personally find those tables useful as a source to contribute to Wikivoyage lol. Amqui (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- That might be an indication that the tables are better suited for Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia... I'm starting to feel that just listing the airlines is much easier. An easy source is here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- We are allowed to sparingly use primary sources to verify uncontroversial information that doesn't impact the question of basic notability. For example, if a person's notability has already been properly demonstrated by reliable source coverage, then we are allowed to cite their own self-published website for supplementary biographical details like where they live, or the fact that they identify as LGBT, or things like that — the key is to understand the distinction between "source that is here to show notability" and "source that is not aiding notability per se but simply verifying additional information". The first kind does have to be media coverage independent of the subject's own self-published web presence, but the second kind doesn't. So it's not all that unreasonable to deem certain pieces of information which don't impact the base notability claim, but are there for purely informational purposes, as explicitly or implicitly referenceable to the airport's own website — it does raise the question of whether the article is getting adequately maintained if and when the airport's destination list actually changes, but even cited references don't always get updated promptly when they change or disappear, so having references explicitly given in the article wouldn't actually change that concern. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good points, Bearcat. This would just be a case of listing destinations - no interpretation involved. So I think primary sources can be used, with explicit referencing like the rest of the article. Regarding adequate maintenance, for major airports in the US/Europe, there is regular updating by users and IP editors - I've seen new destinations pop up in the tables minutes after the news announcement (there are great sources like this one for such information). In the previous RFC there was a little talk about how articles on airports in other parts of the world don't get as much attention... Updating is not as frequent, but of course the tables do not have to be up-to-date 100% of the time. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)