Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Edit war at 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

Can someone help me at 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election? Some guy is trying to delete almost every candidate from the infobox based on his personal opinion. Pinging User:Ahunt, I know you had the same issues with that editor on that article as well. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Should just block them.Moxy- 02:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like one of them needs a timeout. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I also would like to add "based on his personal opinion" is a ludicrous, untrue strawman; I have always held the belief election infoboxes should give a summary of a given election, not a total overview of every candidate even if they're clearly irrelevant (1 % or less). Based on the margin of victory, media coverage and >10 % result for the other candidates it seems logical not to include them in the SUMMARY. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

At least don't have the audacity to not name me the next time around Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone care to tap into this discussion at Conservative Party of Canada?

Interesting discussion at Talk:Conservative Party of Canada, Removing "Internal Factions" from infobox. The user proposing to remove internal factions has brought up some good but debateable points. I'd like a few more editors to voice their opinion before reaching a decision. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution of Canada

There's a disagreement at Amendments to the Constitution of Canada over whether or not the legislatures of Quebec and Saskatchewan have unilaterally amended the Constitution Act 1867. There was a bit of back and forth over this last year. Then it seemed to die down until an editor revived it a couple of months ago and it's been on a low boil ever since. If anyone'd like to help settle on a resolution, it'd be appreciated. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Conservatives seat count

A little while ago, I sorta got confused with the numbering of Conservative seats in the House of Commons, since the August 1, 2023 resignation of O'Toole. Is the current count 117 or 116. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

When I check the House of Commons site it listed 117; that was last week, I think. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make the corrections. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Local pronunciation of Toronto

At Talk:Toronto#"Local" pronunciation is archaic I brought up how the "local" pronunciation provided in the lead is archaic and doesn't reflect contemporary pronunciation. I provided sources, and even showed how the sources already in the article contradict the claims in the lead. Nobody's fixed it, and the article is locked so IPs can't edit it, so could someone please handle it? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:3409:BCEE:6CAB:A50B (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bump. I've provided additional sources, including an academic PDF, but nobody has stepped up to fix the article. Could someone please do it, or unlock the page so I can? It surprises me that such a prominent problem with such an important article can just be ignored like this. 115.36.200.66 (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe other Canadians don’t think that the pronunciation of the name of a city in Ontario is an important or prominent problem. 😉 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: They thought it was important enough to add a counterfactual "local" pronunciation with three (count 'em three) inline citations in the opening sentence of the article.

But this speaks poorly of the project as a whole when the response is not to fix demonstrated misinformation in an article, but to respond to concerns with snark. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:953D:466F:C6EB:B765 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The emoticon indicates it wasn't meant snarkily. Anyway, this isn't just a Toronto issue; I tried repeatedly to fix the Fredericton pronunciation and kept having it changed back to something decades out of date; I've given up on that. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

So misinformation wins? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:CAE8:7DB2:1246:B9B8 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Without really good up-to-date citations, yes. Even audio clips from local CBC announcers isn't good enough for some people. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but that's not what's going on at Talk:Toronto. There, I've provided good, up-to-date citations, such as this paper from Carleton University. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:AE4C:7DF0:1BA5:297E (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the value in including a "local pronunciation" that is just the typical slurring of a dialect, for any city. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Kawnhr here... how is this notable or useful? I don't see a "locally New YAWK" mention in the lead of New York City. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I said the same thing on the talk page. Why not express your thoughts there instead of here? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:14DC:F249:33F:BDD4 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I expressed it here because "we shouldn't include local pronunciations in the lead" applies to other pages as well, such as Calgary (although now that I link it, I see its "local pronunciation" has been removed). But sure, if you'd like, I can chime in on Talk:Toronto. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)#Requested move 21 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Trudeau sidebar

pls see Template talk:Trudeau sidebar#Do we need this? Moxy- 04:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

List of public art in Toronto

I'm working on List of public art in Toronto, if any project members are interested in collaborating! Thanks, --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tourism in Nunavut

Tourism in Nunavut has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Year in Canada pages, needing citations/verifications

Just noticed that many Year in Canada pages, have been tagged by an editor (@JoeNMLC:) with citation required tags, recently, at the top of pages & top of sections, etc. Anybody have sources for all these pages? GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, a few of them, have had such tags for over a decade. Either the sources haven't been provided yet, or they were & the tags just weren't removed. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

MEVC peer review

Still looking for feedback on this peer review. Volcanoguy 17:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Some additional eyes at Hardeep Singh Nijjar and the talk page would be helpful. This is the article about the Canadian Sikh separatist leader who was murdered in Surrey in June, and whose murder has created the current diplomatic tensions between Canada and India.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Redirect for "Dominion of Canada"

"Dominion of Canada" is currently a redirect to the article on the Name of Canada. There is a proposal to change the redirect to the Canada article:Redirect: Dominion of Canada Anyone who is interested in the issue is invited to participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 20#Dominion of canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Centre Ice party

Since the announcement yesterday about New Brunswick independent MLA Dominic Cardy launching a new federal political party, there has been some material added to his biography. I've commented out a part of the infobox in that article which indicated Cardy is interim leader of that party, on the basis that the party was just announced and has only begun seeking the necessary signatures for Elections Canada certification, and he cannot be leader of a party that does not exist yet. My edit hasn't been contested (I only just did it) but I'm posting here for different opinions on this.

I've also created a few redirects to that section, from Canadian Future Party, Centre Ice Conservatives, and Centre Ice Canadians. The party seems to have support from a number of well-known Conservatives so I presume an article will be written at some point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello Canadian Wikipedians' notice board:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Dominion of Canada at Talk:MV Missourian (1921)

There is now a discussion of the use of "Dominion of Canada" at Talk:MV Missourian (1921). Anyone who is interested is invited to join the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with an article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites

There seem to be a group of users who are editing articles to insinuate that churches in Canada were/are being burned by indigenous or indigenous-aligned activists. To my knowledge, no such information exists, because the only connections between the arsons and the people in question are speculative at this point (and the few charges laid pursuant to the arsons appear to have specifically excluded ideology or politics as the motivating factor). What's going on with Wikipedia? First the Polish WWII thing, now this? How much of Wiki is being used to push false narratives? Has the project grown too large (read:unwieldy) to be useful? In academia we basically forbid students from using this website due to this and myriad other reasons. 2605:B100:1108:7B82:A1D8:D608:BAFA:A1E9 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

IP is apparently evading a block on 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Reported to blocking admin. Meters (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Meters: According to WHOIS queries, 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2605:b100:1108:7b82:a1d8:d608:bafa:a1e9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in different locations (Ottawa and Montreal respectively) but the same provider (Bell). It would not make sense to take action on an anonymous user in Ottawa to use a Montreal IP address to evade a block, so the "block evasion" reasoning for the block of the Montreal IP may not be correct. Eyesnore 03:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not all about the reported location. The 2605: IP is blocked 6 months for block evasion, and the page is semi protected for 1 year. Meters (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Climate Normals 1991 to 2020

It looks like today, when I viewed the Canadian Climate Normals page, Environment and Climate Change Canada has released the first phase of the new 1991-2020 normals! The data is quite limited to a few stations right now and as such, I think we should start updating the climate boxes in Canadian cities. Use the Template:Toronto weatherbox as an example since rain/snow/humidex/wind chill/sunshine (no longer measured) is from older 1981-2010 data and we should keep it for now. One big thing is that they use thredded station data for extremes (similar to extremes info in the States) so we do not need to cite individual montly data for recent extremes between 2012-2022. For sources that used the ftp url for the older 1981-2010 data, I am in the process of replacing them with web archive since this allows you to download the excel files as the ftp sources had extra data not published on their websites. Good luck editing and updating the climate data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yaroslav Hunka#Requested move 3 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yaroslav Hunka#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 19:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous history and treaty governance reference in geographic articles

New editor so apologies if this note is in the wrong place or asks an overly obvious question. I started to edit a page for a lake in Ontario (Lake Joseph) that mentions the current uses and users, and the associations organized to represent the interests of the shoreline residents. It seems to me that there should also be some recognition that the land and waters have an indigenous history and traditional indigenous uses, and that the lands and waters are still governed today by multiple treaties with First Nations. I think that could be accomplished in a couple of sentences, and would provide more context for a reader regarding the lake in question. Is there a standard approach to this question or guidance for editors for how to reflect the indigenous information overlay to benefit the reader? WalkingUp (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So far as I know, there's no standard format. You could take a look at the articles on other lakes to see how the issue has been handled. For instance, check out the "Human history" section of Lake Ontario. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• That's a very helpful model - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingUp (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Future-class

See also: Template talk:WikiProject Canada/Archive 2 § class=Future, and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30 § Project-independent quality assessments

Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we would need to remove any non-standard classes like Future-class from your project banner. Would you like to keep track of future events in a different way, perhaps by using a parameter |future=yes which would then populate a category. Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:Future-Class Canada-related articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Future-class has now been removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada is hiring a Program Officer

Hello Canadian Wikipedians! Wikimedia Canada is hiring a Program Officer. The person will be responsible for implementing various programs identified by the organization: WikiClubs, Francophonie, Indigenous Culture and Knowledge, High-Impact Topics, Collective for Free Knowledge, and Research and Development. If you are interest, please find more info on our website. Deadline to apply: Oct. 29 - 5pm EST

Bonjour les Wikipédiens canadiens ! Wikimédia Canada recrute une Chargée / un Chargé de programmes. La personne travaillera à la mise en œuvre de divers programmes identifiés par l'organisation : WikiClubs, Francophonie, Culture et savoirs autochtones, Sujets à fort impact, Collectif pour la connaissance libre, et Recherche et développement. Vous pouvez trouver plus d'informations sur notre site web. Date limite de candidature : 29 octobre - 17h EST SophieWMCA (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Finish the series {{Canadian premiers, 1850s}} through {{Canadian premiers, 2020s}}

Hello,

I began the timeline series of all Canadian federal/provincial premiers, and all the top-level viceroys, starting with {{Canadian premiers, 1850s}} and continuing onwards sporadically. Anyone who finishes the series (which currently also has entries for the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 2000s) within a timely manner will receive a barnstar. (Also ideal would be the extension of the series with {{Canadian viceroys, 1920s}}.)

Thanks,

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CanLawCase

Template:CanLawCase has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wabasca, Alberta#Requested move 19 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wabasca, Alberta#Requested move 19 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

About adding additional place name units/areas

Greetings. I have a curious question. Is it somehow possible to add certain populated places or place name units/areas (depending on an article active on a current or former local level municipality within Ontario? For instance, the only source by far I could find is this: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1346772&CVD=1346785&CPV=35&CST=01012021&CLV=2&MLV=4 It's from Statistics Canada. On there, the viewer can click on the 'SGC Code' link to take him/her to the assigned province(s), then to click on either of their assigned 'census divisions' (i.e.: counties or regional municipalities, etc.) and then to click on either of their assigned 'census subdivisions' (i.e.: municipalities, present-day townships, etc.). And once he/she clicks on a census subdivision's code, that could share some place names of the populated places associated with that census subdivision. Any thoughts or advice or feedback, etc.? Please lemme know when you can. jlog3000 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused, and not at all clear on what you mean. Could you please be more specific about what you want to add to what, in what context? Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 PEI general election

Hello. Are the results of the 2023 Prince Edward Island general election, now official? Just curious, as I'm planning on removing the 'preliminary' bits from the current MLAs' bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Elections Prince Edward Island site lists Official Results; I haven't checked whether they match the Wiki article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Somebody should certainly double-check the results listed in our articles against the official certified results to ensure that they match, but obviously an election that took place six months ago has had its results certified and officialized by now — that virtually always takes place within a couple of weeks, and the preliminary tag is because we tend to fill in the tables based on the unofficial media reportage on election day and aren't always prompt about checking them against the final numbers. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've written down the official numbers from the Elections PEI website. Will begin implementing them, later today. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Implementation on templates-in-question, have been completed. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Harold Innis

I have nominated Harold Innis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming meetup

Further information will be available at Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/Wikipedia Day 2024. Hopefully I'll get to meet more of my fellow Canadians :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

PEI legislative assembly page, needs updating

Howdy. Does anyone know how to update the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island page's - Members of the Legislative Assembly, Seating plan & Party standings sections? Jamie Fox resigned as a Progressive Conservative MLA, effective 11 November 2023 & so updates are required. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I've updated them successfully, accept for the Seating plan map. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Meetup/edit-athon in Ottawa

Hello folks, the Rideau Rockcliffe Community Resource Centre in Ottawa has reached out to me to run an edit-athon/ Wiki tutorial on December 2. If anyone is interested in attending or would like to help me out, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Ottawa/Edit-athon 2023 or on their eventbrite page. Cheers! -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Source for old election data

A while ago, I had moved a lot of election date into templates. Such as moving this to templates such as this. I was asked for sources of data. Where do I find them? </nowiki>Ebbedlila (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, how does one add references to a template? to avoid this type of edit? Ebbedlila (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, there are a few sources for historical election results depending on the jurisdiction. A general source for provincial governments is the Canadian Election Database (https://canadianelectionsdatabase.ca/PHASE5/) created by Anthony Sayers of the University of Calgary. For federal elections, the Library of Parliament has a database with the results of each election by electoral district (https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/ElectionsRidings/Elections?permalink=1243). For more recent elections (generally post 1980s) there will be official reports of the federal or provincial chief electoral officer (federal, BC) and some provinces have published historical materials (Nova Scotia, Electoral history of British Columbia, 1871-1986, Centennial series (Legislative Assembly of Alberta), 1869-2005: A century of democracy). For how to incorporate the source in the template, there is a source element for Template:Canadian election result (e.g., template:canelec) with "CANelec/source|hide=". An example you may look at is Template:2019 Alberta general election/Calgary-Buffalo which has a Elections Alberta source for results both digital and PDF report, and a source for expenditures. Hope this helps. Caddyshack01 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Elections Canada has everything after 1996; that should be a good enough source for vote totals and names. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking to replace promotional content in Canada Goose article

Hello! I'm a Canada Goose employee working as a COI editor to improve the company's article. This WikiProject being the go-to place for all things Canada, I figured I would stop by and ask for help.

On the Goose Talk page, I've asked editors to review a new Products section that I have drafted. The purpose of this new section is to strengthen the article by providing concrete details about the goods that Canada Goose manufactures and sells. I'm thinking this section should replace the existing Marketing one, which has a lot of fluff about the company's branding that probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. The Goose article has a "written like an advertisement" tag at the top, and I believe that cutting the Marketing section will at least begin to fix that problem.

If anyone here would like to take a look at my Products draft, please use this link to view my Talk page post. If anyone has feedback, you can contact me below this post or take the discussion to the Goose Talk page. Thank you Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

So you're getting paid to edit here, and you want us to help you do your job for free? Have I got that right? Hey, I get paid at my job, but I never expect people to come help me do my job for free. No thanks. I will, however, now start monitoring that article to make sure it remains NPOV and no trade puffery on behalf of your employer's marketing plans. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, thanks for replying. To be clear, I'm following the site's conflict of interest guidelines, which forbid me from directly editing the Canada Goose article. Those guidelines also stipulate that I'm supposed to suggest changes on the Goose Talk page and then let independent editors decide whether my suggestions are worthy of being implemented. So in short, yes, I do need help from volunteers. I completely understand if you don't want to provide that help. Please don't feel like I'm putting you or anyone else at this WP under obligation. My post above is simply a flare for editors who may be interested in working on the Goose article, which has been designated as in need of improvement.

Again, I appreciate your concern. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and that I'm trying to go about this whole thing the right way. Cheers! Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Requested move 21 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Requested move 21 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Government of Canada

I see now that New Zealand Government, Australian Government & Government of the United Kingdom have updated infoboxes. Perhaps it's time for the infobox at Government of Canada to likewise be updated. Note, the 11 other Commonwealth realms don't have governemt pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated how? It would help if you would specify what needs updating. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The newer infoboxes are more stream-lined, smaller. New Zealand, Australia & the United Kingdom are using the "Template:Infobox executive government" style, while Canada is using the "Template:Infobox government" style. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley City Centre station

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley City Centre station. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Rene Levesque's nationality

There's a dispute at the Rene Levesque page, as to whether he was a Canadian politician. GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that this is a mis-characterization of the dispute. But more input is certainly required. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned there. I'll be opening an RFC 'here', if the content dispute is still ongoing, in about a week's time. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We really do need more input. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The topographic map on Nova Scotia shows Pictou Island as a separate province

That little island between PEI and NS. I first noted this issue on the talk page for NS on the day I created my account (feb 2). Can anyone fix this? JM (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Rene Lévesque RfC

There is now an RfC the article talk page here, concerning how Lévesque should be described in the lead sentence. Additional input would be welcomed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Currency

There is a discussion at Template talk:Currency#Canadian dollar doesn't match 4217 style about whether the Canadian currency should be displayed as CA$, Can$, CAD or something else when used in an international context (ie, when it could be confused with the US dollar, Australian dollar, etc). Please comment there, not here.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was "CA$" and the {{currency}} template has been updated accordingly.  Stepho  talk  23:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Royal Canadian Air Cadets has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the Ottawa Senators (1992–)

History of the Ottawa Senators (1992–) has been nominated for a 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. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hudson's Bay Centre#Requested move 26 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hudson's Bay Centre#Requested move 26 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

René Lévesque and nationality in the lede

Following the RfC mentioned above, this is being discussed again in the section here. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there is a second Talk section to discuss this proposes change to version proposed by the RfC closer]; the section to which Darryl Kerrigan discusses the issue for which this was Darryl's proposed solution. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - both discussions should be merged into one, at the talkpage-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

One is a proposal to change substantially the RfC close because certain editors disagree with it; the other is a proposed change to the word order enacted by the closer. I don't really see a valid reason why they should be merged or treated as "the same discussion". Newimpartial (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't an attempt to change the outcome of the close, but an attempt to continue the discussion as the closer invited us to have. In his closing comments S Marshall wrote Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided. Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. Characterizing attempts to do what the closer invited us to do, to continue to discuss whether Québécois should be in the first sentence, is particularly unhelpful. I encourage everyone review the closing comments and the continued discussion on the talk page, and attempt to continue the discussion in a respectful manner there. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that editors can debate any topic related to article content, on Talk pages, but revert-warring against the version the closer produced to implement their close is not an appropriate form of debate. The closer also said, However, in this discussion I can't find a consensus that would let me choose between "Canadian" and "Canadian Québécois". In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. That decision denotes the current, formal, consensus, and if an editor disagrees with the formal result then a formal process is required to overturn it. Regular, discussion-based consensus can identify improvements to the RfC closer's version, but BOLD edits that dismiss the closer's rationale out of hand aren't really something to revert-war into place IMO.

Anyway, the page certainly needs more eyes, so I hope some of you will come. Newimpartial (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Friend, you continue to misunderstand and characterize the close. I suggest you read it again. Among other things, S Marshall wrote Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided. Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. Your claim that a further RfC is required is directly contrary to the closing comments. Your lone opposition, does not trigger a requirement for an RfC. I strongly suggest you reconsider, continue to discuss, and make room for others to do the same.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the Lesveque page off my watchlist. IMHO, the content dispute is on the verge of morphing into an editorial dispute, with WP:EW reports on the horizon. PS - 'Tis a shame, how messed up the intro is getting. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

New Democrats

FYI, the scope and name of New Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion at talk:New Democrats -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Municipal elections "by riding"

Wanted to raise this for discussion here, because I'm not sure how to fix it. There's been a gradual push in recent years of migrating Quebec municipal election results templates to use the standardized "Canadian election result" template framework instead of their own distinct format — but because the "Canadian election result" framework is designed for federal and provincial elections, it autogenerates "YYYY [Specific Polity] election results by riding" categories and leaves no way for those to be corrected or wiped out, with the result that Category:Quebec municipal election results templates has 12 subcategories for "YYYY Montreal municipal election results by riding".

There are, further, three one-entry Ottawa municipal election results "by riding" categories sitting in the Category:Canada municipal election results by riding templates parent, which are even more ridiculous than the Montreal ones since they each only contain a citywide mayoral template rather than any ward race templates, while the relatively few ward race templates present in Category:Ottawa election results templates are still manually coded rather than transcluding the national framework, and thus aren't autogenerating any "by riding" categories at all.

Now, obviously I don't need to explain to Canadians that "ridings" in municipal elections aren't a thing at all — those are only provincial or federal, while municipal elections are organized by wards or boroughs, not ridings. But since the categories are autogenerated by the template framework, they're impossible to fix or remove without massive template edits that may fuck up other things in the process.

Montreal, to be fair, has enough templates that subcatting them by year instead of just leaving them all in one massive citywide or provincewide category is probably reasonable, although they absolutely shouldn't have "by riding" in their names — but if there are only a handful of templates involved in Ottawa, then that city only needs one category for them instead of a separate single-entry category for each individual year. But as this is all autogenerated crap, it can't be fixed just by renaming or moving things without making changes to the template coding to abort "by riding" in municipal elections, so it needs some discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Anybody? Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

One river, two articles

At Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) and Wolastoq, both articles are about exactly the same river. There has been discussion about this on both articles. Should they be merged? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

They should, but I expect no consensus will be reached until the name is officially changed by government. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Both Canada and the United State call it the same name. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

And until the New Brunswick government changes the name to Wolastoq, some people will keep resurrecting a page with that name, no matter how many times the articles are merged. Even a redirect page won't satisfy some people.

That could just be my cynicism talking, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They should be merged, and we should probably go with the name that is better recognized internationally as the article title. I imagine both the US and Canada would need to recognize a new name as portions of the river pass through both Maine and New Brunswick. If they don’t both recognize the new name, the old name is likely to still be the WP:COMMONNAME.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, without a doubt they should be merged with the common name kept as the article's title. Masterhatch (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely need to be merged. As you say, it's two articles for the exact same subject under different names. It's like if there was an Engwiki article on Poland called "Poland" and another Engwiki article on Poland called "Lechia". That second article also has a weird first sentence: Wolastoq (Maliseet-Passamaquoddy: “The River of the Good Wave”), changed in 1604 by Samuel de Champlain to Fleuve Saint-Jean (English: Saint John River), is a river flowing within the Dawnland region for approximately 418 miles (673 km). It identifies the river in purely First Nations terms and not in conventional geographic terms. Overall it gives the impression of just being the Saint John River article rewritten from a First Nations POV, making it a WP:POVFORK. JM (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton - Perhaps folks will continue to recreate it, but it will likely continue even if New Brunswick calls for the name change because ultimately it is the Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC) who has the final say in Canada at least. Activists hoping for the change have admitted as much, saying they think the province would nonetheless have "great say in the naming". Even then, the Americans don't need to recognize the decisions of New Brunswick or GNBC. So Wikipedia naming disputes are likely to continue until all three (or four if Maine has an opinion) are in agreement. I agree with JM2023 that Wolastoq is a WP:POVFORK. None of the governments currently recognize Wolastoq as the name of the river. In fact, the provincial racism commissioner just recommended some sort of compromise of "Wolastoq Saint John" for the name, which seems to have been immediately rejected as "tone deaf" by indigenous activists. If the article, keeps being created contrary to consensus protection might be needed for the redirect. Though I guess then we could start getting variations like Wolastoq River, Wolastoq river or perhaps even Wolastoq Saint John, and then might find ourselves in a game of WP:WHACKAMOLE.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Obvious merge. And WP:SALT the redirect to prevent new articles from being created. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Obvious merge, and protect the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion (or presumably merger). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolastoq.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed gov't infoboxes to the 'government executive' format

Howdy. I've went ahead (since nobody objected weeks ago, when I proposed it) & changed the infoboxes in the Canadian government & provincial governments to the "government executive" format. This lines up with the infoboxes at the New Zealand Government, Australian Government & Government of the United Kingdom pages. Feel free to add further information into them. PS - I don't know how to change the 'state' to 'province', in the infoboxes. So would appreciate it, if somebody can figure it out & do the task. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: That article is bizzare. It starts out by saying The term Government of Canada (French: Gouvernement du Canada) refers specifically to the executive, which includes ministers of the Crown (together in the Cabinet) and the federal civil service (whom the Cabinet direct); it is alternatively known as His Majesty's Government (French: Gouvernement de Sa Majesté) and is corporately branded as the Government of Canada. But then the article goes on to describe the entire federal level of the Canadian state apparatus, not just the executive/administrative Government. So when I saw your proposal I wasn't sure whether to support or oppose because on the one hand the "Government of Canada" is a government in the executive sense, like in other Commonwealth realms, but on the other hand its article also covers the entire federal apparatus, including the legislature, which is not a part of "HM Government". I would say that either the old infobox has to stay and all references to the government as solely the executive be removed, or the new infobox stays with the article drastically overhauled to only cover the actual administrative/executive Government. I prefer the latter option, since it's the correct definition of the subject "Government of Canada". JM (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023: I made the changes to bring them in line with the British, Australian (I just finished the Australian state gov'ts, too) & New Zealand government pages. I find the 'new' infoboxes are more compact & 'maybe' less archaic in appearance. If one wants to make additions to the 'new infoboxes'? I believe there's room. As for the article body of the federal government & the provincial governments? I wouldn't oppose cutting them down to being just about the 'executive'. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored "Infobox government" to the federal gov't page & all ten provincial gov't pages. Had to do the same, for the six Australian gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: To be clear, I think the ultimate result should be reducing those pages to the topic of the executive "HM Governments". If we do end up reducing those articles into being solely about the actual "HM Governments", then presumably the new infoboxes you had put there would be the better ones for the reduced articles. But right now, as the articles cover the entire institutional apparatus, the old infoboxes which you have restored is the best for those articles, and I think that those infoboxes should remain unless we get those articles sorted out into being about the actual executive governments.

I first noticed the problem with the Canadian government article years ago before I had an account and started editing, but I sort of forgot about it. The problem is basically that any article on an HM government that states the government is synonymous with the executive/administrative apparatus (which it is), but then describes all aspects of the state apparatus, is an article that is contradicting itself.

Now I would attempt reducing the articles to the executive government subjects myself, but it's probably the case that people don't want someone going in and just removing tons of article content, especially without much of a discussion; but I don't know, I don't have a lot of experience here. Maybe people would rather the non-executive parts of the articles to be split off and merged with other articles, but at the same time, we already have giant articles on the respective parliaments and legislatures and court systems, so I don't know if it would be a negligible loss to just get rid of the content from the HM government articles instead of splitting and merging.

Anyway, see the difference between Government of Canada and Government of the United Kingdom for a good example of what I mean; ideally, to get the new infoboxes in there, we would need the Canada article to look much more like the UK article. JM (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

May not have to change the content, after all. See my suggestion below. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023: would it be alright if we keep "Infobox government" & change the parameters 'Head of state', 'Vice-regal representative', 'Head of government' over to 'Monarch', 'Governor-General', 'Prime Minister' & for the provincials, change over to 'Monarch', 'Lieutenant Governor' & 'Premier', then list the current office holders? GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure... it's a matter of whether we want generic office - office name or office name - current office holder; i.e., do we want head of state - monarch or monarch - Charles III. Right now, looking at the Gov of Canada and Gov of NS articles, it's in the format of generic office - office name. To be honest, I prefer the current format of generic office - office name because of its ability to show the generalized office type: it tells us the monarch is head of state, the governor-general or lieutenant governor is vicegerent, and the premier is head of government. If you wanted, and if people are fine with it, could you possibly do what the Government of the United Kingdom article does and just put the current office holder in brackets? Although I don't necessarily agree that we need to put the current office holders, I think a solution that still shows the generic offices is better than one that doesn't show them.

In any case, we still have articles that contradict themselves by telling us that the government is the executive and then going on to describe the entire system, so I still think that we have that problem, no matter what infobox situation we settle for. JM (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@5225C: & @Mitch Ames: this discussion is kinda tied in with the Australian states. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Revising the scope and topic of the Government of Canada article

I've started a new discussion here on revising the scope and topic of the Government of Canada article based on the discussion above and at WP:AWNB. It's about reducing that article to be about the executive/administrative "Government" itself and not the entire federal level already covered at Politics of Canada, in order to get an article that's actually about the executive "Government". JM (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Nicolet, Quebec

Greetings. I wanted to seek this group's assistance in referencing a statement that has been in the Nicolet, Quebec article. Specifically, there is a statement The residents of the town pronounce the final "t" in Nicolet, however people outside of the region do not. Please can someone here, help me reference that statement? The closest I got was this reference. [1] If any of you have a few spare cycles, please can you help with this one? Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:French Quebecers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:French Quebecers has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Category:French_Quebecers ......PKT(alk) 12:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heritage Regional High School

The article Heritage Regional High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cited to naught but a single primary (404) source for 16.86 years, 99.54% unverified, and exhibiting no evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yves Francois Blanchet

There is an ongoing Talk Page discussion in regards to the Infobox being used at Yves-François Blanchet. Further discussion is welcome for consensus. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yves-Fran%C3%A7ois_Blanchet#Infobox_photo PascalHD (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Before confederation" and "Confederation" parameters in prov/territorial infobox

I was going to raise this at Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada's talk page, but figured it would get more eyes on the issue here.

Basically, I noticed the usage of the "Before confederation" and "Confederation" parameters within the province/territories infobox is rather problematic and confusing in how they're used for some provinces/territories, specifically Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nunavut, and Yukon.

While I can see that the "Confederation" parameter in these articles is being used to show the date when these administrative units were created, the infobox's current wording of just "Confederation", is something I can see uninitiated readers easily misconstruing as the date these areas were actually incorporated into Canada, rather than when these administrative unit were created.

The "Before confederation" parameter and its use is also rather confusing in these articles (and some respects, just wrong). While I assume its current usage is intending to just show the preceding administrative unit, the wording "Before confederation" implies that the listed items there existed prior to Confederation/1867 (and if read in the way the wording implies, is just wrong, as these preceding administrative units were created well after Confederation).

Basically wondering if these parameters should be retitled to better reflect their usage in these articles, or if a separate paramter should be created for these cases. Leventio (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for alternate wording? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Changing the attribute to Previously seems the simplest solution. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion that the usage is incorrect. Confederation was a process; it did not end on July 1, 1867. It continued as new provinces joined. That's why Louis Riel, Amor de Cosmos, and Joey Smallwood are referred to as Fathers of Confederation. For Saskatchewan and Alberta, Confederation occurred on September 1, 1905. Also, provinces are not "administrative units". They are created by the Constitution Act, 1867, exactly the same as the federal government, and within the powers assigned to them by the Constitution, they are sovereign. They do not receive their powers by delegation, which is the usual definition of administrative units. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Most provinces were colonies in their own right before joining the country; territories and the provinces created from them were not. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how that’s relevant. The Manitoba Act, the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act all state that those provinces have equal status with the other provinces. Or are you suggesting that the Prairie provinces are second-class? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus, Ontario and Quebec didn’t exist until the Constitution Act was passed in 1867. If there’s some special rule for the Prairie provinces because they didn’t exist before 1870 or 1905, that same rule should apply to Ontario and Quebec, which didn’t exist before 1867. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that Alberta and Saskatchewan didn't join confederation, they were already part of confederation when they were Districts within the Northwest Territories. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it can be interpreted as such, others can easily read it to mean before the entire process had begun. Simply put, I'm pointing out that the wording as is is something that can be easily misconstrued to mean something else entirely (especially for an uninitiated reader who doesn't even know what Confederation is or its process). The fact we're even arguing what constitutes being "in/joining Confederation" above would indicate to me that the wording in itself needs adjustment for clarity's sake. Surely we can word this better to better reflect/convey the intended meaning, something along the lines of "Date formed" and "Previously" (I'm not tied to this wording, just giving out a suggestion as Nikki asked for one).

PS. Also, just feel the need to point out, that I wasn't saying the use of Confederation was wrong (as I said in my initial post, I can clearly see what the parameter is going for), the only issue I raised for that is it can easily be misconstrued. What I did say was wrong is how the "Before confederation" is used (and is why I only said that in said paragraph...), as it's listing out units that would not be constituted as "before Confederation" (ie. District of Yukon, District of Saskatchewan, etc., none of which would be units considered separate/before Confederation). The only way that its usage somewhat makes sense is if we interpret "before Confederation" to mean before these provinces/terrritories "joined/formed", to which I would point back to my earlier point that the parameter needs to be worded better to make this clearer. Leventio (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Presuming there aren't any ongoing issues concerning the above discussion, I would propose changing "Confederation" to "Date formed" and "Before Confederation" to "Previously" (the latter being a suggestion I took from G. Timothy Walton) as the proposed wording would (imo) more clearly convey the intended meaning. Leventio (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Date province" or simply "Province" might be better. It might be better to emulate Infobox settlement, which uses established_title and established_date attributes, allowing for more flexibility. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If this change is accepted, it should be the same for all provinces and territories. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, looking over the infobox settlement arrangement, I think using the established_title and established_date arrangement might be the best, as it would allow for flexibility between the provs/territories.

Good article reassessment for Scarborough, Ontario

Scarborough, Ontario has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Saskatchewan Highway 16

Saskatchewan Highway 16 has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Demographics of Toronto neighbourhoods

The article Demographics of Toronto neighbourhoods has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced and appears to be original research

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Merging of Canada Health and Social Transfer, Canada Health Transfer, and Canada Social Transfer

These programs are all related through a common history (CHST was split into CST and CHT), but the pages are all a little stump-y. I feel like they would benefit from merger into a single article with a History section.

Any thoughts? Kwkintegrator (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would prefer keeping them seperate, as the latter two are separate programs. I'm thinking of how we have separate articles for split and combined ministries etc. Really the only page that's short is the CST one and I don't see it as a huge problem. JM (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad climate chart data edits

It should be known that a user (Special:Contributions/Donkeybread) has gone through and "updated" a number of climate charts with new 1991-2020 data but only updated certain sections of the charts with new data leaving the old 1981-2010 data mixed in with it in the same charts and then changed the header of the charts to say that all the old data and new is now all new "1991-2020" data. This here[2] is an example. For some reason ECCC (Environment Canada) has not released complete 1991-2020 data for certain locations so that's part of the problem here.

This new added data at the very least should be reverted, but that would need to be done manually unfortunately. At best it could be added as a separate but incomplete climate chart, but that's a lot of work too and I don't know if ECCC has said if they even have and are going to release more data for these incomplete locations. Air.light (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

They are not the only person to have mixed together different periods. See this by Fumikas Sagisavas (talk · contribs) does the same thing. However, it is defined as to which is which. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the contributions it seems that the user has done some self-reversions. Is this resolved? JM (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

PR for John Rolph: feedback requested

I am looking for editors to provide feedback on John Rolph, a Toronto-area politician, lawyer and doctor from the 19th century. I am hoping to nominate the article to FAC later this year. The PR can be found here. Thanks for your help! Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge Proposal: "Provincial and territorial courts in Canada" into "Court system of Canada"

I've just created a merge proposal to merge Provincial and territorial courts in Canada into Court system of Canada. Discussion is on Talk:Court system of Canada. Anyone who is interested, please drop by. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing Requested Move Discussion

There is a proposed and ongoing requested move discussion to move 2023–24 US winter to 2023–24 North American winter. You can participate in the discussion here: Talk:2023–24 US winter#Requested move 7 March 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Blaze Island

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blaze Island.
There is an additional Blaze island near the US-Canada border, on Canada's side. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Elisa (restaurant) at AfD + photo request

Elisa (restaurant) has been nominated for deletion, if any notice board members are interested in weighing in. Also, this article could use a picture or two if anyone is in the neighborhood and able to upload. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Royal Society of Canada President undocumented on Wiki, easy, necessary fix

Hello! Back to Wiki editing after years away. I months ago noticed that the President of the Royal Society of Canada does not have a reliable Wiki page in any language, which doesn't make sense. Online users can look to tons of other spots, such as the RSC (https://rsc-src.ca/en/governance-programmes/board-directors/alain-gagnon), but not here!

So I drafted and new-page posted something very careful in English (Draft:Alain-G. Gagnon), pending an update to the weak sourcing of the existing French (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain-G._Gagnon). Figured that would be a good first step. But given the backlog in new page approvals there is months later nothing reliable on this from us that's public-facing.

This seems to me a Canada group priority, to the extent we can swing it. Happy for feedback on my drafted content, and would be even happier if someone with the editorial seniority can improve the draft so that I can get that reflected in French and we can clean up the Wiki profile on this one.

Thnx for your attention to this, should you give it ;), and all the best... Edits2024 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Monarchy of Canada

There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Monarchy of Canada that members of this project might want to contribute to. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Years in Canadian music

An editor, Mr. C.C., has been revising 2024 in Canadian music to follow a variant format not consistent with any of the other "Years in Canadian music" articles — instead of using the "events" section primarily for things like the Juno and Polaris and Felix awards as all other years do, they've been greatly expanding the section by using it to double-list the release of every individual album that's already listed in the "albums set for release" section, and the deaths of individual musicians who are supposed to be listed in a separate "deaths" section rather than being listed as "events".

I've already explained to them twice on their talk page that repeating the same things as both "events" and "albums" simultaneously just introduces unnecessary clutter to the page, and that they would need to gain a consensus for the 2024 article to do any differently than 2023 in Canadian music and 2022 in Canadian music and all of the others are doing — but they've continually revert-warred me to put it back the way they want it with a false claim that I'm the one acting against consensus. I also note that they've been temporarily editblocked at least once in the past for persistent revert-warring, and that they were formerly known as "Fishhead2100", an editor I remember well for doing something very similar at List of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personalities, where they tried to convert it from a list of CBC employees (journalists, radio hosts, etc.) into a comprehensive list of every individual actor who had ever appeared in a scripted drama or comedy series on the CBC, which was also against consensus and made the list excessively long but had to be escalated after they revert-warred over that too.

So, since I don't want this to turn into an ongoing revert war because WP:3RR is a thing, I wanted to ask if anybody else could review 2024 in Canadian music to determine if that user's insistence that it's their way or the highway is warranted or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted their most recent edit. There's a section for album releases, so there's no need to repeat them as "notable events". PKT(alk) 19:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/His Highness Prince John of Newmarket to try to stop the knucklehead who has vandalized articles on York Region municipalities over the past couple of years under a variety of similar usernames. Let's see how this goes. Regards, PKT(alk) 13:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The investigation has been merged with another and is now under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HH Crown Prince Wayne of Markham. Unfortunately, the admin comment is, "I've merged this case to the correct location. CUs are aware of this, and an effective rangeblock is not going to be possible. I suggest making liberal use of WP:AIV & WP:RFPP and not giving this individual any more attention than is strictly necessary. Closing." PKT(alk) 11:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Second Harvest

Hello WP:Canada members! I'm Dom from Second Harvest. We're looking to have our Wikipedia page be more fully fleshed out - would love to have it have more content and be more helpful to users. Cross-posting to a few WPs :) Domeniquebs (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Domeniquebs:! I have addressed the issues you mentioned. Regards, PKT(alk) 14:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Provincial government houses, as monarch's official residences?

Six of our ten provinces still maintain an official residence for their respective lieutenant governors. I've noticed however that most of those government houses, are described as also being official residences of the monarch. Starting in 1867, I don't recall Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II or Charles III spending much time (if any) in either of those provincial residences. Aren't we kinda distorting info & stretching things, by suggesting any of those places are an official residence of the monarch? GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Where are these descriptions? I skimmed the monarchy article and didn't see one? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Government House (British Columbia), Government House (Prince Edward Island), Government House (Manitoba), Government House (Nova Scotia) & Government House (New Brunswick). The one that doesn't list the monarch, is Government House (Newfoundland and Labrador). -- GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be dredging up the same issue over and over again, for example with this same discussion from Talk:Rideau Hall#Queen's official residence from 15 years ago, another above that from 16 years ago, and still others at different articles over the same time span.

I would note that an official residence (designated residence of an official) and where the holder actually lives are not necessarily the same thing. For example, Justin Trudeau has never lived at the official residence of the prime minister during his term as prime minister, and that fact has no bearing on the designation of whether that building is an official residence or not. Or in other words, where someone actually decides to live has zero bearing on the official designation of a residence. trackratte (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's partially the core of the dispute. Definition of 'official resident'. As for Trudeau? he's not residing at 24 Sussex Drive, because it's undergoing repairs. King Charles III isn't residing at Rideau Hall, the Citadelle or the aforementioned provincial residences, because he simply doesn't reside in any of those places. Trudeau does reside/live in Canada, where's King Charles III does not. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Input requested

All--Some fresh views/suggestions would be appreciated at Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling.

Also, if anyone knows what other WikiProject might have interest, please let me know. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Canada's head of state

A content dispute at Monarchy of Canada over the identity of Canada's head of state, is taking place. Input there (which also affect's the Governor General of Canada page) is requested. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Governor General

An RFC concerning the lead, of Governor General of Canada, in relation to the topic of head of state, is in progress. Input would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes pls let's get some more eyes over here.....have a young student that needs some guidance. Our resident expert Miesianiacal is no longer around.Moxy🍁 15:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Boubou Macoutes

Hi, I've been looking at very old articles with no refs. I'm not able to read references about Boubou Macoutes, I was wondering if anyone here could help suggest refs which show notability. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a slightly better article on the French Wikipedia, and Google shows some Québec media coverage in the last ten years about it being applied to a new wave of inspectors. This is probably a job for somebody fluent in the local French. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Canadian high school AFD could some participation

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School has been relisted after no participation, if anyone is interested in commenting. Meters (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

closed as "Keep" Meters (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Government Houses as royal residences

A question came up at Government House (Prince Edward Island) which I think actually concerns all of the government houses in Canada. I initially started a discussion on the talk page of that article but since this possibly affects many articles I'm going to redirect the discussion here.

We have a source defining government houses as the official residences of the Canadian monarch when they are in those provinces (and Rideau Hall when they are in Ottawa). Up to today we had a category Category:Royal residences in Canada but user Wellington Bay has cleared the category today as well as the same category for Australia, on the basis of there being no source explicitly describing them as royal residences, and that an official residence of a monarch is not the same as a royal residence.

I'm not sure that there's value to an encyclopedia in distinguishing "official residence of a royal" from "royal residence", but I also don't think there's value in having the royal residences category in parallel to Category:Government Houses in Canada with presumably exactly the same content. We don't have a description for "royal residence"; our title royal residence is a redirect to Palace, which also has a section for the Canadian government houses. I'd like more opinions on where to go from here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to give added background, "Government House" is a term that originated in the colonial era for the official residence of the colonial governor and, as colonies evolved into states, of the governor general (or lieutenant governor) so in our article Government House, it is defined as "the name of many of the official residences of governors-general, governors and lieutenant-governors in the Commonwealth and British Overseas Territories." More elaboration is given in Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth which states "When King Charles III or a member of the royal family visits a Commonwealth nation, they will often stay at the Government House" - so these structures are also considered "official residences" of the monarch when the monarch is visiting. Does this make them "royal residences" though? We did have a discussion in Talk:Governor General of Canada on whether or not Rideau Hall (and by extension the other official vice-regal residences) are "official residences" of the monarch. There appears to be a consensus that there are, but we also found no sources for them being "royal residences" per se and that term is not used in government sources, even those which say they are "official residences of the monarch". The term generally used for these buildings is "vice-regal residence" or "vice-regal estate" rather than royal residence) see, for example Parks Canada webpage on Rideau Hall which refers to Rideau Hall as "the vice-regal estate of the Governor General of Canada". The term vice-regal is a form of the word viceroy meaning governor general or lieutenant governor in our context. It's reasonable to refer to Government Houses in Commonwealth countries (and British overseas colonies) as "vice-regal residences" but not royal residences per se - that term is simply not used either in Canada or the Commonwealth in regards to these structures, nor do any official websites of the monarchy list Government Houses as "royal residences", a term which is generally associated with palaces (which is also where royal residence redirects in Wikipedia) - and yes while the palace article does list Canadian government houses, I think that's an interpolation by an overenthusiastic editor as a) no other Government Houses from any other Commonwealth country are listed b) the section does not refer to Canadian government houses as palaces or royal residences - nor are there any sources that support such a description. Indeed, it was added on November 2, 2016 with no explanation or sources to support inclusion[3]. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, if it is deemed that government houses are royal residences then it would make more sense to make Category:Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth (which Category:Government Houses in Canada is a subcat of) a subcat of Category:Royal residences than to have a category such as Category:Royal residences in Canada which has the exact same content as Category:Government Houses in Canada and have similar "Royal Residences" categories duplicating various "Government Houses" categories. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

With the United Kingdom as the obvious exception. It's interesting, that there's any resistance concerning Canada, when there's no resistance concerning Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wellington Bay this may be a topics you need to do more research on from what I can see.Moxy🍁 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide a source that states these or other Government Houses are "royal residences"? Wellington Bay (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We have been over this already. There were extensive discussions here and here among other places. The Government of Canada's publication A Crown of Maples says that all Government Houses are official residences of the monarch. Countless discussions of this on other pages is not helping.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that actually uses the phrase "royal residence"? Crown of Maples does not use that term at all. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It says it is an official residence of the monarch, that's what "royal" means.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere is the term "royal residence" used in Crown of Maples or any other government or credible source, instead, the term "vice-regal residence" or "vice-regal estate" is used. Nor do any sources, including the official monarchy website, refer to any Government House in any Commonwealth country or British overseas territory as a "royal residence". Furthermore, there is no need to have both Category:Royal residences in Canada and Category:Government Houses in Canada as the contents are identical. Having two categories is redundant. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the monarch to the intro at Rideau Hall, as that's what the last RFC there, called for. It also makes it consistent with the intro at Citadelle of Quebec. I think it's best that all these government houses-in-question, be consistent. Whether it's to include the monarch or exclude. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Nationality of an actress

Fourthords, a user who previously caused a ruckus at Teryl Rothery (see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_27#Teryl_Rothery) is at it again on Eve Harlow, where they're basically vetoing any source whatsoever that describes her as "Canadian", and forcibly reverting anybody who tries to diffuse her out of Category:Film actresses or Category:Television actresses, even though those are container categories that are not allowed to have any individual articles filed directly in them, and are only allowed to contain subcategories. Obviously this is not acceptable, but they're revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article that don't fit their agenda — and, in fact, the article is very poorly sourced and not really demonstrating that she would actually pass WP:GNG at all, as it's referenced almost entirely to directory entries on Rotten Tomatoes rather than proper media coverage, and even what there is for media coverage is coming primarily from Screen Rant (a marginal source at best) rather than real GNG-worthy media of record.

So I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help repair the article with better sourcing that would properly support getting her out of the container categories, and/or willing to back me up on an WP:AFD discussion if the sourcing can't be improved. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{Professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada}} was recently moved from USA to USA and Canada. Someone may want to add missing Canadian topics. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Who's sovereign of each provincial legislature?

I need some help concerning the infobox at General Assembly of Nova Scotia (where I think I kinda butchered it & have since reverted) & other provincial general assemblies, with complicated histories. Who's sovereign in each provincial general assembly? The monarch, the lieutenant governor or both? Is there consistency among the provinces or none, on this matter? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, those pages should be deleted as they're almost made up of the exact same info as their respective legislative assembly pages. Ontario's a re-direct, fwiw. For example - General Assembly of Prince Edward Island & Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, are nearly identical. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"Reference re The Power of the Governor General in Council to Disallow Provincial Legislation and the Power of Reservation of a Lieutenant-Governor of a Province". SCC Cases. April 19, 2024.Moxy🍁 15:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

So which provincial general assemblies do we include "The King in Right of..." & which do we exclude? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

All 3 in my view.Moxy🍁 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The provincial legislatures are generally constitutionally defined as consisting of the Lieutenant Governor of the province and the legislative assembly. (This is different to the composition of the Parliament of Canada, which is defined as the King, Senate, and House of Commons.) For example, section 69 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of One House, styled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." Very similar wording is used for Quebec (Constitution Act, 1867), Alberta[4], Saskatchewan[5], and Manitoba[6]. (BC and the four Atlantic provinces all had pre-existing legislatures that were continued when they became a province, so I haven't checked those ones.)

I think saying that the legislature consists of the legislative assembly and the "LG (acting in the name of the King)" is more reflective of the actual constitutional structure than saying the legislature consists of the "King (as represented by the LG)".

As for whether the legislature and legislative assembly articles should be merged, that would probably be fine, and might reduce confusion by clearly explaining everything in one place like at Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I note that Legislative Assembly of British Columbia currently says that the LG is part of the Legislative Assembly, which is incorrect; the LG and the Legislative Assembly together make up the Legislature.--Trystan (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: & @Trystan:, I've added the "The King in Right of..." to the infoboxes of the general assemblies of British Columbia, Nova Scotia & Newfoundland and Labrador, to bring consistency among the nine existing pages. Are these additions correct? GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

My preference would be to standardize all the provincial legislature infoboxes to reflect the actual constitutional language, which would mean stating in the text and infobox that the Lieutenant Governor is a component of the legislature. The text of the article can explain that the LG assents to legislation in the name of the King. (Here are the relevant statutes for PEI and NS to add to the list in my post above.)--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also disagree with getting rid of the Legislature articles, because that is the legislative body. The Legislative Assemblies, by themselves, cannot pass a law. Better to use the term from the Constitution, that each province has a Legislature composed of the Lt Gov and the Assembly, rather than get rid of the Legislature article and create an incorrect assumption that the Legislative Assembly is the legislature. (Note that in Quebec, the terms are the Parliament of Quebec and the National Assembly, rather than Legislature and Legislative Assembly, but it's functionally the same; the Parliament of Quebec is composed of the Lt Gov and the National Assembly.) My preference is always to stick as close as possible to the language of the Constitution. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't delete the nine pages-in-question. PS- Ontario Legislature is a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the expression "king in right of ..." is appropriate in the LG and legislature articles. It's my understanding that "crown/king/His Majesty in right of <jurisdiction>" is used in legal proceedings when more than one jurisdiction is involved, or to distinguish provincial crown land from federal, and so on. But it's an abstract legal concept not a person, and it's not correct to call Charles III "king in right of BC". His only Canadian titles are King of Canada and Head of the Commonwealth. But I'm not a lawyer, so set me straight if I'm wrong. Indefatigable (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Indefatigable. I’ve generally only seen the term « in right of » used in land titles, contracts, and the style of cause for court cases, to distinguish the government entity that is involved. It’s not a title, but a clarification that the king of Canada is acting in right of a particular government.

I think all of the legislatures should refer to the Lt Gov, since that is how they are defined in their constituent document.

For example, the fully elected BC Legislature was created by the provincial Constitution Act, enacted by the BC Governor and Legislative Council in 1871, in anticipation of joining Confederation. Section 6 of the Act provides that legislation can be passed by the Governor and the new Legislative Assembly. See: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/1799836107

I will do some digging, but I’m pretty sure that none of the Atlantic provinces constitutent docs referred to the Crown as part of the colonial legislatures. Those legislatures were established by the royal commissions to the governors of each colony, directing them to establish legislative bodies, with the governor being part of the legislative process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Here’s an example of an SCC case that uses « in right of » in the style of cause: Her Majesty in right of the Province of Alberta v. Canadian Transport Commission. This terminology was presumably used because it was litigation between the province of Alberta and a federal Crown agency, so necessary to distinguish. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5987/index.do Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Who ever knows the correct way & implements on the nine pages-in-question? 'Tis fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we have consensus. I'll start some edits. Indefatigable (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Indefatigable: I've completed what you started. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another question. Should we include or exclude the monarch into/from the infoboxes of the House of Commons of Canada, the Senate of Canada & the ten provincial & territorial legislative assemblies page? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Exclude. The king is not part of those bodies (but he is part of Parliament). Indefatigable (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the King & the Lieutenant Governor from the infobox of Legislative Assembly of Ontario, because like the other legislative assemblies, neither the monarch or his representative is a part of it. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Canadian electoral districts

Could you help to disambiguate the hundreds of links to Canadian electoral districts? It is sometimes unclear whether the federal or provincial district is the intended link and they now point to disambiguation pages. Examples include:

• Brome-Missisquoi - 203 links shown here
• Vancouver-Burrard - 113 links shown here
• Surrey-Newton - 91 links shown here
• Port Moody-Coquitlam - 70 links shown here
• Richelieu-Verchères - 45 links shown here
• Chilliwack-Hope - 42 links shown here

There are probably more on this list. It is almost always better, for the reader, to link to the specific article rather than the dab page, but if the dab page is the intended link then the guideline at WP:INTDAB should followed. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 07:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit to Regina page

Hi, an editor recently changed the IPA pronunciation for “Regina” on the article page. Could someone who is familiar with IPA take a look at it? The current pronunciation has been stable for quite some time, so I don’t know if the change is correct? (There have been previous edits by non-Canadians who think “that can’t be right!” Is it is. Really.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There, I fixed the English phonetic to sound like the IPA. I've never heard it sound like ridge-EYE-nuh before. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It was changed from /rɪˈdʒaɪnə/ to /rəˈdʒaɪnə/, the difference being the weak vowel in the first syllable. It doesn't matter much - Canadian English speakers wouldn't notice this difference, in fact I think very few English speakers worldwide would notice. The vowels in first and third syllables are the same, so /ə/ is a better choice. In Canadian English, we have only one kind of schwa in our phonemic model. Indefatigable (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking at it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Names of Wikipedia articles for old Canadian court cases

Hi, I've started a discussion about the best way to name Wikipedia articles about old Canadian court cases. It's at Case Citations: Historic Canadian cases. It's not a full blown RfC. Would welcome comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Canada

Additional input on how to describe the branches of government in Template:Politics of Canada would be appreciated at Template talk:Politics of Canada § King-in-Parliament and King-on-the-Bench.--Trystan (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I commented on this discussion, to reactivate it after two months hiatus. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

One for the historians...

Could somebody take a look at Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844? I have deep suspicions that it's an outright hoax, but want to get a second opinion before taking it to MFD.

The article claims that there was an unsuccessful rebellion in 1844, which was covered up by the British and not declassified until 2014 — but firstly, there's absolutely no coverage of any such thing being "revealed" in 2014 at all, and I don't just mean it's absent from the article, I mean it's in a state of total failure to exist even after extensive checks of databases. But even more importantly, one of the only two sources cited in the article is a 2018 reprint of a book that was originally written in 1905 — or 113 years before this "event" was "declassified", so how could William B. Munro possibly have known about it? — and even more importantly, Munro's article actually features an offsite link to a complete readable copy of that very book, which I checked and rather unsurprisingly failed to find verification of anything this article says there either.

So it's very likely bull droppings, but I'd like some other editors to take a look at it as well. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked the Munro book on Internet Archive. I searched for "LaPlante", "Scott", "Carter"; "Douglas"; "Peterborough"; "Scugog"; and "1844". No hits for any of the narrative in the draft article. Plus, if there was a battle north of York (now Toronto) in 1844, with cannon from a "crashed British ship", there is no way that could be hushed up. There were active journalists and newspapers. I would say it's entirely fictional. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've finished listing it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion of interest

The article Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections is part of this WikiProject and there is a move discussion there that may be of interest to those involved in this WikiProject. - Amigao (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking for help with a few bios

see these additions that I have removed a few times.... to no avail. Moxy🍁 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Canada Day DYKs

There are a couple DYKs set for Canada Day. If anyone has another they'd like to run for 1 July, nominate them soon! – Reidgreg (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• The DYK for Obonga–Ottertooth Provincial Park is in the queue right now. Should we pull it and set it aside for July 1? And I will prepare a DYK today for Oxtongue River. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• DYK for Oxtongue River is done! Pick one of my hooks or suggest another one. I recommend to review it quickly to have it ready in time. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2023 Canada-India diplomatic row

Please go through the 2023 Canada-India diplomatic row article and review it. Many thanks. 2401:BA80:A383:2A81:8939:A2A6:F86D:94E8 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you looking for here?   Aloha27  talk  12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to review. 2023 Canada-India diplomatic row has been replaced with a redirect to Hardeep Singh Nijjar. PKT(alk) 15:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Structure for Provincial / National Parks articles

Hey folks, the BC Wikiproject doesn't have much going on, but if there is interest I'm curious to get input on a more unified structure for articles about Provincial or National Parks. Feel free to check out this post on the Template talk:British Columbia parks. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve#Requested move 1 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Images for Ontario MPPs

The Youtube channel for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario seems to have put most, if not all, of their videos under a compatible Creative Commons license. This includes all question periods and member statements. Just posting this here in case anyone wants to add images to Ontario MPP articles that don't have photos. I've already done a few. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just added about 10 more. I'm pretty sure the articles of all current Ontario MPPs now have an image. If not, please lmk. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification needed in Innu

At Innu#Natuashish and Sheshatshiu, Newfoundland and Labrador it reads "...set up along the Inuit Coast in 1771,...". The capital C in coast would indicate that it was referring to a specific place. However, I suspect that this really is saying that it it's the coast of Labrador where Inuit live. Anyone know? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I'm pretty sure the capital C in coast was just a typo. From The Canadian Encyclopedia:

The following year, in 1771, Jens Haven, his new bride, two other married couples and eight single men founded the first permanent Moravian settlement in Labrador’s north coast. They chose the Inuit gathering area known as Nuneingoak as the site of their new home and named the station “Nain.” Nain was the first Christian mission for the Inuit in Canada.

You could specify Nuneingoak, if you want. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow up on that tomorrow. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia

Eyes on this new article would be beneficial - there are concerns around its neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Death of Jeffrey Northrup#Requested move 17 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Death of Jeffrey Northrup#Requested move 17 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC for Dorchester Review at RSN

There is currently an RfC on the reliability of this source at WP:RSN Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Residential schools

There is a Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons thread at RSN that may be of interest to editors here. Elinruby (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What article is this about?Moxy🍁 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All of them really since they are all being targeted. The one I am looking at is the one about the gravesites, which... is pretty close to unspeakable, but I noticed tonight that the one about the Kamloops school has also been getting hit really hard. Maybe "less subtly" is the wording I am looking for.Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "being targeted"?Moxy🍁 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I came back here to point out the history at [7], the example I am most familiar with, but I see you have already found the article. Do not believe claims of consensus. (see history). There is some vile stuff at Kamloops Indian Residential School. I have requested page protection there. Elinruby (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like some anons have axes to grind, talking points to spew, and vandalism to perform, based on a quick check of the Canadian residential schools history.

All I can think of is taking it to the page protection board. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not all anons, is the problem, although a lot of what I see at the Kamloops school page is IPs. I can ask for that page to be protected, and any others that people notice. The guy who ... I don't think I am allowed to describe what he did -- but the guy who just rewrote the gravesites article is currently at AE for doing the same thing at Hunter Biden's laptop so that might take care of that, maybe. I'll do an RfPP for the Kamloops school article right now though.

latest round of attacks was three weeks ago so it doesn't look good. [8] I am going to try anyway based the premise that it is exhausting to rewrite these articles over and over again. But this has been going on since they found those graves in Kamloops. Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Daniel Case just ec-protected the Kamloops residential school article, but that is far from the only problem in the topic. And there are editors with accounts actively working to add denialism in. In keeping with your feedback I will move the western standard question and the dorchester review question into their own sections, in order to break this into easier-to-grasp pieces. But all of this is about residential school denialism.Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: There is also a link to The Dorchester Review (again!) in the lede of the Kamloops residential school article. It needs to be deprecated imo, at least for this topic, but first it needs to be discussed, so I have added an item about it to the RSN post. RL is calling me. Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This talk and the other talk are so convoluted its hard to understand what you're trying to get done. Are you saying Professor Jacques Rouillard is some sort of quack....or you just don't like where the statements comes from as in the publication?Moxy🍁 01:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Rouillard is apparently a retired professor of labour movement history. I am saying that there have been repeated and very very persistent efforts to edit denialism into residential school articles. He is frequently cited as is Kenney. I am also saying that there are 3 or 4 sources that repeatedly get cited in these efforts. I am furthermore saying that massive amounts of meticulously cited material is being removed in these articles, at least in the one you were just looking at, to support the narrative that the graves are a hoax or...(insert patronizing remark about Indians here). So the school on Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc land in Kamloops became Kamloops Indian Residential School on the lands of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation and later in the section Kamloops Indian Residential School. 87 instances of this stuff. Rosanne Casimir is no longer the Kúkpi7 but the Chief. And that's just the MoS part. And on *her* page I just found another statement that there is no proof that these graves contain bodies, misleadingly cited to the Globe and Mail. Since this will probably have to be its own RSN post, help.

Bottom line the logic seems to be that if these First Nations refuse to dig up Grandma, they must not be telling the truth.

And I haven't said this yet, but the people doing worst damage are 1) all saying the same thing and 2) very conversant with wikipedia policies. The removal of all indigenous names that I was agreeing with the IP about on the talk page about is within policy but still results in an overuse of the colonial terms. This is affecting discourse on the subject. The top Google seach result for "kamloops residential school graves" is currently No evidence of ‘mass graves’ or ‘genocide’ in residential schools at one of the sources in question. This is new and in my opinion due to the last "rewrite" of that article. I am not sure what dog the Fraser Institute has in this race, but it definitely does seem to have one and at a minimum more eyes on these articles would be really nice. Think Bucha Massacre. I know you were there; I saw you. This seems like a very similar thing. Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe I am wrong and we as a country hallucinated the whole thing. I would be glad to hear that, but I don't actually think it's so Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Again completely convoluted...... What sources have you been researching?Moxy🍁 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the issue. The answer to your question is "too many to list here all over again, please see RSN." Also recent ANI titled "Riposte97: time sink", which extensively discussed sourcing in the residential school topic area Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We're going to need a few more eyes on these topics I agree.... We have new enthusiastic.... but learn as you go instead of editors familiar with the topic.Moxy🍁 23:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:NORN

There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for McLaughlin Planetarium

McLaughlin Planetarium has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Residential school related edits

We are going to need a few more editors familiar with our residential school situation to make sure the editor here, although enthusiastic and seeming well intentioned (although others have expressed a different view) is dominating these articles. They are clearly not familiar with Canadian sources or any academic sources on the topic..... although all can contribute the sensitive nature of this topic requires some basic knowledge and understanding of the sources that are reliable. Good example of the the time sink others have been dealing with can be seen at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#2021 Canadian church burnings. I think I should step away for a bit after my less than cordial last response to them see here. Moxy🍁 21:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Moxy Yeah it was less than cordial but I am more concerned about the aspersion-laden inappropriate canvassing here. But fine. I will go back to re-adding journal references removed in the recent gutting of the articles. You can go on believing that children did not die of tuberculosis in residential schools as long as you stop interfering with that being restored to the article.Elinruby (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditto to what Moxy said. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Just odd replies all the time with walls of OR " children did not die of tuberculosis in residential schools " is simply out to lunch if you belive anyone would say this. The report says "24 percent of all native residential school students had died of tuberculosis". Moxy🍁 11:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Since I had previously decided you were a pretty good editor, I assumed you would be familiar with the issue, or if not ask questions. Instead you have decided that I am clearly not familiar with Canadian sources or any academic sources on the topic and without asking me anything about this have chosen to share that conclusion here in an apparent attempt to continue impeding the repair of damage done to these articles by an editor who was topic banned for doing that. "Out to lunch" is not a helpful comment, although it does seem to sum up your attitude quite well. For the record I list a small sample of academic sources here in one of the current RSN threads on the RSN noticeboard that I have repeatedly suggested that you examine. The issue in that particular thread is whether it is ok to say that there even *was* a genocide at residential schools, which up until then it apparently had not been, since I was blocked for a week for saying so. Getting back to the deaths from TB, there are other worse statistics about it, but what you said that I took issue with was People with TB were sent to Indian hospitals..... that is a whole other can of worms with its own graveyards in many cases. Moxy🍁 00:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC) This was in response to my sarcasm here: I personally don't get why this article keeps getting messed with. But it does. So in keeping with the minimization of the mortality rate, of course there is a cemetery and of course everyone died of TB at the time no matter what anyway.Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) and I replied That may well be so but children also died of untreated tuberculosis and Peter Bryce is the name of the doctor who was fired for reporting that.Elinruby (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC) along with a lengthy sourced excerpt about Bryce, with whom you seemed to be unfamiliar, from the main residential school article.

In any event, the topic was added by someone else to an Arbcom request for clarification about people who are unable to edit in a neutral manner on religious topics. Go team Canada. This is not what I would have wished us all to be wikinotorious for, but there it is. Given the following previous attempt to explain "what is source verification" to you it may even be an appropriate example, although I am currently denying that, more or less out of reflexive patriotism.

Religion was a major part of assimilating Indigenous peoples on both sides of the border.... It's why it's referred to as a cultural genocide.[3] The French wanted to free them from what.... their families? basic info Moxy🍁 23:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I replied:

That reaction is why I explicitly said I'm not saying I necessarily believe that but that is what the source says. What the source does however say is: The first residential facilities were developed in New France by Catholic missionaries to provide care and schooling. Please remember that we are talking about what the source says not what I personally believe, which is that schools were a rather cynical tactic whose goal was assimilation and were gleefully perpetuated when the system proved lethal. You seem to think I want to deny that there was anything wrong with the schools, which is far from the case, and makes it hard to discuss things with you. So let's start over. I actually believe that "cultural genocide" is a euphemism in the Canadian context. Please stop trying to convince me of the genocidal intent. I am already there, and it's annoying...

In any event, I am here to get diffs, not argue with you, but since I am here, this is notification that the matter is now at Arbcom, under a request for a clarification of the Noleander decision, and your name is about to be mentioned. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

OR all over....Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read = Wikipedia:FILIBUSTER..Moxy🍁 01:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OK Moxy. If you do not want to read, please stop interfering with the in-progress remediation of misrepresented sources and allow those who are willing to read the sources to fix the problem. If you do not understand what is going on that is one thing. If you refuse to deal with the actual sources because they are TL;DR, there really is nothing else to say. Further disruption will be dealt with as such. If anyone else would like to help with the situation, there is a lot of checking that needs to be done and I will be delighted to get some help. Over and out Elinruby (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Pick up on the cues.Moxy🍁 15:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an RfC regarding the reliability of National Post as a source for facts

There is currently a discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding the reliability of National Post. The thread is RfC: National Post. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Port Royal, Richmond County, Nova Scotia listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Port Royal, Richmond County, Nova Scotia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 17 § Port Royal, Richmond County, Nova Scotia until a consensus is reached. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Quebec

According to the Government of Canada's Styles of address webpage, it specifically states that no politician in Quebec uses the honorific "Honourable", as it is only and used solely by the incumbent and previous lieutenant governors of Quebec (or any member of the King's Privy Council). Any change to reflect this would impact the Premier of Quebec, Deputy Premier of Quebec, all Quebec cabinet ministers, etc. past and current. Should the honorific be removed from the relevant articles to reflect this? I'd also note that the webpage also states that no mayor in Quebec uses the honorific His/Her Worship as well. – Handoto (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Would anyone be interested in joining a sub project of WP:Anthropology on oral tradition? WP's coverage of this is quite poor atm imo Kowal2701 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Canada

Resolved

Can we get a second set of eyes Talk:Flag_of_Canada#Reverse_Copyvio_Report. Moxy🍁 01:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Canada Soccer drone spying scandal § Should this be titled "Dronegate"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Canada Soccer drone spying scandal § Should this be titled "Dronegate". Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First Nations (North American Indian) n.o.s.

Why there are so many First Nations (North American Indian) n.o.s. - 632 340 people. Why so many people does not no their tribes or they are fake indians? Indigenous peoples in Canada#Peoples Kaiyr (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• These are "Registered Indians" and not registered, which refers to those individuals who identified as First Nations. No clue were the number 632 340 comes from should be 1,127,010. Will look at the article and add real numbers and perhaps move raw data to its own article.https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013791/1535470872302 Moxy🍁 17:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

South Slave Divisional Education Council

Could someone look at South Slave Divisional Education Council#Recognition and check which of those seem encyclopaedic? I've removed the unsourced ones but I don't think the list needs to be that long. I'd leave the ones that either have a linked award or awarding body. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

REALTORS® Association of Edmonton

Could someone with more experience fix the page title for this? The first paragraph shows how it's correctly all-capitalized with an ® symbol at the end, but the page title isn't consistent.

Realtors Association of Edmonton should be REALTORS® Association of Edmonton

Thanks all. Mazshan (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:TM: the page is properly named. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

And I've removed all the ® for you as per the above. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Alleged sexual abuse complicity Alice Munro

Looking for more input at Talk:Alice Munro#Alleged sexual abuse complicity Moxy🍁 10:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Brantford

Hi everyone - please keep an eye on Brantford. An IP has been trying to add something about a cat named Minky, and I've just reverted it for the 3rd time today. The IP has been warned. PKT(alk) 15:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to dig much into it now, but looking over the page history I felt comfortable with protecting the page for a month. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Poor Minky. Deprived of their moment in the sun. 😿 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sleeman Centre (Guelph)#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sleeman Centre (Guelph)#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Bennett Lake - conflicting areas

Bennett Lake, Yukon has apparently equally reliable sources that disagree about the area of the lake. Sinclair (2023) gives 9068 ha [90.68 km²], while Millar (2012) gives 96.8km². Almost certainly one is a typo for the other, but I haven't found any sources independent of these two to check which is correct. Can anyone help? Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Using OSM data and Google Earth I got these numbers:

Total area of lake including islands: 96,258,584 sq meters

Total area of islands: 76,016 sq meters

Total area of lake excluding islands: 96,182,568 sq meters MapGrid (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_August_2024

Talk:Canadian_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_August_2024 Moxy🍁 01:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Event Wikimedia Canada

• 4:00 p.m., August 28, 2024 – 5:00 p.m., August 28, 2024 Timezone: +00:00

Moxy🍁 05:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pierre Poilievre § Image

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pierre Poilievre § Image. Cremastra (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Canada railroad shutdown

Just thought I'd bring attention to the article on the 2024 Canada railroad shutdown - it's currently barely a stub, and it's an important current Canadian event that needs a lot of work done on its article. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I've started a section on the Talk page for the article, suggesting that the title should be changed to "2024 Canada railway shutdown", as "railway" is the common term used in Canada; have given examples there from the industry, news articles on the shutdown, and the Canada Transportation Agency. Would welcome comments; don't know if it needs a formal request to move? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is now a proposal to delete the article on notability grounds/sourcing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Isaac Brock

I have nominated Isaac Brock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I doubt I could accomplish anything in two weeks and I'm not really sure I'd want to tackle this anyways. That said, I live relatively close to Brock University and I can access their library. Given my location and the namesake, they probably have everything there is to know about the guy. If you wanted me to double check sources or to look for something in particular? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: If you are interested in fixing up this article, please go to the FAR for this article at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isaac Brock/archive2. I think this article needs a lot of work to remain a featured article, as many academic sources are not used as inline citations yet. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I have no objections to you delisting the article. It has a lot of issues and it makes complete sense. My comment was more along the lines of "maybe someday". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: If you notice issues with the article, it still helps if you comment on its FAR. Sometimes an editor volunteers to address the issues, or uses the FAR as a checklist on how they can improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

would appreciate some more eyes on Conservative Party of British Columbia

Hi everyone, it couldn't hurt to have some more eyes on Conservative Party of British Columbia as their rapid rise has led to a lot of editing, some by apparently inexperienced editors. thanks. Dan Carkner (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Party template edit needed

Can someone please edit {{Canadian party colour|BC|Labor-Progressive|row-name}} so that the row name produced is actually Labor-Progressive instead of Labour Progressive? In the mid-20th century spelling labour without a u - as labor - was actually considered progressive (which is why we have the Australian Labor Party instead of the Australian Labour Party even though Australia otherwise uses -our suffixes). Accordingly, the Labor-Progressive Party in Canada and British Columbia spelled its name without a 'u'. I can't figure out how to fix the mistake in the BC LPP row name. Wellington Bay (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, though these requests should be done here instead.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Earl Andrew: Thanks - but since I have your attention, there should be a hyphen too - Labor-Progressive, not Labor Progressive. (thanks again) Wellington Bay (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay:. Done! -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sons of Butcher

I've initiated a merge discussion at Talk:Sons of Butcher (band), proposing that we merge Sons of Butcher (band) with Sons of Butcher (TV series) into a single article instead of two separate ones. The TV series absolutely passes WP:TVSHOW criteria, while it is not at all clear that the band would pass WP:NMUSIC separately from that — fundamentally, the TV show is the band's basis for notability, while there really isn't any significant coverage about the band as a standalone topic independently of the TV show, so it really isn't clear why we would need two articles instead of one. And although both articles are very poorly sourced at present and require improvement, the fact that the band's coverage is almost entirely in the context of the TV show means that the TV show article is much more readily repairable than the band article is.

Additionally, if the articles are merged, then the disambiguation page at Sons of Butcher will become entirely unnecessary, as the only things on it are the band, the TV series, and a self-titled album that exists solely as a redirect to the band rather than a standalone article. So if there is a consensus established to merge them, then the final article should just be located directly at Sons of Butcher.

So some input into the discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships

2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ottawa Senators (original)

Ottawa Senators (original) has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)