Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français)
Senate Conservative Caucus
The page Senate Conservative Caucus has popped up today. I have proposed it for deletion since this caucus is in no ways independent or autonomous from the main Conservative parliamentary caucus, but is actually part of it, unlike the Senate Liberal Caucus which is not recognized by the main Liberal Party. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
PMs in the infoboxes of Opposition leaders
IMHO, the prime minister should be excluded from the infobox of the leaders of the opposition section. The Leader of the Opposition is not a member of the cabinet & so shouldn't be treated as a cabinet minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Howdy. @Discospinster: has been linking both the Prime Ministers office & its numbering to just one link - List of Prime Ministers of Canada. For years, we've had separate links - the numbering to the List article & the office to Prime Minister of Canada. Which should we go with? GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a conflict on whether to include all the seats in the Senate and House of Commons for the Bloc, or just the seats from Quebec. I am proposing just the seats in Quebec as shown here, since the party only runs candidate in that province and pushes secessionism. There is precedent for this with the Scottish National Party infobox in which only Scottish seats are highlighted in the graph. Thoughts? Charles lindberg (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would start by asking what is done with other Canadian parties? We should follow that precedent. The goal is to indicate their relative size in each house, not to indicate their relative power in their electorate. Sure, they'll never run a candidate in BC, but that just means they'll never win that seat. They have made choices going in to an election. In the past, when the NDP and Liberals were trying to defeat the Conservative parties, they were deciding on whether they should run candidates in all ridings. The NDP has decided not to run candidates in some ridings so as to not split those votes. (For the record, the Liberals steadfastly refused to not run a candidate in a riding that they had no chance of winning). In those cases, would you want the NDP's number of seats reflect the number of candidates they fielded or the percentage of power they had? It would always be the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Over the past few weeks, an anonymous IP has been persistently adding content to our article on Ottawa city councillor Allan Hubley, concerning his early pledge when he was elected in 2010 to only serve two terms in office and criticizing him for not openly reaffirming that promise 1.5 years ahead of the 2018 municipal election. And further, both their writing tone and the placement of the information right in the introduction directly imply that this lack of reaffirmation is one of the most salient and important facts that a reader would need to know about Hubley, more important than even his anti-bullying work following his son's suicide.
But for one thing, obviously very few politicians would ever announce their intentions to run again or not barely halfway through their term in office — that's normally a thing you announce one way or the other a few months before the election campaign, not a few years before. And for another, if he does decide in 2018 to go back on his pledge and run for a third term on council, it's for his voters to decide whether that's an issue or not, not us. Simply put, it's an WP:NPOV violation for Wikipedia to maintain any content about such trivial piffle at all yet — if he does decide to run for a third term, and a voter backlash against him for that gets into the news, then it would become appropriate for us to maintain some neutral, non-commentary content about that backlash. But the anonymous IP appears to be trying to stir a preemptive backlash against the possibility a full year before any reasonable person would actually expect Hubley to announce his intentions one way or the other, and that's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.
I've reverted their changes several times now, and applied temporary sprot to keep anonymous IPs off the page for the time being, but (a) it's nowhere near serious enough to justify permanent protection, and (b) the anon has already tried to sneak around the sprot by registering the inflammatory username "Bearcatisstupid" (I've already blocked that account for violating username policy, but they may try again under other usernames.) But I've been the only person who's ever actually caught this when it happened, so I wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to add the article to their watchlists to monitor for it. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Another one for the watchlisters
Following the Elliott Moglica situation a few months ago, in which Moglica himself used extensive sockpuppetry to try to defend his own self-created promotional WP:AUTOBIO and was editblocked accordingly, an anonymous IP has started trying to readd Moglica's name to the list of alumni of Niagara College again (which he also tried to do numerous times before the article actually existed in the first place, despite being told more than once that the list wasn't allowed to contain redlinks.) I've already applied an editblock on the basis of the Moglica SPI, but of course other IP numbers may also try to do the same thing ($6 per month to a VPN provider is all it takes, and his persistence about it in the past strongly implies that he won't just stop this time either.) So is anybody willing to add Niagara College to their watchlists to monitor for this? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Plans to update page for Chartered Professional Accountant
Along with other work I'm doing for Canadian pages, I'm planning to start an overhaul of the Chartered Professional Accountant page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Professional_Accountant) given how out of date the information is and how complicated the merger has been. If anyone has feedback or suggestions as I work my way through the details, I'd be happy to collaborate and discuss. SaturnsRings27 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
New templates for politics
We have new redundant templates being made again. Template:Justin Trudeau series-Template:Andrew Scheer series-Template:Elizabeth May series ....these type of boxes have been deleted by this project in the past.......as simply regurgitation of info in the main box and the fact it causes (in mobile view) readers to have to scroll even more before the lead is seen. I personally think our infoboxs on politicians are already overwhelmed with info......last thing we need is a second box regurgitating the same info, links and images. What do others think of theses redundant infoboxs .......should we spam them all over or nip this in the butt? We all like pretty boxes...but does it help or just repeat stuff?--Moxy (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Formal request has been received to merge: McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom into Burano (building); dated: 15 May 2017. Proposer's Rationale: ...the creator of the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom article strongly objects ... this may require a third party to determine consensus. Discussion is at Talk:McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom#Merger proposal. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
2nd Ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald?
Advice on terminology...
A quick favour to ask... Does anyone involved in this project have a good understanding of when it is most appropriate to use adjectives/nouns such as First Nation, Aboriginal peoples, Indigenous peoples, Indian, Métis or Inuit in the context of Canadian history? Normally, I'd just follow the secondary sources, but I'm very conscious that the preferred terminology has evolved even over the last couple of decades. I'm having problems in drafting as a result, and any advice - or perhaps being pointed at a helpful link which might summarise current best practice - would be very gratefully appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Aboriginal or Indigenous
Given the above section I found it interesting to come across this so quickly. So are we supposed to be using Aboriginal or Indigenous? Even the government doesn't know what it is doing and uses both at the same time, INAC. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Changing First Nations to Aboriginal
Just a heads up. I couldn't find it in the archive but I'm sure this came up before we have a shifting IP that inappropriately changes First Nation to Aboriginal, see here. Almost all the changes are not correct and need reverting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Ontario general election, 2007
A user named Kndimov has been editwarring over the photograph of John Tory that's being used in the infobox at Ontario general election, 2007, persistently reverting back to a significantly older image than the one that's been on the article quite stably for at least two years. Initially their argument was that because the election took place in 2007, the image used in the box had to date from 2007 and the later image was inherently invalid — as if his appearance has changed all that much? — and then when they were reverted because that's not a rule, they rereverted with the new argument that "I vote for the older one" with no reason given at all why it was actually preferable.
I don't want this to be a one-on-one edit war, so I was wondering if anybody's willing to come weigh in one way or the other about which image should be used. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The reference link to the LG website is now a 404, would be the same on other similar pages. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Wallace
All former L-G bios on the LG site are now at http://www.ltgov.bc.ca/gov-house/history/timeline.html some maybe in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, quite a few are I'd think.
he's of interest right now as he was viceroy in the 1952 and 1953 elections; '52 has some parallels to the current "interregnum of sorts" in BC.... as of today [http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/politics+27uncharted+territory+legislature+poised+tussle+over/13425353/story.html this is the current non-issue in the media0, I'm curious to see what Wiki has for BC election coverage; it ain't over yet, the election is...but not the resulting impasse..... 2001:569:72C0:BC00:55F2:908E:9EB2:6B5D (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Just added a new page on the Honorific "Maitre" which seems to be in use in only English Canada outside of the Francophone world of Quebec, France, etc. Take a look and add as necessary - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C3%AEtre Namtug (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
R v Jordan (2016)
R v Jordan is q Supreme Court of Canada legal precedent with ramifications that are already reverberating across the country. Some very serious criminal cases have already being dismissed even though they were in the pipeline before the Jordan verdict. Murder, sex assault cases among those tossed due to delays in Canadian courts I would hardly classify this topic as low on the importance scale. As for it merely being of import to Canadians, two men have had their second degree murder charges dismissed. One is about to be, and the other already has been, deported back to their home countries. Quebec murder suspect set free due to trial delays to be deported within weeks Man accused of killing Montrealer with a machete returns to U.K. Maybe we can take a 'sober second look' on the classification of this article. For some context here is an article that Wikipedia: Law has rated as mid level in importance. R v Smith. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
AfD for Michael Ching (businessman)
Happy Canada Day everyone! The article for the Chinese-Canadian businessman Michael Ching (businessman) has been nominated for AfD. You're welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ching (businessman). -Zanhe (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I have an issue I need to raise regarding List of visible minority politicians in Canada. It's a valid list in theory, obviously, but in actual practice it's been wandering off the path from what visible minority means in reality to include anybody who has any form of hyphenated-Canadian connection to a non-European country at all. I know that the term doesn't exactly map to "people of colour" per se, but it's also not meant to include people of "traditional" European descent who merely happen to have been physically born somewhere other than Europe proper.
For instance, I've already had to remove Gérard Deltell, a completely white guy of completely European descent who merely happens to have been born to parents who were Algerian pieds-noirs (i.e. the European colonists of Algeria) of French and Spanish and Italian, not native Algerian, descent; John Rodriguez, a completely white guy of completely European descent who merely happens to have been born in Guyana, at a time when it was still a European colony with a large population of European settlers, whereas ethnically Guyanese people would normally be classed as black; and Vic Toews, a white guy who may have some actual Latino descent by virtue of having been born in Paraguay, but it isn't verified by our article about him (his father was a German immigrant to Paraguay and his mother's ethnicity isn't stated, but circumstantially the evidence isn't strong as her maiden name was Peters), and certainly isn't visible in his physical appearance at all (and, like Rodriguez, he isn't "Latino" just because he was physically born in South America if we can't source any ethnically Latino heritage for him.) I haven't removed, but am still iffy about, the likes of André Arthur and Sarkis Assadourian, who are Armenian and thus Caucasian and white, and Tony Clement, who's Greek (the difference between a Cypriot-Greek and a Greece-Greek being one of nationality, not of ethnicity, so being technically from Cyprus doesn't ethnically separate him into a different "visible minority" group distinct from all the Greek politicians that aren't included in the list.)
I do wonder if it's really a useful list at all — is there really much value to a single common list of every MP who's of non-European descent, rather than splitting them up into smaller and less editwar-prone lists like "List of Black Canadian MPs" or "List of Latinx Canadian MPs" or "List of Arab Canadian MPs"? That's a discussion for another time, however, as I'm not prepared to mount any sort of argument that it should be deleted outright. The main thing here is that, at minimum, the list needs to be reviewed to ensure that everybody who's listed on it belongs there. I haven't seen any problematic entries besides the ones I mentioned above, but it still needs a few more eyes to ensure I haven't missed anything. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everybody that we're going to need increased scrutiny on the article about Julie Payette. Leaving aside the standard possibility of vandalism that's already pretty well controlled, there's now the new risk of somebody prematurely denoting her as the incumbent GG as of today — which she isn't yet, as the date of the initial announcement and the date of actual investiture aren't one and the same. So just a reminder to everybody to be on the lookout for this — the article has 49 watchlisters as of right now, but I'm willing to bet those are mostly NASA geeks watchlisting her because astronaut, who thus might not be familiar with the political issues the Canadian politics geeks know to watch out for now that she's a political figure as well. So just a reminder to everybody to be vigilant. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Naming conventions on articles on federal Ministers (positions), departments and problems with Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth
It appears that the titles of articles on federal Ministers use the current styles of the position (e.g. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship instead of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). I wonder if it may be wise to use the "actual" title of position (e.g. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Minister of Industry) for these articles since they are provided by law and don't change easily by government of the day. I understand WP:COMMONNAME might ask for the currently commonly used name referred to by government and media; however as WP:OFFICIAL explains as one rationale to use the common name: "Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current." In this case the statutory names change more slowly and would only change with significant government restructuring.
If we don't change the naming convention, then we need to fix the articles. Some articles problematically refer to the statutory names as previous or former names when they are still the official names in law.
As well, the articles related to the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs have misleading information (perhaps due to the confusing common names/styles). Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs still exists but styled as the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth is also misleading since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth does not exist (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Youth are separate positions); and it's wrong to say it's "previously" the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs when the Minister of ICIA still exists. (I'm trying to restructure these articles.)
In a similar vein, it might be better to apply the statutory names for the federal departments (e.g. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada as Department of Industry (Canada)).
Due to today's announcement of criminal charges against Thunder Bay mayor Keith Hobbs, I'm requesting some willing watchlisters to assist in watching the article for BLP issues. I've applied semi-protection for the time being to prevent drive-by IP assassinations, and of course we can always up it to full protection if needed — but for the moment, registered editors are not blocked from editing the article. At present, however, there are only four people on all of Wikipedia watchlisting the article including me — so we need additional sets of eyes to monitor the WP:BLP-related legal sensitivities. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Monarchy of Canada
August 2017 at Women in Red
A new WiR initiative starting in August
Major changes to Barrick Gold
There's been a recent rewrite on this article by an IP editor. It looks like some constructive changes and updates, but also a lot of removal of critical information on the company (revisions). I don't have a whole lot of time to examine the changes, but thought I'd flag it in case some else does. The Interior (Talk) 00:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I simply wanted to let you know that Wikimedia Canada has put a new concept in place: WikiClubs. They are local groups of Wikimedians in a given city or region that gather to encourage local participation, meeting other Wikimedians, sharing resources and organize activities. If you are interested, please see the website. Some WikiClubs are already starting to organize themselves in some cities.
Calgary airport question
Hello, I have been editing Calgary International Airport's article in an attempt to make it a Good Article. However I'm stuck at the large Airlines and Destinations table. Per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, "the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." Would this statement violate WP:V? It's a lot of information with no clear reference that a reader can access. Searching the timetables can be a tedious process, for example with all of WestJet's destinations from Calgary.
These tables have been the subject of many discussions over at WP:AIRPORTS, including an RFC that pointed to my question. I'm not looking for a full-blown detailed discussion at this time (I'd do that at WP:AIRPORTS), but I am looking for some advice from editors outside the airport-editing sphere and without any such biases. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)