Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

List of Canadian project articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Currently, this project has about ~66 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, please check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined for doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These articles could use some attention

If someone could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list, down to 44. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National NDP page including provincial wing results.

Several months ago there were lengthy discussions on whether to include the results of provincial New Democratic Party wings on the page of the national party. The conclusion was to exclude them on the basis of each wing already having their own page and supposedly it was mutually exclusive to have both. This claim was made on the basis that no countries that have it included in their national page also have separate pages for regional branches. Having done more research I have found that claim to be false. First example of a party that has both is the Labour Party (UK). As you can see on it's page it includes tables for subnational results for the party. Simultaneously each wing of the party has its own page Scottish Labour, London Labour, Welsh Labour. It is the same for the Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK). This is also true for political parties in the United States e.g. Michigan Democratic Party, in Germany (though most of the state pages only exist in German), and in Australia e.g. Australian Labor Party & New South Wales Labor Party. With this mountain of precedent and evidence, I believe there is no justification for this information to be excluded from the article, and should be added back immediately. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend bringing this to Talk:New Democratic Party - the discussion would be better had over there. The noticeboard is ideal for notifying of such discussions. MediaKyle (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the UK or Australia. With that in mind, we've decided (multiple times) to not include the provincial/territorial wings. PS - We already have a section in prose, concerning those wings. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has begun a discussion at the NDP talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder of the discussion-in-queston. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert sidebars to navbars for political ideologies?

As seen above #Political sidebars related to Template:Conservatism in Canada and the newly created Template:Democratic socialism in Canada and Template:Liberalism in Canada. Should we nip this link spam in prose area of articles to loosely related to articles - by simply converting these to footer navbars before things get out of hand as seen in American articles? As mentioned at the Template:Harper sidebar deletion discussion - more descriptively.. In Canada we simply don't follow the American example of 'mass internal link spam' on every related page in the middle or beginning of articles. I think another concern is that these take up space for educational images.... especially when they're in the lead where they are not seen by those using mobile view (over 60% readers) anyways ...thus leaving the lead blank for most readers. We might as well get ahead of the curve considering sidebars are being deleted on mass all over Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 8#Culture sidebars part 6. What do others think should we take the time to clean up these articles? Moxy🍁 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I'm glad that you brought this up. I agree with getting rid of political sidebars altogether - for one thing, these navigation templates are far too large. When there's so many links, they cease to be a useful navigational tool for the user. In fact, these sidebars have so many links, that many of the articles included do not even use the sidebar template, making them frustrating for readers. Including or excluding certain things from these political sidebars could also be seen as problematic, especially when we get into listing politicians under these sidebars. We cannot include every topic under the umbrella of conservatism, for example, so by what metric do we decide what to include? Further, their scope is duplicated by navboxes, which are in general a much tidier way of presenting a navigational aid - multiple navboxes can be nested together when things get out of hand, and they have greater flexibility for organization via subgroups. My attempts to trim the bloat from the Conservativism and Liberalism sidebars has received some resistance from RedBlueGreen93 so I suspect they will have something to say on this matter. MediaKyle (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries would have been nice from them so we could have discussed things before it was all over. Tried before to bring them into a conversation to no avail. Moxy🍁 02:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted those edits because I think the sidebars should keep notable politicians. I am not opposed to discussing higher notability standards (especially on the Liberalism and Conservatism templates) so to avoid an excess amount of links, but I don't think we should be removing them entirely. RedBlueGreen93 20:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about converting them to footers so we don't have random link spam in the middle of prose text....does this sound ok to you? Many dislike the WP:Seealso runaround especially when it takes up room for something educational. I take it your aware that there is an ongoing campaign to get rid of these sidebar templates entirely (not by this project) Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, and Culture sidebars part 4. See also Culture sidebars part 5. Think it may be best to convert before they're simply deleted. On a side note thosez creating these should review MOS:COLOUR.Moxy🍁 21:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clean'em up. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Moxy makes good points. I'm not opposed to converting these sidebars into navboxes, as long as those resulting navboxes have added value and are not just a bunch of linkspam. I was about to just nominate Template:Democratic socialism in Canada for outright deletion for multiple reasons (which I'll explain) until I saw @Moxy's invitation to come and discuss it here. So here I am. :)

I'm gathering my future TfD plans for the Category:Canada politics sidebar templates here:

>> Chat at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Convert sidebars to navbars for political ideologies?
Merge Template:Alberta topics (sidebar) into Template:Topics on Alberta (footer navbox)
Merge Template:Politics of Ontario (sidebar) into Template:Ontario politics (footer navbox)
Merge Template:Pre-confederation Canadian legislative bodies (sidebar) into Template:Canadian legislative bodies (footer navbox)
Merge Template:44th Canadian Parliament series (sidebar) into Template:44th Canadian Parliament (footer navbox)
Merge Template:45th Canadian Parliament series (sidebar) into Template:45th Canadian Parliament (footer navbox)
Convert Template:Politics of Canada to navbox
Convert Template:Conservatism in Canada to navbox
Convert Template:Liberalism in Canada to navbox
Convert Template:Democratic socialism in Canada to navbox?

^ Most of the sidebars above are almost entirely duplicative of the footer navboxes next to them, or should be converted into a footer navbox for the reasons mentioned by Moxy and @MediaKyle, or in my nominator's rationales at the Culture sidebars TfMs linked above (WP:LEADSIDEBAR, WP:LINKBACK, WP:BRINT etc.).

For Template:Democratic socialism in Canada I'm not so sure it could be readily converted into a navbox:

It has only 4 transclusions, meaning it's not really useful for navigation between the c. 75 (!) articles it links to;
It has many generic links under "Schools" and "Principles" that are not Canada-specific;
It has a rather long list of active and defunct parties in a sidebar, whereas a category would suffice much better. Per WP:TG no. #6, Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function.;
Etc. etc.

So unless there is a large-scale overhaul to a navbox which is properly transcluded in all articles it links to, I'd rather just delete this sidebar. Template:Liberalism in Canada has similar issues, and is also poorly transcluded. Template:Conservatism in Canada seems properly transcluded, so conversion to a navbox shouldn't give us much trouble. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, that all sounds good to me. the Democratic Socialism sidebar is quite recent, I see no reason why we can't just delete it, especially given it was never really implemented properly. Seeing the way the tide is going, I'm going to start converting the Nova Scotia sidebars as well before I'm forced to clean up merges. Already redirected Template:Culture of Nova Scotia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for also taking the initiative!

I could nominate the Democratic Socialism in Canada sidebar for deletion, but I'd like to leave the possibility open for improvement if anyone wants to have a go. After all, Template:Conservatism in Canada is properly transcluded, it just should be a navbox rather than a sidebar. The Democratic Socialism and Liberalism templates are not unfixable, but rather than trying to salvage it by converting it into a navbox and overhauling it with transclusions, starting over from scratch might be a better idea (WP:TNT). @Moxy what do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got an email about concerns that some of these are being made/expanded by User:Charles lindberg. Moxy🍁 21:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangential note, Template:Ontario topics and Template:Ontario seem like they should merge. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 6#Template:Ontario topics. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like we have Template:Mark Carney sidebar again now. Worth keeping an eye out for containment breaches. We were doing so well... MediaKyle (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians start dates

See User talk:Rushtheeditor#Adding unreferenced biographies. They have added that the newly elected MLAs in the 2025 Nunavut general election took office on 27 October 2025 as soon as the election was over and this is standard throughout Wikipedia. JTtheOG and myself have been removing them. On page 5, section 12, Oaths oOfficial Consolidation of Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act it says "Every member shall, before assuming any duties of office, take an oath of allegiance in Form 1 and an oath of office in Form 2 of Schedule D in the presence of the Commissioner." My reading of that, is they are not officially MLAs or can assume office until sworn in.

So do we put in the date of the election or wait until they are sworn in. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, we use the election date for the start of a term. You'd have to get a consensus (for all Canadian politicans) to change that. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying I need a consensus to add sourced material to BLPs but I don't need consensus to add unsourced information that directly contradicts a valid source? Can you point to where a consensus was formed to allow original research to be added to BLPs? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Bearcat's response. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, legally speaking, an MP's start date is backdated to the day of their election, in order to simplify things like payroll and record keeping. Pinging Bearcat, who is most knowledgeable about MP start and end dates. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this argument about what is or isn't the start date of a Canadian politician's term in office before — but for most politicians, we have no consultable sources to tell us what the person's official swearing-in date even was. The "swearing-in" date falls sometime in between election day and the first sitting of the legislature, and isn't always even the same day for every member, but media don't generally report the swearing-in dates as any kind of news, and even the legislature websites don't make any special point of recording the dates of individual members' swearings-in for posterity either. So even if we wanted to use the swearing-in dates, we rarely ever have any sources of any kind to even tell us what date that even was in the first place.
So literally the only dates it's even possible for us to use are either (a) election day, or (b) the date of the first formal sitting of the new legislature, because those are the only dates we can reliably and consistently verify for the vast majority of Canadian legislators — so while there are legitimate arguments in favour of both of those options, the consensus decision, when it came up for discussion here in the past, was to go with the election date.
The rule also absolutely cannot be that we use the election date for all other legislatures in Canada while using a later date only for Nunavut — the rule has to be the same for all Canadian federal, provincial and territorial legislatures across the board, because this is one of those things where it's incredibly important for us to be consistent.
So, unfortunately, the choices here are either (a) we use the election date for Nunavut whether you like it or not, or (b) you personally commit to gnoming your way through every single person who's ever served in any Canadian legislature to change them all to "first sitting of the new legislature" across the board, because this absolutely cannot be a "one rule for everybody else and a different special rule only for Nunavut alone" thing. Nunavut has to follow the same rule as all other Canadian legislatures when it comes to this. It's either "always the election date for all legislators" or "always the opening of the first legislative session for all legislators", not "the election date for some legislators and the opening of the session for others". Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you and GoodDay are saying is that there isn't a site wide consensus to allow original research (OR) and to avoid Wikipedia:Verifiability? Note Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
and at the top of {{Infobox officeholder}} (and others of this type) it says
The design and content of biographical infoboxes must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as well as the infobox and biographical style guidelines. All content displayed by this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy when applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed, especially if it is potentially libelous.

Which means that start dates can be removed as per Wikipedia policy.

As to me going through all office holders and changing it to the date of the first sitting I'm not about to change one type of OR with another. If there is no source to say when they assumed office they no date should be put in. However, if a site wide consensus is achieved, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would probably be the place to start, then an agreed upon date can be entered.

"The rule also absolutely cannot be that we use the election date for all other legislatures in Canada while using a later date only for Nunavut". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we use sourced dates where we have them and no dates where there are no sources. In other words we follow established policy. "the rule has to be the same for all Canadian federal, provincial and territorial legislatures across the board, because this is one of those things where it's incredibly important for us to be consistent." No it isn't important to be consistent. If possible it should be consistent but accuracy is more important. Wikipedia, and Canadian articles, are full of inconsistencies when it would compromise accuracy. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be your end date for legistlative members' term? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Failing a source then it would also be subject to a site wide consensus. See above for a possible suggestion as to where that could be achieved. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask here. Will you please fix up your usernam, so that it doesn't read as three seperate names in your posts? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked at my talk page first and I've responded there. This is just a distraction from the matter at hand. Short answer, no. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a consensus for the changes you want? so be it. Until then, it's likely any changes you make, will likely end up reverted. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already have consensus. See the links to the three policies I provided above. You need to obtain consensus to allow original research and ignore verifiability. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reason not to use unsourced start dates. There are going to be three judicial recounts so that's three people who didn't take office right after the election. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true there is ambiguity on the exact moment an elected representative takes office. (The Library of Parliament actually has a short (four page) essay about this.) But regardless of when it happens, the legal option seems to be using election day as that date, backdated. It is what Parlinfo does, at least, including for provincial and territorial politicians. Look at their pages for Hunter Tootoo and Leona Aglukkaq: under "Provincial / Territorial Experience", their start date as a Nunavut MLA coincides with the 1999 Nunavut general election and 2004 Nunavut general election, respectively. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the dates? I won't be reverting you. There's well over 1,000 bios to change. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to start an edit war. However, now I'm curious as to the start date of the premier. Our former premier, P.J. Akeeagok, didn't run in this election. Based on the above comments he ceased to be an MLA and also as premier as of 27 October 2025. So will the new premier's start date be the day the regular MLAs choose them or will it be backdated to the day of the general election? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akeeagok's tenure as premier ends, when he resigns as premier. That occurs on the day the new premier is appointed. You don't have to be an MLA, to be premier GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Data duplication in the lead

Pls see Talk:Religion in Canada#Pie chart (of census data) in the lead? Moxy🍁 01:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass editing to BC politician bios

A new editor, User:Totesonthecoast, has mass edited the voting choice of several BC politicians, regarding the first reading a bill. Wondering how other feel about single-purpose, mass edits like this. Thanks. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a classic case of POV-pushing to me, and the speed at which the sections are being added doesn't inspire confidence. I trust your judgement to handle it. MediaKyle (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Beguiling

The Beguiling 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) 00:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floor crossing

See Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada & related pages. Not certain how to handle this situaton. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed... What is there to handle? The news is coming out now: [1] ... I imagine we'll have plenty of good sources to clean up by tomorrow. MediaKyle (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... Not like this hasn't happened before anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The timing. He hasn't crossed 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has resigned from the Conservative caucus and told CBC News he'd be joining the Liberals. That'll probably be done before the House of Commons website updates his status. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CBC says it's "imminent". This statement from the Liberals just came out 30 mins ago, too. I don't think we have to worry about going around reverting everyone just yet. MediaKyle (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris d'Entremont attended the Liberal caucus meeting today. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another man down. The Conservatives are having a rough week. MediaKyle (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada

Mass changes to Liberal Party of Canada, concerning provincial/territorial election results. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of Canada sidebar merger

Pls see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_5#Culture_sidebars_part_8. Moxy🍁 22:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers

If anybody's looking for a project, a (non-Canadian) editor whacked a whole bunch of Canadian newspapers with prod tags earlier today, including several that already have WP:GNG-worthy sourcing in them to establish notability — and while some others were admittedly poorly sourced or unsourced, the ones I've looked at so far have proven almost painfully easy to repair with simple searches in Proquest and Newspapers.com. But there are comsiderably more than I can tackle by myself, so if anybody wants to help salvage some Canadian newspaper articles they're in Category:Proposed deletion as of 5 November 2025. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how Wikipedia:Does deletion help? - Wikipedia is one of the places people start their search for old newspapers in regards to researching local history. If AI doesn't take over information spreading the articles will eventually just be rewritten.....as we have a few Canadians that deal just journalism articles. This happened to a few university papers I remember 10 years ago but I see that most of them are back anyways.Moxy🍁 00:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm on the case :-)

In a perfect world, newspapers above a certain circulation would have inherent notability. Its very useful to be able to wikilink newspapers in citations so readers can know where the information is coming from, and have an idea of who the publisher was (and thus the paper's bias). Maybe someday... MediaKyle (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it's clear as per List of newspapers in Canada page views (such an obscure article) ... that thousands of people are trying to locate local newspapers. Very odd we would deny local researchers this information. Moxy🍁 01:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of female first ministers in Canada

A discussion, as to whether or not opposition leaders should be included. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal fighter or shock puppet investigator?

See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Temporary account IP viewer Moxy🍁 03:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sofia Camara#Requested move 17 October 2025

The following was posted at the talk page for WP Ontario, but it will get more readers in from this talk page:

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sofia Camara#Requested move 17 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK T(alk) 12:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent regional spellings Centre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine

I discussed earlier on the article’s talk page that the sentences use inconsistent British and American spellings. I’ve nominated this article for improvement, and on top of that, I’ve also reached out to the creator of this article and made a to-do list. I’m posting a nearly identical comment on WT:HOSPITAL, WT:QWNB, and WT:MTL. 2600 etc (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Evander Kane

Evander Kane 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) 01:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on Magrath, Alberta please

There is a persistent editor at Magrath, Alberta that asserts the local mayor is notable due to goldfish eradication and whitetail deer culling. An extra set of eyes would be appreciated to counter the persistence. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Prevost

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of premiers by time in office

Can anyone explain what exactly is the issue with having list articles of Canadian premiers by time in office? Can we resestablish if this position still has concensus, because following an AFD from 2007 makes no sense to me. The arguements in that AFD claimed that the articles were unnecessary because the information was too similar to that of the general "list of premiers" articles. If that were the case, we may as well go around and systemically delete every articles in the Category:Lists of people by time in office. A first minister's tenure in office and other supplemental information such as how many elections they won is useful and notable information, and it should not be crammed into an already busy list of premiers by order of office, especially considering that the template used to make this list ({{Canadian first minister list}}) does not generate a sortable table.

In my opinion, we should restore these articles:

on the grounds that this information is not actually redundant, and lists like these are commonplace across all of political Wikipedia. RedBlueGreen93 06:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All those lists should be deleted, as they're trivia. GoodDay (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office isn't? If your concern is content, then more information about each premier's mandates could be added to the lists as well, but you'll find that many other heads of government such as American presidents, UK prime ministers, Australian heads of government, etc. are all like this. RedBlueGreen93 06:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that page, too. What will we have next? lists of the tallest, the shortest, longest lived, etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t we get rid of lists of officeholders completely then, since any information about them beyond their mere existence is apparently trivia now. Have I got that right? I for one think these lists are good for researching and providing Wikipedia users with information that helps users understand political trends in Canada. It’s also worth mentioning that first ministers are not term limited, and legislature term lengths are not fixed, so the large variation of term lengths among premiers is notable information. This should not be crammed into the bottom of an article. Even the 2007 afd suggests this, that having multiple lists in one article is impractical. RedBlueGreen93 04:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Davis' favourite flower or Robert Bourassa's favourite song is trivia. Length of time in office is not. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want these articles restored. It may be trivia to some, but others use it for research. Rklingmann (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information is still on Wikipedia, it was just merged into the main "List of premiers…" page. For example, List of premiers of British_Columbia#List of premiers by time in office. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kawnhr,

I now see what the problem is for me. The person that instigated this purge decided to delete the Ontario list instead of merging it like BC.

The BC solution applied to Ontario would work for me.

I still don't like the logic of some users that if they don't use the List then no one else should be able to use it. Cheers Rklingmann (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's my bad… I had clicked on a few of those links to check if the "by time in office" tables appeared on the page, and saw they were, but Ontario was not one of the ones I looked at. Sorry! To that end, I've just added the table to the Ontario list, since this discussion seems to be leaning against restoring the page. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Kawnhr. I am happy with this compromise. Just in time for a Ford bump!

Cheers, Rklingmann (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinions on this, honestly. I do like having these "by time in office" tables, and don't think that's simply trivia, but I'm ambivalent on whether it's better suited to its own page or not. On one hand, it does feel a bit like clutter on the "List of premiers…" pages; but on the other, splitting them off arguably results in a pretty thin page. I'm fine with whatever the community decides. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list of prime ministers of Canada by time in office has a notes column which can explain some of the details surrounding the length of a premiership. I think it would make sense to restore the premier articles, but add a notes column describing the context of how premiers secured legislative mandates. Taking BC for example, a lot could be said about Hart, Johnson, WAC Bennett, Horgan, and all the non-partisan premiers, but not having an independent list would lead to excessive clutter.

Also, I'm not too keen on setting a precedent that would force the deletion of:

RedBlueGreen93 20:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to admit, some of these are a bit much. List of prime ministers of Canada and premiers of Ontario is really pushing it. MediaKyle (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Canada by constituency is handy for finding who lost their seat in a general election or governed from outside the House. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That page should face a AFD or Prod. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's useful information in a condensed form that's not easily collated otherwise. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian prime ministers & Ontario premiers list? GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were referring to the ... by Constituency article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political Wikipedia has a really bad habit of wanting to shove tons of contextless statistics into everything. I don't see any reason we need to have these be separate. Can't we just use a sortable table in the main list to sort by time in office? MediaKyle (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office survived a deletion request back in 2021: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office.

Here's what I said at the time, which other editors seemed to agree with:

Keep Since Prime Ministers do not have fixed terms of office, having a list organised by term of office provides significant information about the relative political significance of the different PMs. They are inherently notable, both individually and as a group, and their relationships to each other is illustrated by a list showing terms of office. The list by time in office thus serves an informational function that a chronological list or an alphabetical list would not do. (I also think it would be difficult to produce a sortable list; I tried to do that with this list, but was defeated by the fact that some PMs served separated terms. But then, I'm not the most techno-wikipedians around, so maybe someone else, more versed in wikidom, would be able to figure it out.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The similar list for British PMs was challenged at the same time and also survived: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure.

I think the same analysis applies to the lists of premiers by time in office. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template error

Just noticed an error in {{Infobox Canadian Parliament}}. See Template talk:Infobox Canadian Parliament#Dot used after month. Not major but should be corrected. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better name for the Crown attorney article?

I've started working on the Crown Attorney article. I think the current name is not accurate, since "Crown attorney" is not uniform across Canada. For example, federal prosecutors are "Crown counsel" in English. I've started a discussion on the Talk page for a better name, but I've not proposed a new name. Would welcome comments from anyone who is interested. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globe & Mail article on two Canadian wikipedians!

I just stumbled over a great Globe & Mail article about two of our Canadian wikipedians, from July 2025. Doesn't appear to be paywalled: "Wikipedia editors, the internet’s nerdy unsung heroes, keep the website one of the last best places online"; https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-wikipedia-page-editors/ Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this. You inspired me to make this: User:MediaKyle/WikiProject Canada in the press (I like lists) -- hope there's something in there of interest for you. Feel free to add to it, move it to projectspace, or whatever you want. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion in infobox

Hey everyone, I need some help settling an edit war. Another editor removed the Green Party of Canada and People's Party of Canada from the infoboxes on the 2019 Canadian federal election in Quebec and 2015 subpages without any prior discussion. Based on long-standing precedent, I reverted and restored the entries. To me the criteria for inclusion here seem clear. For the PPC, the party is included in the main 2019 Canadian federal election infobox because it held a seat in Quebec going into the election, so it only makes sense that the Quebec subpage reflect the same. The Green Party should also be included: they had incumbent MPs in Quebec going into both the 2015 and 2019 elections, and they received substantially more votes in Quebec than the PPC (4.5% vs. 1.5%). Precedent from the 2021 Canadian federal election shows that a party should still be included in the infobox if it earns more votes than another party that holds seats, even if it wins none itself, and gets below 5%. The other editor’s conduct has also made productive discussion difficult. They repeatedly reverted without opening a talk-page discussion, and only engaged after many many rounds of back-and-forth. Their edit pattern suggests a refusal to discuss content and instead continue the revert cycle, and I can see past blocks on their account for similar edit-warring behaviour. I’m asking for outside input or guidance on how this should be resolved, and whether the parties should be included in these infoboxes based on established practice. For reference, the discussion so far is on my talk page: User talk:Politicsenthusiast06#Canadian federal election in Quebec. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit to unpack here. In the main articles, the PPC doesn't meet the general critieria for inclusion (5% or seats) but its is my understanding that we gave it an exemption because of how frequently the party showed up in secondary sources, and its implications on the Conservative vote share. I was unaware that their inclusion was also based on the grounds that they held a seat going into the election. Normally, I would say get rid of both the Greens and the PPC, but if we care about the latter standard, then I definitely agree with your logic that a party that performed better than the PPC should be included if the PPC is also included. So for now, I suppose it makes most sense to include all 6 parties in that infobox. RedBlueGreen93 22:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is the other way around: we do what reliable sources do, period. We have adopted a general guideline that a party that gains a seat or earns more than 5% of the popular vote is likely to attract coverage from reliable sources (especially for future elections), in the way that a notability guideline provides criteria for when a subject is likely to achieve notability, but it is always coverage in reliable sources that ultimately determines inclusion. I wouldn't count on precedent from a federal election article carrying over to provincial elections, especially in Quebec - this should be settled by discussion on the election articles' talk pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a federal election, not a provincial election. RedBlueGreen93 22:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mystery of Akamassiss

See Talk:Newfoundland and Labrador. Basically, we have a redirect at Akamassiss, supposedly an Innu language word, but I can't find a single reliable source for this information. Would appreciate more input, I'm quite curious now if this is just made-up or not. MediaKyle (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial infoboxes with 'other names'

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Nova Scotia#Infobox
→ Talk:Prince Edward Island#Infobox
→ Talk:Newfoundland and Labrador#Infobox

We're having a bit of a dispute at Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia & Prince Edward Island, concerning French versions of those names, in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to start a centralized discussion about the same thing, since there are now parallel discussions on several pages about this same issue which really should impact all Canadian province infoboxes. GoodDay, along with Moxy and MediaKyle, have re-started a discussion from earlier in the year (at least on the PEI talk page) about infoboxes including any alternate name that is not an "official" name sourced to a government document. I and a few other editors (courtesy ping Simonm223 and W.andrea) have challenged this view, arguing that infoboxes are a summary of information about a topic, not a repository for official information only, and as such including place names in other commonly-used languages (not just French; Mi'kmaq and Gaelic have also been removed) is acceptable and expected. No consensus has really formed; I would like to hear more opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is we should stop worrying about the infobox and start writing "Etymology" sections. Our readers will thank us. MediaKyle (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles already have etymology sections (I'm counting Nfld's "Names" section as an etymology). They could all probably use some work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think French is relevant enough to these provinces to merit mentioning in the infoboxes. For one thing, they all have decent French-speaking populations, and for another, French is historically important to at least the Maritimes and Labrador (I'm not sure about NFLD). — W.andrea (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say what I always say when people freak out about the inclusion of "Colombie-Britannique" in the British Columbia article: the provinces and the territories are creations of Canada, Canada is officially bilingual, and the government of Canada literally has official French names for ALL its constituent parts. Given that, and just that, it doesn't matter whether 0% or 100% of a jurisdiction is French or English, or what that jurisdiction's own official languages are: both its official English and French names should be included in both the lead of the article and the infobox. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the provinces and the territories are creations of Canada

The territories, sure, but the provinces joined confederation of their own accord. They weren't created by Canada. That's not to take away from your main point, just a quibble with one part. — W.andrea (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for native names, I think the provinces are fundamentally post-colonial entities, and it seems like native names don't line up one-to-one with the English and French toponymy. So I'm undecided. — W.andrea (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mi'kmaq should be included for Prince Edward Island; I don't really have insight on the other provinces. The last time this came up I provided some citations to demonstrate the public push (by Indigenous groups and the PEI government itself) to highlight and promote the Mi'kmaq language and heritage in the province, including successfully renaming a national historic site to include its Mi'kmaq name, an ongoing proposal to rename a major landmark after the Mi'kmaq name of the island, and the newest national park reserve was named after its Mi'kmaq place name. Many names of places around the province are English bastardizations of French transliterations of Mi'kmaq names (for example Bedeque, Cascumpec, Malpeque) which is also the case in at least New Brunswick (Kouchibouguac, for example). Many place signs and heritage plaques are already printed in English and Mi'kmaq; French is far less common, although (ironically maybe) the most Acadian parts of the island have the most British names (Wellington, Richmond). Also, as W.andrea suggested below, I believe PEI is one of the only provinces where the local Indigenous group does have a specific name for the province itself which is commonly used, as opposed to only used when dealing with the colonial/provincial/territorial government. It violates NPOV to omit it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NWT

Honestly, are there really a lot of French speakers in Northwest Territories, that we should have a French version of NWT in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking, are there? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than 4,000, according to census data, and it's one of the official languages of the territory. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NWT has 11 official languages. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do they also have their own names for the territory that are worth mentioning in the infobox? I'm asking because Mi'kmaq apparently doesn't really have a word for Nova Scotia, instead they use a transliterated version of the English, No'pa Sko'sia, and only if they have to talk about the political entity, otherwise they use a different word to refer to geographical areas like Unama'ki for Cape Breton. — W.andrea (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to impose a rule that the infobox is for official languages, then yes, all 11 of them. I'm not suggesting that we do, NPOV suggests we should go by common usage. If they are generally commonly used names, not necessarily just by the speakers of those languages (as I have been trying to demonstrate is the case for Epekwitk/Abegweit in Prince Edward Island) then they should be included in the infobox, otherwise I think they should be mentioned in an etymology section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is where you're starting to lose me. You're suggesting that if all 11 names are in common use, then we would want all 11 names in the infobox? You do realize that would take up an amount of space equivalent to a photograph? I don't think this argument really holds up. My goodness, these are just infoboxes anyways. They're not even open by default for mobile readers, i.e. the majority of our readership. For the provinces, I say we just settle on English and French across the board, and explain everything else in the body of the article, the more important part of the article. Consensus is a lot more clear for including French names than any others. I don't have an opinion on the territories, other than to say 11 names would be comically out of hand. MediaKyle (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that would take up an amount of space equivalent to a photograph?

Or we could just collapse the "other names" like I did at Nova Scotia: diff. — W.andrea (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaKyle, I think you need to read my comment again, but I'll draw your attention to my second sentence which opens with "I'm not suggesting that we do [include all 11 names]" (emphasis added). What is the rationale for including both English and French if not common usage (French is only official in Quebec and New Brunswick), and if common usage is the criteria then what is the rationale for excluding Mi'kmaq from PEI? The Mi'kmaq name for the province is significant enough to be highlighted in the lede, its (current) French name isn't mentioned at all until the etymology section, in a passing note along with Gaelic. In many of the infoboxes we now have the French name listed as the only alternate without the French name being described in the article at all, while other more relevant languages are. It's nonsensical. I don't accept the argument that we should not have standards for what is included in the infobox: they are not just decoration, and they are not less important because they're not visible to some readers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion from the lead (infobox is in thelead) because there's zero context... thus implying its a first language (native language) connection when there's clearly not. Etymology section is the place to discuss modern translations or historical terms.Moxy🍁 21:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of the Northwest Territories operates in English and French, as shown by its official websites. Therefore, French and English names should both be used, because both are the names of the territory, as demonstrated by the government itself. The French version is not a translation of the name; English and French are given the same status by the territorial government.
See:
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand this comment from Moxy: "because there's zero context... thus implying its a first language (native language) connection when there's clearly not." Is that saying that we presume all long-term residents of the NWT (or born there) who are not Indigenous speak English as a first language, and anyone who speaks French as a first language is from away? It doesn't strike me as at all clear that there are no long-term residents of the NWT (or born there) for whom French is the first language. Absent any evidence, we can't make a presumption on this point, and assume English only (without any evidence), and deny French-speaking residents (without any evidence). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should be more clear....we should not use the Template:Native name parameter ment for the main language that people use in a region. Moxy🍁 15:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian Parliament: Date glitch

There is a date glitch in the Template:Infobox Canadian Parliament. The dates for the return of the writ and for dissolution, which appear at the top of the infobox, get abbreviated with a period to only three letters. See, for an example: 42nd Parliament of Ontario, where the dates are given as: Jul. 11, 2018 – May. 3, 2022.

Two points: there's no need for a period after May; and, abbreviating the dates in this way is contrary to MOS:DATESNO: "Do not add a full stop (period) to an abbreviated month". As well, why abbreviate the month at all? MOS:DATEFORMAT says a three letter abbreviation is used "Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful." I don't see the need for abbreviations here.

I have zero knowledge of templates; is there anyone who can edit the template to get rid of the period, at least? And look at whether the abbreviated version is needed?

Thanks, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge is only slightly greater than zero, but it seems that the appearance of the date is controlled by the format string following the #time magic word, currently showing M. in each instance. Removing the period should be as simple as that (famous last words!), while substituting F should spell out the month. Space is limited in infoboxes, which may make the latter less desirable. Is there room to show the worst case, probably two double-digit September dates, without breaking the line? (I don’t know how one would go about suppressing the period after May only.)—Odysseus 1479 20:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BC Conservative leader

Heads up, disputes at pages related to who's the BC Conservative leader & BC Opposition leader. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"professionally incapacitated" to continue as leader, according to the party executive. Interesting explanation. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]