Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject Canada
Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français)
Cyclopaedia of Canadian Biography
Full transcriptions of two volumes of the Cyclopaedia of Canadian Biography (1888 and 1919) can now be found at Project Gutenberg. They may be useful sources for biographical articles for Canadians who are lesser known today.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53635 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzulo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Can someone check Supply Management, I feel like Oceanflynn may be making edits in Good faith by posting only sources that are favorable to supply management and deleted content that seems unfavorable. I feel like he might be violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines and come off as Disruptive editing. Thanks, 22.214.171.124 (talk)00:58, 21 September 2018 UTC
There's been a bit of an edit war over the past week about whether Genie Award-winning cinematographer François Protat is alive or dead. There were no sources shown at all the first time he was edited to reflect him as dead, so it got reverted — and then today, somebody returned him to dead on the basis of a French language source which speaks of his disparition. The problem is that while "disparition" can be translated as death in some instances, it's much more usually used to mean disappearance in the sense of being reported missing — and even the person who added the source did so with the edit summary "assumed dead", meaning even they don't really know for sure. Obviously there's something wrong here, and we need another source which does a better job of clarifying whether he's dead or just missing, but I've been completely unable to find anything else.
Does anybody either know where to find a better source than I've been able to find, or have some insider information either way? Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can we just say "missing and presumed dead", if that's what the source says? "Reported dead" is probably not accurate and I agree should not be used here. The source given is the only recent news I'm able to find, and it does read like an obituary. He's not old enough for the presumption provision in WP:BDP. Also, I'd expect there to be more buzz about it if he has in reliable fact died. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do agree that I'd expect more reliable sources to be reporting his death if he were confirmed dead, but at the same time if he had simply disappeared I'd also expect there to be reliable source reporting of that (think back to Claude Jutra in 1986, or George Smitherman's husband in 2013: their disappearances got coverage.) But the source isn't actually saying "missing and presumed dead" either — it literally just says "disparition", and then leaves it up to the reader to interpret which of the two meanings it intended to communicate. I agree that the source probably means that he died, but only if you imagine me drawing out the word probably into a miasma of vocal fry the way people do when they're trying to say they can't commit to certainty. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion, disappeared (or disparu in this case) does not mean dead; he may have simply 'gone off the grid' in some way. PKT(alk) 22:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a source we can use as referencing per se, but somebody has located a Facebook post from Protat's son which states that he died. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Has this settled-down? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, better sources have now been located to confirm that he actually died. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Removing lists of judges from articles on Superior/Provincial courts
This would involve removing a lot of content from each of a couple dozen articles, so I thought I'd float it for discussion first in case anyone objects. Currently, every article for a Superior or Provincial court in Canada (see the corresponding rows of links at Template:Courts_of_Canada) includes a list of current and former judges. In many cases, these lists are very long (e.g. Supreme Court of British Columbia). I would like to remove these lists. They take up a lot of space, and I think provide more detail than is appropriate for Wikipedia. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, a person is typically included in a list of people only if they meet the Wikipedia notability requirement.
And per WP:JUDGE, a judge is presumed notable if they've held "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". The provincial courts of appeals are provincewide, but the superior/provincial courts are not. (I'm inclined to still keep references to current and former Chief Justices of these courts, where they exist.) Dindon~enwiki (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see this RfC. At this point it's just a comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant RfC in the generic sense of the word, not WP:RFC. Colin M (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- The superior trial courts certainly are province-wide. Why do you say they aren't? --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a provincewide system, yes, but the jurisdictional area of a judge on it is not provincewide. Provinces are divided into several distinct regions (eight in Ontario, frex), which each have their own distinct set of superior court judges who can only hear superior court cases in that specific area and don't normally have jurisdiction outside of it unless they're given a special temporary secondment to another area. So the system is provincewide, but each individual judge on it is not a provincewide titleholder for the purposes of our notability criteria for judges. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- That may be the case for Ontario but it is not the case for either BC or Saskatchewan, which are the two courts which triggered this discussion. In BC, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the province (Supreme Court Act, s. 9(2)), and s. 3(2) provides that "The court may be held before the Chief Justice or before any one of the judges." Same for Saskatchewan: s. 9(1) of the Queen's Bench Act provides that the Court "has original jurisdiction throughout Saskatchewan" (s. 9(1)), and s. 9(3) provides that: "(3) Judges have jurisdiction throughout Saskatchewan." For those two provinces, the judges of the superior trial courts meet the notability requirement of jurisdiction throughout the Province. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Similar wording exists in the Provincial Court Act of BC, governing the Provincial Court of British Columbia. "The court and every judge have jurisdiction throughout British Columbia...", "The court may sit at any place in British Columbia...". In practice, it seems like the justices of the Superior court work within a particular county (see the parentheticals in this directory) - the Supreme Court act even has clauses relating to residency requirements. I think the idea that every judge in BC is notable violates common sense. The wording of WP:JUDGE is not crystal clear on this point, but my understanding of the phrase "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is that it refers to the highest court of the state/province (so the courts of appeal in Canada, and state supreme courts in the US). Colin M (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Coming back to this issue, I have to disagree with Bearcat's statement that Superior Court judges in Ontario don't have province-wide jurisdiction. There are regional divisions of the Court, and judges are assigned to sit in those regional divisions, but that doesn't mean they lack province-wide jurisdiction. An order of a judge applies throughout Ontario. For example, if a company in financial difficulties has assets in Kingston, Toronto and Windsor, and a judge sitting in Toronto issues an order affecting the assets of the company in favour of the creditors, that order applies to the assets in Kingston and Windsor. It's not necessary to have the order re-issued by a judge in the regional divisions to make it apply in Kingston and Windsor. Residency and regional divisions do not limit jurisdiction. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- With respect to ColinM's point, I don't find the definition of judge in the "notability" guideline to be ambiguous: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". That's not tied in any way to the court hierarchy. Given that court hierarchies are such a common feature of the court system, if the point of the notability criteria were to only cover the highest court in a province or state, it would have said so. Instead, it uses the term "province wide". As the examples given illustrate, trial courts in Canada have province wide jurisdiction. So, I don't see any ambiguity there. However, I take your point - is province wide jurisdiction enough to say that someone is notable? Instead of approaching this as an ambiguity and then doing workarounds on a case-by-case basis, perhaps what we should be doing is establishing a notability guideline for the Canadian judiciary? There is one specifically for US judges: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, so why not one for Canadian judges, based on our court system? --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
42nd Parliament, House of Commons, political parties etc.
How many vacancies are their now? I believe it's five, but not sure. If its five? then we've got some updating to do on several articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're correct, GoodDay - the 3 ridings with by-elections this month (York-Simcoe (my riding), Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Burnaby South), and now Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. PKT(alk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- The 42nd Canadian Parliament, House of Commons of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, to name a few articles & related templates, will need updating. I will commence to do so, later today, unless there's objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's five. People completely missed Sheila Malcolmson's resignation from the House, for example — I've been concentrating mainly on Juno and Canadian Screen Award content lately, so I wasn't checking in on whether other people were staying on top of political stuff that wasn't specifically brought to my attention, but after her provincial by-election win last week I noticed that she had never actually been removed from the House of Commons template at all. I note that people were much better about updating things at the provincial level — by the time I heard the results, her article and the riding article had already been updated appropriately, but I had step in to fix the navboxes. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, due to the sensitivity of the current matter, I've applied a week of semi-protection to Jody Wilson-Raybould to prevent drive-by IP vandalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good call, Bearcat.....PKT(alk) 18:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If I can figure it out (someday) how to do it? I'll be opening RMs at 30th Alberta general election & 43rd Canadian federal election articles. Barring an extremely rare, unforeseen situation? those elections are going to take place in 2019. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Earlier today, an anonymous IP removed sections from the articles about Ontario MPPs Lisa MacLeod and Amy Fee which addressed the recent controversy around the Ontario Autism Program. They alleged in their edit summaries that the sections were "biased information" added by an "angry parent", but (a) they offered no real evidence that they actually knew the identity of the editor who had added it, or any reason why "angry parents" couldn't still have valid points, and (b) I'm not seeing any obvious evidence that the content was editorializing anything not supported by the sources being cited for it.
I ran an IP lookup on the editor, and it gave me a domain ID beginning with "pctnon", which seems at least potentially suggestive of a server directly associated with the political party ("Progressive Conservative T-? N-? ONtario") — so while I can't definitively prove anything, this may need some attention for possible conflict of interest editing.
At any rate, I don't personally see an obvious bias problem with the content. For the moment, I've reverted the IP and placed temporary semi on the pages to prevent it turning into an edit war — but since I've been concentrating mostly on film-related rather than political content lately, I'm aware of the autism controversy from the news but not all that familiar with the deep details. So I'd like to ask if a couple of other contributors could look over the articles to see if they can identify an NPOV problem I'm not seeing. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the material you restored in both articles, Bearcat, and I see nothing wrong with it - the text reflects what I have seen/heard in the news, and it appears to be properly referenced. The IP who deleted it has no basis for claiming that an "angry parent" was involved. PKT(alk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- That "pctnon" appears to be simply Bell's internal code for "Picton, Ontario", so it's not evidence of COI. Indefatigable (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposed change to lead sentence at territorial article
Pls see .....Talk:Territorial evolution of Canada#Lead change.--Moxy (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
March 2019: Vive la Francophonie
In connection with International Francophonie Day on the 20th, WikiProject Women in Red is focusing on Francophone Women throughout the month. Help us to increase coverage of Canadian French speakers in English and/or in French, turning red links into blue.--Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposing deletion for about 40 articles on Manitoban judges
I've found around 40 articles on judges who I think fail notability. They all follow similar patterns:
- Created by User:MBueckert
- The subject is a judge on either the Provincial Court of Manitoba or Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. As I said in an earlier discussion here, this does not create a presumption of notability via WP:JUDGE (see also this AfD).
- The article generally has just one reference, that being a government press release announcing their appointment to the court.
- The article's content restates (and, unfortunately, sometimes copy-pastes) the information from the press release. It gives the date of their appointment, who they replaced (and why that person vacated the position), and gives some routine facts about their background prior to the appointment (where they went to school, what law firms they worked at, whether they did any teaching, what areas of law they specialized in, possibly some kind of community engagement or volunteering that they do)
Some examples include: Frank Aquila, Kelly Moar, Lee Ann Martin, Patti-Anne Umpherville, Sidney Lerner (full list here)
I don't think these articles even put forward any claim that their subject is notable (other than the fact that they're judges), which is why I hope they're uncontroversial candidates for proposed deletion (also because of the unanimous outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carena Roller).
But I'm putting this forward as an informal "proposed-proposed deletion". If anyone comments here within the next week disagreeing with my proposal, I'll hold off on prodding these articles until we reach consensus (or, if we can't, I'll go through WP:AFD instead of WP:PROD). Colin M (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Another potential option is to create a List of judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba (or some such) and to redirect all the pertinent articles there (likewise for Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba). In my opinion, such as list should include only basic information, not biographical details; for example, name, date of appointment, who they replaced, date they vacated office, etc. Whether such a list is desirable or useful is the question. For reference, we have Category:Lists of Canadian judges, but nothing there is analogous to such a list. An analogue for the US is List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri; see also Category:Lists of judges of Australian superior courts, and as an example List of judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland. I agree that articles about individual judges for whom there are no third-party references don't pass the notability threshold. (Note: that Queensland article links to numerous pages about individuals, most of them suffering from the same problem as these articles.) Mindmatrix 16:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is that such list articles would not be useful (and would also be a nightmare to maintain for certain Provincial/Superior courts that have hundreds and hundreds of judges). Also, WP:LISTPEOPLE suggests that stand-alone lists of people should generally only include notable people. Thanks for the pointers to related articles. I think I'll need to do some more research to get a feel for how the hierarchy of courts in other countries relate to the Canadian system to make a proper comparison. List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri seems to be talking about a federal court, so I don't think it's directly comparable to this case. Colin M (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- FYI, I just went ahead and added the PROD template to these pages. If anyone's arrived here via one of them, I'm happy to discuss. Colin M (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@RebeccaGreen: Hey there, I see you've removed some or all of the PROD templates for these articles. You posted a comment on each of their talk pages as well, but I think it would be simpler to discuss the matter here. For reference, here's the comment you posted on the talk pages:
I think this needs to go to AfD, at the very least. On my reading of WP:JUDGE, he would indeed be presumed notable, as he is a judge of a provincewide court, which is specifically covered by that notability guideline: "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". I will de-PROD all the articles of judges of provincial courts for the same reason.
I don't know if you saw the link to this discussion that I included in the PROD message, but if not, I'd encourage you to read what I wrote above, and particularly the links to this earlier discussion of WP:JUDGE and this AfD, since I think they address your concern. In short, despite what the name suggests, the "Provincial Court of Manitoba" is actually a collection of trial courts spread around the province. A Provincial Court judge sits in a particular district (e.g. Winnipeg, Dauphin, Thompson) and hears cases from that region. The only judges in MB who have a "provincewide" office are the justices of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the province's highest court. Other provinces follow a similar pattern. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply Thank you for pinging me here. I did see this discussion; I had not seen the earlier discussion, but I have now read it. It does not address my concerns - or at least, I see no agreement in the discussion, and I agree with the editors who pointed out that the WP:JUDGE guideline says nothing about court hierarchies. Yes, I did de-prod all the articles- I did not believe they are uncontroversial deletions, a view which is reinforced by reading that earlier discussion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- The statement that the Provincial Court of Manitoba is "a collection of trial courts" is not correct. The Provincial Court is a single "court of record" (Provincial Court Act, Manitoba, s. 2), and "Every judge has jurisdiction throughout Manitoba..." (Provincial Court Act, Manitoba, s. 7). That seems to me to meet the test for notability: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" are presumed to be notable. The Provincial Court is a single court, with territorial jurisdiction throughout the Province of Manitoba, and each judge can exercise jurisdiction throughout the province, having been appointed by the provincial government. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I checked the discussion on Carena Roller which you mentioned. The comments there indicate that she is a circuit judge. In the US system, circuit judges do not generally have a state-wide office, being restricted to the particular judicial circuit defined by the state law in question. That's quite different from the Canadian system, which as I've outlined above, has generally gone to trial courts with province-wide jurisdiction. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Carena Roller is/was a judge on the Provincial Court of Manitoba. I think the nominator just misspoke when they used the term 'circuit' (or were using it in analogy to the US system). The comment at that AfD that was especially interesting to me in terms of precedent for interpreting WP:JUDGE was in the vote from User:Metropolitan90:
Judges at the trial court level of the court system are not inherently notable, per WP:JUDGE. Colin M (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- But that's the issue, isn't it? Where in the guideline is a distinction made between trial courts and appellate courts? By tying notability to "province wide" office, the Notability guideline does not base notability on the position in the judicial hierarchy, but rather on the nature of their appointment and the scope of the territorial jurisdiction of the judge. My understanding (open to correction by US editors who know more about their system) is that trial court judges in the US do not generally have jurisdiction throughout their state, because the state court system often has county court judges, district judges and municipal judges, with limited territorial jurisdiction. Under that system, trial court judges won't meet the notability requirement, not because they're trial court judges, but because they don't hold statewide office. That's not the judicial model used in Canada, as discussed above. I will ping the various editors from that discussion to see if they wish to comment here.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Metropolitan90, Mark the train, Bearcat, Coolabahapple, and Eggishorn: There is an ongoing discussion about the interpretation of the Notability criterion as it applies to judges in Canada at: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. It's relevant to the discussion about the deleted article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carena Roller, which you participated in earlier this month, so thought you might be interested in participating. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Interested parties may also want to check out this RfC at WikiProject Canadian law which I opened as an offshoot of this discussion. Colin M (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of what notability cutoffs you apply to what levels of judgeship, the notability test for a judge always still requires some evidence of reliable source coverage about them in media. For the same reason that television or print journalists aren't handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they have staff profiles on the self-published websites of the media outlets they work for, and musicians and writers aren't handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they have music for sale on iTunes or books on Amazon, a judge doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he or she can technically be verified by the government press release announcing their appointment to the bench or by a list of all the judges on the court's website — the judge's notability still hinges on the ability to show some evidence of journalism in reliable and independent sources about them, such as information about their career background and/or news reporting about notable decisions they handed down. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Bearcat: are you referring to WP:GNG, or a lesser threshold of coverage? My understanding of WP:N was that a subject was considered notable if they meet WP:GNG or any subject-specific notability guidelines. Colin M (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Meeting an SNG still requires some evidence of reliable source coverage in sources independent of the topic. It doesn't take as much sourcing — for example, an actor who gets over WP:NACTOR on "got an Academy Award nomination" grounds doesn't have to show as much sourcing as an actor who's shooting for "notable because they've had acting roles" has to show — but it still takes more than none, and just showing technical verification in one or two primary sources (e.g. a press release from, or a staff directory on the website of, the person's own employer) is not enough all by itself. There still has to be some evidence of reliable source coverage in news media or books before an SNG is actually passed — SNGs aren't passed just by asserting that the SNG is passed, but by the quality and type of sourcing that can be shown to support passage of the SNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- For the purpose of determining whether someone sits on a particular court, I would consider a government publication a very high-quality source. If you show me a press release from the government of Manitoba announcing that Carena Roller has been named to the Provincial Court of Manitoba, and show me that her name is listed on the court's website, I will have absolutely no doubt that she is truly a judge on that court, and that she therefore meets the WP:JUDGE SNG (well, modulo varying interpretations of that guideline). Do you disagree with my claim that such sources would reliably establish that she's a judge on that court? Or do you agree, but still see a need for better (in the sense of non-primary? or more in-depth?) sources to establish notability? If it's the latter, can you point me to a policy/guideline that supports that view? (Genuine question. I'm not trying to argue that you're wrong, just trying to better understand your reasoning.) Colin M (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between "the ability to verify the fact" and "the ability to show that the fact translates into a reason why a Wikipedia article needs to exist". Every single radio or television broadcaster who exists at all can always show a staff profile on the website of their own station, for example — but that isn't enough to make them a notable broadcaster all by itself, because the notability test derives from the ability to show reliable source coverage in media that don't sign the person's paycheque. Every single diplomat who exists can always be referenced to a DFAIT press release or a government staff directory; every single writer who exists can always be "referenced" to the presence of their books in library or bookstore directories like Amazon or WorldCat; every single actor who exists can always be "referenced" to an IMDb entry or their own films' or TV shows' press kits; every single city councillor who exists can always be "referenced" to the city's own website. And on and so forth. The notability test is not simply the ability to offer technical verification that a person has a job — it is the ability to offer some evidence of media caring enough to produce some journalism about the person's work in that job. That's always true of every notability criterion, even the SNGs — there is no notability criterion that ever makes a person so important that one press release from their own employer is enough all by itself to make them notable.
- Even a president of the United States would have to be deleted if he or she somehow managed to hold the role without actually garnering any media coverage for it: the notability test hinges on the reception of attention in sources independent of the topic, not just "staff" verification on their employer's own website. If all you can produce is a thinly-veiled rewrite of a person's primary source staff profile or a press release from their own employer, because actual reliable source coverage about them is nonexistent, then you haven't shown a reason why Wikipedia needs to curate content about them — anybody who's looking for that information will find the same staff profile or press release anyway, so simply paraphrasing that primary source on Wikipedia, without adding any new content from other sources because there aren't any other sources to support any other content, isn't adding value to the store of human knowledge about that person. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
But most of the examples you've given don't relate to actual SNG. For example, "has had a book published" isn't one of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR, and being a city councillor doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. I think the only relevant example is the hypothetical of a POTUS with no independent media coverage. My interpretation of this case would be that they meet WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:N says that meeting an SNG (without WP:GNG) is sufficient to establish notability, therefore they'd be notable. Is there a policy document that supports the idea that they wouldn't be notable? (FWIW, my personal gut feeling is that such a person shouldn't be considered notable, and that, as you say, it would be silly to have an article that just repeats a few facts from a routine government press release. But I can't find support for that intuition in policy documents.) Colin M (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
RfC on drug name
Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ready, set, lick
With the news about actor Boyd Banks licking a TV journalist live on the air, there's naturally been a drive-by IP egging frenzy on his article today, much of which has crossed the WP:NPOV line into calling him a creep — and, yeah, somebody who would actually do something like that probably is a creep, but it obviously isn't Wikipedia's role to call him that in our editorial voice. For the moment, I've inserted a neutral statement about it, referenced to a proper reliable source, and placed sprot on the article for a week — but I also checked the page statistics, and noted that it had zero page watchers when all of this was starting to go down. It's obviously got one now (raises hand), but wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to add the page to their watchlists to help keep things under control once the sprot expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Watching, but just wanted to observe that that is an excellent protection log summary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Properly sourced weatherbox for BC town?
Could I get others points of view of whether this weatherbox is sufficiently sourced please. There doesn't appear to be any climate data available from Environment Canada for this location. Thanks Air.light (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada 
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada.--Moxy (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Election results templates
A user has caught, and listed for deletion, a bunch of election results templates for the 2013 British Columbia general election that aren't actually in use. However, the actual problem isn't that they're redundant or useless — they just haven't actually been applied to the pages that election results templates are meant for, but rather each district/MLA pair is hardcoding the 2013 election results in-page instead of actually calling these templates. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_28#Unused_British_Columbia_provincial_election_2013_templates.
The templates should actually be used in lieu of hardcoded results tables, precisely so that the MLA's article and the district's article can't be edited in contradictory ways, so really the only problem here is that the creator of the templates never finished the job of actually adding them to the relevant articles at all.
So, since there's a fairly large cluster of templates involved and I'm not overly inclined to tackle the whole job by myself, I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help go through the list of templates to make sure they're actually being applied where they're supposed to be. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can help with that, Bearcat. Some of the templates themselves need a bit of work. PKT(alk) 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Vancouver neighbourhood categories
I've created and populated Category:Coal Harbour, Category:Kitsilano, and Category:West End, Vancouver. Please feel free to add and remove entries appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to raise a discussion about File:Canada federal elections.PNG, an image that's currently used only in a disused navbox template that's up for a deletion discussion. That navbox's deletion is justified, so that's not the question I want to raise — rather, I have questions about whether it's worth retaining this particular image at all.
The image, for the record, is a bar graph depicting the popular vote breakdowns in every Canadian federal election. However, there are significant problems with it:
- The old pre-1942 Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives and the contemporary Conservatives all use the same colour shade, while only Reform and the Alliance are singled out for separate colours. However, we've had this argument before in other places: yes, it is technically true that the modern Conservatives are the legal successor of the old PCs, but they're also the legal successor of Reform and the Alliance — so the 21st-century Conservative Party has to be denoted with a different shade of blue than any of its predecessor parties, because it's deceptive to treat it as continuous with the PCs but not continuous with Reform and the CA.
- Specifically in the span between 1993 and the PC/CA merger, however, the PCs are handled completely differently: instead of being given the normal colour they have everywhere else, they're simply buried in the "other/independents" colour. This is marginally defensible in 1993, due to the loss of official party status, except that the NDP didn't have official party status in that parliament either but are still denoted with their normal NDP colour — and in both 1997 and 2000, the PCs did have official party status but are still being othered instead of using their standard colour. So, basically, what the template is implying is that the PCs simply ceased to exist in 1993 before reemerging in 2004 as exactly the same party they used to be, with no indication of any Reform/CA continuity at all — and that's just not what happened.
- The image hasn't actually been updated at all since 2008, and is missing the two most recent federal elections.
So, my question is this: is it worth getting somebody to fix it so that it can be repurposed somewhere, or should we just have it deleted outright as an inaccurate image that doesn't have enough utility to be worth fixing? Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, never mind. I just checked the article that would be the most obvious potential candidate for repurposing this, List of Canadian federal general elections, and it already has a different bar graph on it to convey the exact same information. That graph is still missing the 2015 election (though it does have 2011), but avoids the Conservative continuity sins. So I'm just going to list this for deletion instead of trying to get it fixed, since there's already another template in place. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Signage and Freedom of Panorama
Apparently all images that include signage in Canada requires a WP:Fair use rationale, and is not covered by freedom of panorama (Commons:COM:FOP Canada). According to WikiMedia Commons, such should be deleted from Commons (such as Commons:COM:Deletion requests/File:Décarie Hot-Dogs de Montréal.jpg).
If this is carried out quickly on Commons over all Canadian images, many will be deleted, unless quickly reuploaed to EN and FR wikis with FURs attached to illustrate our various Canadian articles.
The reuploading would seem to be an important matter for WPCANADA/QUEBEC on EN.wiki and FR.wiki
-- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- What did the original image look like? If it was a shot of a building and not of just the sign, perhaps the Commons deletion request was wrong? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was a shot of the storefront, with the sign of the shop at the top, and part of the neighbouring business and 2nd floor apartment and sidewalk visible. Most of the photo was the store window looking into the restaurant. I find that COMMONS deletes things for very odd reasons. PD are deleted because someone relinquished their own rights so COMMONS doesn't accept that a person can give something to the public. A company releases photos from their portfolio, but COMMONS deletes the photos because the division releasing the photos isn't the same company, even though they share the same street address. It would not surprise me if COMMONS just deletes any Canadian photos with signs in them as an ongoing task whenever one is noticed. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry did not see this before....it's shock....we have been dealing with this guy for years ....will find more info.--Moxy (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Indigenous law categorization, and capitalization of Aboriginal
Two discussions started in the context of the Canadian Law WikiProject that could use some broader input.
Any input there would be appreciated, and maybe Aboriginal capitalization could be useful as part of this project's style manual too. Sancho 16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
This isn't something that I'm going to overly dwell on. But, it does appear odd, to have Rideau Hall described as the official residence of the Canadian monarch and governor general, when via CBC, CTV reporting & writings, it tends to be mostly described as the Canadian governor general's official residence. At the very least, WP:WEIGHT would seem to favor the governor general's status as RH's official resident. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The monarch has never lived there, even when she visits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Bit of a situation on Maria Augimeri's article where I could use a bit of assistance. When I recently viewed the article, the results of the 2018 election (in which she was defeated by James Pasternak under the new 25-ward model) were not being written about in a properly encyclopedic tone, but were covered only in terms of directly quoting her own personal thoughts on how she felt about getting defeated rather than actually describing what happened or why. The exact content was:
||James Pasternak beats fellow incumbent Maria Augimeri in Ward 6, York Centre
“This was not the election that the people wanted, said Augimeri”
“I’ve done this job as a sort of religion. For me, it’s been a calling, Augimeri said, at times holding back tears.”
Now, this is obviously not the kind of tone in which we should be writing about politicians, so I rewrote the section more neutrally:
Today, however, an IP number with no prior edit history has been revert-warring me, flipping the text back to the soundbite version, on the grounds that "Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased at all times. The use of public domain content should not be frowned upon nor discouraged." Except that (a) quotations are not "public domain" content, and (b) my more encyclopedic descriptive text is the more appropriately neutral and unbiased version, and the "Maria Augimeri's personal diary" version is not. However, it's not clearcut vandalism, so I can't just semiprotect the article or pull rank as an administrator if it gets to WP:3RR.
Is anybody willing to assist? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've added a bit more about her thoughts on the defeat (blaming the reorganization), but in an encyclopedic manner. I've added the page to my watchlist as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Reeves and mayors of former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto (moved from project page)
Question: how do those
below listed here meet WP:CANSTYLE#Municipal politics and then WP:POLITICIAN? Hwy43 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- All the reeves and mayors listed were in office after the creation of Metropolitan Toronto in 1954 and thus also had seats on Metro Toronto Council (ie they were Metro Councillors). According to WP:CANSTYLE#Municipal politics: "City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities". Metro Toronto, by definition, was a major metropolitan city therefore the reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto are deemed notable. Ffolkways (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- That criterion refers to the city council, not necessarily the Metro council. Metro councillors can still clear the bar if they can be reliably sourced well enough to clear GNG, but they do not all collect an automatic notability freebie just for existing just because Toronto's city councillors do — and as has been illustrated several times in the past, Metro councillors aren't guaranteed to always clear GNG on their sourceability across the board. Some do, yes, but many don't. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- The exclusion in the referenced section excludes sub-units such as Mississauga, but does not necessarily exclude super-sets such as Metro Toronto. It should be noted that Metro Toronto had the same geographical limits as the amalgamated City of Toronto and some functions such as policing were administered at the Metro level.--Big_iron (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that the old boundaries of Metro correspond to the current boundaries of the city is irrelevant to the notability of a Metro councillor. They weren't the boundaries of the city in their own time, so a Metro councillor does not get retroactively massaged into a "global city" councillor just because the boundaries of the city were expanded in 1998 — a pre-amalgamation Metro councillor from any of the former suburban municipalities still has to clear the county councillor test, not the "global city councillor" test, and the "county councillor" test has no automatic freebies for anybody anywhere in the absence of extremely high nationalizing sourceability. The only surefire way to make a Metro councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is if they were from Core Toronto, and thus served on both the Metro and Toronto city councils simultaneously — and even then they're fundamentally notable because city, not because Metro — but for a Metro councillor from Etobicoke or Scarborough or Swansea or Leaside or the Yorks, it's "show enough coverage to make them more special than most other county councillors or bust".
- Metro councillors do not get a retroactive application of the Toronto City Council notability test just because the boundaries of the city changed later on — they have to be sourced and substanced well enough to make them special cases. The "global city" test that gets Toronto's city councillors in the door only applies to Toronto City Council itself — it does not apply to Metro, or to the municipal councils of the former suburban cities that got amalgamated with Toronto in 1998. Municipal council of the core city only, limited to whatever boundaries delimited the core city in their own time. Prior to 1998, the only people who get the "global city council" freebie are the ones whose wards are numbered on this map. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bearcat:, @Big Iron: is correct. The fact that the boundaries of Metro Toronto were only later adopted by the City of Toronto is completely irrelevant. You are completely dismissing or minimizing what Metropolitan Toronto was and its importance. Metro wasn't some county council, Metropolitan Toronto was the largest municipality in Canada and the Metro level of government was the senior level responsible for the TTC, the Police, Public Works and the most important functions of the municipality. The mayors and reeves of the constituent parts of Metro were senior politicians who sat ex officio on Metro's executive committee and chaired various Metro boards. They were the most important municipal politicians in the city, much more so than say the junior alderman for Toronto's Ward 4. The senior politicians of Toronto City Council sat on Metro (ie the Mayor, Controllers, and senior alderman (wards had two aldermen) and Metro Council had much more power than Toronto City Council. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
"That criterion refers to the city council, not necessarily the Metro council." - Bearcat, you're splitting hairs and making a distinction without a difference. Metro Council was a municipal council, a metropolitan council, and was, as the article Metropolitan Toronto states, an "upper tier" level of municipal government. It was superior to its constituent city, town, and borough councils and was made up of senior members of each (and later directly elected members. The mayors and reeves (before 1967) all met the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges by virtue of being "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, by and large the suburban mayors and reeves before 1967 don't all meet the NPOL criteria: the core part of the notability criterion, the one that the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors have a problem passing as a rule, is the "who have received significant press coverage" part of the equation. Even for members of Toronto City Council proper, the notability test still isn't "automatic inclusion freebie, with no reliable sourcing required, just because the person exists" — the notability test still lives or dies on how much press coverage they get in the role, and a person who didn't get enough press coverage to clear that bar can still get deleted. (For instance, if there were ever a councillor who won their seat on election night but then died the next morning, so council had to fill the seat with a by-election or an appointment before the election winner had even actually been sworn in as a councillor at all, then that person would not get to keep an article just because they had technically won the election, because they had never actually held the office at all.)
- The "metropolitan city" test in CANSTYLE is the boundaries of the city proper. The only people who get the global city pass of NPOL are those who sat on Toronto City Council itself. Not Etobicoke City Council, not Scarborough City Council, not North York City Council, not Metro Council — prior to Megacity, the councillors in Old Core Toronto are the only ones who get the global city pass. I've actively checked ProQuest when suburban Metro councillors have come up for discussion, however — and as a rule, the pattern that applies in most cases is that Metro councillors from Core Toronto almost always did have enough press coverage to clear NPOL #2, mainly because they simultaneously sat on Toronto City Council and got coverage in that context, but Metro councillors from the former suburbs very often didn't get as much coverage as the downtowners did. It's not about whether Metro was "superior" or "inferior" to the city — it's about the depth and range and volume of media coverage that the respective levels of government got, and important or not, Metro councillors just didn't necessarily always get as much media coverage as city councillors did.
- When former Metro Councillor Bob Sanders came up for AFD a couple of years ago, the level of press coverage needed to support an article about him simply wasn't there. When Betty Sutherland (the person who sparked this discussion in the first place) came up for AFD earlier this year, the press coverage needed to support an article simply wasn't anywhere to be found: the article was resting far too strongly on primary sources and photographs, with very little reliable or notability-supporting media coverage, and even when I searched ProQuest the depth and volume of media coverage that had to be there to save the article simply wasn't there.
- The notability test for politicians at the municipal level, even in Toronto, is not "because they're technically verifiable as having held office, they're guaranteed articles and exempted from actually having to show substantive press coverage" — the press coverage is the notability test. Not just one or two glancing namechecks of their existence in articles about other people: coverage about them, which enables you to write a genuinely substantive article. That's the thing you're missing: the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors of the preamalgamation era simply do not always have the same depth or volume of press coverage that the Core Toronto councillors had. NPOL #2 explicitly says the notability test is press coverage, so the includability knife cuts on how much press coverage the person can or cannot show. I'm not making up my own special notability rules here, either: AFD consensus already decided all of this, and I'm just reporting the way it works. I'm not inventing my own notability tests at all — I'm simply telling you what the state of Wikipedia consensus around the notability of municipal politicians is.
- All of that said, there are certainly going to be some individual cases where a municipal politician in a preamalgamation suburb actually did get enough press coverage that you can actually write and source a genuinely substantive article — that's a different matter, and will be judged on its own merits. But the suburban mayors or reeves or councillors do not all get an automatic free pass over NPOL just because their municipality got annexed by Toronto at a later date: for mayors and reeves and councillors in preamalgamation Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York or Leaside or Swansea, the notability test they would have to clear is the ability to write and source enough substantive content about them to credibly demonstrate that they should be considered a special case, and the ability to minimally source the fact that they existed is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- So what's the difference in your mind between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967? Its powers didn't change, the members of its executive committee had as much authority before 1967 as after. All that changed was the number of constituent municipalities was reduced. But a Metro Councillor pre-1967 was no less important figure than one after 1967, particularly if they were on the executive committee. And I think you continue to misunderstand what metropolitan government was for the purposes of the "metropolitan city" test. The boundaries of the "metropolitan city" before 1998 when amalgamation occurred *were* the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, not the old city of Toronto. If you look at population figures it was the figures for *Metro* which were given, not of the old city. You also completely misunderstand what happened in 1998. The City of Toronto did not annex North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke etc - all the submunicipalities within Metropolitan Toronto were dissolved and amalgamated into the new "megacity". This is completely different than say, the old City of Toronto's annexation of Parkdale in 1899 or of Yorkville, or other communities that were annaexed. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, the notability test for city councillors is not about the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto: it's about the city qua city boundaries of the City of Toronto. The phrase "metropolitan cities" in CANSTYLE does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that the notability pass extended to all politicians in suburban municipalities within the metropolitan area — kindly note that the exact same notability statement that you cherrypicked that phrase from also explicitly states that "This "exemption" exists only for the main municipal governments of those six cities themselves; it does not extend to smaller municipalities within their metropolitan areas". It applies to the city qua city, not to smaller municipalities within Metro but outside the boundaries of the city proper.
- Secondly, I didn't say there was any difference between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967. That year has nothing to do with changing the notability of a Metro councillor at all, and isn't a notability cutoff of any sort: regardless of whether they served before 1967 or after, their notability still lives or dies on whether they got enough press coverage to clear NPOL #2 or not. Metro councillors after 1967 are not automatically more notable than Metro councillors before 1967 were — no matter what side of that line they served on, they still have exactly the same chance of passing or failing the "who have received significant press coverage" test either way. The only reason I said "before 1967" in my comment is because I was directly responding to a comment in which you said "before 1967" — it's not that 1967 makes any difference to the notability or non-notability of a Metro councillor at all, it's that I was simply responding to a comment in which you used those words.
- Thirdly, I didn't misunderstand anything — you're drawing a technical distinction between "amalgamation" and "annexation" that has nothing to do with how the words are actually used in practice. That distinction might be important to uphold in a formal government policy document — but in a Wikipedia discussion about the notability of politicians it's just nitpicking about an unimportant issue that's tangential to the actual point, because the precise technical distinction between amalgamation and annexation doesn't change the notability equation for politicians either. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- My reference to "reeves (before 1967) was because the reeves were rebranded as mayors for the 1967 election. In any case, a newspaper archive search will find ample news coverage for the various reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto in the daily press. I think you'd find this if you searched rather than oppose the creation of articles before the fact. I don't think your apparent argument that "metropolitan cities" excludes the metropolitan level of government makes any sense. Metropolitan Toronto had clear boundaries and was clearly established in law as the senior level of government. Arguing that a city qua city boundaries doesn't refer to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto but only to one of its constituent parts isn't logical and makes as much sense as arguing that New York City refers only to Manhattan. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't care what you think I'd find. I've done newspaper archive searches for the reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto when they've come up for discussion at AFD — literally 90 per cent of all the work I do on here at all is archival searching for underreferenced or missing old topics that don't Google well, and I literally search either ProQuest or Newspapers.com (or both) for something every single day I'm on here. I've personally searched newspaper archives for old Metro municipal politicians all the bloody time when they came up at AFD — and yes, there have been some exceptions in individual cases, but as a rule they very often don't actually get enough coverage to clear Wikipedia's notability bar for local politicians (which is considerably higher than just "they're verifiable as existing", so the ability to show that they get namechecked in coverage of other things is not enough to cover it off.) I did the searches when mayors of Leaside and Long Branch and Swansea have come up for AFD, I did the searches when Bob Sanders and Betty Sutherland and other Metro councillors from the pre-megacity inner suburbs came up for AFD — and the necessary depth of coverage simply was not there. What you think I'd find doesn't matter — I'm telling you what I actually do find, because I've actually done the damn work.
- Secondly, old core Toronto was not Manhattan to Metro's New York City in the pre-megacity era — Metro was a pumped-up county, not a city, and old core Toronto was a city, not a submunicipal borough. Municipal governance structures vary in different places, but if you insist on an inherently imperfect New York City analogy, then it's not "Metro is New York City and old core Toronto is Manhattan", it's "old core Toronto is New York City and Scarborough is Hempstead and North York is Yonkers and Etobicoke is Hackensack NJ". Rather, the most accurate contemporary analogy available to the old Toronto-Metro relationship is found in Vancouver: is the Greater Vancouver Regional District the "city" level, so that every municipal councillor in Surrey and Maple Ridge and Port Moody and Pitt Meadows and Burnaby and New Westminster and the Coquitlams gets a guaranteed free notability pass because "Vancouver", or is Vancouver the city and the GVRD is the extended metropolitan area? The answer is the latter, not the former.
- Incidentally, don't think I haven't finally figured out who you are, and why you're posting anon-IP despite appearing to have more inside knowledge about how Wikipedia works than anonymous IPs with no prior edit history normally do. If you're really that interested in expanding the web's knowledge of Toronto's local history by writing about old pre-megacity Metro politicians, then by all means start your own Toronto Politics Wiki, where you can set your own inclusion criteria and referencing rules and write about mayors of Leaside and Mimico to your heart's content. But no, Toronto's not getting its own special Toronto-specific exemption from the way notability works for municipal politicians everywhere else, just because it happens to be your own personal domain of interest. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's a shame you spend so much of your time trying to have historical information erased rather than building articles but I guess people get their kicks in different ways. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Our role is not just to keep everything that somebody deems "historical information", because anybody can say that everything is "historical information" of one sort or another. Our job is to keep articles about topics that clear our notability standards, and not to keep articles about topics that don't — and just calling something "historical information" is not the magical difference between those two things. Every mayor and every municipal councillor everywhere is always "historical information", and Metro Toronto's municipal politicians do not occupy their own unique sphere of special historical importance unmatched by everywhere else's municipal politicians. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- But you are spending your time tearing down rather than building. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'll stack my record of article creation and improvement against yours any day. And trust me, I'll win that competition hands down: I've created over 50 new articles just this week alone, the difference being that they're about topics that pass our notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You could have spent the past hour researching the first Japanese Canadian appointed to the bench who was also the first elected to public office in Ontario - one of the few racialized minorities to win office in Canada prior to 1970. Instead you removed redlinks to his name in hopes no one would create an article on him. An afternoon well spent. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "One of the first members of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not an instant notability freebie that gets a person into Wikipedia either. A smalltown municipal councillor does not clear the notability bar as more notable than other smalltown municipal councillors just because he happens to be racialized, and even provincial judges aren't automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for being judges either. The notability criterion they would have to pass still hinges on the quality of media coverage they received in that context, not just on being able to technically verify the fact itself.
- There's no rule that people have to research redlinked names before they're allowed to unlink them — if and when somebody does actually write an article about Lucien Kujata that properly demonstrates and sources that he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all (which, again, is not guaranteed just because he was racialized), then his name can be relinked in the appropriate places at that time, but Wikipedia has no requirement that every name of every person that appears in every article always has to be left as an open redlink just in case they might have a stronger notability claim for other reasons not communicated by the context that the name is being linked in. It's not my responsibility to research every redlinked name in Wikipedia to see if maybe they have a stronger notability claim beyond just "smalltown municipal politician" before I'm allowed to unlink it in a list of smalltown municipal politicians — if you think he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then it's your responsibility to understand what our notability criteria are and to demonstrate that he passes them. It's not our job to keep an article about everything and everyone who exists, or even to leave a link open for potential future creation just in case, and cleaning up articles that aren't complying with our standards and rules doesn't mean I'm tearing valuable content down (especially given that I very clearly have a long-established and well-documented record of creating valuable content.) Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- So go write the article. You have access to the newspaper archives. You might even have found out about the Ontario cabinet firing him from the bench. It was a huge story. You could have spent the past hour actually doing research and building a killer article. Instead, by trying to get articles deleted, or trying to prevent their creation, rather than trying to improve them, you only discourage potential editors. I certainly don't see the point of starting an article on Kurata if you're just going to come along and try to get it deleted rather than working collaboratively to improve it. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have a responsibility to start the article about any topic I don't personally choose to take on, any more than I have a responsibility to look at a person whose name is being linked only in the context of being a smalltown municipal politician without an automatic NPOL pass and do outside research about whether actually has some other notability claim that isn't being shown by any of the articles where his name is being linked before I'm allowed to unlink his name. If and when somebody chooses to take him on, and writes a proper article that demonstrates and sources his notability properly, then his name can be relinked when that happens — but nobody on Wikipedia has any responsibility to comply with your orders on what or who to prioritize, or any responsibility to leave a list of redlinked names as redlinks, or any responsibility to research whether each person in that list of redlinks actually had a stronger notability claim before unlinking it, or any responsibility to leave a poorly sourced article about a person without a strong notability claim alone instead of AFDing it.
- Besides, even being fired from the bench might still just make him a WP:BIO1E, if he doesn't have enough coverage for other reasons besides just that — so even that's still not an instant notability guarantee anyway, and it's still not my responsibility to have researched the depth of coverage he does or doesn't have before I could unlink his name in a list of excessive redlinks for people who mostly don't clear our notability standards at all. If you think he's notable enough, then by all means go to draftspace and have a ball — but I have neither the responsibility to do it for you, nor the confidence that you've actually learned your lesson about how much work you would actually have to put in to make articles about people at the municipal level of political significance approvable.
- I don't owe you the courtesy of complying with your orders about who I should start articles about; I get to choose what I devote my attention to, who or what I start the articles about, and on and so forth. I don't owe you the courtesy of leaving redlinked names in a list of red links alone rather than unlinking them. I don't owe you the courtesy of granting you a special personal exemption from having to follow the same notability and sourcing standards that everybody else has to follow, or the courtesy of leaving an article that isn't meeting our standards alone. And I don't owe you the courtesy of agreeing with or listening to your opinion of my editing skills — my record of creating high-quality, well-referenced content about notable topics speaks for itself, and I owe nobody (especially not an anonymous IP who's likely a banned user) any apologies for not submitting to their opinions about my editing skills or obeying their orders about where else I should redirect my editing priorities. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- So if this is a suspected sock, and a simple review of the contribution history of the requested article project page quickly reveals a pattern similar to a blocked user and one of the user's subsequent socks, it sounds like an SPI is in order. Hwy43 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
What article or list are you talking about, please? Please provide a link.............thanks, PKT(alk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Requests#Reeves_and_mayors_of_former_municipalities_of_Metropolitan_Toronto Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. If somebody's argument is that the listed people should have an unreferenced stub created - I say no, following Bearcat's argument. List of reeves of the former townships and villages in Toronto and the lists linked from that list are sufficient, unless somebody can do enough research to create an article that will stand up to WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Folks such as the Reeves of the Village of Long Branch in the 1960s shouldn't get a pass past Wikipedia's standards. PKT(alk) 21:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Both Bearcat and PKT have articulated the concerns I had when I declared my observation at the start of this thread. I notice that a couple IPs following Nixon Now's ban and Ffolkways had interest in this list of redlinked articles to be created before, adding and deleting entries. Presumably those entries that were removed from the list were those where the articles were created. I am interested to see how many ended up being deleted through AfD or other means. Hwy43 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is suffering from a long term decline in the number of active editors, largely because the most active admins on Wikipedia are officious power-trippers. By all means range block my IP range for 72 hours or a month and in the process block a few hundred editors in the GTA, perhaps even yourselves collaterally. You'll be doing us all a favour. I can think of nothing more important than saving Wikipedia from articles on local historical political figures, especially if it means we can have more articles on minor comic book characters, and obscure television shows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:f2c0:9349:e00:79e6:1c47:338b:e44e (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said before, if you want to create articles about suburban municipal councillors and smalltown mayors, then by all means, nothing's stopping you from starting your own TorontoPoliticsWiki where you can set your own inclusion standards and your own rules about how well the articles have to be sourced. On Wikipedia, however, it's Wikipedia's rules or bust. And read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you think the existence of articles about TV shows or comic book characters is in any way relevant to the notability of a municipal politician — for one thing, the notability criteria for politicians and comic book characters are completely irrelevant to each other, and for another, comic book characters and "obscure" TV shows also get deleted if they don't have the notability claim or the sourcing to clear our inclusion standards for comic book characters or TV shows. And by the way, 99 per cent of the people who complain about Wikipedia admins being "officious power-trippers" are actually saying more about their own behaviour than they are about the admins — with very good reason, I virtually always hear complaints like that as code for "whaaaaaaah, mommy, that mean bad man won't let me make up my own ruuuuuuuuules!!!", and you have yet to show me any reason to see you any differently than that. People don't get banned from here if they follow the rules, y'know. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I honestly wasn't expecting such a childish response. Arrogant self-importance, yes. Childish petulance, no. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was nothing arrogant, self-important, childish or petulant about it whatsoever. People try to break the rules, such as by ignoring our actual notability and sourcing standards and trying to substitute their own special rules for their own pet content, all the damn time — and an administrator's job on here is not to look the other way or help them do that, it's to enforce the rules. If you don't like the fact that our notability rules for municipal politicians require much, much more than just the ability to show one or two sources verifying that the person existed (or the fact that our notability standard for city councillors attaches to the city itself and not to the city and its suburbs), then again, you're free to go start your own historical wiki on Metro Toronto's political history where you're free to make up your own inclusion and sourcing rules — but if you want to contribute here, you have to obey the rules of here. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat, Big Iron and PKT: the list of former mayors and reeves has been deleted. After investigating those articles created in the history of this list all those I found were deleted. As such, it is highly unlikely the remaining entries in this list would survive similar AfDs if and when they are created as they are unlikely to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is untrue. The articles were deleted for the most part not because they failed a notability test but because they were created by a banned user. There's no need to prejudice editors by suggesting a priori that bios on those individuals would not pass WP:N just because of one admins deletionist bias. And while this discussion has drifted away from being about the articles to an ad hominem attack on the previous author and unsubstantiated attacks on and assumptions about my identity, the fact remains that many if not all of the politicians in question did have notable press coverage in major metropolitan newspapers in Toronto as members of the Metro executive and would easily pass WP:N if given the chance. For example, the Marie Curtis article now easily passes WP:N notwithstanding Bearcat's objections and refusal to notify her, the article's original creator, of his AFD. All was needed was giving an editor a shot at it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody in this discussion has a "deletionist" bias. But what Wikipedia content does have to do is follow the rules.
- Firstly, our notability standard for mayors of small towns is not just "one or two or three sources can be shown to verify that the person existed" — every mayor of everywhere can always show one or two or three sources to verify that they existed. But every mayor of everywhere is not automatically accepted as notable, so the way to make a smalltown mayor notable is not just to show what every mayor could show — the sourcing has to expand to a degree that marks the person out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other smalltown mayors, and showing one or two or three sourcing hits in the local media is not enough to do that. And no, the fact that the small town happened to be a suburb of a major metropolitan city, thus meaning that their routine local coverage appeared in the Toronto Star instead of the North Bay Nugget, is still not enough in and of itself to make a smalltown mayor special — you still have to either be able to show nationalizing sources expanding beyond just their local media market (e.g. coverage that extends to Ottawa or Vancouver or Montreal or Winnipeg), or write a really substantial article that cites dozens of distinct sources and not just three or four. This isn't a personal standard I made up just to be unfairly "deletionist" about stuff, it's the rule established by consensus: smalltown mayors are not automatically notable just for existing, so getting a smalltown mayor over the bar requires you to do much, much more than just the bare minimum needed to demonstrate that they existed, and smalltown mayors are not automatically entitled to keep short, inadequately sourced stubs that aren't already doing that.
- Secondly, another of our rules is that content that was placed in the article by a banned user has to be removed from Wikipedia. Even if it's about a person who actually does clear our notability standards, the article itself still has to be deleted and then recreated from scratch by an editor in good standing. Again, not a personal preference I made up to be "deletionist": the actual rules of the place as written.
- "Deletionist vs. inclusionist" is an archaic Wikipedia paradigm that's irrelevant to how the place works today, anyway, because what every Wikipedia contributor is always supposed to be is a qualityist. Good content that follows our notability and sourceability and contribution rules doesn't get deleted just because "deletionists" don't personally care about that subject area, and problematic content that doesn't follow our notability and sourceability and contribution rules doesn't get kept just because "inclusionists" storm the ramparts with an army of sockpuppets to attack other editors over it. The knife cuts on an article's quality and its degree of conformity or non-conformity to Wikipedia's rules, not on what subject areas individual editors do or don't personally care about.
- Alaney2k took on Marie Curtis's article already, and has sourced and substanced it much, much better than it was at the time of nomination, so that AFD has now actually been withdrawn since he's done enough that wiping out the sockpuppet content didn't require deleting the whole article anymore. But for future reference, if you want to create articles about suburban municipal politicians from preamalgamation non-core Metro Toronto, then the standard you have to clear to get them over the bar is not what Marie Curtis looked like three days ago, it's what Marie Curtis looks like now. If you can't at least roughly match Marie Curtis's current degree of sourcing and substance, then the person you're trying to write about is not includable here: not because Bearcat is a "deletionist", but because Wikipedia's rules around the notability of municipal politicians explicitly (and intentionally) set a much higher bar than just showing that the person existed. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada
Good day all, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to . Please make sure to check your spam folder for the confirmation email since it seems to always go there. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Prince Edward Island general election
I've been setting up redirects today for the new electoral districts for the current PEI election but I've encountered an issue and need to ask for input. PEI's electoral boundaries are redrawn after every third election (most recently after 2015, to take effect in the current election) but for the most part the districts remain pretty much the same, for example 2015's Tyne Valley-Linkletter is functionally the same geographic area as 2019's Tyne Valley-Sherbrooke, so it makes sense to consider this the same riding with a different name (and so there's one article, which should be renamed after the election). But in and around Charlottetown the changes are more dramatic, for example District 9, York-Oyster Bed is basically deleted, taken over by expansions of Districts 8 (Stanhope-Marshfield) and 15 (Brackley-Hunter River), while the new District 9 Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park is a more urban riding, encompassing very little of the former District 9's geographic area. I think in that case we should consider it a new riding, with a separate article. What do others think?
This is the most significant example I've found so far but I'm still going through the list. I'd like to turn all of the district links in 2019 Prince Edward Island general election blue as quickly as possible. Sources for the electoral boundaries aren't the greatest to navigate, but I have  for 2019 and  for 2015.
Related to this: there is one MLA running, Bush Dumville, who resigned from the governing Liberals and is running as an independent. Should he be listed in the infobox alongside the other major party leaders? (There are no minor parties registered, just the main 4) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- My rule of thumb is that if a riding's boundaries are essentially the same, then the article should just be moved, but if they are altered significantly then it should get a new article (unless the name stays the same). This does border on original research, but I think in some cases, we can find sources to suggest the continuation of a riding under a new name to get around that. As for the infobox, I think you should leave independents out of them.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect in this situation aren't necessary. After the 2019 election is held, they'll be merely re-named (i.e page moved). GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure they're necessary, otherwise the district table is full of redlinks. We could pipe the table but that doesn't help readers trying to use the search engine for information on any of the current district names. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm just getting ready to go home and sleep but I noticed that Joe Enook had died, Passing of Speaker Enook. If someone wants to add that to his article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I did the basics for this - I'm sure more info can be added. PKT(alk) 15:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
About two years ago, there was a bit of a problem on Timeline of LGBT history in Canada, when somebody tried to add herself and her partner to the list on the grounds that they were the first legally married transgender couple in the history of the world. The claim was referenced only to the couple's own self-published website about themselves, and their research to "confirm" their firstness consisted entirely of putting up the website and then waiting to see if anybody contacted them to contradict the claim or not. Now, obviously, this is not the kind of verification we require to get somebody listed in Wikipedia as a historic first, so I removed the claim from the article — but then I had to argue with the editor for several days over why it wasn't appropriate.
Things calmed down after a few days, and the problem never returned...until now.
Today, a different IP number (who may obviously still be the same person) readded the same claim about the same couple being the first in the world again. This time, the "source" was a post to their Facebook page of a "news" article in Viral Thread, a user-generated media platform that still isn't really a reliable or notability-supporting source — and even the Facebook post itself strongly implies that the couple has been actively fishing for publicity, quite possibly because of what I told them two years ago about why their own self-published website wasn't enough sourcing to get them into a Wikipedia list of historic firsts. In other words, they've spent some portion of the last two years hunting for a media outlet with low enough journalistic standards to bite down on their self-published claim without actually verifying it properly, so that they could come put themselves back into Wikipedia again with a new "source" for their claim.
I've removed it again, but I have a sneaking suspicion that isn't going to be the end of it this time. Is anybody willing to help monitor this so I'm not handling it alone? Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- And it's confirmed that it's the same person adding herself: she just reverted it back into the article again, this time under the original username instead of as an IP. Fortunately XLinkBot reverted them right away before I actually had to act, because the addition included an offsite link to Facebook — so I've put the page under protection for the moment, but it obviously can't stay protected permanently, so this problem may still recur once the protection expires. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Added to my watchlist. We need more than media reports that report their own claims. Interesting approach to self publicity thought. Make a completely outrageous claim that the tabloids are sure to want to repeat (198 orgasms in 90 minutes without touching), and slip in the "first legally married transgendered couple" claim as an afterthought. Meters (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Article about York Entrepreneurship Development Institut
Hello colleagues! I am new to creating articles from scratch. Although earlier I repeatedly anonymously improved already existing articles. I noticed that there are almost no articles about Canadian business accelerators and wrote one. Could you help me with it's improvement and review? And maybe French translation...
Sorry if this is not the right place for such requests.
--Jedi2be (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
POV and by-election results for People's Party
@Hiveho: keeps removing the February 25th by-election results from the People's Party of Canada despite the fact that this is a new party and the February 25th by-elections were its first electoral contest. Oddly, he has no problem mentioning that the party ran candidates and who those candidates are - he just keeps removing the results. I suspect this is because the results were poor and that this is an example of POV editing. I'm wondering if editors can take a look at the article, weigh in on Talk:People's Party of Canada, edit the article as appropriate and put it on their Watchlists? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to raise a discussion about Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Requests.
In my experience, it's actually very little used and rarely consulted by active Wikipedians at all — in actual practice, it basically serves almost entirely as a place for anon IPs, who can't create articles themselves, to post redlink requests for articles that mostly aren't likely to ever actually happen. 1997 Canadian Flying Loon Loonie? Detroit-Windsor vibrations? National quotient (meaning "number of people per electoral district (riding)", and thus not a topic that will ever actually warrant its own article as a separate topic from electoral district (Canada))? Smalltown shopping malls with no discernible notability claims beyond just existing? In actual practice, it just becomes a list of permanent redlinks that almost no active editors ever actually even try to deal with or respond to at all — and it's also where the recent "Reeves and mayors of former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto" slapfight came from, because there was a discussion there that nobody paid any attention to until it got repasted here.
So my question is, if we're not going to start actually doing anything productive with it, then is there any value in even keeping it at all anymore? Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely out of date. I'd go for a trim/review/cull of what's there, those examples you gave could go. But maybe there is some value there, so I'd hesitate to delete it completely. I had never looked at it before you mentioned it. I'm probably not the only lazy one. :-) I could take a go at it. I have access to Canadian Newsstand/Globe and Mail/Toronto Star archives, so I could make some decent guesses at feasible ones. Alaney2k (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've run into numerous violations of WP:INTEGRITY and other sourcing issues while copyediting SNC-Lavalin affair. Help would be greatly appreciated scrubbing this article, particularly as there are so many sources to evaluated, some of which are paywalled. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm using outline.com to avoid most paywalls, just so you know. Just change the url from (example) www.globeandmail.com/etc to www.outline.com/globeandmail.com/etc and you'll be able to read the full article. Safrolic (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to change consensus on settlement_type parameters for Ontario municipalities
Your review and input is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario#Proposed amendment to the settlement_type parameter for Ontario municipalities. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
University of the Fraser Valley
University of the Fraser Valley needs some care and attention from editors who know more about the place than I do. I've updated several links and some data, but I've come across a whole section about a campus that appears to be closed, but our article says it still offers certain courses and other info. Can anybody help? PKT(alk) 17:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)