Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fraser Institute 2 L. P. Fisher Public Library 3 Canadian Government Departments 4 Northwest Territories Electoral History 5 Canada Collaboration of the Week 6 Celebration of Light 7 Federal electoral districts template 8 Image request 9 Prime Ministers of Canada timeline 10 Excessive formality 11 Canadian school stub 12 Canadian comparison timeline since Confederation 13 Wikimania 2006 14 Queen's Privy Council for Canada

[edit] Fraser Institute

Hey folks. I'm in the middle of a dispute with an anonymous user at the fraser institute article. The person keeps inserting material that is found on the fraser institute website. I just reverted the text for a third time and I was hoping that someone might like to weigh in on this problem. Thanks. --PullUpYourSocks 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The user has been copying direct off of this page. The best you can do is ask the user to stop in their talk page (I can see that you did) and if the user presists, list them at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. (By the way, that page is taking a very long time to load). I'll keep an eye on the article in question too.

•Zhatt• 22:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] L. P. Fisher Public Library

Hi, I stumbled across this library. I was wondering if anyone knows what makes it notable? I'm afraid Wikipedia will now start having articles about every library in Canada.

--YUL89YYZ 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Its primary notablilty comes from being a handsome and fairly old public building. It's also linked to Lewis P. Fisher. --NormanEinstein 15:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's not encyclopedic. It should likely be merged into Woodstock, New Brunswick and Lewis P. Fisher. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a notability standard. The content of this article seems quite verifiable, which is all that is important. - SimonP 15:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

My goodness you're right. (Wikipedia:Notability) Since everyone has always used this as a reason for deletion, I always thought it was policy.

•Zhatt• 18:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's quite true that Verifiable and NPOV are all that is required but there have been guidelines developed, more or less by consensus, to try and establish what is that fuzzy term, "encyclopedic". You may wish to consult: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents, Jimbo's No vote for Fame & Importance policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NOR, WP:FICT, WP:SCH, and WP:VAIN. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Government Departments

SimonP and I have been talking about Canadian Government department names. Many of the names are formated Department of TOPIC (Canada). The discussion was prompted when SimonP removed (Canada) from Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) for the fact that disambiguation was not needed. My arguement was that it was not a disambiguation but the fact that mand departments are commonly known as TOPIC of Canada. We were wondering what the names on Wikipedia should be? The common name or the official name? I'm not even sure what the official name is anymore: Department of TOPIC or Department of TOPIC Canada? I work at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and I remember someone saying that the government made a change a while ago saying that all departpents should have Canada in the name now. INAC (as its commonly called) used to be known as DIAND. Fisheries and Oceans is still known as DFO because no one here likes saying "foc".
•Zhatt• 17:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I like the TOPIC Canada naming but I suspect the official name is still Department of TOPIC. I do not strongly favour one over the other at Wikipedia but redirects at the other should, of course, be done.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) actually wisely suggests that "pre-disambiguation" be done for instances such as Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) to leave no chance of ambiguity, even if there are currently no other articles with that name. I suggest, therefore, that if there are to be any articles named in that format that the "(Canada)" be added. Obviously, if the TOPIC Canada format is used, the disambiguity is built in nicely.

The general rule for article names is to use the most commonly used and recognisable name rather than the official name. There is a bit of a mix, as you point out, between the popularity of different names: i.e., Department of National Defence vs. Environment Canada and some with equal popularity: Department of Fisheries and Oceans vs. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I think a good argument could be raised here for using "Dept. of" for consistency with other departments within and outside of Canada. My vote, however, is to use the name given on the official website. For example, although Fisheries and Oceans Canada's website is dfo.gc.ca the name on that site is Fisheries and Oceans Canada and I would go with that. http://canada.justice.gc.ca on the other hand, is titled Department of Justice, and I would go with that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Federal Identity Programme: Titles of federal organizations page is an interesting resource for this topic but a bit out of date. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DoubleBlue. I'm going to start doing some renameing accordingly. •Zhatt• 19:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is actually the second time this issue has come up. I had all the articles at their conventional FIP location initially, and then someone insisted on putting them all to their legal Department of XXXX name, which is relatively silly considering how ubitiquous Health Canada and Environment Canada and so on are. The template still has them all linked to the appropriate place, which is XXXX Canada except for Justice, Finance, Canadian Heritage and Defence, I think. -The Tom 14:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

They wont be easy to move back. It's been telling me "the page allready exists". Does that mean copy-paste, or Requests for move? •Zhatt• 16:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Means admin move. If someone here would be inclined to do it, it would allow us to bypass WP:RM. -The Tom 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northwest Territories Electoral History

Hi everyone, I have really been working hard, on cleaning up and detaling Northwest Territories electoral history,

My work, is going to take me away for at least a month, and I won't have time to continue with N.W.T. elections, and related.

If someone out there wants to take on the more recent elections, I am still looking for a comprehensive source of members elected from 1951 on, still looking for a source for the period of appointed members between 1905 and 1951, and looking for a source of members appointed to the temporary council prior to 1876.

My free time lately has mostly been consumed on the Northwest Territories party politics from 1898 - 1905, I have nearly completed the list of members elected in 1902, scanning through microfilm of Newspaper from the late 1890's on, but I am at a loss as to when Party politics actually began in the Northwest Territories.

According to a Calgary Herald editorial from November 17th 1898, it talks about the pro's and con's of the possible introduction of "Dominion Party Lines" into the Northwest Territories legislature. And I was quite shocked to learn that the 1898 election was not along party lines, as some on-line sources seemed to have indicated. I will update the 1898 election to reflect that.

In news paper articles close to the 1902 election it does talk about the "Government and Opposition" , but I was able to find no indications of what date in the 1898 - 1902 period party politics sprang up, but they were clearly active in the 4th North-West Legislative Assembly even though it was not elected on party lines.

I also found somthing interesting, perhaps more related to journalist neutrality more then anything, in the articles of the day that refered to Candidates affiliations as simply "Government" or "Opposition" and "Indepedent", or "Independent Opposition or Indpendent Government, It was only in a couple editorials that Liberal or Liberal-Conservative was mentioned. When an article would talk about who a candidate is running for, it would say John Smith pledges loyalty to the Governing Party etc.

Aside from the birth of party politics, the end before the period of Alberta and Saskatchewan being carved out seems intriguing and needs researching, most of the Liberal-Conservatives switched to Liberal, and some Liberals switched to the Conservatives, when the new parties were formed in Alberta and Saskatchewan, there doesn't seem to have been any loyalty, in the short time party politics formed in the territories.

--Cloveious 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada Collaboration of the Week

So what is the next CCOTW? On the page it says "The August 2005 CCOTW article will be selected on Sunday, July 24, 18:00 (UTC)."
•Zhatt• 00:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebration of Light

As those in Vancouver know, the Celebration of Light starts today. I'm asking those who are attending and are interested, to take pictures and gather information for the new Celebration of Light article I'm working on. I'm also looking for results before 2000 when it was sponsored by Benson & Hedges. Thanks.
•Zhatt• 21:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The more I look into Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire, the more I realize how sparse information is with the disappearance of its original sponsor. There is a Symphony of Fire in Capetown, South Africa, but I'm not sure if its related or under the same sponsor. It stopped in 2000, the same year Benson & Hedges pulled out.

•Zhatt• 23:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Federal electoral districts template

Hi, I noticed that the riding Don Valley East has an interesting table in it. This should be made into a template and added to all the ridings. However, I am not sure this is universal for every province since Ontario has the same ridings both federally and provincially. Should we have unique ones per province or a general one for the country. Also what should be the columns? The current ones are:

• MP
• Party
• MPP
• Party
• Province
• Census division(s)
• Census subdivision(s)
• Federal district created

I am not sure the value of the Census division and sub-division. Any other comments? --YUL89YYZ 18:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's done as a table with the coding copied and pasted directly into the article, rather than as a true template. Which means that you can use it for any riding, and just remove the sections (like provincial representation) that don't apply. Bearcat 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a valuable summary box of an electoral district, though some of the info (ie. census divisions, MPP) may not be relevant to other provinces. However, Don Valley East appears to be a relatively simple district (look at Regina—Qu'Appelle as an extreme example of the opposite). It also may not work for former districts (ie. Fraser Valley). But I believe it is something worth experimenting on. -maclean25 19:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image request

Can anyone either find a photo or take a photo of the lapel pins the members of the House of Commons gives out to their constituents? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministers of Canada timeline

I just put this together for no paticular reason. If anyone wants to use or change it, go ahead. It still needs the proper RGB party colours and to be Wikied. For more information on the timeline, check out Wikipedia:EasyTimeline. Zhatt 23:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I wikied and spaced all the names. If anyone could double check the dates, that would be nice.

Zhatt 01:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just made this one too: Template:Governors General of Canada timeline. After I made it I realized that it might not be as usefull as the Prime Minister one, but there it is. I might see if I can combine the two charts as to get a comparison.

Zhatt 04:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I started a compairison chart if anyone wants to play with it. Zhatt 06:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive formality

A few users are, I think, going overboard with inserting prenomial honorifics such as "His Worship", "His Excellency" etc in articles on Ambassadors, mayors and the like that undermines the spirit of NPOV. AFAIK formal styles are not used in encylopedia articles outside of royalty. The Honourable and the Right Honourable for privy councillors is one thing (I'd prefer not to use them in artcles on Senators) but using formal style for Ambassadors and mayors seems excessive - why not use Mr. and Mrs at the biographical articles as well? Is there a wikipedia protocol on styles and titles?Homey 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think these titles are "excessively formal" isn't that your own POV? I don't think mayors are worshipful at all, but that style comes his office. You stated that 'you'd prefer not to use them in articles on Senators' well that constitutes your own POV. According to the Titles chart used by the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, Senators are titled "Honourable" just as Privy Counsellors are "Honourable". And these 'few users' that you are referring to, such as myself, I don't go around to articles and change every little thing to "His Worship does this, and that, or this or that," or "The Honourable Minister on this date did something", their titles are written in the beggining, and thereafter, its a simple "he did this, or he did that." That situation does not display any POV. Furthermore, we should be removing the titles of Lieutenant Governors, as they are Representatives of the Crown, and since the Governor General starts with "Her Excellency the Right Honourable....." then why can't the Lieutenant Governors start with "His Honour the Honourable......". If people arn't going to the bodies of the articles and typing "His Majesty/His Honour/His Excellency/His Worship did this or that" but only had that in the beginning of articles, that should be fine. A lot of people find Wikipedia to be educational, by having their formal titles in the beginning, it will be beneficial to readers, and having them only at the beginning, it would not be overly formal, and will not exhibit POV. I think this is a good option for Wikipedia to follow. User:Eddo

I think if someone has a title, it should be used on first reference. It is not only respectful to use their correct form of address, it is helpful to the reader to be aware of it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think these titles are "excessively formal" isn't that your own POV? The key is maintaining a neutral point of view. I think excessive formality in honorifics doesn't do that, particularly when it is selective (some mayors and ambassadors and not others). And "His Honour the Honourable" sounds silly. Choose one or the other, not both.

What is the general encyclopedia form? How does Britannica's article on New York Mayor Bloomberg begin, for instance? Homey 12:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

From Britannica online:

Bloomberg, Michael

In 2001, after 20 successful years of leading the financial information firm he founded, Michael Bloomberg was ready to lead something new. For his next challenge he entered the race for mayor of New York City. The formal announcement of his candidacy in early June sparked two types of speculation: what effect Bloomberg's election as mayor might have on New York City and what…

William Rehnquist

born October 1, 1924, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.

in full William Hubbs Rehnquist 16th chief justice of the United States, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1971 and elevated to chief justice in 1986.

Rehnquist served in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. After the war, he attended Stanford University, where he was awarded bachelor's (1948), master's (1948), and law (1952) degrees, finishing first in his law-school class. He also received a master's…

Homey 13:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's some articles I found about this issue: Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing and Style (manner of address). I don't think there is a agreed consensus on this topic. I tend to like the use of The Honourable without any post-nominals. The post-nominals should just be mentionned in the article. For example, the awarding of the Order of Canada or an Honorary doctorate. I have seen people use The Honourable Senator and I am not sure if this is even correct. --YUL89YYZ 13:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

"His Honour the Honourable" might sound silly for some, but its their correct title, and like User:Doubleblue said above, it might create a better awareness. In the end, I think Wikipedia is used for education, like I'm in university right now, and whenever we have a class discussion, the first thing I do, is pop up Wikipedia. I think its our different flairs that distinguish us from Brittanica, or Encarta. Like yes, we are trying for Wikipedia to look like a professional encyclopedia, and it is, but it would also be good to set us apart from the mainstream encyclopedias, and I think that way, people will tend to use it more.

That being said, I will concede that if articles on Mayors and Ambassadors on Wikipedia do not begin with "His Worship" and "His Excellency" then so be it. However, I think that The Queen, the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governors should have their articles begin with their correct titles. It will be more informative, and by limiting their titles to the begining, we will not be pushing POV. Furthermore, GGs and LGs have been in transition, they are now seen more as equals and it would be inconsistent to have GG article begin with her titles and ignore that for LG. Unlike the USA, 'His Honour' does not equal 'Honourable', in Canada it is two seperate things. Only incumbent LGs use 'his/her honour', and we should keep it like that, and as soon as they are out of office, we would remove the 'his/her honour' and retaining 'honourable' because it is theirs for life.

In addition, we should not discriminate between Privy Counsellors and Senators, or Court Justices for that matter, if Privy Counsellors begin with "Honourable" such as User:Homeontherange's preference and not Senators, then we will be discriminating, especially since Privy Counsellors might no longer have any other office. So this is what I am proposing for Canadian articles. Queen, GG, LG, full titles in begining, as for PM, Privy Counsellors/Cabinet, Senators, provincial ministers, justices. But for Mayors and Ambassadors we will not use their styles of address ie. His Worship, His Excellency. I think this will help Wikipedia in the end, make us better, more informative, more unique, and by limiting titles to the very begining, we will not be pushing POV. Well, according to Vancouver, time to go to work now, look forward to reading some of your responses. User:Eddo

I think its our different flairs that distinguish us from Brittanica, or Encarta.

The issue is whether or not the flair is encyclopedic. The most important thing is consistency and the convention in Wikipedia is not to use "His Worship" or "His Honour" (depending on the country) at the top of an article on a mayor or "his Excellency" at the top of an article on an ambassador.

I can live with Senators and L-Gs being listed as "the Honourable" as they are life titles (though I think it would be hard to persuade Americans to list US Senators as "The Honorable" even though they are entitled to the address). I think Premiers and provincial executive council members should not be so listed as in their cases "The Honourable" is a term title only (unless the Premier or minister has been sworn into the Privy Council, as happens from time to time, or is a Privy Council member by virtue of having been a member of federal cabinet, as is the case with Jean Charest.)

I think using titles with mayors and ambassadors is excessive as they are term titles. As for piling on titles such as "His Honour the Honourable" while I think an LG may be addressed as either His Honour or the Honourable I suspect the custom is to choose one rather than use both simultaneiously. Can you cite some real examples of an LG being called "His Honour the Honourable" John Smith or of a Supreme Court justice being "Her Honour, the Honourable Jane Doe"? Just as people with two doctorates are not, in English anyway, styled Doctor Doctor Smith and just as Professors with doctorates are not, in English, styled Professor Doctor Smith I suspect that LGs etc are not addressed as "His Honour the Honourable" - at least I've never heard or seen it happening.Homey 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

While premiers and provincial cabinet ministers do hold "Honourable" during their term in office, they are still recognized as such. We have a lot of people editing the pages, and I think there are such keeners (myself included) who would go in and take out "Honourable" as soon as they are no longer in Office. I'm sure as soon as Michaelle Jean is sworn into office, someone will go in Adrienne Clarkson article and take out 'Her Excellency'. In BC Youth Parliament, Lieutenant Governor Iona Campagnolo greets us annually, and she is introduced as "Her Honour the Honourable", we are taught parliamentary traditions. You make a nice case with people and their double doctorates, but in the end, its the same word, where as 'His Honour' and 'Honourable' are two different things. They are not interchangeable used like in the US. I think term titles for provincial cabinets are fine, as long as people edit them once they no longer apply. However, like before, I will concede on the issue of mayors and ambassadors. As much as I know Homey and myself like to talk, I would like to hear more from other people. User:Eddo

OK, Lt-gov in office: His Honour the Honourable Lieutenant Governor but once out of office, The Honourable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the style guide linked to by double blue, supreme court justices are just "The honourable" (or the right hon in the case of the CJ) not "his honour the honourable" - interesting (to be fair, this was something I brought up, not anyone else).

I still think it looks silly for LGs and is not used in practice even if it's correct but if Eddo really wants to style sitting LGs in that manner I can live with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?Homey 12:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As for provincial cabinet ministers and premiers, if they are to be styled The Honourable along with all Senators then somone has to go through the list of Privy Council members and make sure that they have the postnomial designation "P.C." after their names in order to distinguish those who are "honourable" by virtue of being privy councillors and those who are not. Homey 12:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How much is too much? For example, Frederick Stanley's article starts thus:

The Right Honourable Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby, KG , GCB , GCVO , PC (January 15, 1841–June 14, 1908), known as Sir Frederick Stanley until 1886 and from then until 1893 as The Lord Stanley of Preston, was Colonial Secretary from 1885 to 1886 and Governor General of Canada from 1888 to 1893, most famous for presenting the Stanley Cup, which became the most famous award for professional ice hockey.

Now, that's a bad paragraph to begin with, but the recent trend has been to keep packing on as many titles as people can. Couldn't (some of) the titles be excluded on the first line and list them under their own heading?
Zhatt 16:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've already noted at Talk:Michaëlle Jean that to me, including every title and post-nominal the person ever achieved comes across to me like Deference to the Authority of Our Social Betters. It's not generally necessary, it doesn't impart useful information in a clear and unambiguous way, it's not encyclopedia format in any encyclopedia that isn't constructed by democratic debate (it's not even generally accepted as the Wikipedia standard by much of anyone outside of Canada, either), and all it really accomplishes is to (a) say "Look! Look! Look how verrrrrrrrry important this person is! Bow down before the power of the distinguished demigod!", and (b) make the introductory paragraph of the article into a confusing and unreadable mess. Bearcat 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting BA after names really does seem a bit much. Homey 18:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I think LL.D or Ph.D are already walking a fine line, but BAs definately should not be included in the opening line, I'll be getting my BA in May 2006, I don't plan on putting User:Eddo, BA. Eddo

[edit] Canadian school stub

G'day to all the Canadian Wikipedians here. Just to let you know that I have created a Canadian school stub: {{Canada-school-stub}} and an appropriate category: Category:Canadian school stubs to help better sort all of the schools stubs we have. Please use this stub for all Canadian schools. Thank you -- Ianblair23 11:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (from Australia)

[edit] Canadian comparison timeline since Confederation

Would anyone find this Canadian comparison timeline since Confederation usefull or is it just too much information in too small of a space? Note that it is still in the works. Not all the names and lined up and the GGs dont have exact dates.
Zhatt 16:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done, but I find it hard to imagine what we could actually use it for... Bearcat 03:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it would be used for anything, but it could be sort of its own article. For example: Template:Vocal_and_instrumental_pitch_ranges. I haven't touched it lately as it's difficult, and as you say, basically useless. T'was just an experiment.

Zhatt 03:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2006

Work has begun to prepare for next year's Wikimania, and on the mailing list there has been some talk about Canada as an ideal location. Does anyone have any interest or experience in preparing large events? I think having it here would be nifty, but I have no idea how one goes about organizing such things. See also meta:Wikimania 2006/Planning for a list of criteria, and meta:Wikimania 2006/UK bid for the UK group working towards a bid. - SimonP 15:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Does anyone have access to Edward (Ted) McWhinney's recent book The Governor General and the Prime Ministers? There is a dispute at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada regarding his proposal for Canada becoming a republic by simply not proclaiming Elizabeth II's successor once the post of monarch becomes vacant and it would be good if someone who actually has access to the book (through a university library?) can read up on what McWhinney actually said. Homey 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't out yet. It is listed for release in the fall of 2005, but no library I have found even has it on order, so it is likley some time before it comes out. - SimonP 22:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The paperback version comes out in October. The hardcover version came out earlier this year, I believe. Homey 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The U of T library has no record of it, which strongly suggests it hasn't been released yet in hardcover. -The Tom 04:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

After a bit more poking around, I see no evidence of a hardcover version existing... ISBN 1553800311, Ronsdale Press, 150pp paperback seems to be the only ticket going -The Tom 04:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if editors can look at the dispute at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada. The press, earlier this year, reported that a section of McWhinney's book argues that Canada could become a republic by failing to proclaim a successor to Elizabeth II upon her death. I'm trying to include a reference to this in the Queen's Privy Council for Canada article since it is that body that has the responsibility to proclaim the new monarch and thus, a proposal not to do so would have to involved the privy council. Two monarchist editors are resisting the inclusion of any reference to McWhinney as the press account refers only to the "government" not proclaiming a new monarch, not the privy council. I'm arguing that it should be obvious that it's the privy council that would be involved given that that is its responsibility. A silly argument, I think, but it would be helpful if other editors could weigh in. Homey 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)