Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Deletion list 2 Canadian Notice Board - Articles to Improve 3 Requests for Comment 4 VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template? 5 CfR: Canadian Wikipedians 6 References Section 7 fr:Wikipédia:Projet/Canada 8 Candidate Bios 9 Nova Scotia Project 10 Parliament Bio's Library of Parliament website 11 Canadian Military History Taskforce 12 Canadian Royal Family 13 Newfoundland and Labrador WikiProject 14 Canadian city naming convention 15 Political party infobox 16 City naming convention poll 17 Move to Notice board for Canada-related topics or similar 18 Cities with more than 1MM residents? 19 Communities within Brampton, Ontario 20 WikiProject Ice Hockey needs your help! 21 BC parks, protected areas? 22 IPs 23 Duplication of requested/missing politicians lists 24 DYK 25 Disambiguation pages

[edit] Deletion list

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know that there is a list of transcluded deletion debates on Canada-related articles. You can find it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada. There is currently only one sublist, of articles related to Quebec, but the list could be further subdivided.

I see that you have a list of deletion debates on this page, so presumably this new transcluded list will be of use. Please help to keep the list up to date by archiving old items and adding new ones. Thanks!

By the way, new members are needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 17:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me that we now simply link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada and avoid needless duplication of efforts. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, but why is there a separate section for Quebec? -maclean25 05:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Notice Board - Articles to Improve

I have a proposal for re-organization of the above referenced notice board article. Instead of formatting it according to problem (ie. Expansion, Clean-up, Neutral dispute), my proposal is to group it according to subject (ie. People, Places, Events, etc.). This is already done for the Expansion section of the current page but instead of repeating it for the clean-up section, how about simply listing the clean-up articles under the major headings of People, places, etc. See this example here to see what I am trying to descibe. --maclean25 03:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Either way is OK with me, though I prefer what's currently on the page. If we shift to your layout, I suggest not indenting the sub-headers; moreover, they should be made true headers, not simply bolded. The problem with that is the font size of the header - it's too big (perhaps unindenting should suffice). Mindmatrix 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yah, it's not very controversial but I thought I would list it here for comments before I did anything. When developing this layout I tried to make it attractive (at least not visually offending) & user friendly (ie. systematic). The order of (i) articles with tags, (ii) articles in need of expansion, and then (iii) articles simply in need of attention is appropriate because it reflects the order of importance (with respect to the requirement for attention). I try to be conservative with headings because I've witnessed too many articles become disjointed and muddled by too many sections and headings. The indenting can go, I only did this to separate the heading from the list...well, it made sense in my paper sketches. --maclean25 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Comment

How would one go about cleaning up that section? I'm assuming we don't need to archive it, but I'm not sure what to delete. I know some of those RoCs are no longer an issue, but I don't know witch one's especially since some are not dated. Would it be okay to just removing anything that is (seems to be) over a month old? Zhatt 17:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I think everything nominated before the Toki Poni discussion can be removed; I've checked a few of the discussions, and they've had no new comments for at least a week. That should whittle the list down nicely. Mindmatrix 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

My fellow Canadians...

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfR: Canadian Wikipedians

[edit] References Section

Does anyone ever use the References section of the noticeboard, or should it just be removed? There does not seem to be much usefull information in there. Zhatt 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The original idea behind it was that people could add stuff to it if they knew of anything appropriate. Granted, it's almost never been used that way. Bearcat 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fr:Wikipédia:Projet/Canada

A new Canada project has been created on the French language Wikipedia. Bilingual contributors and translators may be of great help. Thanks ADM

[edit] Candidate Bios

There was a Ottawa Citizen article a few weeks ago criticizing the bios of federal candidates. [1] Many of the offending sections are still there. Perhaps they could use some fix-up. 142.68.196.175 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Scotia Project

For those that are interested, please consider participating in the WikiProject Nova Scotia that is just starting up. Very much a work in progress, but gaining steam. WayeMason 11:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being such a punster, but yes, a lot of steam ships did visit NS. CanadaGirl 11:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Buhahaha! I think we need a logo for the project, maybe the Titanic going down, or the S.S. Atlantic. Heh. WayeMason 00:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament Bio's Library of Parliament website

Check this out Parliamentry Federal Experience profile

• David Orchard
• Michael Fortier
• Peter White Progressive Conservative Defeated 1974
• James Walker NDP Brome-Missisquoi

Found profiles on the parliament site, for members who have never been elected or appointed --Cloveious 07:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a bit bizarre but I don't think we can read these as putative Senate appointees (aside from Fortier). I doubt the webmaster of the parliamentary website has any inside knowledge from the PMO (and I really doubt Harper has any intention of appointing Orchard or Walker to the Senate). More likely the staff at the website are considering making bio pages for defeated candidates as well as past and present MPs. Homey 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC) They've starting doing this for several defeated candidates, including those of minor parties. Wonder where they got the idea. CJCurrie 23:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My orginal thought was Senate appointments, but then I found the NDP Candidate. --Cloveious 06:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the above ones are fairly notable. Peter White was a big player in the Mulroney government, Orchard for obvious reasons. They may be compiling a page of leadership candidates and top staffers who ran for office? - Jord 14:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Or otherwise notable people who have run for parliament unsuccessfully (Lewis Mackenzie?). I've never heard of James Walker though, who is he?Homey 17:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Military History Taskforce

Template:WPMILHIST Canadian military history task force

[edit] Canadian Royal Family

Any thoughts on the idea that there is a Canadian Royal Family welcome at Talk:Court Circular Astrotrain 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newfoundland and Labrador WikiProject

HJKeats and I have just created a WikiProject for Newfoundland and Labrador. If you'd like to help, come on over—the more the merrier. OzLawyer 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian city naming convention

At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), Canada is lumped in with the United States, which means that several Canadian cities (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) do not comply with the "published" naming convention if (city, province). The rest of the world pretty much follows a "disambiguate as needed" policy closer to the standard Wikipedia naming convention. I propose that we draft our own city naming convention. Here is a first draft:

Draft 1:

Canadian cities should be named "Placename" when possible: e.g., Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg. If disambiguation is needed, "Placename, Province", is used (the "comma convention", as in London, Ontario, or Dartmouth, Nova Scotia).

--Usgnus 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with sharing a naming convention with the US, and the principle encompassed by it is a fairly well-understood standing policy, which lets globally-well-known cities in both Canada and the US (c.f., Chicago, Toronto, Vancouver, Los Angeles) go without province/state names, while major-but-not-internationally-known cities get trailing state/province names (Denver, Colorado; Edmonton, Alberta; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Halifax, Nova Scotia). I think Australia corresponds fairly closely to this, too, FWIW. If the naming conventions page doesn't explain that policy clearly, which has come up on WP:RM in the past, then it ought to be fixed.

That isn't to say your proposal is without merit or worth discussing, by the way, although I imagine it would involve a heck of a lot of moves. The Tom 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I see Chicago and Los Angeles have since moved. Well, that's thrilling. I'll read up on what's prompted that. The Tom 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm mostly looking for is something that will allow Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City to stay where they are, and not be moved to Vancouver, British Columbia; Toronto, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec and Quebec, Quebec. -- Usgnus 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I don't have a problem with having the same naming convention as the U.S. if that's what a significant number of Canadian wikipedians choose, but I do have a problem with following along with the existing standard just because sometime in the past, Canada was lumped in the U.S. By the way, I read through the entire archive above. -- Usgnus

Interesting. I've certainly never heard any complaints about it, and my sense is that it's pretty much impossible for someone to speak of a city in Canada without knowing what province it's in. In contrast, in England, for instance, matching towns with the counties in which they are contained is often not well-known by even their fellow countryman. A worthy debate, certainly, but I have no real problems with the status quo. The Tom 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Copenhagen, Oslo, Vienna, Budapest, Istanbul, Mumbai, Paris, London, Accra, Tunis, Madrid, Rome, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Johannesburg, Taipei, Hong Kong, Sydney, Seoul, Tokyo, the list goes on, all follow the "disambiguation as needed" convention. -- Usgnus 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's breaking any conventions; the usual naming convention has been to use the simplest unique title possible. That is, if a city has a unique name or is overwhelmingly the most significant locality with a shared name, then it can have the city name alone; if it has to be disambiguated, then it uses the name of its appropriate political division (state, province, county, etc.) Even European communities have disambiguated titles when necessary, e.g Launceston, Cornwall, Nelson, Lancashire, Montréal, Aude, Amerika, Saxony, etc. — the difference is that European towns and cities tend to be a lot more likely to either have a unique name (where else but Germany could there possibly be a Bad Kissingen?) or to be the most significant use (I don't think anybody would seriously claim that London, Ontario is more important than the London in England, for example), not that they're actually using a different naming convention. What Usgnus is proposing here is the actual convention as written; it's not some kind of deviation. But at the same time, let's be realistic: although obviously there are exceptions, towns and cities in Canada and the United States are probably the absolute least likely in the world to actually have unique names for which no kind of disambiguation whatsoever is necessary.

I don't think the convention is saying that Canadian towns and cities must use the province name at all times, either — as written, what it means is "if disambiguation is necessary, the title is 'Halifax, Nova Scotia' rather than 'Halifax, Canada'." I've added a phrase to the convention to clarify that. Bearcat 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the questions to me is, which cities should be able to stand out on their own and which need the the comma convention. That becomes a question of POV (I think it's safe to say that Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and perhaps Vancouver are internationally known enough to go without. The "second tier" - Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec City, etc, is debatable). Once you get to cities which are unimportant on a global scale, it just becomes confusing for non-Canadian readers. "Edmundston", for example, isn't notable enough just to stand out on its own in my opinion. Unless already placed in the context of New Brunswick, it's rarely ever referred to without a ", New Brunswick" after it. If we do go this route, we could use something like the CP style guide (if they have a section on something like this) to determine which cities only get titled "placename".

The other issue I have with the original proposal is the same one I have with the UK/European convention (only disambiguate when needed). A lot of British Wikipedians have issues with people that dare suggest other cities share the spotlight with them. I've seen some of them swear up and down that their Bostons, Lincolns, Clevelands or Halifaxes were more important than those on this side of the pond, despite that all of their North American namesakes have national importance here as opposed to regional importance in the UK. (The UK city almost always prevails in the case of cities of roughly equal size and importance like Worcester or Truro, which is another POV issue that needs to be addressed). Do we really want to open the same can of worms here? Kirjtc2 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Draft 2:

Canadian cities, in general, should follow the following naming convention:

• World-recognized cities should be named "Placename" when possible: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver.
• Unique major (population > 100,000 CMA) centres should also be named "Placename" when possible: e.g., Calgary, Winnipeg.
• All other cities should be named "Placename, Province": e.g., London, Ontario, or Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Notes: "Placename" cities should have redirect pages at "Placename, Province" and "Placename, Canada". Moving pages requires discussion and consensus on the city's talk page.

--Usgnus 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Those of you who may think the current "convention" does not require every U.S. city article to be named according to the [[city, state]] standard, try to find one city (besides the one exception, New York City) that does not follow the convention. And forget the ambiguity argument. Cities with clearly unambiguous names like Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, etc. etc., are named according to the convention, while the more common name form is a redirect to the article. Try to go to one of these pages and change the name back to what it should be (most used/recognized.. no state disambiguity baggage). Good luck with that. I support the separation of the Canadian policy from the U.S. policy, because the interpretation used in practice by U.S. city editors is that the standard is required, whether there is a disambiguity issue or not. --Serge 07:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political party infobox

Can we add a line to the infobox to indicate whether a party is actually registered or not? It's a bit silly that the Freedom Party of Canada infobox has nothing to indicate that the party has never run a candidate and is not even a registered political party. fullsome prison 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Freedom Party is the only outlier, surely it might make more sense to just strip it of its infobox? If there are others, I can look in playing with some of the conditional fields... the active/defunct stuff might be the logical place to do it. The Tom 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City naming convention poll

[edit] Move to Notice board for Canada-related topics or similar

The page's title and the page itself makes it clear that "This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Canadian Wikipedians". This however, is not how things should be done on Wikipedia. Wikiprojects and other community pages are meant for project use, not for congregating based on country of origin, political persuasion, eyecolour or whatever. A proper focus for this page would be articles related to Canada and people who are interested in them, regardless of where they come from. Zocky | picture popups 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I reworded the intro. As for the page, how about Wikipedians' Canadian notice board? --Usgnus 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose there are many notice boards similarly worded as this one is. Ardenn 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, this is not a vote, so I'm not sure why the bolding. Anyway, those should obviously be changed too. Zocky | picture popups 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, that seems to be the consensus if they're all named like that. Ardenn 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly all are named that. Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities with more than 1MM residents?

I question some of the cities included on the list. Vancouver City does NOT have over 1MM, it has more like 600,000 (2001 stats have it as 545,671 people). I doubt that Edmonton is over 1MM, since the 2005 population of Edmonton was 712,391. If it's actually metropolitan or regional districts being counted, I think that should be made more clear; because in fact individual mayors (like those of Edmonton and Vancouver) are not mayors of cities over 1MM, they are mayors in districts over 1MM.--Anchoress 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Presently, there are only two Canadian cities with populations over 1 million: Toronto and Montreal. Calgary will join that group, likely at the next civic census, but after that, it will be a while before a fourth city is added. Resolute 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communities within Brampton, Ontario

I looked at this article today, and tagged it for deletion because it's very incomplete, only 1 article links to it, and frankly I think it's a level of detail that doesn't warrant its own article. If you would like to either bolster the article or support my deletion suggestion, please go ahead. PKT 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Ice Hockey needs your help!

I noticed there was no link for Floral, Saskatchewan and thought this was the place to come for help. Gordie Howe was born there and is mentioned several times around his bio and other ice hockey pages. I'm not sure what templates you are using and honestly don't know that much about Floral, so I thought I'd post here. Would appreciate it if someone could help create this page. Thanks! - Schmackity 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC parks, protected areas?

Are these and in particular, these protected areas in the sense of the article, Wikiproject, and stub type? There's a massive number of them that have been created as nano-stubs, and some discussion over at WP:WSS/P as to the best way of sorting them. Alai 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I should say, more generally, that the BC-geo-stubs are very large, so really should be split and sorted in one way or another... Alai 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPs

• I'm an American, using AOL Canada in a state that borders Canada, does that count?--64.12.116.69 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you interested in Canadian related content, or just frequent this board? -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication of requested/missing politicians lists

Is there a valid reason for maintaining duplicate lists of missing Canadian politicians?:

1. Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Requests#Politicians
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Canadian politicians

If not, would suggest we remove #1 from the massive Requests page and only maintain #2. Any objections to this? Dl2000 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the lists exactly the same? -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, although many differences result from articles being removed from one list but not the other. Will clarify by recommending a merge of #1 to #2 instead of an outright delete of #1. Dl2000 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You should probably place this on WP:CANTALK then. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, over to WP:CANTALK... Dl2000 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

Does the notice board need the section "Disambiguation pages" (sub-heading of "Disambiguation issues")? The Canadian content seems to be correctly represented on each of the pages listed there today. PKT 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? What are you talking about? I don't see "Disambiguation issues" on WP:CANADA. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The subheading is on the articles to improve subpage. As to the question itself, I added the section because these need to be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that people aren't making new wikilinks to the wrong pages; the fact that they're all okay at this particular time isn't really the point of the exercise. Bearcat 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)