Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archives:

Archive 1 ~ Archive 2 ~ Archive 3 ~ Archive 4 ~ Archive 5 ~ Archive 6 ~

Archive 7



Contents

[edit] Canadian politics

I had an email (via Jimbo) from Royal Galipeau, a Canadian politician. He wanted to give some corrections and new articles. I told him to edit himself of course, but it seems that he's not willing to try that. So he's sent corrections and new articles as Word files. I could try again to encourage him to edit, but as one of the articles is about himself it might be best for someone uninvolved to look at them first anyway. Is someone willing to look and maybe add these articles? Please let me know, and I can forward the docs to you. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 09:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Emery

Someone has been removing information from the Marc Emery page, claiming that it is inaccurate and biased.

Could I have some people look over this page to ensure that (i) the current edit is appropriate, and (ii) no further arbitrary deletions are made. CJCurrie 23:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons

A user created template boxes to group the current Parliamentary delegations by province. The problem User:SimonP and I discussed with them is that some of them are far too long compared to the US boxes they were modelled on (see e.g. Template:ON-FedRep), they're not easily made smaller (the Ontario box as it stands is already the result of my best effort to chop it down), and they actually go against stated Wikipedia policy that template boxes should be used to list sequential series and not groups of people or things related only by common occupation or circumstance (as per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes).

So, long story short, to serve the purpose of the templates in a different manner, I've started to reorganize this category into subgroups, with each article being filed into one subcategory for members grouped by province and one for members grouped by political party. When it comes to the historical ones, though, I can think of several different ways to handle that, so I wanted to bounce them off you guys for input:

  1. Former MPs go into new "historical members by province" and "historical members by political party" subcategories. (My main concern with this one is that "Historical Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Newfoundland and Labrador" is entirely too long to be acceptable as a category name, so the wording for these would have to change.)
  2. The province and party subcategories I've already created become groups of present and former MPs; add just one further category to group members of the current Parliament (without removing those people from the province and party cats).
  3. Same as #2, but without a special category to list current members; just use the article Members of the Canadian House of Commons to serve that purpose. (This is arguably the easiest approach from a post-election category management standpoint, but some people do seem to like having a category for everything a category could possibly be implemented for.)

Any thoughts? Bearcat 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On # 1, I would suggest calling them (e.g.) "Historical Newfoundland and Labrador MPs". Also, the territories should be one category. Not only are there few MPs, but territorial ridings have at times combined more than one territory. Plus, it will provide a category for pre-1905 MPs from what are now AB & SK (if there were any?). Luigizanasi 16:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, the only riding that ever crossed territorial boundaries was Yukon—Mackenzie River for just a single election. Pre-1905, Alberta and Saskatchewan (and Assiniboia and so on) were just ridings within the Northwest Territories [1]. So I wouldn't see an absolute need to merge them, but it's def. an option. -The Tom 15:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think # 2 probably makes the most sense. -The Tom 15:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: I haven't gotten too much input on this, so I'd still like a few more people to weigh in. However, I am going to rule out option #1 as far too complicated. So the question is: do we want to add a third category for current members of the House, or skip it? Bearcat 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

[edit] To any wikipedian living in Vancouver

If you have a digital camera, could you please provide a GFDL image to replace Image:Vancouver Waterfront.jpg, which I originally uploaded and which was recently put on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images? I'd do it myself, except a) I don't have a digital camera, and b) I'm in the Comox Valley. Denelson83 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can try, but I wont be able to get that angle. The Vancouver Waterfront image looks like it was taken from a boat or sea plane. There used to be docks near there where I could have gotten a similar angle, but those have been removed. There might also be a boat parked there when I go to take the picture. I'll upload it under a different name as "Vancouver Waterfront" is not very descriptive. "Canada Place" would be a much better title. Zhatt 5 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
I did try, but I'm not able to get that angle. That picture was taken from a boat and, unfortunately, I do not have a boat. It may be possible from North Vancouver with a very powerful telescopic lens, but I don't have one of those either. Zhatt 17:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think you can take a similar picture from Stanley Park with a telephoto lens. I think I have a nice digital picture from that angle. I will see tonight if I can find it. -- Webgeer 17:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Italian-Canadian politicians

Is there any convincing reason why Italian-Canadians should be the only cultural group within Canadian society who get their own special category to group politicians of Italian descent separately from the main category Category:Italian-Canadians? If there is, I fail to understand it... Bearcat 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cause we are the greatest? :-) Or maybe we wanna keep the notorious away from the notable with real achievements? :-) The whole thing started at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Italian-Canadian. Luigizanasi 04:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures Ontario towns and cities

Anonymous user 24.92.224.54 has changed quite a few Ontario population figures from 2001 to 2004. I have no idea where he got the Thunder Bay (Ontario) figures from. They are not at the Statistics Canada website which gives an estimate of 127,100 for the CMA in 2004 (24.92.224.54 changed this to 136,000). Maybe all the changes he made are suspect. Others may want to check into his/her changes to towns such as Tilsonburg and Peterborough. --BrentS 15:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted him on London too, because I know it's not that big, but I don't know about the other places... Adam Bishop 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It may just be from the town's own estimates, or the district/region etc in which its located. I don't support the use of those estimates, except to complement Census data. However, for small communities, especially those in townships, census data may not be available (only township data is released).
Anyway, I've updated a few of the pages modified by the user; source used: Statistics Canada Mindmatrix 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the same user or not, but this isn't the first time somebody has done exactly this to a subgroup of Ontario communities. Sometime last year, Greater Sudbury magically jumped from 155,000 to 221,000, which is absurd. None of that user's other edits were as outlandish as that one, but they were all entirely unsourced. Bearcat 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ontario geography et al

I've noticed that all the provincial geography categories are titled Province geography. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if they were titled Geography of Province instead? I notice that the articles Geography of Canada and Geography of Alberta have titles matching the latter form, and thought that would fit more readily with naming conventions. Would anyone support (or oppose) a move of those categories? Mindmatrix 14:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose the change, and would argue for the opposite:

1. Creates a problem with the Northwest Territories and especially the Yukon, while using the province/territory as an adjectival noun neatly circumvents the issue. See my User page. The "the" was only eliminated from the Yukon by petty-minded bureaucrats in 2002 with the passage of the Yukon Act. "Geography of Yukon" sounds really awkward to the ears of this Yukoner. But if we used "Geography of the Yukon", we would get into the usual silly discusssions, as in Talk:Yukon, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 1, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 25 2. It's a waste of time better spent on writing articles. Luigizanasi 16:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I generally prefer the Geography of xxx-style, but unless there's a mixture of the two styles in a single category I wouldn't worry about it. If you're feeling ambitious and don't mind championing the cause, then I think you should go for it. It simply makes sense for Category:Geography of Canada to lead to Geography of Alberta, etc. With regards to Luigizanasi's comments about the Yukon, Category:Islands of Canada uses "the Yukon" and "the NWT" and no one has complained about that, but maybe it's time that we had that discussion. ;-) --NormanEinstein 18:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
How about a compromise then - the categories for provinces will be changed, and those for territories left as is for now, until we can come up with a naming convention for them as well. Mindmatrix 19:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A good Canadian solution, eh. My personal preference is for using "the Yukon" whenever possible but "Yukon" as an adjectival noun (e.g. "Yukon Geography") is also OK. I abhor & detest "Yukon" without the article and I am not the only one. On the other hand, there are weenies out there who want the Yukon to be just like everybody else and drop the "the". FWIW I have found two other Yukoners with talk pages and they use "the Yukon" in their articles. Luigizanasi 22:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've re-categorized all articles related to provincial geography into new categories. Mindmatrix 16:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Territories, how's this:
For Nunavut, I don't think the 'the' article is needed (it sounds awkward). Mindmatrix 17:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I totally & unequivocally agree with Mindmatrix's names for all three territorial categories. Let's just hope no one tries to change them to "Geography of Yukon", etc., like they did for airports. Thank you. Luigizanasi 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NormanEinstein actually mentioned it above; I had thought of the same thing, and formalized it a tad in my previous post. Anyway, everything should be working normally with the new cats, and the old cats have been deleted. Mindmatrix 21:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive list of all past and present members of the Canadian House of Commons

Ok folks, here's my latest, I hope some of you find them useful. I have compiled a comprehensive list of all past and present members of the Canadian House of Commons. The list contains all 3498 members of the HOC from 1867–2005. If you use these lists, be aware that they were created by a semi-automated process relying on information dumped from the database of the Library of Parliament. In most cases, only the full and formal name of members is used, so help with disambiguation or creation of suitable redirects would be much appreciated. Names of the electoral districts in particular are often incorrect, since they tend to point to the name of the community, rather than to the electoral district. I will create a formal project page at some point for this as I have done in the past for individuals with entries in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, but in the meantime, I challenge you all to turn some of those red wikis into blue! Cheers, Fawcett5 06:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lists of past and present Members of the Canadian House of Commons
A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z

[edit] Re-categorization

We've re-named a few categories, and since then I've been looking for other inconsistencies in naming. We have Category:Museums in Canada, but Category:Ontario museums; we have Category:Bridges in Canada, yet Category:Montreal buildings. I'd like to standardize this as much as possible. For the geography articles, we decided to use nouns exclusively, instead of adjectival nouns (ie - prefer the first form in each pairing I listed). Some of these categories are sparsely populated now, which makes re-naming them easier.

Succintly:

  • Category:Casinos of Canada is OK
  • Category:Canadian charities -> Category:Charities of Canada

We should also consider the use of in versus of as a descriptor.

It appears that Wikipedia in general is moving toward this format too, so I propose we make these changes now, rather than making them later when they'll certainly require more work. Does anyone have objections or concerns? Mindmatrix 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)

I just want to stress that while I know some people genuinely prefer the "Nation subject" format, it's actually Wikipedia policy that categories should be named in the format "Subject of Nation", and eventually all categories will be changed to that format when people get around to them. So any objections need to address whether there are exceptional circumstances under which Canadian categories should be exempted from the rule; I don't personally think there are any. My only input is that not every province currently has its own distinct museums category, so either all the museums in Canada should be recatted by province, or the Ontario and Alberta categories should be merged back into Category:Museums in Canada. As for "of" vs. "in", I think it really depends on the individual category -- some just sound much more natural one way or the other. Bearcat 1 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
I've re-named all Province communities categories to Communities in Province, with appropriate attention to the territory categories also. I chose in instead of of since we already had many sub-categories of the form Towns in Province etc, and I re-named any sub-categories that didn't match this naming scheme.
I'll start re-naming other categories soon, but I want input regarding a few changes. In Category:Geography of Canada, we see a standard for sub-categories of Foo of Canada, so I was going to re-name Canadian parks to Parks of Canada. But in Category:Canadian parks, we find its sub-categories using both in and of. I'll change everything to use of, unless someone cites a good reason to do otherwise.
I decided to use Parks in Canada etc instead, but left National parks of Canada. Mindmatrix 5 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)
I also used Category:Ski resorts in Canada, contrary to my previous statement that I'd use of; this was more natural. Mindmatrix 5 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
Here's a list of other suggested changes (comments are invited):
Note that the above list includes material from Category:Canada or its descendents; I haven't looked at provincial categories yet. Mindmatrix 4 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Category:Quebec culture is still linked to several pages so I have not deleted it. Please excise the links so that it can be deleted safely. —Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Fixed; the category can be safely removed now. Mindmatrix 5 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Communities in Ontario and other provinces

Oh, I also wanted to seek opinions about another issue. Category:Communities in Ontario contains almost all Ontario communities, but excludes those that may be categorized elsewhere (eg - Category:Greater Sudbury, Ontario). I think this would be a good example of allowing exceptions to the rule (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories for details, fourth paragraph). Most people won't find Capreol, Ontario, for example, if they don't know it's part of Greater Sudbury. I think we should list all communities in the provincial category, including those in sub-categories. Mindmatrix 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

My first concern with this is that no other category for "Communities in X" exists on Wikipedia; we really need to find an entirely different way to structure and categorize these kinds of articles (eg. separating them into "Towns in Ontario", "Villages in Ontario", etc., but there may be other ways.) One example of why this is a problem is that the "Communities in Canada" category has been filed for months in a nonexistent (redlinked) "Communities by country" category (which is never going to exist.) Bearcat 21:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Every country seems to have its own standards; for the US, there are Locations in X categories (for example: Category:Locations in Maine). I don't object to Villages in etc, since we already have the equivalent Cities in and Towns in categories, but how do you handle the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated communities? For example, Osgoode Township, Ontario consists of a number of communities (see this) - how do you classify them? Words like communities or locations are generic enough to capture all those places. Mindmatrix 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I should have inspected more categories for US states. They've created Category:Unincorporated communities in Alaska etc. for some states. For the larger states, they also have Villages in and Hamlets in categories (see Category:New York). I wouldn't object to using similar categories for Canadian locations. Mindmatrix 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada geography stubs

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting has just split the Canada geography stub category. With nearly 1500 stubs, it was becoming too large to be of practical use to editors, so separate subcategories have been made for the four provinces with the most stubs (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta). We've only split these top four because none of the other provinces had a very large number of stubs, so it would have been unprofitable to split off the rest (if they get too big at a later date, they may also be split, but there's no point at the moment in making a separate stub category for eight PEI stubs, for instance). The new categories are all subcategories of Category:Canada geography stubs, and use the following templates:

At the moment the areticles are yet to be sorted into these new categories, but hopefully they will be in the next week or so. We hope this will make it easier for you 9and other editors) to find Canadian geography items to expand! Grutness...wha? 08:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Is there a precedence for using BrColumbia? I have never seen this abbreviation before and don't think it is useful. It should either be British Columbia or BC. I would argue for BC since it is the most used way to refer to the province even in speech. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This British Columbian has never seen/heard "Br. Columbia" before, and so I'll second that request to use "BC" instead. It seems analogous to using "{{UtdStates-geo-stub}}, which would be clearly weird. -The Tom 19:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For those who have an opinion one way or the other, the discussion is at: WP:WSS/C DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apologies about Br. Columbia - it's what most of the world calls it, and it never crossed anyone's minds at the Stub sorting project that it wouldn't be known as that in Canada (a fairer analogy might be USA-stub - widely used outside the US, but rarely used there). Still, BritishColumbia-geo-stub can also be used, since one redirect to the other. BC is a bit too ambiguous though - other parts of the world call themselves BC. Grutness...wha? 09:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I re-stubbed most of the Canada-related geographical stubs; for BC, I used {{BritishColumbia-geo-stub}} since it was the most descriptive and least ambiguous. It currently redirects to {{BrColumbia-geo-stub}}, though I hope the former will eventually replace the latter. Mindmatrix 6 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

BTW: here are the current counts for those stub categories:

The Ontario category is growing very quickly; an extra 100+ stubs have been added in the past week, after the re-categorization was done. Mindmatrix 6 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

...And there's been yet more growth in some of the provnces which didn't have separate stubs, so WP:WSS has created two more:

The first of these is for geography stubs from NS, NB and PEI - currently there are about 125 of these, and uses {{maritimes-geo-stub}}. The second is for what it says, Newfoundland and Labreador geography stubs. To avoid having a huge template name - and also to hopefully stave off any claims of neglect from Goose Bay et al if the obvious shortening was used - this can use either {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} or {{Labrador-geo-stub}} (the latter redirects to the former, and the wording of the template names both!). Grutness...wha? 09:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Department of Marine and Fisheries

The article Department of Marine and Fisheries (Canada) seems redundant to the article Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada). It's the same department, but under the original name. There has been some confusion with naming as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also known as Fisheries and Oceans Canada (I know the confusion first hand, as I'm currently working with the Governemnt.) I suggest merging DMF into DFO, but I'd like to hear what others have to say before I flag it for VfD. Zhatt July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

First of all, if you do merge them, you should not VfD. The correct procedure is to create a redirect at the old article pointing to the merged one. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Fisheries and Oceans Canada redirects to DFO as it should and DMF clearly states it is a former department. It may be desirable to keep an article about the former department as a history of the ministry or it might be better to keep the history with the current department article. I haven't decided yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
OK, no VfD. Didn't know that. Thanks. Does anyone else have an opinion on if DMF should be merged into and redirected to DFO? If you notice, on DMF, there is a list of departmental name changes at the bottom. What gives DMF the right to have an article but not these other variations on the name? Zhatt July 8, 2005 21:47 (UTC)
Go for the merge and redirect like DoubleBlue suggested. It's interesting stuff that should be under a history section in the main DFO article. I would argue that it should be in the same article because the function of the former department are very similar to the current DFO. At a minimum, there should be a "See also" link in both articles. See Wikipedia:Merge for instructions. — Luigizanasi 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Article merged. Thanks for your help and comments. Zhatt July 8, 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Yes, you were right Zhatt. It's better merged. Well done. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Generally, my rule is that if something merely changes name but is essentially the same thing other than the name change, then the old name should just be a redirect to the new one and the history should go in the current name's article. However, if two or three or four things merged to create one new thing, or one thing got taken over by another thing that already existed, then I'd do separate articles. Bearcat 17:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've come into this discussion late and don't really have an opinion about whether the content should be merged with DFO, however it is wrong to think that the Dept. of Marine & Fisheries is the same as DFO. Most of the "Marine" portion of the portfolio lives on under Dept. of Transport/Transport Canada. I created the entry when I was rewriting the Canadian Coast Guard article - just an easier way to better explain the federal government's structure. I was also considering separate articles on the Dept. of Marine (a sucessor), but never go around to it at the time. Plasma east 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada geo stub redirects listed for deletion

Some redirects to the four canada geography stub types are up for deletion on WP:SFD. Please comment if you think these redirects are useful, or if the main stub names suffice. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Provincial geo-stubs names up for discussion

WP:WSS/C#Newfoundland-geo-stub, NovaScotia-geo-stub Should Newfoundland and Labrador be {{NewfoundlandandLabrador-geo-stub}} or just {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} or something else? DoubleBlue (Talk) 10:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}. I'll add comments to the proposal page. Mindmatrix 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Created as {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}, with redirect at {{Labrador-geo-stub}}. In the end, NovaScotia-geo-stub wasn't created - but {{Maritimes-geo-stub}} was in its place, to cover NS, NB and PEI. If that gets to be too big a category, it may be split further in the future. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Re-stubbing of the articles is complete. Mindmatrix 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. I was going to help. :-) Good work all. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ever wondered why there are so many of us?

I'm sure that I am not the only one to have felt that there are an awful lot of Canadians on Wikipedia. Jimbo just released a table ranking countries by Wikipedia page views per capita. Among English speaking nations Canada was first with 0.26 page views per person during the period studied (believed to be one day). 4.10% of Wikipedia traffic came from Canada, placing us fourth in total traffic after the United States, Germany, and Japan. Most surprising is that Canada is ahead of the larger UK by a significant margin, and has almost double the per capita page view rate of Australia. Of course this jsut raises the question of why Wikipedia is so popular in Canada. - SimonP 14:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Canada has the highest internet penetration among anglophone nations. We also have a healthy distrust of experts, and a traditional citizen participation in public life. Put the two together, and voila. For example, see Progressive Bloggers.--Simon.Pole 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Article Notification

I'm a new user to Wikipedia and I think it's great. A suggestion would be to have a method whereby an individual can be advised when a new article is created concerning a topic of interest. I have a watchlist, it only advises me of changes. HJKeats 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You could put a category page on your watchlist. Zhatt 17:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
You can watch articles that don't yet exist. For example, visit this non-existent article and click watch. When someone creates it, it'll pop up on your watchlist. You can also do this with templates, categories etc. You can do it even more quickly by adding an action to the URL, like so (note: clicking that link will add This_non-existent_article to your watchlist). You can simply paste that URL into your browser's location bar, and change the title to the article you want to watch. I hope that helps. Mindmatrix 18:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citadel of Quebec

User Montréalais has recently changed Citadel of Quebec to Citadelle of Quebec. I am puzzled by his claim that Citadelle is used in both English and French. If you consult many of the gc.ca sites including http://www.pc.gc.ca/voyage-travel/pv-vp/itm5-/page5_E.asp you will see that the government continues to use the correct English word "citadel". Halifax also has an impressive British-built citadel Citadel Hill. A capital letter is not really required since citadels were built all over the place and the word is in every English dictionary. Understandably in Quebec the complex known as the Fortifications of Quebec will be referred to as a citadelle, but not elsewhere in the English speaking world when a perfectly good English word exists. This complex was built by the British and it is more than ironic that it should be presented to the rest of the world outside Quebec as somehow French. By this reasoning, every powder magazine in Quebec will have to be termed a poudrière in English. French Wikipedia should correctly use Citadelle de Québec but English Wikipedia should use Citadel of Quebec. Can we have some opinon on whether it is wise to frenchify an historic English word?--BrentS 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't actually see a contradiction between saying that "Citadel of Quebec" is a common term for the thing and saying that "La Citadelle" is its actual proper name. And yes, I would take the Governor General's website as a higher authority on this matter than a government tourism site; a tourist profile isn't bound by protocol to refer to the thing by its formal and proper name, while the GG more or less is. Bearcat 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geo-stub sorting

The new templates for {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} and {{Maritimes-geo-stub}} have been implemented, and articles have been sorted into their respective categories. Here's the current tally:

We need to work on expanding those articles - that's nearly 2000 stubs, and the list is growing rapidly. Mindmatrix 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Wikipedia%7ECanadian_wikipedians%27_notice_board_discussion_Archive_3_a956.html"