Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archives
Index

Archive 1 (2004) • Archive 2 (Jan - Jun 2005) • Archive 3 (Jul - Dec 2005) • Archive 4 (Jan - Jun 2006) • Archive 5 (Jul - Dec 2006) •
Archive 6 (Jan - Jun 2007) • Archive 7 (Jul - Dec 2007) • Archive 8 (Jan - Jun 2008)
(See also the archives of the former Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada.)

Contents

Lieutenant Governors

I've come across a problem with our articles on provincial lieutenant governors, which needs to be discussed.

For most provinces, there is an article "Lieutenant Governor of X", which is a discussion of the position, with a separate list that's usually at the title "List of Lieutenant Governors of X". However, in the cases of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the position title exists only as a redirect to the list, and in the case of Nova Scotia, an individual user recently moved the list to the alternative title Viceroys of Nova Scotia. And for some of the other provinces, alternate spellings that should be a redirect to the article (e.g. "Lieutenant-Governor of Québec") have been incorrectly made into redirects to the list, and vice versa. And for some provinces, the list is at the title "Lieutenant Governors of X", which is a poor choice as it's very nearly indistinguishable from the titles of the primary articles. A single "s" should never be the only difference between the title of an article and the title of its associated list.

As a result, lists of LGs are now at three different title formats, depending on which province you look at, and articles about the position of LG may or may not exist at all. Needless to say, this is not acceptable — we need to have a consistent format across all of the provincial lieutenant governor articles, so we need to come to a consensus about how best to treat these.

So I offer the following proposals for discussion:

  • Option A: For every province, there should be an article on the position and a separate list of the people who've held it; the list is titled in the format "List of Lieutenant Governors of X".
  • Option B: For every province, there should be an article on the position and a separate list of the people who've held it; since the positions may have had different names in the past, the list is titled "(List of) Viceroys of X" instead of "List of Lieutenant Governors".
  • Option C: For every province, the article and the list should be merged into a single title.

Please indicate a preference, and hopefully we can come to a consensus on how to proceed. Thanks. Bearcat 02:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks to Bearcat for notifying me on this. I changed the name of the Nova Scotia article because it is not correct to call the list "Lieutenant Governors" as the list includes the 1710-1867 (British, full) Governors and then lists the Lieutenant Governors since confederation. So to be accurate we need to use the catchall name "Viceroys" for Ontario, Quebec, PEI, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and B.C, if we want the list to include pre-confederation governors. I strongly support Option B. WayeMason 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Option A, with Option C being second choice. With all due respect, I think Option B is a terrible idea. Viceroy might technically be a more encompassing term, but it makes me think of the Raj in India and E. M. Forster novels, not the Queen's representatives in British North America, and the term would leave the vast majority Canadians scratching their heads. Refer to articles as "List of Lieutenant Governors of X", then explain at the top that the pre-confederation governors went by different titles. Skeezix1000 11:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I support option A, with the following caveats: each List of article should indicate any nuance about the list, such as that for Nova Scotia. That is, the list can be broken up into several lists, each specifying its nature in a short preamble. I'd create redirects from List of Viceroys of X to List of Lieutenant Governors of X for the sake of completeness. I don't like option C, because lists have a habit of cluttering articles, and option B isn't attractive because most people today at least know about LGs, but I doubt many know about viceroys. The few that do would be redirected to the proper place. Mindmatrix 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Had I read Skeezix1000's comments fully before replying, I would have just said See above. Oh well. Mindmatrix 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bearcat, what's your preference? If it's Option A, we probably have consensus. If it's Option B or C, we probably need some more input from other editors. Skeezix1000 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have a personal preference — I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is. I just felt that the issue needed to be raised. Bearcat 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote for option A. The term "Lieutenant Governors" is by far going to be the most common one for which people look. We should, of course, mention the name difference in the opening text of the list article, and the viceroy name should be a redirect. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bearcat, it seems like there is consensus for Option A. I believe that all that needs to be moved is Viceroys of Nova Scotia to List of Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia. The move requires an admin. There is also an edit history problem, as the move from Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia to Viceroys of Nova Scotia appears to have been a cut-and-paste. Skeezix1000 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have revived this discussion, by placing a RM tag on the Viceroys of Nova Scotia talk page, which directs the discussion here. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article entitled Viceroys of Nova Scotia and it is a simple list of names, essentially a mass redirect to individual articles. These list type articles predate the relatively new method of placing names in succession boxes at the bottom of the article. For example, at the bottom of each Governor article is placed Template:LieutenantGovernorsNovaScotia. I feel that this is an improved method of seeing the entire list and more interactive as you can page through the list in the succession rather than having to refer back to a separate list article. In essence the template has replaced the list, and IMO, for the better. Therefore I think the "List of Lieutenant Governor of X" articles should be removed and ensure that templates are placed at the bottom of each individual governor article. The ""Lieutenant Governor of X" can still remain as the office is still notable. I guess this is a vote for a modified version of Option C - get rid of the list articles altogether. Atrian (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am against rename this article, as that would be factually incorrect as the list includes pre-confederation Governors. Further, I am against making "every province the same" as every province is not the same. The article for Lieutenant Governors of Alberta can be different from Viceroys of Nova Scotia, as Nova Scotia has over three centuries of Governors and LGs, and Alberta was created by the Federal government after confederation and has a bare hundred years. I think that the focus here is to have the best articles possible for the subject, not to "make everything the same" at the risk of making things both less clear, and incorrect.WayeMason (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You expressed that opinion above, and certainly I gave it some thought. But the comments thus far from other editors indicate that List of Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia is both the better title and allows us to be consistent, and I don't think the feeling is that we have to choose between quality and consistency. The outstanding issue is the one raised by Atrian, as to whether we need the article at all (as opposed to a succession box). Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been moved to List of Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia and the edit history fixed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian conventions

I've started writing up a draft summary of the Canadian-specific naming and style conventions as they currently stand, so that they'll finally be accessible all in one place. I'd like some input and assistance in expanding it, however — so please come help out at User:Bearcat/Canada MOS. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks quite comprehensive, and sums up everything I can think of. That's what you get when you try and codify common tradition though. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There may be a section on roads, but I think road article names are satisfactory now that you can just look at the existing ones for the convention. –Pomte 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good so far. Should we include anything on spelling/language usage (Canadian English)? --Kmsiever (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Another section is needed to sort out NWT/Yukon titles. Is it "something in the NWT/Yukon" or "something in NWT/Yukon"? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks fantastic. Thanks for putting the time into this. I left a few minor comments on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we've even really settled the to-the-or-not-to-the? question for the territories, actually. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Byelection question

Do we really need three separate articles for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean by-election, 2007, Outremont by-election, 2007 and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot by-election, 2007, or should we merge them into a single Canadian federal by-elections, 2007 article? Our practice here seems to be a bit inconsistent: while those are treated separately, the multiple Ontario, Alberta and Newfoundland provincial by-elections of 2007 are treated in single merged articles, as are the Quebec provincial by-elections of 2002. Other provinces' by-elections in 2007 have standalone articles, but in each of those cases there was only one by-election to discuss. But the federals are treated separately, and a cursory search appears to indicate that, apart from Quebec provincial by-elections, 2002, our practice prior to 2007 was to treat a by-election as a subtopic of either the previous general election or the electoral district in which it took place, rather than in a separate article of either the merged or standalone type.

So I guess I'd like to ask for discussion and clarification: what should be our practice for by-elections?

  1. Every federal or provincial by-election gets its own article, no matter how stubbish that would be.
  2. Federal by-elections, being more important and more widely covered, get their own articles regardless of length, but provincials get merged into a single article per year.
  3. Both federal and provincial by-elections get merged into single articles per year.
  4. By-elections should never have separate articles, but should be discussed in another article — e.g. the article on the electoral district, or the article on the preceding general election.

One potential consideration, in my opinion, might be that somebody might know that there was a by-election and want to read the article, but not know or remember the name of the specific electoral district they have to look for — such people might be better served by a merged title discussing all three by-elections.

I'm open, however, to whatever the consensus is, as long as we spell out something consistent. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be, in general, to have it as a section of the riding article, where it is of most interest and can be best discussed in context. I would consider a separate article, a combined by-elections article, or a section of a preceding general if it was particularly notable and could be best discussed in one of those contexts. E.g., something news-worthy and unusual happened in the by-election or several by-elections combined to demonstrate a change in the make-up or political-direction of the legislature. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Other countries have separate articles, and I think it's a good idea on the federal level to do this, but not on the provincial level. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's forget about "how other countries do it" for the moment, and decide what we should do based on our resources, our circumstances and our needs for once. The UK contingent actually puts effort into writing real articles about the political and social context of each by-election, for one thing, whereas with the single isolated exception of Outremont in 2007, we have a nasty habit of just slapping together a stubby little introduction and a results table and leaving it at that. That's not an article; it's a subsection. Separate articles are a perfectly acceptable approach, if we're prepared to actually write real articles — but doing separate articles just because the UK does ain't gonna fly if we're not prepared to start putting a lot more effort into these than we have until now. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Census metropolitan areas by size}} and {{Largest and smallest census divisions of Canada}}

Thoughts on the purpose and scope of these templates? It doesn't make too much sense to link these articles directly to each other. The former can be listifed at Census geographic units of Canada and the latter can be merged with List of census divisions of Canada by population by adding a column for area. –Pomte 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any need for them. It's really just extra trivia information. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree that they're unnecessary — I almost TFD'd them myself quite recently, and have no recollection of exactly what stopped me. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the second, but am not so sure about the first anymore. Being a CMA is an important characteristic, and will help readers navigate between the most populated places of Canada, like {{USLargestCities}} may be useful. Its loose association is exemplified only by St. Catharines-Niagara. The rest all have their own articles, even Ottawa-Gatineau. Feel free to nominate it though. –Pomte 07:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The USLargestCities template isn't comparable to a CMA template; it would only be a valid precedent for a "50 largest cities in Canada" template based on the rankings at List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population. Editors frequently conflate cities with CMAs as if they were the same thing, but they're not. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Debra Arbec at AfD

Debra Arbec has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Arbec. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Larry O'Brien

Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien's first court appearance on the bribery allegations is a matter of hours away, so I'd ask that as many editors as possible keep an eye on the article for the standard troika of WP:RS/WP:V/WP:NPOV issues. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


TVarchive.ca

I would like to see a template created to add to Canadian television shows a link from [1] NorthernThunder (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm mystified by the fact that their URLs seem to contain both a reference ID number and the actual title of the show, and would also like to extend the note of caution that this site doesn't currently list all past Canadian television shows. But otherwise it's a good idea. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I'd like to note that the {{CBC Series Dir}} template isn't working properly; it seems to produce an invalid URL that 404s on the actual website. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying again...

Can I please get some input at Template talk:Canada Provincial Parliamentary Delegation regarding the utility and/or design of the various provincial parliamentary templates? This isn't the first time I've asked. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Trans-Canada Highway

I've created two new subcategories of Category:Trans-Canada Highway, as follows:

  1. Category:Urban segments of the Trans-Canada Highway, for articles where a road's local name within a particular city has a separate article from the one about the highway that it's a part of (e.g. Portage Avenue, Queensway.)
  2. Category:Former segments of the Trans-Canada Highway, for roads which used to be designated as part of the TCH but were bypassed or absorbed by other roads.

Please add to these categories as appropriate. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

template:Infobox CanadianMP/doc

There are two attributes in this template that I do not understand. First, cabinet= what exactly goes into this attribute? Also, the attribute and party colour. I assumed that entering something in the party colour attribute would change the colour of the template, but, it seems I am wrong. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox CanadianMP}} no longer exists as a separate template; it was merged into {{Infobox Officeholder}}. Attributes such as party colour= and cabinet= no longer have any function at all, since they don't have analogous fields in the actual target template.
While we're on the subject, when you create a new article on a politician, could you please enter an uninterrupted term in office as one term rather than starting a new term every time the person wins a consecutive election? If a person is elected in 2000, then re-elected in 2004 and 2006 and then resigns from Parliament in 2007, that's one term in office beginning in 2000 and ending in 2007, not three separate terms in office started and ended by each election date. Fields like office2, office3, etc., should be used to note non-consecutive terms in office, or terms in different offices (e.g. a person who has served as both a federal MP and a provincial MLA, or a person whose riding got redistricted), and/or cabinet positions, not consecutive re-elections to the same office. Bearcat (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Would [2] be the correct template? Why not create a Canada-specific template? NorthernThunder (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
We can't create a Canada-specific template just because some individuals want one — there has to be an actual, specific and encyclopedically significant reason to diverge from standard templates. That is, if we had some unique need (on the scale of Australia's preferential voting system being wildly out of whack with the structure of {{Infobox Election}}) that standard templates can't cover. But, needless to say, we don't. So standard it is.
If you're not sure how to go about using the standard infobox, just do what I usually do: cut and paste. I usually default to France Gélinas in this regard, since I know there's a clean and correct infobox on her article, but any Canadian politician whose infobox is already present is just fine — I go to her article, copy the infobox, paste it into the new one and make the necessary field changes. Easy as pie. Bearcat (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And incidentally, one of the flaws with the old {{Infobox CanadianMP}} was that it was useless on anybody who represented different electoral districts at different times in their career. Bearcat (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Continuing on from this topic, I created Edmund Power Flynn (4th, 5th and 6th Canadian Parliaments) using the template:Infobox MP template, however, I do not know how to indicate within the template all of the parliaments he was a member of. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Generally, I'd be more inclined to skip the specific Parliaments in the infobox, and just denote them as Member of Parliament. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

The Canadian notice board formerly maintained a distinction between Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, for formatting discussions about the noticeboard itself, and Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion, for discussion of editing issues in articlespace. This created a lot of unnecessary confusion, and left some discussions unaddressed because they were posted in the "wrong" place, and was not generally standard practice for a Wikipedia noticeboard anyway. Accordingly, I've now merged the two into a single discussion page.

Also, prior to 2006 we used to archive at random and start a new page each time, so some of the archive pages covered just a few weeks at a time while others covered several months — so I've reorganized those as well, so that each one covers a six-month period and integrates the one otherwise isolated archive from the extra talk page. And I've created an index page (there was an index redlink in the archiving notice...couldn't resist) which lists the contents of each archive page for ease of searching. If anybody would care to help out with the index page, it still requires a bit of work — converting the bullet points to #'s, adding a brief summary of the discussion to any item title whose subject isn't obvious, etc.

And finally, I've manually archived any discussion from this active page that hasn't been posted to in January, as it would appear that Shadowbot3 (the bot that's actually been doing the archiving lately) is currently in shutdown. Just to let y'all know. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Settlement

Is this template appropriate for creating pages for communities included in the 2006 Canadian census? NorthernThunder (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is a very versatile template, can be used for cities, towns, villages, hamlets, rural municipalities, districts, neighbourhoods, counties, etc. NB: Most pages are already created, many could use the addition of the infobox.--Qyd (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the main problem I have with using the settlement template on anything smaller than the level of an incorporated municipality is that it tends to invite edits that misrepresent the community's legal and political status, such as leaving the community described as a "town" or "city", giving an unsourceable population figure (the phrase "a population of approximately..." has absolutely no business in an encyclopedia article), creating the appearance that the community has its own separate mayor and council, etc.
The problem with this is that while an inaccurate edit to Edmonton, Toronto or Montreal will get reverted within minutes, since hundreds of people have those articles watchlisted, an inaccurate or misrepresentational edit to Hallebourg, Pekisko or Upper Burgeo typically doesn't get caught for months. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is the problem any worse because an infobox is being used? An unwatched article is an unwatched article, and a bad edit is a bad edit. Lets get an admin to find unwatched Canada articles and spread out the watch-load. I'll check now on this project whether there is a defined acceptable source for population figures, I've seen a few "estimated" figures creeping in lately. (I guess I better join the project now :) Franamax (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of like painting a bullseye on the side of a barn. Even if the bullseye isn't there somebody might still throw something at the barn, but if the bullseye is there somebody definitely will. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave Michael Garg

This article looks like what used to called a "vanity" piece before Wikipedia became the polite place that it is today. I was going to put an importance tag and then maybe an AfD. But I'm patient and kind of lazy and I was wondering if anyone has heard of him or thinks that he has some notability. I only noticed it because one of the SPA's that worked on it inserted the guy into the Gordon Campbell article. Apparently he interviewed the Premier. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, having interviewed notable people does not, in and of itself, confer notability on the interviewer. (Well, okay, maybe if your name is Nardwuar.) Secondly, the inclusion in Gordon Campbell is pretty tenuous. Thirdly, 29 Google hits, of which nary a one is an independent reliable source. Tag it. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose. Google first, ask questions later. I'm not sure why asked since the answer was obvious. Although I thought that, being an internet phenomenon, "notability" can be gained quickly. I see that you tagged it already but if anyone would like to go ahead with the AfD, you'd have my support. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Communities

Just to keep everybody up to date, we've had a bit of an issue lately with Canadian place categories being split between two different trees: "Settlements in Province" and "Communities in Province". I've reviewed the respective category trees, and "settlements" is the term used for geographic communities of residence, while "communities" is used for social communities such as religious organizations, ecovillages, intentional communities and kibbutzes. Accordingly, I've begun to merge the two Canadian trees into one, under the title "settlements". Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed this when you first posted it. I agree with the move, as the convention to use "settlements" for places has been in effect since just after we started using "communities" widely in our (Canada) category tree. Doh! I'll help out where I can. Mindmatrix 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Parker's Notch

I've come across the article Parker's Notch, which seems to be about the border between the Northwest Territories and Nunavut but doesn't really clarify the relevance of its title. And a Google search comes up completely dry. Can anybody shed some light on the subject? Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

John Havelock Parker, a former NWT Commissioner drew the border line. But I think that the exact title isn't something standard. Some sources on Parker's work: [3] and [4] --JGGardiner (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read through that article twice now, what exactly is the "Parker's Notch" part of it? Is there some little kink in the border? Something on his bedpost? Something I'm completely missing? Perhaps the article should be merged somewhere else or renamed, I just can't figure it out... Franamax (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There are three possible "notches". One on the mainland and two on Victoria Island. Use Google Earth with the boarders setting on. The one on the mainland is the most likely of the three. The two on Victoria would have probably been set when the Inuvialuit land claims were settled and the article talks about Dene/Inuit claims which wouldn't apply on the island. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's right. A notch is a V shaped cut. There's a V shaped turn where the border turns west from the north-south one (the continuation the MB/SK one). If you look at the links I put up before, apparently Parker's main contribution was in that area. The Inuit TFN had originally proposed that the whole of the Thelon Game Sanctuary in this area be in the new territory. Parker split it, creating the "notch," which you can see here[5]. I'm not sure if that is what the title refers to but it seems the logical choice. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does anybody know if the John Turner who's running for the Neorhinos in the Vancouver Quadra by-election is the same John Turner who ran for the paleo-Rhinos (no, not the other one...I'm not that dumb!) in Vancouver Quadra in 1988? Seems likely, but I can't find a source which even addresses the question at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Same one apparently.[6] --JGGardiner (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one for the watchlists

An anon IP is repeatedly adding the nickname "The Baller" to our article on The Score sportscaster Adnan Virk. I've done a Google search and this appears to be a nickname coined for him by a sports blog and picked up by a very few other blogs and discussion forums, but with no obvious general currency outside of that tiny little walled garden: a Google search on "Adnan Virk" + baller gets just 14 page hits, of which one is the Wikipedia article itself, one is an internal Wikipedia report page which merely happens to have Adnan Virk and pianist Adolph Baller listed on it, and a further four are similarly coincidental usages of Virk's name and the word baller in different parts of the same page...which means that with just eight real hits, it is not a notable nickname for him.

Furthermore, it seems to be somewhat ambiguous as to whether this nickname is meant to be flattering or unflattering to Virk.

So I'm asking for a few people to keep it watchlisted so we can revert this inappropriate addition. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

United Farmers of Ontario

Can anyone give a bit of time to add sources to United Farmers of Ontario, an article about an often overlooked historical political party that actually formed a government after World War I? Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PEI Conservative leaders

Does anyone know who led the Prince Edward Island Progressive Conservative Party between 1948 and 1957? Reggie Perrin (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's coming up on a Google search, so the best thing I can think of would be to maybe contact Elections PEI. They'd surely have to know. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

template:CanParlbio

I have added the template:Infobox MP to numerous MPs pages. I used the phrase 'Parliament of Canada biography' over the link to the MPs official biography. Does anyone object to me changing the template message currently used in the template:CanParlbio to the one that I use? NorthernThunder (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The current template says "Synopsis of federal political experience from the Library of Parliament" which isn't exactly correct. The actual site uses the term "Parliamentarian File" which is a better description but somehow doesn't seem to say what is in this "file". The current information isn't really what I think a biography is. In the sports world you would use the term statistics. How about "Official parliamentarian of Canada information"? --YUL89YYZ (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Wikimedia Canada is currently in planning after recent interest. Bylaws are being seen to by a lawyer and a Steering Committee has been elected. If you would like to help out, please join the mailing list and, if possible, come to an upcoming meeting. Greeves (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian films

Just thought that the community would like to know that WikiProject Films has a established a Canadian cinema task force. Interested editors are encouraged to join onboard! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Summit Series

Summit Series has been proposed to be renamed 1972 Summit Series. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research conflict

There is a conflict at Canadian order of precedence regarding original research and the inclusion of the royal family. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could take a look. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon Reisman article urgently needed

He has just died and given his central role in negotiating the free trade agreement we really should have an article about him. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just created a stub about him. I was searching for a good category for him, say Negotiators or something under Diplomats, but none seem appropriate. Mindmatrix 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What refs did you use to write it? I couldn't find a citation for his WWII service. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was in an obituary written by The Canadian Press; I read it earlier today and was going by memory. I just found this, which indicates that he served "with the Royal Canadian Artillery in Italy, Holland and Germany in the Second World World". Mindmatrix 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanx. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Conference of Canada

A single-purpose editor User:Hccanada who seems to only edit the article Hindu Conference of Canada has twice re-inserted a line claiming that the HCC is "the largest Canadian Hindu political and media advocacy group". Here is the latest diff. The source they are using is an opinion piece in the Canada Free Press [7] - an online tabloid which doesn't strike me a reliable source. When I first edited the article a few weeks ago it was pretty much a promotional piece. I've tried to make it more NPOV and I'm a bit worried that this user, who may well be with the HCC, is trying to reintroduce puffy elements. I'd like other editors to take a look. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But isn't it likely that they are the biggest? I know of no other group (I'm hardly an expert in this field, mind you) and there is no other such Canadian organization with an article on Wikipedia.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
While that's quite possibly true, an encyclopedia can't state it as a fact without a reliable source. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but Reginald's comment above was that Canada Free Press "doesn't strike me a reliable source." Canada Free Press doesn't appear to be funded by or connected in any way to the Hindu Conference of Canada. I would respectfully suggest to Reginald that there is no basis in fact for opposing this citation, and that we should assume good faith, in this case.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Canada Free Press is a problematic and not wholly reliable source at the best of times. Reggie isn't raising a unique concern in relation to this article — generally, most Canadian editors are leery of citing it anywhere in Wikipedia for a lot of historical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. I wasn't aware of this context. Disregard my comments, then. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sketchy at Best

Sketchy at Best is up for deletion. If anyone has any information that establishes notability, feel free to add it and remove the PROD. Apparently the information is, well, sketchy at best. —BradV 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I've added two references. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

New MPs - articles needed

Rob Clarke appears to have been elected in today's Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River by-election. We had no article on him so I've started a stub but it needs to be developed. It's also possible that Deborah Meredith will win in Vancouver Quadra and we have no article on her at present. The article for Vancouver Quadra's Joyce Murray also requires expansion. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Subdivisions of Quebec}}

A discussion regarding the layout of {{Subdivisions of Quebec}}, please comment at Template talk:Subdivisions of Quebec. --Qyd (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Inuit folklore?

Hi there, we're looking for more info on Polar bear folklore from the far north..anyone who has any folklore material and references is welcome to add it to the polar bear article. much appreciated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramparts of Quebec City

If anyone had some free time, could they help me with this article? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Monklands

We don't seem to have an article on The Monklands (it was previously merged away), which is the former residence of the Governor General. It would seem to me to be significant. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As you noted, the article was merged, specifically into Villa Maria Girls School, with a redirect left in its place. The article had been no more than a sentence or two. In hindsight, I think this treatment was appropriate. PKT (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much talk

I'm not sure if this is controversial or not, but I would propose that we merge the two talk pages: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board (NBT) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada (WCT). It's not uncommon for Wikipedians to post the same message at both NBT and WCT, which suggests to me that there is some major duplication in roles. I understand that there is a theoretical difference between the two, in that WCT is the place to coordinate Wikiproject efforts whereas NBT is a more general talk page. In practice, however, there is very little difference between the usage of the two. I think Canadian Wikipedians, and Wikipedians interested in Canada-related articles, would be well served if WCT were redirected to NBT (first archiving old discussions, and transfering over any ongoing or recent discussions). It would ensure that don't end up with parallel discussions on the same topic on the two separate pages, provide a bit more exposure for Wikiproject Canada efforts, and save the effort of posting in both places.

Ironically, I will also post this suggestion over at WCT, but I will direct the discussion here, so that there are not two separate discussions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with merging the two, but I think the WikiProject should "survive" (for want of a better word) because it's part of a more extensive WikiProject structure. PKT (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Sorry if there was any confusion - I was not proposing that we eliminate the Wikiproject itself, and WP:Canada would remain where it is. I was merely suggesting that we merge the Wikiproject's talk page. I suggested that WCT be moved over to NBT simply because NBT appears to get more posts, and it is the more general of the two. The new "consolidated" talk page would continue to serve as the discussion page for Wikiproject Canada.Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging the Talk pages sounds to me like a great idea. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that not only the talk pages, but also all of the other features here could be made subpages within WP:CANADA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this awhile and decided that I agree with the sentiments here but not precisely with the method. The Notice board is already part of WP Canada. As Wikipedia:Regional notice boards says, a RNB is a more general, informal, and user-friendly means of collaboration that is complementary to a WikiProject. However, this talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada have become confused, overlapping, and off-topic and we need to better divide their uses.

Talk pages should simply discuss the associated article or project page. Rather than having discussions on other issues on either of those talk pages, a notice should be posted to the Notice Board with a link to a more specific Talk page (i.e., an article talk page or a more specific WikiProject talk page or discussion board). This talk page should be for discussing the Notice Board itself. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada should be for discussing and organising the WikiProject. I think we also need a newbie-friendly place, such as the recently-closed WP:CANTALK, for asking questions and discussing general Canada-related concerns about Wikipedia itself. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in theory, but that has not worked in the past. As you know, we used to have separate talk pages, one for discussing the notice board and one for discussing general Canada-related concerns, with large notes at the top of each page clearly indicating the purpose of each pages. The distinct roles and notes were ignored, and both pages were used for general Canada-related concerns. Today, we have NBT and WCT, both being used for the same purpose -- discussing general Canada-related concerns. I'm not even sure that there is a clear-cut division between discussions related to organizing the Wikiproject versus general discussions respecting Canada-related articles -- given the role and purpose of the Wikiproject, I am not sure there is any difference in practice. And frankly, the use patterns of both of these talk pages suggest that the vast majority of editors also do not see any big difference. There comes a point when theoretical division of roles comes crashing up against actual practice, and we can either maintain fictional roles for each of the pages, or we can figure out the best way for Wikipedians interested in Canada-related articles to communicate with each other. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that discussions should not be divided between NBT and WCT; I think they should not take place on either page. Re-open the discussion board for general Canada-Wikipedia discussions. Leave the talk pages for discussing the associated project page. If we agree, then we can enforce this rule by moving off-topic discussions to the appropriate places; thereby helping inform people who are watching the correct place and teaching people the appropriate way to raise issues and questions. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I disagree with the "enforcement" and "teaching" suggestion. It never worked in the past, and as I said above I don't think there is a clean delineation between the different types of discussions. Last thing we need is a talk page police, which would more likely stiffle discussion and discourage postings more than anything else. I know I would likely be pissed if someone purported to teach me "the appropriate way to raise issues and questions". If we have one talk page, thus giving a wider audience to both general Canada-related discussions and Wikiproject Canada efforts, then we don't have to worry at all about "inappropriate" discussions in "inappropriate" places. And I don't see any point to recreating a defunct talk page, when we already have too many talk pages -- I don't see much of a difference between Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. And past history suggests that most editors do not either. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing the attached project page. If we clean up the pages, the distinction would be obvious. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it would. It never has been. Past efforts at cleaning up the pages and leaving notes as to the distinct roles of talk pages never worked. And frankly, why would we go to such efforts when there are simpler solutions? I care a lot less about dictums like "Talk pages are for discussing the attached project page", rather than looking at past and current uasge and figuring out the most efficient and effective way of having useful discussions respecting Canada-related articles and the Wikiproject. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There's very little (if any) talk about the specific wikiproject and its organization. A redirect (here) would be the most efficient solution. --Qyd (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And if there was discussion about the specific wikiproject and its organization it would get lost in the general discussion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it. And even if that was the case, the Wikiproject discussions would already be getting lost in the general discussions over at WCT. In any event, Wikiproject discussions would have a wider audience under a merged talk page, thus increasing the likelihood both of greater participation both in the discussion and the Wikiproject efforts generally. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the merged discussion page but let's make it at an appropriate place: the Vilage Pump for Canadians: WP:CANTALK. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CANTALK is just a shortcut, which links here. I think what you are proposing is that the discussion be at the page to which WP:CANTALK formerly redirected, which is Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just didn't feel like typing or copying all that. :-) Sorry for any confusion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also the Australian Wikipedians' notice board solution, which I don't particularly like, to have the discussion board as a section of the notice board. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We did that at first, too, and then moved to a separate discussion page after a consensus was established that people didn't particularly like it that way. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be in favour of one merged talk page. As per the discussion, WCT has been redirected here. On both talk pages, older discussions (inactive 30+ days) have been archived (both sets of archives available through the archives link at the top of this page), while active discussions on WCT (posted since March 1) have been moved here. That leaves DoubleBlue's proposal that this merged page now be moved over to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion (which is currently redirected here). I have no problem with his suggestion. I thought I would mention it again because no one has commented on it. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "kingdom"

Once again Canada's legal status as a monarchy has been brought into question, this time at Talk:Style of the Canadian sovereign#The word "kingdom". I would appreciate some third party input. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves - Ottawa neighbourhoods

After a discussion on these pages, there is a new guideline over at WP:CANSTYLE for the titles of articles on Canadian neighbourhoods and communities (i.e. settlements that are not municipalities themselves). Simply put, the convention is that a community title should be at [[Community, Municipality]] (e.g. Westboro, Ottawa), unless it is recognized as a distinct postal destination by Canada Post, in which case the article can be at [[Community, Province]]. The goal was to replace the current inconsistent naming practices, and to have some objective standard upon which to base naming determinations. The details are at WP:CANSTYLE#Neighbourhoods.

The new guideline does require some page moves (and, in fact, requires that page moves be raised on an article talk page first to ensure compliance with the guideline). Some articles pertaining to neighbourhoods and communities in some large Canadian cities have already been moved. In implementing the new guideline for some Ottawa communities, however, one user, Earl Andrew, has made clear he prefers his own criteria to the guideline -- he notes his issues, and ideas, over at Talk:Blossom Park, Ontario, a discussion that is going around in circles. A number of other articles were moved, after no opposing comments were made on the talk pages, but Earl reverted the moves on the basis that the communities were either "suburban" or "rural", and therefore in his opinion not neighbourhoods (the guidelines apply to all communities - rural, suburban and urban, whether considered by editors to be neighbourhoods or not). He also edited some of the articles involved to remove pre-existing references to the communities being neighbourhoods, in keeping I suppose with his own criteria for disambiguation.

Therefore, I am doing a formal RM for the following communities, with the proposed moves intended to implement the guideline:

Please discuss below, as opposed to on the individual article talk pages. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) And I forgot one: Johnston Corners, Ontario → Johnston Corners, Ottawa. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. As nominator. Consistent with WP:CANSTYLE. One of the objectives of the discussion that lead to the new guideline was to adopt an objective, clear-cut standard that avoided basing article naming determinations on editors' personal impressions and opinions on the character of the communities in question. The above-listed communities are all bedroom communities of Ottawa, none of them were ever autonomous municipalities (as many communities and neighbourhoods now in Ottawa once were), none are recognized as distinct postal addresses by Canada Post. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. Communities included inside the former cities/townships of Ottawa should not have the name of the province included in the article title except for a redirect link. In addition to the list above, Orleans, Carp, Dunrobin, Leitrim, Manotick, Stittsville, Greely, Richmond, Antrim, Navan, Vernon, Carlsbad Springs, North Gower, Kars, Vars, etc should have their titles changed to have Ottawa or simply the title of the community alone (but it would make no sense). As stated above, those towns were also part of townships or older ROMC cities and were not officially themselves as municipalities as far as I know only part of the older townships/cities. The only ones that should have the title kept with Ontario are Goulbourn Township, West Carleton, Kanata, Nepean, Vanier, Rockcliffe, Cumberland, Cumberland Township, Osgoode Township, Rideau Township and Gloucester.--JForget 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The communities listed are not neighbourhoods, and should not be moved. I have no problem moving actual neighbourhoods when warranted, but it's stupid to move "Greely, Ontario" to "Greely, Ottawa". No one calls it that. All of the communities in question are in the same boat. In Wikipedia, we are supposed to have articles at the names that are the most common. It is unheard of to have these "bedroom communities" suffixed with ",Ottawa", but it is quite common to have ",Ontario" after them in practical speech, and indeed when it comes to postal addresses. This is regardless of whether or not they were separate municipalities. Are we going to take communities like Woodbridge, Ontario and move them to Woodbridge, Vaughan? That's just stupid! -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Woodbridge is not comparable to any of the Ottawa communities under debate here. For one thing, Woodbridge is actually recognized by Canada Post as a distinct mailing address. And Greely ain't going anywhere, either — because guess what? Greely is a distinct mailing address! Whereas mail to Ficko, Kempark, Gloucester Glen or Blossom Park has to be addressed to Gloucester, not the individual neighbourhood, to be deliverable. Try actually researching these things before you make sloppy, invalid comparisons like this. Bearcat (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would just add, being Ottawa born and bred, that I disagree with Earl's opinion that these are not neighbourhoods, and that it is "unheard of" to suffix these communities with ",Ottawa". Not that it matters. The guideline was drafted so that determinations would not be based on competing personal opinions as to community status and character. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Support. The addition of ", municipality" is only for disambiguation purposes. We also don't say "Larry O'Brien (Canadian politician)" in normal speech but it's required here. We are not going to move Woodbridge because it is a formerly independent town and recognised by Canada Post. Greely is also recognised by Canada Post so ", Ontario" also agrees with WP:CANSTYLE. Barrhaven, on the other hand, is not recognised by Canada Post and, according to the Barrhaven article, with good reason as it is a subdivision built in Nepean in the 1960s. (Also, not really of consequence but for interest's sake, Barrhaven, Ontario has 5900 ghits, "Barrhaven, Ottawa" has 5200 ghits, "Barrhaven, Nepean" has 2600 ghits so those alternatives are not as unheard of as you might believe.)DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Canada Post decides what a neighbourhood or community's mailing address is, not Earl. Bearcat (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Sorry Earl but your opposition doesn't hold water. The area I live in is also unique and special too... but it's still and named area/neighbourhood/place/viilage/"your favorite descriptor here" within the city of Ottawa that was never incorporated before amalgamation. Stop getting hung up on the word neighbourhood. HeadSnap (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'd prefer the undisambiguated names where it's sensible to use them: Barrhaven, Bells Corners, Blackburn Hamlet, Blossom Park, Ficko, Kempark, Gloucester Glen, and Honey Gables. I haven't checked whether these satisfy the uniqueness criterion (point 2 at WP:CANSTYLE). Mindmatrix 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too. I suggested it on the Blossom Park, Ontario talk page, and Earl was open to the suggestion, but since that one discussion was a surrogate for a discussion of all of the proposed moves, it didn't go anywhere at that point. Fallowfield and Cedardale wouldn't work, as a google search shows they are quite commonly used names, and there appears to be a Johnston Corners neighbourhood in Toledo, Ohio. Oddly enough for such an unusual name, Ficko seems to be a relatively common surname (which in itself wouldn't be a block to a non-disambiguated title), but also appears to be the name of various European businesses (and given that my Slovenian (?) and German are rusty, I can't tell how notable they are). I would have thought Honey Gables would be a problem, but it doesn't appear to be. As Mindmatrix points out, the guideline suggests that there is a higher threshold for smaller communities to be non-disambiguated (numbered para. 2), but I think the ones that he has listed, except perhaps for Ficko, would be okay. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a few hours shy of two weeks since these proposed moves were first proposed on the talk pages of the articles in question, and the consensus appears to be:

Thanks for the input. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister infobox

There is a discussion on Talk:Stephen Harper about whether we should include the name of the person who appointed the PM in their info boxes. As with any talk like this, if you participate, I'd like to remind people to give their opinion about what is best for the encyclopedia rather then just telling us whether you are a monarchist or a republican. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

looking for historians of black Canada

The article Black Loyalists has been edited to refer to these people as African Americans, and the many articles related to Black Loyalist topics, such as Black Canadian, Black Nova Scotians, African American settlers (Sierra Leone), Book of Negroes. The same editor has removed articles from the category Category:Black Loyalist documents, Category:People of Black Loyalist descent, and Category:Black Loyalists. To me, it looks like a campaign to remove references to the phrase "Black Loyalist", and yet this is overwhelmingly the most commonly used term, both contemporaneously and in academic and official publications now. Removing the connections to this episode in Canadian history is to the detriment of Wikipedia readers, I believe.

Does any Canadian editor have access to printed and other references (and the energy) to tackle this? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the editor who blanked all of those subcategories is the very same person who created them in the first place. So I suspect it's less of a campaign to remove references and more of a rethinking and reorganizing of their own work. I'd also note that the relationship between "Black Canadians" and "Black Loyalists" was being categorized incorrectly — Loyalists should have been a subcategory of Canadians, not vice versa. I'm also not entirely certain as to whether Black Loyalists really need a distinct category of their own — I'll have to review Wikiaddict's edit history to look at some of the articles in question. It's also a very complex topic that ties in to both African-American and Black Canadian cultures — it isn't an exclusively Canadian topic, but is very much an intersection of the two. I'm by no means an expert on Black Canadian history, but I'll take a look at this. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Shadow Cabinet shuffle

Dion has shuffled the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of the 39th Parliament of Canada [8] can someone adjust the article accordingly? Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Accents in French names

Hi. After a discussion with User:Shawn in Montreal, I have a question. (I have read Wikipedia:CANSTYLE#French_names, Wikipedia:NCGN#Use_English, Talk:Montreal#Official_name, and Wikipedia:PSTS#Sources). I understand from the guidelines that the common English spelling should to be used. And I agree with Shawn in Montreal when he says: "Basing the article name on a single primary source using the Quebec spelling of Montréal, while ignoring reliable, published secondary sources such as the Montreal Gazette, establishing a commonly used English version of the name, is a clear violation of WP:CANSTYLE and just plain wrong."

But I also think the official name should be mentioned, at least once at the beginning of the article. Montreal Insectarium is officially with an accent, it has one in the article (in the beginning that is), but Montreal Biodome gives the French name (should it even be there per Wikipedia:NCGN#Use_English?), the common English name (but not the one used in The Gazette) and doesn't even mention the official English name (Montréal Biodôme [9]). I think using the official spelling everywhere isn't the right thing to do, but I also think totally ignoring it is worse. The last thing I want is an edit war over it, so I'm asking here (on Shawn in Montreal's advice): Should the official names be included at the beginning of article (in a form similar to "The '''Montreal Biodome''' (officially '''Montréal Biodôme''')")?

If no clear answer exists, I suggest the official (English) name (when different from the common one) should be mentioned as such in the first sentence of the article on the subject, and the common name used throughout the rest of Wikipedia and the article on the subject. If a clear answer does exist what is it? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the lead paragraph should mention the French-language version of the name. (Let's avoid calling it the "official" name -- just because the website uses it does not make it official. The official name of a Quebec subject is usually French, but if it was incorporated some time ago, or the establishing by-law or statute was passed was passed some time ago, you may find that there are official names in English and French.) However, after the lead paragraph, the article should stick to using one version of the name. And, by the way, this isn't limited to Quebec-related articles, but would apply to any Canada-related subject where there is a common French version of the name. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(As said on Shawn's page after his (deleted) comments) For the names in the article itself that's what I meant (sorry if I was unclear). And for the "official" name, what I mean is: Should both the "official" English names and "official" French names be used, or just French or just English? (For example "Montréal Biodôme" is the name used by the site in English, and "Biodôme de Montréal" the name used in the French site, and "Montreal Biodome" the common name). (slightly modified from the first time written [10]). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following you. But, my two cents is that if there is evidence that the English version of the name is most commonly used in English, then use "Montreal Biodome", but reference the French version of the name ("Biodôme de Montréal") in the lead (avoid jumping to conclusions about "official" names, absent sources that actually state that it is an official name). "Montréal Biodôme" isn't French or English - just because the biodome decides to use that form on its English website (likely being overly cautious when it comes to language) does not mean we have to.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This (I think) answers my question. You're saying: No the self-attributed English name should not be used for the articles. Only the self-attributed French one should, with the common English one. Am I understanding you correctly?
POV: I also disagree with your statement that "'Montréal Biodôme' isn't French or English". For this I'll quote User:Stemonitis: "I believe in the preservation of "foreign" accents and characters when writing in English, rather than the naïve façade of alphabetic purism." It is true (as you said) that "just because the biodome decides to use that form on its English website (likely being overly cautious when it comes to language) does not mean we have to" (i.e. yes we should use the common English name), but I still think one should respect the self-attributed name someone or something chooses to use (by putting, once, in the lead, the self attributed English name). As stated earlier this is a POV (i.e. I'll respect current policy on names). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous Canadian Color guard photograph

OK, so this only has a slight link to the Canadian Wikiproject, but the reference desk couldn't help me, and it is ultimately in the interests of improving an article (even if it's not one which would normally fall under the project's remit). So hopefully someone here can help me. In this article, a scene being shot for the film State of Play is described, featuring a marching band and an orange and cream-clad color guard performing complex choreography with rifles. As the article describes: "[Director] Macdonald's purpose with the band and the Color guard is to recreate a famous photograph - a Canadian photograph [...] taken in the 1970s that featured majorettes twirling guns." My question is, of course, which "famous" photograph is Macdonald referring to? He goes on to talk about the themes which such an image represents in relation to the film, and I reckon the image (if I could find it) would more than qualify for fair use in the State of Play article. Feel free to tell me to bugger off if this isn't the place to ask this question. Many thanks, Steve T • C 11:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seal Hunt

The 2008 seal hunt has started, and we apparently have an article on it (2008 Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt). It'd be nice if a fair few could watch it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand over the next month. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Royalguard11, it is a controversial topic, and the biggest part of the hunt has not started yet. Bib (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Green Rivers in Canada

I just created Green River (British Columbia) but there are others in YT, SK, NT, NWT and NB in need of articles; redlinks added on Green River, q.v. Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 31 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


List has been reduced to 21 articles now. SriMesh | talk 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

History request subpage obsolete?

I found there are no outstanding articles left to create in notice board's history request subpage: Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/History. Would it be appropriate to delete this now-emptied subpage and use the main request page instead? i.e. Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Requests Dl2000 (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The original idea was that the subpage should also be added to again when there are new requests being made. But it looks like it's just not getting used that much — there have only been two edits to the page since the end of 2005. So yeah, go ahead and merge it. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK done - History is merged up. Dl2000 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands sudden redirect/merge

  • Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlottes have been merged to Haida Gwaii by SPA-type user [Keir]. This is a hot-button issue and while it's true they pretty much mean the same thing (well, not quite...) and Haida Gwaii is increasingly the official name, even in government-dept use in one case, and it's certainly in wide use on the Islands, many on the Islands still call them the Charlottes or the Queen Charlottes; what I mean is there's parallel usage, vs. the "righteous" one of denigrating the old name, as one of the successive edits here did. The islands have not been officially renamed, and while it's true Haida law/nomenclature is as valid as anyone's especially about the home turf, it's also true "Haida Gwaii" includes Prince of Wales Island where the Kaigani Haida live; the terms are not the same, as with Oregon Country vs. Columbia District. The guy's new, seems earnest, went to the trouble of a Tow Hill article, and obviously cares about the Haida to take it upon himself to do this edit; maybe he's Haida, I don't know. But it's "ownership". I didn't want to charge in with my usual testy style, but there's obviously some issues with the way the merge was done - by a newbie, if you'll forgive me for putting it that way - and there IS a difference in meaning, and no reason to slag the old name. The move itself was aggressive and without warning or merge proposal- Queen Charlotte Islands was blanked to a redirect - was a radical move to take for someone with less than two dozen edits. I'd say "undo" and post the merge templates - is that the right thing to do? NOTE: this is in the same context as efforts to redirect Strait of Georgia to Whulge and Salish Sea, with the last-named now a political agenda in BC and the NW "to supplant colonialist names". Maybe this SPA is a p.r. firm - we've seen them before, huh? - so WP:COI and related matters come into play. Even without that consideration, that IanKeir is just an enthusiastic and idealistically-minded newcomer, but I'm not sure this merge was ever valid, content/meaning-wise (one is a geographic place, the other a quasi-nation-state located partly in the place), and because it was done without due process. The self-righteous have no room for consensus with the old order; an overwriting of history is needed to redeem the past, apparently; this is the gist of the Salish Sea proposal, and now the campaign to wipe Queen Charlotte off BC's map (and Cortes, too, although it seems Hernan may not be who Cortes Island is named for anyway - see Talk:Cortes Island. Sorry for the long post, figured I'd take this national than leave it to WP:BC or the Indigenous peoples' project; instead I'll post notices on the relevant discussion pages there about this notice, and with certain editors; although Talk:Haida Gwaii is I guess the natural place this will go down. I just didn't want to be the one to weigh in first, and I do have my own agenda(s). Balance and fairness in BC history/historiography and keeping POV out of the decision-making, too....a concerted campaign to rename/rewrite BC is currently underway, and its methods as here are sometimes less savoury than their content; it's not about truth or honesty, it's about "righteousness" and shoring up ethnic and social egos (as with any nation-building process), moral/POV contempt for an inferior/"antiquated"/derogated view; "anything p.c. is inherently POV" is one of my wiki-mottos. Editorial actions, like this redirect/merge, can be just as POV/political in nature as content edits (e.g. Talk:Tibet). Sorry for the long write-up, had to lay out the issues; would saner heads please cool this guy's jets? And here I was going to write about steamboats and gold rushes tonight....sigh.Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Communications

Is this where Canadian Wikipedians communicate each other, serving a purpose of a Village Pump? Ktsquare (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)