Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Nunavut

Please tell us more of this Nunavut. Is the identity of this Nunavut identical to either the District of Keewatin(sp?) or District of MacKenzie(sp?)? Do either of those districts still exist as geographic entities?

No and no. See Nunavut, as well as Northwest Territories for some history. - Montréalais

[edit] Merged from Territories of Canada

Took the information from Territories of Canada and merged it with the info already in this article, and changed the other to a redirect. Should make more sense than two articles dealing with the same thing, I hope--SonicAD 21:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict in table of Provinces and Territories

This table follows Canadian custom by listing the provinces in order from west to east., but then it starts with Newfoundland and ends with British Columbia, i.e., east to west. Is custom east-west, or is the table backwards? Nik42 04:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the description. I don't know which is more common. —Michael Z. 2005-02-5 14:59 Z

[edit] Nunatsiavut

So you think it is worth to mention Nunatsiavut in the territories section as, say, an "autonomous territory within Newfoundland and Labrador", or whatever it is officially called? Circeus 15:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't see any difference between it, and any other "territory" granted (or recognized) by treaty with other aboriginal groups. This is a different, unrelated use of the word "territory", than what's used in this article. --rob 21:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table format problems

It's my opinion that the section listing the provinces and territories should come before the details on governance, but I realize the problem with the table and infobox overlapping. Even with the governance section first, the tables and infobox still overlapped for me, when I reduced the size of my browser window.

Not sure if there's a better solution, but I added the <br style="clear:right;"> tag, and now the table will come after the infobox. Unfortunately, this might leave some whitespace. To help alleviate that, I moved the map (I'll also look into creating a new, free-license map to replace this one) and added historical context about how/when the provinces joined Canada. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I commend your attempts to better organise the article and agree with 'em.
Unfortunately, the formatting changes are wreaking havoc on the rendition and or alignment of information in the article (e.g,, tables crashing with template). I'll try to tweak this as well and wish I could counsel you on how to go about this effectively. Until then, however, I'm going to restore the last good version. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've restored my edits, and (hopefully) fixed the alignment issue you had. All was needed is to adjust the map size. It's not perfect though, as some people will have a bit of white space between the map and the table. To really solve the problem, I think either the tables should go entirely, and just list the provinces. Or cut back the table width (this is the problem) of the tables. Perhaps, get rid of "other abbreviations" and "area (land)", "area water" — these should be in the province articles anyway. A third option would be get rid of the infobox. An article about the provinces and territories sounds like a geography article to me anyway, not a politics of Canada article. The bottom line, we can't have tables this wide and the infobox together. For many people, the tables and infobox will overlap. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the governance table is still overlapping the infobox. But, I give up. Don't know how to fix it, so that we can have both all these tables and the infobox. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding the article sxn, but (as well) both tables and infobox are arguably necessary ... hence restoration of the prior arrangement. In an attempt to address the 'funky chicken' formatting, I've made a tweak to the map and moved it down and to the left. It's imperfect but (pending a better solution) works. Sorry. :( If you can rectify the odd formatting, though, I'd support proposed changes. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Still, there's only so much width across a screen. I suggest then cutting a few, lesser-important details that can go in the province articles themselves. For example, "area water", "area land", and "other abbreviations". And in the governance table, none of the provinces have a senate or senators. So, I suggest eliminating those columns. The tables would then be not as wide and less likely to conflict with the infobox.
A second point... just describing each of the provinces in table formatting is inadequate, as there is much more of a story to each of the provinces that needs to be told. And compare and contrast them (politically, geographically, economically, ...). I suggest there be a short blurb about each province with a {{main|Province}} link. As well, such blurbs would push down the tables, to a point where none would overlap the infobox. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There are two issues here: formatting and content. As for the former, only in the smallest resolutions (at least for me, in both Firefox and IE) did the rearrangements appear fine. The current one does. I'm all for reorganising the article, but it must (of course) be effectively done.
To that end, I think the governance table is fine: it provides distinctions between the federal and provincial governments. It might be important, for someone wanting to know it, that provinces (with unicameral legislatures) have no senates or senators. Ditto for the politics infobox (though wouldn't sweat if this were removed). And while I'm all for not throwing in the kitchen sink into the other tables, I disagree that they currently are excessive. I specifically added land and water areas to the tables because they did not exist elsewhere in Wp ... and these tables seem(ed) a logical place for that. If anything, those details should be in the table and infoboxes. Merely listing areas in the Geography of Canada article would be like orphaning. :)
Perhaps table text should be rendered in smaller fonts? Another example is the table in the Canada article: from that, this one should (more or less) contain the information there.
Similarly, I don't think descriptive details regarding each 'subdivision' need to be addressed in this article – that's what the genuine articles (pardon the pun!), with piped wikilinks, are for.  :) Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference Province and Territory

Question: What is the legal difference between the two? The article mentions that Provinces have their own taxes, and some power vis-a-vis the Federal government, but doesnt specifiy whether this is also the case for territories. Perhaps there should be a somewhat larger elaboration on wheth the differences are between the two in the intro, because currently the article seems to take that information for granted.

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 10:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The

In the Canadian vernacular, people say things like "Bob works in the Northwest Territories but lives in the Yukon". I notice that this article, however, omits the definite article 'the'. I'm sure different people like it different ways, but I think it's most common to include the article. I see that the Yukon government website omits the word, while the NWT government website keeps it. 32.97.110.142 00:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newfoundland and Labrador Joined Confederation When?

The data given in the 1949 link from Wikipedia states that it was March 31, 1949, not March 13, 1949. The date is significant in Newfoundland lore specifically by those opposed to the political union. Their prevailing opinion was that Newfoundlanders should have waited one more day to play the fool (ie, as the next day was April 1, Fool's Day) no we will not change it24.43.205.27 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Paul - Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

[edit] Proposed provinces

Do we have anywhere on WP a list of proposed provinces that never came to fruition? During the Riel rebellion there was a plan for one big province called Assiniboia. I'm also thinking the alternative plans to divide the NWT into AB and SK in 1905. There was a plan for one large called Buffalo, there was a plan for three provinces (AB, SK, and Assiniboia). And there was a plan for two N - S provinces rather than the E - W we have today. Anyone? Kevlar67 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federal, provincial, and territorial terminology compared

The head of the territoriews is listed as "Government Leader" in the table. Hasn't the title changed to "Premier"? --Qyd 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] study on provincis and territories

I know this might not matter to you but im a teen trying to study up on The provincis and territories of Canada it would really help many people if you posted two pictures of canada one with only territories and one with provinces and maybe even on ewith both. That would really help me out thanks a lot your web site is great. ~haley Anderson age 15 date June 4th 2007 9:57 .....thanks again

Look at the basic politic map of Canada at Image:Map Canada political.png; the three big ones in the northwest are territories. The other ten are provinces. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial constitutions?

I'm asking a question that on its face may seem not related to the article, but please bear with me. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions, as do the states of the US? From what I can tell, they do not, and this seems to be an important distiction that ought to be covered in the article, using reliable sources of course. - BillCJ (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I guess it depends on what you mean by a "constitution". They don't have a constitution that is self-contained in a single document. The parts of the Canadian Constitution that describe the office of lieutenant governor could be considered part of the provincial constitutions. The acts establishing the legislatures, elections, and courts could be considered part of their constitutions. However, anything that owes its existence to a provincial act is not entrenched -- it can be altered by ordinary legislation, no need for a two-thirds majority or anything like that. Indefatigable (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in the topic of provincial constitutions, see Provinces: Canadian Provincial Politics edited by Christopher J. C. Dunn; in particular, see the fifth chapter Provincial Constitutions contributed by Nelson Wiseman (note that there are pages missing from the Google version of this book). "There will continue to be uncertainty, murkiness, contradiction, imprecision and unpredictability in delimiting the boundaries, content and the very meaning of provincial constitutions" is a quote from this chapter on page 160. So unless you're really, really, really interested in constitutional law, try not to give this topic too much thought as it might make your head hurt. ;-) R. A. Hicks (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federal, provincial, and territorial terminology compared

Why does the table have columns for Senate and Senator, when they don't have them? It's like putting a column for Presidents in a "List of Leaders of the UK". -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's comparing the provinces and territories to the Federal Government of Canada, which does have a Senate and senators - that's what the top bolded line is. If we removed those, then someone would be asking why we aren't showing that the Federal gov't has a Senate and senaotrs. Perhaps the table needs to be reworked to put the Fed. gov't in a separate line from the heading. - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)