Talk:British Canadians

British Subjects in Canada needed

Maybe the titling convention should be British subjects in Canada, though, not sure about that....my point is that until Trudeau's time, the status of British Subjects who were not otherwise Canadian citizens in CAnada was very special and sort of a subcommunity in its own right; I'm not sure "English Canadian" or "Scottish Canadian" etc adequately addresses that. More on this later, just wanted to note it for now, and question whether this really shoudl be a disambiguation page or not.Skookum1 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

=notes on revisions and re Top importance for WPCAN

Chuckling at my long-ago post; what I said is true, our passports used to say "A Canadian is a British subject" on the inside front cover or page facing; but revisions I've just done are meant as the groundwork for a stub. Given that all other ethnic and racial groups in Canada have their own articles, I'm amazed to find this title undeveloped to an article. "Canadians of British origin" is too limiting, "Canadians of British ancestry" may exist, I'm not sure, we'll see if that title exists; the former unliked title is more vernacular Canadian, also used by StatCan.

This could be fleshed out into a stub but I don't have time or energy right now, just commenting on how primary this is in terms of Canadian history - and also noted in the inline comments about company and organization/league names and such are out there, if not with wiki titles; some redirects may exist.

I made the distinction between the usual meaning of English Canadian as someone from English-speaking Canada no matter of what ethnic origin (not always excluding the visible minorities though its sense is often that), vs Canadians of English ancestry, which I hope does exist, again, we'll see if that's a bluelink....also in inline comments re any titles on those of Channel Island origin or born in the Raj etc; and subsetting those of South African or Aus/NZ origin of British origin; sources for that are out there somewhere.

If someone would care to make it into a viable stub, it's so odd to have a major Canadian title as a dab page, and have a look around for company titles; I don't know the template for "articles beginning with 'British American'", and there must be some, if only redirects to e.g. British American Oil Company - hm must exist huh?

The edit template on it says all but the primary meaning's context should be on the title, with all the rest on a dab page; but that would be all the company and "relations" and I'd guess trade might have its own titles, rather than the group of ethnicities though on the dab page referring to the PT page, listed there as "of British Isles origin/ancestry" whichever..

move

This page needs to be moved to British Canadians. Gringo300 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

British Canadian → British Canadians – WP:PRECISE correct spelling Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. There are a number of these being proposed (should have been done as a single mass RM, but whatever), so I'm copying this same comment into all these discussions.

The article lede and text throughout uses "British Canadians". And that is what the article about -- not the term or concept, but the people. So just on the merits I support the move.

Also, this 2015 move discussion was a mass request for moves of "X Canadian" -> "X Canadians". It was turned down, but it appears that since then that articles have mostly been moved anyway -- to Afghan Canadians etc. etc. Whether there was another discussion(s) or someone just did this I don't know, but per Consistency (one of the Five Virtues), we should move this article to match those others. Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, Herostratus. FYE, rfcid=67A353C was held at the village pump not long after the failed proposal. The rationale for pluralisation was further taken up at the ethnic group project (apologies, but I can't find it offhand), deemed to be a WP:COMMONSENSE call, and transferred to the majority of diasporic groups in any given region unless it was deemed to be problematic/unintuitive. The nomenclature has now been applied to literally hundreds of articles on diasporic groups from Australia, Africa, South America, etc. because they are articles about ethnic groups, not individuals. There are still a large number outstanding simply because there are so many of them, as well as move protection having been put in place prior the mass moves. Ultimately, as you've noted, parity of nomenclature for the entire project is the primary concern. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04

37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)