Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archives
Index (Note that this index must be updated manually each 6 months)

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) • Archive 9 (Jul - Dec 2008) • Archive 10 (Jan - Jun 2009) • Archive 11 (Jul - Dec 2009) • Archive 12 (Jan - Jun 2010) • Archive 13 (Jul - Dec 2010) • Archive 14 (Jan- Jun 2011) • Archive 15 (Jul- Dec 2011) • Archive 16 (Jan - Jun 2012) • Archive 17 (Jul - Dec 2012) • Archive 18 (Jan - Jun 2013) • Archive 19 (Jul - Dec 2013) • Archive 20 (Jan - Jun 2014)

Photos from UK The National Archives

For those of you that edit on Commons, see this Flickr collection from The National Archives of the UK, which consists of many early photos of Canada (1850s onward). Most of them are now public domain, and would make good additions to the Commons. Perhaps we can get a bot to upload them. Mindmatrix 17:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Some of the images are already in the Commons, but most are not. A number of the images require extensive cropping, as they are reproduced from an album, so it is a large job. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are they? I've searched the Commons category Photographs in the National Archives (United Kingdom) but didn't find any of them. (Though I notice some of your uploads from yesterday don't appear in the search, but do appear in the appropriate category.) Mindmatrix 15:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the 1856 Armstrong, Beere and Hime shots of Toronto, for which we have a couple of versions on Commons. There may be others, either not properly labelled, or the same images retrieved from a different archival source. But that's just a maybe - other than the above-noted 1856 photographs, there might be nothing already uploaded. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Be careful, too. Some of the images are copyvios. For example, one set of images is from a 1963 NFB book entitled 'Canada in Pictures' - still under copyright in Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. Mindmatrix 15:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on Mindmatrix's response to my comment above, I just quickly created a temporary hidden cat over at Commons (Commons:Category:TNA Flickr Canada images project) to keep track of what has been uploaded, so to try and avoid any duplication of effort. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should inform Commons:Commons:WikiProject Canada ? And fr:Projet:Canada ? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Wikipedia

Just FYI trivia

http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/geo

-- This breaks down editors by country, you can see how Canada fairs in relation to other places

70.49.127.65 (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect WP:Can related talk pages

My proposal is very simple... I sure most have noticed that most sub projects (excluding those like Canada Roads and Quebec). I simply think that we should redirect there talk pages only to this talk page. Most of us that are in the sub projects talk here anyways. I DO NOT wish to redirect the projects in anyway just there talk pages. What do you guys think? Moxy (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incomplete - do you mean that the talk pages of "most sub projects (excluding those like Canada Roads and Quebec)" are inactive? If so, then yes, I agree with your proposal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - its hot here! yes you are correct. I just think it would be better to have more eyes on theses topics - project pages are fine ...but to have more involvement the talk pages could simply be directed to here..we can have the archives linked on main project pages.Moxy (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you should post a talkback message to all the involved subprojects, to inform them of your proposal, should some people not pay attention to WT:CANADA. And I'd like to know which projects you are talking about. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I do plan to do this if I get positive replies here first.Moxy (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say go and post the messages. That will give you a much quicker answer as to whether there is appetite for a centralized discussion point. Certainly I would support it for the mostly unused talk pages. Assuming no resistance, you'll wish to add a header of some kind to this talk page explaining why the person looking for WT:ALBERTA (for example) ended up here though. Resolute 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bramalea, Ontario, History

No year is given for the start of Bramalea--not even that it occurred post-WW2.--Oldontarian (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Asiancourt

I recently reverted an edit at Agincourt, Toronto that mentioned Agincourt being referred to as Asiancourt as it seemed undue. It has been reinstated (diff). On investigation it seems that variations of the text have been in the article for some time (July 2005 and February 2009 for example), so perhaps I was being unduly sensitive. Anyone want to offer an opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

While there should be more referencing done on the article, I don't have a problem with its current content. PKT(alk) 11:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

a title needs to be edited

I editted a spelling error in the content of a page, but did not know how to change the error in the title. How can this be done? Yeltnuh2 (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving a page. utcursch | talk 04:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You can make requests for renaming a page at WP:RM -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

location map

Is it possible to get a Southern Ontario Locator Map? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. 117Avenue (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yukon and Nunavut are now also operational. For anyone else watching this, please see Template:WikiProject Canada/map templates, you may find one that you didn't know existed, or you may find that my list isn't complete. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Without the gridlines is that possible?? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the census divisions? Why? It should be the same as province location maps. Otherwise your point is on a blank field without much reference. 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It clutters up the map + possibly blocks letters from appearing. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The NU one works great thanks. I tagged the NT map as it doesn't work correctly. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a Greater Toronto Map as well without gridlines? Thanks!! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to see if the watchers of Template:Location map Canada Toronto would like a change, but I don't see the point of a reference map without points of reference. 117Avenue (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion to ask about the sense of an inset map addition to the Southern Ontario Locator Map template at the template talk page. --papageno (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I see the NWT map works now. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Frank Chester

done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I guess I should ask here too. Frank Chester is currently about a Canadian (specifically Manitoban) politician. There is also a relatively important cricket umpire, Frank Chester (umpire). And then there is Frank Chester (disambiguation). I'm not convinced that the politician is overwhelmingly better known than the umpire. I think the politician should be at something like Frank Leslie Chester or Frank Chester (politician) and the disambiguation page Frank Chester (disambiguation) moved to the main page. Further comments welcome at Talk:Frank Chester. -- Ferma (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Template:Music of Canada has been orphaned / removed from its relevant pages - with the reasoning that the template puts the article in an odd category. I think this is the most obscured reasoning I have ever heard for removing a long standing navigational tool. Very odd to think that the cat placement is more important then helping our readers in navigating a topic. The only reason is this - so its there a way to fix the template to avoid this problem. Anyone here know how to fix the problem Moxy (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's not about editwarring, nor is it about "my way" — rather, Wikipedia has actual rules about categorization and templating, which {{Infobox music of}}, the base code which is used to structure "Music of Country" templates like {{Music of Canada}}, is not consistent with. The problem, specifically, is that {{Infobox music of}} automatically generates and places articles in a top-level category (Category:Canadian music, in this case), even if the article is already in an appropriate subcategory — making it impossible to properly diffuse the top-level category because there's no way to remove the unwanted extra category without removing the whole template. For that very reason, Wikipedia specifically deprecates using templates to automatically transclude pages into content categories the way {{Infobox music of}} is currently doing.

Simply put, {{Infobox music of}} needs to be modified to remove whichever line of code is pushing the articles into Category:Canadian music (or the similar top-level categories) in addition to the categories that are already on the pages themselves, or perhaps to add a switch by which such categorization can be voluntarily turned off where it's not needed while still leaving the function available in other cases. But this isn't about me being picky; it's about Wikipedia's actual rules around this kind of thing.

And, in addition, it's important to note that templates and categories are both navigational tools; they simply use different structures to facilitate that navigation. So this isn't a choice between navigation or categorization — it's about ensuring that our navigational tools are working in tandem instead of counteracting each other. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont you think its best to have more navigational options over just the cat (its current state) Thus far the actions have only lessen the navigational potential of the articles. But the cats are ok - this is better? What is best, remove it from the reaming 345 articles - or get it fixed. I see good intent, just executed badly without proper steps being made to fix the problem at hand. We dont orphan templates or article because they have a very small problem. Who is being hurt by the fact the article happens to be in the parent cat? Simply put "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Just upsetting to see a template that has had so many editors involved in its content placement and layout simply be removed all over for this min minor reason with no attempt to fix it. Moxy (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times am I going to have to explain to you that I've already made multiple prior attempts to get the problem fixed before you actually understand that I've made multiple prior attempts to get the problem fixed? I can't just fix it myself, because I don't know how to fix complex template syntax — but I've asked on multiple prior occasions to have it fixed by somebody who can fix it without success.

Templates and categories are both "navigational" tools, simply structured in different ways — just because you prefer one method of navigation over the other does not mean that the other one isn't a method of navigation. And neither does it mean that it's not important to fix clutter that's interfering with the method that you don't care for, because many other users quite legitimately prefer that method and aren't being properly served if it's not being properly maintained and organized.

Is it better to have more than one navigational option? Of course it is. This whole thing is a temporary measure, only until a problem that's interfering with the proper functioning one particular navigational method is fixed — and then once that happens, I'll be more than happy to participate in reimplementing the other one. But it's not a problem that we can just ignore and not do anything about — because this has nothing to do with "rules for the sake of having rules" (which is what WP:IAR is all about) and everything to do with improving the encyclopedia by cleaning up unhelpful clutter. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying you have tried to fix it - yet I see no talk on the matter anywhere and have asked you to point us to it a few times now. Thus far your the one making the decision on only have one navigational option. Again does this sound productive? A post about the problem should have been the first step not remaval of a template that many have worked on. Moxy (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, I have to find the past discussions before I can point you to them. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd there was not a talk at the actual templates talk page - you would think that the template its self would be the place to ask about fixing that template. Its not that I dont believe you I want to see why it was not fixable so we dont go down that path again. Your able to explain the problem better then I - why dont you ask over there now? I dont want to see the removal of the template from the other 300 articles as many many editors have worked hard on all these, just because of the cat its gets put in.Moxy (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you quite often get faster responses to these things if you post directly to Wikiprojects rather than template talk pages (those requests often get missed). I've posted a new request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, so let's see if that gets some action this time. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Help to get Laura Secord to FA by the 2013 anniversary?

I've done a lot of work redoing and expanding the Laura Secord article recently. I think it would be great if it could be made a Feature Article in time for the 200th anniversary of her famous walk. That would be June next year. Is there anyone at this project who would like to chip in? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. And now I crave chocolate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good choice on topic! I've got a few projects of my own on the go, but when you think you are ready for one, ping me and I'll offer a copyedit/peer review. Resolute 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright confusion on the Parliament of Canada web site

Hi,

I am confused about the copyright status of pictures on the Parliament of Canada web site. The image on the page for Maurice Breton has a tag of "© House of Commons 1953". However, the Copyright Act of Canada says that the image "shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". I have added this file to the "Possibly unfree files" list and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 July 26. I apologize if this has been discussed already. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that means that the copyright was first registered in 1953, which would mean it is now PD in Canada (copyright expires after 50 years). However, that may or may not mean it's PD in the US, depending on when/if it was published in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Does us uploading to Wikipedia's server an image that's PD in Canada count as "publishing in the US"? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IANAL, but: it theoretically could, assuming no prior US publication, but unless such an image would be considered PD in the US it would be deleted as copyvio (and a deleted image probably wouldn't be considered published, for obvious reasons). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Government of Canada explicitly states that published items become public domain at the end of the calendar year 50 years after publication. This applies worldwide; the URAA does not apply to crown copyright works in Canada. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

An excellent point. Do you have a link to the government's explicit statement? I think adding that to the image discussion at PUF would settle the matter quite nicely. Resolute 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Only an email from a senior copyright advisor Carolyn Grey; there doesn't appear to be a mention of public domain online.

from Copyright@ontario.ca

"Under section 12 of the Copyright Act, the term of Crown copyright is "the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". Once the term of copyright has expired, materials are in the public domain and may be reproduced without seeking permission."

Hopefully this will do, but just in case I've fired a similar email to copyright legal services. 6 to 8 weeks. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Canada's copyright laws do not apply worldwide - there's the rub. To be used on Wikipedia, the image must be PD in the U.S., and U.S. copyright law does not recognize crown copyright. This was a perenial debate over U.K crown copyright - between those arguing that the copyright legislation in the U.K. acted as a form of worldwide release versus those who said it merely established public domain within the U.K. Finaly, to eliminate the ambiguity confirmation was obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Office that materials with expired U.K. crown copyrights could be freely reproduced worldwide (see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#UK Copyright and [1]). We need the same confirmation for Canada, which is exacly what Floydan has been doing. Unfortunately, the situation is complicated in that there are 11 crowns (10 provinces and the feds). The email above from Ontario is good insofar as materials of the Ont government are concerned, but needs to expressly state that it applies outside Canada, as that is the issue (we all know the stuff is PD in Canada and don't need written confirmation on that point). When Floydian gets confirmation from the copyright office, that would presumably cover federal materials (as well as, arguably, materials produced by the territorial governments). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The provinces all rely on the same federal statute though, and not their own independent laws... Wouldn't this mean whatever applies in Ontario also applies in BC or to the feds? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, the Copyright Act applies to all materials produced in Canada, produced either privately or by any level of government. But just because a copyright has expired in Canada does not necessarily mean it has expired in other countries, and while one province, for example, might be happy to make clear that its intellectual property is public domain worldwide once it is public domain in Canada, it is entirely possible that another province could try to assert copyright outside of Canada's borders. I suspect that most, if not all, provinces, would fall in the former category, but we'd need to get that confirmation.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I believe Ontario and the Feds both use Crown Copyright, so one can expect that terms to be similar, if not exact. Not every provincial government uses Crown Copyright, however. I'd have to re-check, but I actually think the Government of BC retains full copyright. Resolute 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Canada's copyright laws do not apply worldwide, but if the government says "once Crown Copyright expires, we consider this material to be in the public domain worldwide", then the copyright holder is explicitly releasing said material into the public domain, worldwide. Resolute 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but where does the federal government say "once Crown Copyright expires, we consider this material to be in the public domain worldwide"? It's that last word that is the issue. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How so? "once the copyright expires, we consider this material to be in the public domain" is plenty to indicate that the copyright holder (the crown) is explicitly releasing their material to the public domain after 50 years. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't catch the fact that Resolute was referring to the email from Ontario, not the feds.

In any event, to respond to Floydian's question, not really. Copyright in Canada does expire 50 years after publication, so they could simply be acknowledging the state of the law in Canada. What we are concerned about specifically, given the rules here on Wikipedia, is that these materials are public domain the U.S. In otherw ords, the Ontario government will not assert a copyirght interest in these materials in the U.S. U.S. copyrght law does not acknowledge crown copyright and the rule of the shorter term does not apply in the U.S. Arguably, therefore, Ontario could assert copyright on materials in the U.S. that are public domain in Canada. That's why this issue was solved for U.K. crown copyright materials when the U.K. government confirmed that it treated PD materials the same domestically and worldwide.Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for typos and any bad sentence structure. I am on holiday and doing this on a mobile device. Sorry. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well... At this point you're making assumptions to the utmost precaution. The copyright holder stating that it becomes public domain after 50 years is a pretty strong statement. Either way, I've requested further confirmation and I'll post the email here after (don't ask me to use OTRS, not happening) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. All they appear to have done is regurgitate the law in Canada, and the state of the law in Canada is not the issue. An acknowledgement of the law in Canada doesn't help us. The sole issue is the copyright status outside Canada, and there is nothing in the email that implicitly or explicitly indicates that they gave any consideration or thought to copyright status outside Canada. And, although I am not sure it is needed here and part of me hesitates to ask, why wouldn't you use OTRS?Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many hoops of fire to jump through. I'm lucky to get a response from this government, and expecting them to forward some specifically worded email to the precautionary Pete's is going to result in no response. I'm asking the copyright office, because they hold the copyright in the US if there is copyright in the US; if I get a response stating that they consider material public domain anywhere once the copyright expires, then that's an explicit statement from the copyright holder that URAA doesn't renew crown copyright (beyond the sheer absurdity of these legalities in the first place). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're thinking of the reqirements for an image to be freely licensed. There is no recommended text for public domain. OTRS is just a means of logging emails and releases, so there is always a record. In any event, any responses on thi issue would get posted to Wikimedia lists rather than OTRS, I presume, much the same way as the response from the U.K. government.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture need in the Greater Toronto Area.

Anyone able to grab a shot of the following: Centennial Park, Blessed Pope John Paul II Catholic Secondary School, Ajax Sportsplex, Caledon Equestrian Park, CFB Borden, Will O' Wind Farm, the Athlete's village for the 2015 Pan American Games site at West Donlands. Anything is appreciated! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are images of Centennial Park and CFB Borden on the Commons, but admittedly not the greatest selections. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct hence why I am asking if anyone could get pics. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you mentioned you were already aware of these, instead of saying "Anything is appreciated!".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Missy Franklin

FYI Talk:Missy Franklin is currently discussing issues concerning people with dual citizenships, in this case, Canada and USA -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates to GCpedia page

Following Wikipedia recommended protocol, I put suggested changes to the GCpedia page in the talk page. It has been about a month and has not seemed to be noticed. How can I ensure that it gets reviewed by editors? Joymosk (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shithawk

Could one of you all add an item to the "Other Uses" section of the article Shithawk about the the Trailer Park Boys bit? The cruel landlord frightens a child-like man that if he doesn't behave properly the shithawks will get him. This is well known in Canada, where the show is quite popular. I'd do it myself but I don't know how to word or cite it but thought that someone here would be able to do it easily. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not, personally, as I consider such pop-culture pieces of trivia detrimental to articles. Resolute 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a new usage. It's the Shithawk as boogieman. It's another thing that the word refers to, other than the cursed bird. It's what "Shithawk" means in some quarters. See here: Shithawks will get you! and Shithawks aren't real! Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard it. Maybe it's some local idiom, but I wouldn't include it. PKT(alk) 14:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how many shit-somethings we'd have to set up for this show? Shit storm, shit weasel, shit hawk, shit winds, should I go on? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If all those terms had articles, their usages in the show might be added. None of them do, so don't worry about that; it doesn't matter. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read our guideline on WP:POPCULTURE. The key, as always, is the presence of real reliable sources that can demonstrate the significance of the mention (and not just the existence of it.)

Wikipedia has an ongoing problem with a lot of people adding exhaustive lists to articles of each and every time the topic in question gets mentioned in a single line of dialogue in a TV show or movie or in a song lyric or whatever — but such content is rarely, if ever, supported by sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that it's actually important enough to be noted as a genuinely encyclopedic aspect of the topic and not just random trivia.

Long story short, if you can provide real reliable sources (newspaper or magazine articles, etc.) about the TPB usage of "shithawk" expanding into general usage, then it could potentially warrant mention in the article — but if all you can offer is YouTube clips from the show which depict the character himself using it, then that simply doesn't cut it in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Trizec Corporation and Properties

There are two companies named Trizec, Trizec Corporation and Trizec Properties:

• http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/trizec-corporation-ltd-history/
• http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=279167

Trizec Corporation is clearly Canadian. Trizec Properties might have Canadian roots, or some historical connection to Trizec Corporation, I don't know. If you search wikipedia for Trizec you'll see there a few dozen mentions of these two Trizecs. I think members of this wikiproject are probably best equipped to judge just how notable Trizec was/is, and I hope one or more of you choose to create an article or two article about them. Thanks in advance. 67.100.127.174 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Brampton-Mississauga Credit River Park murder?

Do we have an article on the Toronto-area bodyparts murder? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't enough known about the situation to warrant an article yet. If anything, an article would belong in WikiNews based on what is known so far. PKT(alk) 12:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone writes for Wikinews. Big events seem to not get coverage there. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An article is completely unnecessary. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes a murder is just a murder and does not warrant encyclopedic coverage. As far as Wikinews goes, it's always been a wasteland, and little more than a drain on Wikimedia's resources. Resolute 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

SK Legislative Assemblies

I have found that there are articles for each of the 27 Saskatchewan Legislative Assemblies to date, except for 20th Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan and 21st Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. When they are created, please start their respective talk pages with the WikiProject Canada banner as used for the other articles in the series.

I have posted a similar note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. PKT(alk) 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Toronto k538.jpg

File:Toronto k538.jpg has been listed for immediate deletion as being unsourced. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the copyright topic

After reading the above topic about copyright, I am now thinking that the copyright status of any material doesn't matter, since it is being uploaded to Wikipedia, an American website, that effectively puts the material outside of the copyright coverage. Does this mean we can upload anything from Canadian government website, despite their having Crown copyright, since CC does not apply to the United States? This is an issue that has been bothering me, for years, because it just seems like a huge, immovable barrier. Is there ANY way that material, such as pictures, could be used on Wikipedia without any problems? NorthernThunder (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because anything published in the United States is automatically copyrighted, regardless of where it was created. The US may not recognize Crown Copyright, but it would recognize the Canadian government as the owner of the material, and therefore they, not we, would own the copyright under American laws. Also, Wikipedia only considers images that are under a compatible license in both the United States AND the country of origin to be "free". See also the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which is a giant pain in the ass. Basically, while any Canadian photograph created before January 1, 1949, is public domain in Canada, only images created before January 1, 1946 are also in the PD in the United States (as I just came to realize in a FAC). Crown Copyright would be the exception, because if the federal government explicitly states that all images are considered PD worldwide when the Crown Copyright expires, those works would thus become PD in the United States as well. Resolute 23:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Fingers crossed on that last point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian government needs to abolish Crown copyright. It is my understanding that they don't make much of a profit from that anyways and it does get in the way of open government. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(Still waiting on a response by the way) I hound them quite regularly about it. They completely avoid referencing it or answering it. "As I asked, why is the government spending my tax money to enforce copyright on materials produced with my tax money, in many cases against Canadian citizens who have already paid the cost of producing the item through their taxes? This material belongs to the public that paid for it to be produced, not "her majesty", not "the crown"."

Unfortunately I think only one thing would solve this: Finding an MP who is a big history buff and convincing them to try and get something done from the legislative side of things. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Floydian, and for pursuing this. I agree that it would be great if all materials produced by the federal government were public domain (as in the U.S.), but that is unlikely to happen. What department are you emailing, Floydian? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The address I'm currently waiting for a response from is droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwsgc.gc.ca, which is the Crown Copyright and Licensing office of the Public Works and Government Services department. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be emailing the right department. Damn. Maybe a more formal request, on Wikimedia Canada letterhead, might prompt a more thoughtful response from them? I think it's worth pursuing if everyone agrees. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Russia and the UK have agreements with Wikimedia... I wonder if anything can be dug up on how those governments were approached? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What kind of agreements? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Russia, it allows anything uploaded to the president's website to be used. Template:Kremlin.ru

In the case of Britain, it makes it verbatim that crown copyright expires worldwide to PD. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Жастин Бибер and Джастин Бибер. Since you had some involvement with the Justin Bieber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

image:Gregor FDB-1 test.jpg

File:Gregor FDB-1 test.jpg has been listed for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been kept. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

images of Canadian quarters

a large number of Canadian quarters images have been put up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_August_30 in three separate sections -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Scum Lake

The redirects, Scum Lake and Scum Lake, British Columbia, both of which currently target Scum Lake Airport have been nominated at redirects for discussion. Your input into the discussion would be most welcome - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 1#Scum Lake. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Danuta Gleed Award

Hello,

in case you are interested in literature and lists: I nominated the Danuta Gleed Literary Award which might show you some sympathy. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

French article request for Canada–Iran relations

Would someone who knows French mind starting an article on the Canada–Iran relations on the French Wikipedia? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone started one at fr:Relations entre le Canada et l'Iran WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BruceLee1971.jpg

File:BruceLee1971.jpg is up for deletion. It is a screenshot of Bruce Lee in his only television interview, for The Pierre Berton Show. The question revolves around Canadian copyrights to the show. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in Canada - Lists of historic places

Hello everyone!

A few days ago, I put raw data about Canada's heritage places in wiki tables for each provinces (btw, thank to Skeezix1000 for the agreement to go ahead with it, he's working manually since so long on similar lists and I didn't want to step on his toes). Anyway, you guys are very quick because BC already separate tables in regions... a big thank you for your help.

The only thing is that errors happened during the automation of the listings. InverseHypercube pointed this out on my talk page (see fr:User talk:Benoit Rochon#List of historic places in British Columbia). Also on our Flickr group, a member of the pool flagged that some IDs were wrong (see this picture for instance).

So for the next couple hours guys, may I ask you to hold your horses until I find what happen? I think I already know what happen, so I request another extraction yesterday, but the bot takes 20 hours to do this, I'll have news probably tonight. My apologies to people who work on this list, I hope to fix this asap.

Now anyone in Ontario found similar problems with List of historic places in Ontario? Thanks to let me know here, or even better, on my :fr:Talk page. Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say the ID was wrong do you mean the Federal/Provincial/Municipal? If so I found some in the List of historic places in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and possibly Yukon. I know I fixed some in the NT and NU but I'm not sure about the YT. I just noticed that the English and French version of historic places is not working. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the CRHP was down this morning too. Glad to know it's not just me. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously mentionned by Multichill : "It's not the first time we make a third party site crash"... monuments sites often crash on September... I wonder why!? It seems that Wiki Loves Monuments is pretty popular. Now, for IDs, yes I meant Federal/Provincial/Municipal. When I first request an harvest of data by a bot, I ask the bot runner to merge Federal/Provincial/Municipal IDs for a same historic place, because I'm organising Wiki Loves Monuments and I didn't want people to look all over the place for 2 or 3 IDS for the same place. The basic idea behind this merge is places like "Hartland Covered Bridge" who has 3 IDs (1330, 7623, 16366), so 3 different files on HPC website. By trying to make it simple for users, I pollute the data base and now I regret it so much because it has a lot of impact on WP-en, WP-fr, you guys, us guys (on our lists), the bot runner, the contest participants, the pins on the maps, etc... My bad on this, because all federal buildings, train stations, province houses (and more) that have same name but different IDs were merged. And now the gov website crashed for the third time since Friday! OMG, what a mess, I want to die!! Again, my apologies for this, I'll fix it the best I can.

I should have a clean data base by tomorrow, I'll request the bot runner to sort by province, then by city, then my postal code, and then alphabetically. Afterward, I'll put the PURE data on sub-pages and try to fix as much as I can, but some work done in the past, unfortunately, might be lost. This is why I'm asking to hold your horses for now. Thanks for not murdering me...  :) Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Areas of Sudbury Ont.

I want to comment on the history of Gatchell, Sudbury District. I was born in Gatchell, at home in Aug/1944, Bulmer Ave. The only hospital in Sudbury (St. Joseph's) had closed their maternity unit because of infection, so deliveries were happening at home. Gatchell was made up of a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, in my immediate neighbourhood were people of Irish, French, Finnish, English and Italian backgrounds. It was a working class neighbourhood, most of the men employed by Inco. We still had outhouses and the "honey wagons" that regularly emptied them. We had ice boxes and ice delivered in large blocks carried with ice tongs, milk was delivered in glass bottles by the milk man with his horse (whom we would feed apples) and cart, bread was also delivered to the door. Any excavating was done by a team of horses. There wasn't any organized sport, we created our own, sliding down hills,skating, there was an outdoor rink at the school and we laced up our skates, sitting outside on snow banks, later there was a "shack" built ? near Dean St with an actual stove in it. What a luxury! Summers were spent swimming at the "pond", a natural spring uncovered by Inco.

My memory of an increase in Italion immigration was in 1950 when I was 6 yrs old and being assigned in school to help a young Italian girl learn how to read English. My father and brother helped build St, Anthony's Church. We all attended Our Lady of Perpetual Help School which later became known as St Anthony's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annsladybugs (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Stratford.jpg

File:Stratford.jpg is autocategorized into cleanup categories for missing source and missing author -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

PayingRespectsToTrudeau.jpg

image:PayingRespectsToTrudeau.jpg has been nominated for deletion for failing NFCC -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Mohawk people

Category:Canadian Mohawk people, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

JosephHowe.jpg

file:JosephHowe.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Why are some editors determined to list every office a politician has held in a succession box at the end of the article? This is why we have little, neat, collapsable navboxes. In order to list everyone that has held the position. Succession boxes are bigger, only link to two in the list, and repeat what is in the infobox. There is just no reason to have them. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally folks, I've no problems with deleting succession boxes from all articles. However, we shouldn't be deleting them from only a small pocket of articles (example: Quebec premiers). GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've checked over the current & past premiers of the other provinces. We've got succession boxes for some, none for others; we've got major inconsistancy. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, where a navbox template is available (eg, Template:QCPremiers), then a succession box isn't needed. The problem is that we do not yet have navbox templates for many other offices, such as MPs, MPPs and MLAs, party leaders and others. PKT(alk) 13:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I fix the links in the List of premiers of Saskatchewan?

The article list of premiers of Saskatchewan uses a template. The 8th through 22nd Assemblies are red-lined, even though there are articles for those assemblies. How do I fix the references in the template so that those will link to the respective articles?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch the template, unfortunately, because it could create issues in other articles where it's used. The simplest answer is to create redirects for the redlinks, as has been done for the others (eg; 4th Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly redirects to 4th Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. PKT(alk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I"ll give it a try! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

{{MPLinksCA}}

template:MPLinksCA has been proposed to be merged into template:CanParlbio -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ontario Curling Tour events

Hello everyone - I would like to get your opinions about Category:Ontario Curling Tour events. I noticed that several of the articles about these events were created today, but in my opinion they don't meet notability guidelines. In fact, I was about to propose deletion of one of them (lacking indication and evidence of notability) until I realized that the author had created a set. Before I go on and prod all of them, I would like to know what the community thinks. Thanks in advance, PKT(alk) 22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The events meet the WP:CURLING notability guidelines. All of the events are cash spiels that distribute points to the players The points are used to give registered curlers on the CTRS (Canadian Team Ranking System), berths into events such as the Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, which determines the men and women's Olympic team representative, Canada Cup of Curling, which is often an event used to give a team direct entry into the Curing Trials, as well as many provinces use the CTRS to give teams berths into their respective provincial championship, which determines a winner to represent that province at either the Scotties Tournament of Hearts or the Tim Hortons Brier. The winner of those events move onto the World Curling Championships. The Ontario Curling Tour has been on the "To Do List" for the WP:CURLING for quite some time. I have begun creating the pages for this, and granted some are listed as Stubs and need further development, however all of this will come in time. It takes a lot of man hours to create and develop pages like this, and can even take years. I invite you to look at the work done with the World Curling Tour to get a perspective on the direction these pages are going into. Sirrussellott (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

While it's cool to have these pages, I'm not sure how notable a local tour event is. Perhaps some are, that is the ones with a long history. And of course those that are WCT events as well. Having a page on the Ontario Curling Tour is great, and needed, so thank you for that. I'm just not sure if each event is notable. I would probably vote to keep if they were put up to debate, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Caplan

An anonymous IP, with fewer than 20 edits in his/her entire history, tagged NDP organizer and academic Gerald Caplan for prod yesterday, with the reasoning that the article was mostly unreferenced. He's obviously notable and the article isn't entirely unreferenced, so I've removed the prod notice -- however, the article was created in 2005, and its referencing standard is quite clearly 2005 vintage (i.e. total sh*t). Since upgrading it to current standards may require some more specialized sources than I personally have access to, I wanted to ask if anybody's able to help in bringing it up to snuff. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Regional municipality categories

Three sets of categories relating to regional municipalities in Ontario have nominated for renaming, at categories for discussion. The discussions are at:

• Category:York Region: discussion of 27 categories
• Category:Region of Waterloo, Ontario: discussion of 21 categories
• Category:Durham Region: discussion of 20 categories

Your comments are welcome at the CFD discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Riding election result templates

I have two comments regarding the tables about past riding election results (e.g. Template:Alberta provincial election, 2008/Electoral District/Calgary-Elbow).

First, I put them all in one giant category (Category:Canada election result templates (complete list)) so that editors can use the "related changes" feature to make sure that no one is screwing with the numbers. I encourage you to check the related changes every month or two to see if anything has changed.

Second, titles like Template:Ontario provincial election, 1995/Electoral District/St. Catharines (provincial electoral district) are doubly redundant; neither the /Electoral District/ nor the (provincial electoral district) contribute anything. They don't need to be disambiguated, and they are already sorted by categories. Does anyone have a problem if I get a bot to move them all to the style Template:Ontario provincial election, 1995/St. Catharines? I'll make sure that links all point to the right places when the articles themselves need the disambiguation. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Error List of Canada Trading Partners

The article is incorrect. It lists China as Canada's number one trading partner. This a major typo. China and United States numbers have been mixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.85.240 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Image to Use in the JCPC Court case Info Box

There is a template for an info-box for articles about court cases: Template:Infobox court case. One of the fields is for an image to represent the court.

Currently, all of the British courts use an elaborate version of the Royal Arms: Template:Infobox court case/images.

Since the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (formerly Canada's highest court, hence some relevance to Canadian topics) uses a less elaborate version of the Arms, as indicated on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council page, I've suggested in the Talkpage for the images that the same image should be used for the court case infobox: Template talk:Infobox court case

If anyone wants to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox court case, please do so. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Vital Canadian articles

One of my periodic hobbies is to write on/improve articles of Canadian historical significance. To the end of organizing such topics, I have created a List of vital Canadian articles in the hopes it may encourage some topics to be expanded and improved by others as well. I will probably tack it onto Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Navigation for some visibility, but as you can see, the list is a work in progress, and I'd definitely appreciate help in expanding it. (I already realize I haven't even added sections for awards and honours, and weather-related events.) Personally, I envison it as a list of articles that are significantly Canadian in influence, but feel free to add any articles you feel fit the scope. And most importantly, feel free to pick up any that need work and improve them. Cheers! Resolute 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Shidane Arone.jpg

File:Shidane Arone.jpg has been nominated for deletion. Additionally, the FairUseRationale ({{non-free use rationale}}) is also missing. Since the Canadian Airborne Regiment Somalia Affair is fairly prominent, I've tried to add an information template to it, so could someone also check that? -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, can someone check the FUR I added? I also think the license should be "Non-free historic image" -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely improved from previous. You still need to add a source (in this case, where the photo was uploaded from, or a site with the equivalent file), after which I think you can feel free to remove the speedy tag. It could still go to files for discussion if other editors like, but that would involve a discussion. Cheers, Resolute 14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the image was all over the news, that would be impossible to determine (I am not the uploader) the penultimate source would be the release when the photo was initially distributed. (and ultimately to the trooper who took the photograph) -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian WWI military units

FYI, at WT:MILHIST#Standardized_naming_of_Canadian_WWI_battalions there is a proposal to rename Canadian WWI units. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Todd - 01.jpg

file:Amanda Todd - 01.jpg has been nominated for deletion, and its related article Suicide of Amanda Todd has been as well. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

power station -> generating station. British English/Canadian English

This is Skookum1, I'm not logging back in but I happened to see the imposed usage of "power station" being applied to the texts of articles in the "power stations" categories. I';m in no mood to have to deal with the Requested Moves forums again, and in this case was insulted and overruled by the Brits and Americans who dominate those discussions, and told that because we had been part of the British Empire that although "powerhouse" is used for American categories, and I was the sole CAnadian in the discussion, THEIR ruling was binding.....it's stuff like this that made me decide participating in Wikipedia further was a waste of time. This one was really grating though, as my father was with BC Hydro and I was raised in and around many of these places, which formally are called "generating station" in CAnadian English, and informally power plants or powerhouses. NEVER "power station" except a very few places in Ontario and Saskatchewan. What's worse? "original research" because I know my own English, or being told that a Canadian has no say over the consensus of American and British Wikipedians who didn't want to admit to an error? Anyway on the Ruskin Dam article (where I was raised) and the List of electrical generating stations in British Columbia articles I have removed uses of "power station" which had apparently been imposed by someone who figured that was correct because the categories are incorrectly titled....one of those changes was of a redirect in the See Also using the incorrect usage.....these categories, and related ones for other provinces, all need changing:

• Category:Power stations in Canada
• Category:Power stations in British Columbia
• Category:Hydroelectric power stations in British Columbia

The sources all use "generating station" or "powerhouse" or "power plant" other than the aforementioned exceptions. Apparently that's not good enough for the CatMove people....Canadian English is supposed to apply to Canadian articles and categories; they don't think so....112.209.20.226 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mike, how goes it? :) I think the solution here is to leave the national category as Power Stations to fit the world, and the province categories should match the provincial utility naming. That would fit the provinces like Alberta where they are power stations (I think) and the provinces where we automatically say "hydro pole", "connect the hydro" because the very first large-scale power generation in the world was done using water, in those provinces. What do you (and others) think? I don't see how international editors can reach down and impose standards on how we as a project accurately name sub-national categories. Generally, I think "generating station" is the best fit for most provinces. Franamax (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No, exceptions were made for the US and American usage, including for the national category. There's no reason THEY should have that exception when WE don't.....and there's no reason British English should be an imposed standard worldwide anyway. None at all. The discussion, wherever it is, was grating and insulting, like so many.....and note what's happened, with some unknowledgeable editor coming along and changing article content, and titles, to match the imposed foreign-category names. I don't have the stomach to go through all the articles to see what others have been changed because of this, but I suspect by now all of them...my arguments about how important it is for Wikipedia to mirror English as it is used, not how some half-educated admins think it should be used, as it affects future/global English usage and cultural assumptions. Either CANENGLISH is held to for Canadian articles, or we just let the Americans and Brits and others have their way with how they THINK we should speak/spell...112.209.51.156 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Canadian English/British English debate. This same thing comes up with the word "honourary" which seems to be acceptable grammar in Canada, and even the West Indies, however "honorary" is used in British English. Acceptable grammar used to be defined (from place to place) by whether the local reputable newspaper used that same spelling and thus set precedence. Dictionaries then used to take those spellings from the print media themselves on occasion and add as alternative spelling. CaribDigita (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian permissions for images

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_22 where Canadian images are up for deletion revolving around Canadian copyright laws. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages

Note: A link to this talk has been placed on the sub projects talk pages
I have a simple proposal - as most of you know many of the sub projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa have there own talk page that are not used because most of us simply talk here on all Canada related topics. My proposal is to redirect our sub projects talk pages to this talk page - leaving the main project pages as is (not a merger). I believe this would help get more involved and be less confusing for new editors. There is of course some exceptions like Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads - Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Canadian animation work group that are very independent and do not wish to be directly affiliated with this project - as they have a different parent project. The projects involved are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/List of Canadian WikiProjects, portals and main articles.

Yes. Good suggestion, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense how you have proposed it. I think it helps avoid the current situation (where the occasional post at the sub projects is met by the deafening sound of crickets) and, to the extent it gets more people posting here, it helps widen the audience for issues related to the sub projects (and potentially gets more people involved). This change should be without prejudice to the future possibility that any of the sub projects might get particularly active with discrete activities that necessitate the re-establishment of their talk page. But we can play that by ear as time goes by. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would keep the provincial ones separate. If I am going to organize something about Nova Scotia for example. I would rather that talk happen on that page away from all the noise that happens on this page. I can see redirecting some of the more generic ones to the main page. Things like the Ottawa ones I would redirect to the provincial page that is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up was because of the province pages... we all talk here - thoses pages are dead.Moxy (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because they are dead doesn't mean they can't be useful. Just because you and some others use this page doesn't mean others might not prefer those pages. Its not like you all couldn't just watchlist those pages as well. Sort of defeats the purpose of having sub-projects if you take away their organizing space. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You are aware we are talking about just the talk pages (that are not used in some cases for years) - not the project pages themselves. Project pages will not change in anyway.Moxy (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that. But the purpose of sub-projects is so that a subset of the main group of people can talk in a separate location to organize specific information to that sub-group. If you take away that talk space, you are effectively killing the sub-project. The whole purpose of dividing a Wikiproject into sub-projects/task forces is to take away talk specific to a subset of the articles and put it in another location. If you want to redirect the talk pages you are effectively ending the sub-projects/task forces. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No I am trying to keep them alive with more involved in the talks ...projects your referring look dead and have been tag thus way many times. Getting more involved will help the project over all I believe by making people aware of them. For instants Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada (last new member January 2010) will be a topic of great interest soon because of Ontario's new districts - but the project looks dead - so lets revive it and move the talk to the main Canada project so others can see the topic is not dead. I believe leaving this projects as is will not help them in anyway. 20:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed the point, the purpose of a having a separate group is so that the talk is separated from the general talk that goes on here at this page. If the projects are so dead that they can't be revived on their own then they should just be shut down period. Redirecting defeats the whole purpose of having a sub-project/task-force. If there is no talk page then there is no longer a sub-project and you might as well redirect all the pages to the Canada project. Now while some of them like the electoral district one and the politics one might be well served with a joint noticeboard as mentioned below, I then have to ask why do we even have two separate ones and why not just merge the four into a single entity called something like "Canadian politics and law" and still leave it with its own talk page. Personally I think having an electoral district task force is rather ridiculous on its own. The provinces I definitely think should be on their own and city projects merged into them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good points - but as pointed out above - the talk pages your refereeing to are not used because we all talk here anyways - thus the projects keep getting tag as inactive (does this help the project - I think not). The proposes of the projects is for organization of topics - does not matter were talks happen - what matters is the amount of people involved. I simply dont see the benefit of small isolated talk pages that are not used. Just as we have to many Admin noticeboards - thing just get confusing if spread out over many pages when consolidation is easy. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No actually, its not about organization. The organization goes to help the discussions and work. But that isn't the main purpose of a wikiproject. Serial taggers often make that mistake. But the main purpose of a wikiproject is solely discussion in a centralized location for their scope of articles. The organization of articles is secondary to support that working together on their scope of articles. If anything things are much more confusing when you try and shove everything on one page and you have to try and find the stuff you are interested in amongst the stuff you aren't. I know I tend to avoid projects that mash too much stuff into one talk page. I know many others do as well, which is why WPUSA had a huge fight when they tried to start doing something similar to what you are now suggesting. I for one would stop using this page if this were to happen because too much stuff I am not interested in would be on this page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've no probs with the redirect proposal, Moxy. I'm not sure how folks at WP:QUEBEC would react, though, to having their talkpage or talkpages of other Quebec-related WikiProject, being redirected here. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree - as mentioned above some projects have active talk pages and would not be included. Projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec that has its own notice board...Fuck it I will just list the exceptions I see...Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force as its more related to the "military history project" - Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force sub project of "WikiProject Films" - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force sub project of the "football project" - Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads a vibrant independent project.Moxy (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Whichever ones you select, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think in some cases this is a good idea. However, wouldn't recommend merging all of them, because if you later wanted to get the attention of a specific group of editors, your message might get buried among more popular topics on this page. It might be a good idea to instead reduce ourselves to a small number of themed notice board. For example, WP:PPAP, WP:GOC, WP:CANELEC, and maybe also WP:CANLAW could share a notice board. As for the provincial ones, I agree that we don't need separate talk pages for the provinces with no active editing community, but it would be nice to keep some method of getting the attention of local editors. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This sound like a logical solution.....what do others think? We could link them up on this talk page at the top.Moxy (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose the city projects should remain individual, as Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal have a fair amount of local related traffic. And they did not sign on to WPCANADA, until it was forced down their throats by WPCANADA, so this is just another step in the forced WPCANADA assimilation of projects that were originally in the WPCITIES category tree. Further, I see no evidence of notices for WPTORONTO or WPMONTREAL. That you didn't even list which projects you want to merge here is very unfortunate. All I know is that you don't want to merge CRWP, CanadianAnimation, MilHist, Que/QWNB, CanFilm, Football here, but I don't know what else you want to merge or not, or if you forget to inform some projects on their talk page so I can't really tell from their talk pages either. Since you didn't list which projects are involved in this proposal except a few specific exceptions and a vague statement that others may be excepted, it makes little sense to support this without some concrete list. You linked to all the various projects related to Canada, but you're not suggesting that all of them be redirected here. Indeed the only projects that should be considered for this would be those with no activity for more than 1 year. Others should not be handled in such a general proposal, but should be individually proposed. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt that many people here want to get rid of active talk pages unless they opt-in, so you don't have to worry about the city pages. This proposal is very different from the matter of the project banner. In that case, everything of interest to the city projects was also of interest to WPCANADA but not to WPCITIES, so it made sense for the city and country to use the same banner rather than having two banners on every page. Here, however, I think most of us can agree that there are big advantages to separate topic-specific talk pages when those topics have active editors. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I notice that WP:TORONTO and WP:MONTREAL have not been informed, so your list of exceptions is not congruent with the projects that have been informed or haven't been informed. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• If we are now casting votes, mark me down as oppose. I do not use this talk page as an alternative to my provincial WP talk page for topics exclusive to my province. I use this talk page for topics that are at the national level, or for topics relating to my provincial WP that may have implications for other sub-WPs of the Canada WP.

  Also, as I’m more active at the provincial level rather than the national level, I prefer provincial talk pages and am more engaged and responsive to the less frequent discussions at that level than the more frequent pace of new discussion topics at the national level. Although I watch this page, most discussions here are of peripheral interest to me, if any at all. If there is a provincial discussion of interest to me, I don’t want to have to pick through the weeds to find it here (new topics getting buried among more other topics that are subsequently initiated). I would be more complacent and less responsive if all WP talk pages were consolidated. Consolidation may discourage talk rather than result in further talk… which brings me to my next point

  A lack of recent discussion topics of provincial WP talk pages does not equal inactivity with the WP. Each provincial WP has been in place for some time now. During their infancies, much discussion was required to collaborate, coordinate and develop the articles within the scope of the WP. As these projects are now through infancy, less discussion arises and is needed to sustain the WP. Although there are only two relevant topics posted at my province’s WP in the past year, and not one since June, that doesn’t mean myself and numerous other member editors aren’t active in the ongoing improvement of articles within the scope of the WP. Essentially, the projects aren’t dead when there is a lack of discussion on their talk pages (I suspect that they were tagged inactive based solely on this measure) . The projects are dead when their members discontinue editing articles within the scope of the projects (a more appropriate measure of inactivity, albeit more time-consuming one to determine).

  Understand that I do see some benefits to the proposal (e.g., wider audience), but I think the detriments significantly outweigh them. I also appreciate the frustration about the deafening sound of crickets. I recently heard a small colony of crickets at each provincial WP talk page when requesting their assistance to clean up their relevant sections at List of city nicknames in Canada. No assistance except for one noble editor out of Manitoba. What was more deafening was the lack of action resulting from posting the same on this talk page. Much more crickets, much more deafening. Hwy43 (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this redirecting have to be opt-in? Despite all the crickets, these are legitimate WikiProjects with membership rolls. Autonomous even if overran by crickets. This is federalism gone mad ;)The Interior (Talk) 06:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly, most of these projects never actually asked to be part of this wikiproject in the first place. All that happened was that WPCanada decided they should all merge their talk page tags into one. (which I agree with). But they never really agreed to join this project. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• It would absolutely have to be opt-in for active projects, we're not going to ask groups of editors to give up their notice boards. I think the question is: should we point dead talk pages here so that editors who stumble upon the project get a faster response? A second question would be about merging similar talk pages like PPAP, GOC, and CANELEC, but that would be up to the editors of those projects. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• I see this is not going to go anywhere - As one of the people that maintain the projects - I will continue to remove the inactive tags when added and will continue to redirect unanswered questions to this notice board. The Status-quo is fine - I guess - if its going to make people upset.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Moxy, I suppose you are referring to your removal of the template semi-active/active that I have placed on many wikiprojects with the hope of encouraging new participants to join those wiki-projects, and which you have reverted without bothering to provide a meaningful edit summary, and without letting me know you have consistently removed most of my edits?

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Canadian_Territories&diff=517269642&oldid=514420694 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Amateur_radio&diff=515686455&oldid=513964441 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Editor_Retention&diff=514072101&oldid=511159251 ...the list goes on...

(and no, I do not appreciate being referred to a "spammer") Ottawahitech (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• How does placing these templates encourage new participants to join? The projects are on the watchlists of existing participants, not targeted new participants. The additions of the template to projects I've seen haven't had meaningful edit summaries either. Hwy43 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech can we get you to be a little bit more careful when adding the template - as many projects already have a custom intro - as above with the links presented and ones that use the custom template option as seen here - no need for the same type of intro 2 times.Moxy (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada now has a Project watchlist

Check it out at the bottom of this wikiproject you can now view recent changes to any articles that are part of this project in real time, all thanks to user:legoktm.

Ottawahitech (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Does that work for any project, or do you have to sign up? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is already installed in most projects I have recently visited (with the exception of the Canada subprojects), and yes, I understand you can install it on other projects. For more info contact User talk:Legoktm . Ottawahitech (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

All watch lists can be found at Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (alphabetical) and/or Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (topical) To Ottawahitech- please note some projects have a tool page were this can be found.Moxy (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds to me like what you are saying is that on this wikiproject this tool should only be used by those in the know, not mere mortals like me, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What i am saying is some projects have "special pages" for there tools like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Help or have them in a template like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation. Thus we should look to make sure we are fixing the links in the right place (The place were the projects have decided to display the link).Moxy (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlists are user chosen, so I don't know what you guys are talking about. But doesn't Special:RelatedChanges already do this? 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting, 117Avenue. Project watchlists are similar to user watchlists, sort of. In your user watchlist you see articles that you have picked to watch, while in project watchlists the articles being watched are those that have been marked as belonging to the project. Check the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada if you would to see edits to articles belonging to this wiki-project. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have again added the proper link to the tool page - Not sure why you reverted to a dead link on that page but o well. I had reverted the addition on the main page again ...but I guess its not causing any problems and may help new editors help that are not aware of the tool page yet..Moxy (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Moxy, thanks for cooperating at standardizing the placement of the "Project watchlist", which is usually located right above "Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines" (at the bottom of main wikiproject pages). I hope others here find this tool as useful as I do. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report in the Signpost mentions us this week

Just to let participants here know that the Signpost is comparing wikiprojects of different countries this week:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-22/WikiProject_report

Ottawahitech (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-project Nortel has been deleted

I recently found out that wiki-project Nortel has been deleted after an uncontested deletion discussion. I have been a participant in this project on-and-off for several years. I am trying to get discussion going on this on the deletion discussion talk page: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel Ottawahitech (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, did you really haul out a KKK burning crosses comparison? Dude. That says a lot more about you than it does the people who !voted to delete, and none of it good. Resolute 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I tried to keep the passion out of my initial notice here, at least. But, yes, I am upset about the unprecedented number of deletions taking place on Wikipedia. Here is another example of a proposed deletion that was posted right here less than a month ago, but has already been archived by an overly active wiki-BOT: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACanadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=515575695&oldid=515426797 (failed deletion of Gerald Caplan) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Believe me, there is nothing unprecedented about the number of deletions. They happen all the time. Sometimes, they happen to pages we happen to like. In this case, your involvement is incidental. Your username makes your area of interest rather obvious, and Nortel would also obviously fit. However, that does not mean that the people operating the project were operating on the level. So your first step, I would suggest, is to remove emotion from the equation. The MfD was not targeted at you, so don't take it personally. The second step is to objectively decide if there is any value to such a project existing. Looking at the deleted pages, I am seeing only 121 articles in scope, and most of those are Avaya products. Between that and the deletion shenanigans Gigs pointed out in the MfD, it is quite possible that this project was being used for promotion more than anything else. At best, this was a nearly-dead project that never had more than two or three active users, even at its peak. Myself, I would say removing the project will not hinder anyone's ability to improve articles related to Nortel. Resolute 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would add, however, that WP:DRV is the proper venue to review a deletion. If you, PJHansen, BWilkins or others think there is value, and you can convince others of that, then the pages could be restored. (likely in part. Not seeing a great use for the hit counters) Resolute 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Resolute, You say that the deletion was not targeted at me personally, but this is not how I see it. Every personal contribution of mine to to Wikipedia that is deleted by an admin, is a personal assault on my volunteer effort. After all no one pays me to work for Wikipedia, my only reward is seeing that content I have donated is providing benefit to someone else.

You are passing judgement on material that is only available for wiki-admins to see – not mere mortals like most of us. How can we debate you under those circumstances? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• There used to be a notice, but I think it is gone now when you hit edit that would tell you not to submit your edit if you don't accept that your work will be edited and/or deleted mercilessly. If you aren't comfortable with the fact your edits can/will be edited/removed/deleted etc. then you really shouldn't be using your volunteer time on such a project. I haven't looked at the pages so I can't say if they should have been deleted or not. But based on the comments of those who have seen them, it doesn't seem like there was much there that was of good to anyone. Just because there is no actual project page doesn't mean you suddenly can't edit the articles that was in its scope. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• @DJSasso, the issue is not minor reversion of edits. The issue is the removal altogether of several participants' work on a wiki-project where the deletion discussion took place without notifying us and without posting banners ANYWHERE. None of the project's participants were at this deletion "discussion" - it was all decided by outsiders. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• It was posted with a big banner on the main Nortel WikiProject page. The page where people would expect to be notified of such things. If no one from the project noticed or joined the discussion after being notified in such a way then that goes to show that the project isn't actually useful. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• @DJSasso, using your criteria I am sure someone at Wikipedia could easily delete most of the Canada's wikiprojects. See for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Education_in_Canada (viewed 149 times in the last 30 days) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I would get rid of overly specific WikiProjects and merge them into broader subjects (but not too broad). Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that that particular example could be merged into. But to use an example. I would merge the WP:PPAP, WP:GOC, WP:CANELEC, WP:CANLAW into a single WikiProject called WikiProject:Canadian Politics and Governing or something along those lines. There are a lot of overly specific WikiProjects out there that are completely inactive, not just Canada related ones. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• And looking at the last 30 edits on the talk page of the project they go all the way back to 2009. It wasn't remotely an active WikiProject. The only reason WikiProjects exist is for a space for people actively working on articles to discuss and collaborate on projects to do with the scope of the WikiProject. Clearly if there were only 30 edits in the last almost 4 years that wasn't happening. Frankly I doubt there were many actual "active" members of the project. Even if you didn't take into account the issues that Gigs brought up, I could easily see it being put up for deletion just for being an inactive project. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I talked with PJHansen on my talk and he seems to be OK with it after I explained in more detail, and said he'd be interested in helping prevent further biased editing as well. I decided to include the name of every member of Wikiproject Nortel on my evidence page in part so I could point out that there were a few normal editors in there, in addition to the suspicious looking accounts. Despite Ottawa's assertions, I did make a lot of effort to conduct this in a way that would not cause guilt-by-association assumptions for the normal editors that had added their names to the roster. Gigs (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Gigs, I don't believe I made any assertions here, and have responded at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel, where I did. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments winners in Canada

Hello,

Just a quick note to say that the jury has completed the evaluation of pictures of "Wiki Loves Monuments" in Canada WikiLovesMonuments.ca

Canadians uploaded 5,642 photos on total of 366,043 photos worldwide. Even if I do not have source, we can deduce that "Wiki Loves Monuments 2012" broke his own Guinness World Record for largest photo contest in the world. When the record will be approved in 2013, all participants can order a certificate from the Guinness Book of Records. Congratulations to the winners. Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

File:New Democratic Party Logo 80s.png

File:New Democratic Party Logo 80s.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

wikiproject Canada: article assessments and article improvements

How do they work here?

example:

Export Development Canada

Currently rated: Start-class, Mid-importance (Has only primary references))

History of assessments:

• 25 August 2010 first project banner(Ottawa) introduced on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Export_Development_Canada&oldid=380978503
• 22 November 2010 project canada first introduced http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Export_Development_Canada&oldid=398261938
• 14 April 2011 article rated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Export_Development_Canada&direction=next&oldid=424019198 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiGnomes like yours truly flit from article to article and apply quality (referred to as "class") and importance ratings according to what I/we/they see at the time they visit. As and when articles are improved upon by other editors, you are free to update the assessments. The quality assessment ratings are detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment#Quality scale and numerous other places.

In the case you mentioned, I think the assessment is still correct, even though it was applied more than 18 months ago. In terms of quality, class=start indicates "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources."

As for the article's importance; I think the EDC is a mid-importance organization, but others may disagree and are free to change the rating. HTH, PKT(alk) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

quake

Do we have an article on the largest quake in Canada for the last 60 years? I know since it just happened, so we might not have one. Or it could be I'm using the wrong search terms. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It can be found at 2012 Haida Gwaii earthquake. PKT(alk) 12:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Loonie & Toonie

I have requested that the articles Loonie & Toonie be moved to their proper names of Canadian 1 dollar coin & Canadian 2 dollar coin. Although they are widely used nicknames they are just that, nicknames. This is an encyclopedia and they should be listed under their proper names with their nicknames mentioned in the lead and info box. I don't think either Wikipedia:Common names or Wikipedia:Official names applies here. Your comments are encouraged. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions are located at Talk:Loonie#Requested move and Talk:Toonie#Requested move. PKT(alk) 16:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just "for the record", both discussions concluded with no consensus. PKT(alk) 18:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is an absolute shame. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Issue

While I was looking at List of mines in Quebec I clicked edit on the {{Canada topic}} template below then I added List of mines in Temagami in brackets beside Ontario because it's a sublist of the Ontario mine list. But I later found out that this template appears to be one whole thing just using different parameters for different topics. How am I supposed to add sublists to a specific topic without it being listed with non-related topics? Volcanoguy 04:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of this template the Wikipedian who created it is now a wp:Missing Wikipedian and the second on the list is actively participating in discussion here Ottawahitech (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Fastest (Canadian) donkey

On a lighter note: I was listening to CBC 1 radio and heard this hilarious story about a donkey who wants to participate in horse racing. I think it can be replayed here: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/This+Is+That/ID/2299990918/ Enjoy. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Date format

I noticed that User:Canuck89 is going around converting dmy date formats to mdy. WP:STRONGNAT says that Canadian articles can use either format, but I think it might be useful for us to standardize some of our bigger articles rather than having editors making sweeping changes to their preferred format. In my opinion, for dates in the middle of prose mdy is probably more natural to English-Canadian readers, although I personally dislike it because of the extra comma it adds. However, in dates that are being used purely as data, particularly in stand-alone lists and maybe also in infoboxes, I think ymd (with numbers only) or dmy (with the month name) look better. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My personal view is that MDY is almost exclusively used in day to day presentation of everything in English Canada, so that is the direction articles should go. For most lists, however, you would sort by year first, so YMD does make more sense in such tables. Also, I would personally apply date standards only to presentation within prose. I have habit of date referencing citations as "2012-10-15" and find it monstrously annoying when someone switches to "October 15, 2012" when I am in the middle of writing an article. It completely screws up my editing mojo. (seriously!) Resolute 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Resolute, I didn't notice until today that people were changing the format inside citations, I agree that that's a bit odd. What do you think about the date formatting in lists in the format of List of Premiers of Alberta, which were also changed today? In that case, the dates are not perfectly lined up in a sortable list, but they also aren't in the middle of a sentence. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• On the table? Personally, I agree with Canuckian's change there. Day-month is unbelievably odd to me. It looks proper now. Resolute 23:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• I find month-day to be odd, but I acknowledge that it's more common across English Canada. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also see Archive 9 - Date style and formatting, Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format, Talk:Sharon Johnston#Date format, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#List of date formats used. Personally, I prefer the D-M-Y format from the choices above (and Y-M-D instead of either of those). Frankly, this is an issue of date localisation, not one of standardising the written version, but that's a much more comprehensive problem. Mindmatrix 19:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was merely restoring the lists to their original format, as this edit introduced a mixture of mdy and dmy dates into the article, when it was originally all mdy. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 23:52, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that I had made the initial change; when I changed the template type I just typed in the dates in the format I'm used to. Oh well, it will be useful to get a standard either way. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't like ymd. It is too data like, and may be confusing to some readers. The month should be spelled out. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No to YMD, it even confuses me sometimes. DMY and MDY are both fine to me. – Connormah (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We should use DMY or YMD, MDY just gets confused. There're even public service announcements on (Canadian) TV to tell you what the proper date format is supposed to be, because of the confusion... YMD is a much better format. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's either between DMY or MDY here, IMO. We should stay consistent with all the other articles here, none use YMD at all. YMD is totally more confusing, the months should absolutely be spelled out to minimize confusion - I've been confused many times at YMD format. The date format guideline is fine the way it is... – Connormah (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles says nothing about a preferred format for dates. So that would seem to me that we would then go by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates. That rules out the use of YMD in general article prose but permits it in references. So Canuckian89, and I have seen others do it, should not be changing the YMD in references to MDY or DMY. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think YMD is most often used in databases and lists where you want to be able to sort the data by date. Wikipedia can do that with spelled-out months, so I agree that we don't need YMD, except in places where we're trying to save space, like in refs. I think that DMY with spelled-out months makes more sense and flows better, but most common usage in English Canada is probably against me. The question is, should we standardize Canadian articles to MDY from DMY, or should we maintain the status quo of allowing either? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

MDY, is best. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• MDY should be the only way to go in prose for the reasons previously stated by AG and Resolute.

  In speech, when I say “Today is (today’s date)”, I say “Today is October seventeenth, two thousand twelve”, not “Today is seventeen(th) October two thousand twelve”. Why STRONGNAT says both MDY and DMY are acceptable for Canada is absolutely beyond me. If I’ve never heard anyone in Canada speak the latter, why should I have to read it on WP Canadian articles as “Today is 17 October 2012”? It is simply less readable when prose places the day and month out of order of actual speech.

  To help me understand why STRONGNAT says either is acceptable, I’d like to know what geographic enclaves within Canada, if any, prefer DMY over MDY in either speech, prose or both. I've never seen a public service announcement (PSA) on Canadian television pushing DMY as the proper date format. Could it be that the PSA is/was localized to the geographic enclaves(s) that prefer DMY? When was the PSA last known to have aired?

  I use YYYY-MM-DD in tables for sortability. It makes sense to me in tables. If it is truly confusing within a table, we could place YYYY-MM-DD in parentheses within the column header, just like we’d place km², $ and % in parentheses within column headers. See the below example.

Community	Incorporation date (YYYY-MM-DD)	Area (km²)	Growth rate (%)	Average household income ($)

I also have the same knack of using YYYY-MM-DD for date and accessdate parameters within inline citations for brevity purposes, and because the citation template is essentially a database of information relating to the source and the reference is not written as prose.

I support a movement to standardize date formats within Canadian articles under the four scenarios of 1) within prose, 2) within tables 3) within infoboxes and 4) within references, as I don't think a one size fits all is a solution to a standard date format for use in Canadian articles. If consensus is achieved, we can post it at WP:CANSTYLE and revise WP:STRONGNAT accordingly. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why we should waste time on standardizing a local date format, as long as it is consistent within a given article. I also don't see how the way we say something should dictate how we write it. Should we write "100$" as well? Hey, it's standard for about a quarter of Canadians! (the French-speaking quarter, anyways...)

For the record, I can't wait until the English-speaking world finally wakes up and settles on the wonderfulness of YYYY-MM-DD...already long standard in many spoken languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean...) ..................and metric.......... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Canadian style, both Month Date, Year and Date Month Year are acceptable, ie 25 August 2012 or August 25, 2012. The Canadian Forces Writing guides use Date Month Year (long: 25 August 2012, short: 25 Aug 12 and numerical: 25/08/12). I find that date month year makes the most sense to me, as you go from the smallest unit of time to largest, instead of year date month, or month date year (largest, smallest, medium; and medium, smallest, largest). Trackratte (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Arctic Gnome, I am not sure what part of Canada Resolute comes from, but I have never seen anyone use a numbered-mdy format in Canada (unless they are stuck with an American version of MS word). Let's keep it Canadian. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Canadians urged to prepare for Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy on course to hit Canada tonight... Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikiproject Canada adequately floodproofed?  :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Where're the servers located? (NYC? DC?) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Which server? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Sandy in Canada now has its own article (the American one is a zoo at the moment). Ottawahitech (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Term dates, again

Some of you are aware of the different interpretations on the Interpretation Act of 1967, and how they affect the dates of terms for former Prime Ministers. As a department of the federal government (Commissioners are employees of the federal government, and not the Queen's representative), does the Interpretation Act of 1967 also apply to territory ministers? The Parliament of Canada thinks so. 117Avenue (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've always argued & continue to argue, we should use the resignation date as the end of a tenure. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So is the Parliament of Canada a reliable source for all of our unreferenced premier lists? 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's unreliable, as it's presenting the wrong departure dates. Fact is, most of the premiers resigned 'earlier' on the same day their successors were sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy smokers, I guess that parliamentary site is unreliable. I checked out the PEI premiers list & its dates are out of wack. It's got Pat Binns leaving off on election day (May 27, 2007), that's 16 day before his successor Robert Ghiz took office (June 12, 2007). Prince Edward Island DID NOT go 16 days without a premier. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You might think it's unreliable but it's a published, credible, authoritative source where individual editors are not. If you think they've made a mistake then write then and explain why but you can't unilaterally declare that you are right on your own authority and the researchers at the Library of Parliament are wrong. It's not for us to do original research and decide how to apply the Interpretation Act. Sorry, good day but you've engaging in original research. Mountain Herb (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is unreliabe. Pat Binns was PEI premier until June 12, 2007. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

could you elaborate on the different interpretations you are referring to ? the link takes you to the wiki page on the PM's - I didn't see any reference there to the Interpretation Act? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire third paragraph. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

oops - it was too late at night to be trying to read wiki articles :) But, why the discussion about the Interpretation Act of 1967? that was repealed when the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970 came into force. The current Interpretation Act is part of the RSC 1985. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Privy Council Office says it is still in effect. 117Avenue (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we're stuck with the unreliable source-in-question, thanks to Djsasso's involvement. Ya'll can figure the dispute out for yourselves, I've just lost interest. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Or you know people can have a civil discussion about it instead of reverting back and forth. You know...that whole WP:BRD think you have been show a number of times. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert would be to an unreferenced version, and the discussion was already here waiting for your input. Why do you believe an unofficial source that claims an incumbent premier (Binns) resigned over two weeks before the new one was sworn in? 117Avenue (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That isn't actually the page I was referring to. There were three other pages that he was reverting back and forth on. The Library of Parliament are a very reputable source. Putting a footnote on the pages explaining there is a difference of opinion would be find. Removing a reputable source to make the pages unreferenced as GoodDay was doing is completely unacceptable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The page I linked to is the one where the "by time in office" article got its "facts" from. The other ones are the same. The acceptable thing to do is to delete these articles, which are only speculating. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Have no problem with the articles having to prove their value at Afd if you want to take them there. :) Just didn't like the striping of a reference from a source which is reputable even if it may not be reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Review

I recently redid the Foster care in Canada page and was hoping to submit it for review. How do I do that? Sanasrandomness (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what kind of review you are looking for. There are quality review processes (featured articles and good articles), but honestly, the article is not ready for either of those. If you just want someone to look over and offer advice, there is peer review. Or, if anyone here is familiar with the subject matter, they could offer an informal review. Additionally, you could look at similar articles for other countries for ideas and further improvements you can make here. On the surface, that looks like a rather impressive expansion. Kudos! Resolute 04:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Racial segregation in Greater Vancouver

I just came across this newly created article and I think it's a really problematic POV article, in its consistent use of "segregation" to describe what's going on in Vancouver. Please see my comments at Talk:Racial_segregation_in_Greater_Vancouver. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has helpfully pointed out that residential segregation appears to be what was meant, if one follows the references. I've renamed and edited the article accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Line 9

Do we have an article on the Enbridge Line 9 Pipeline (Sarnia-Montreal) ? -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On the specific line? It appears not. There is, however, Enbridge Pipeline System, which would include line 9. Resolute 15:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes there was a rather lengthy chat on Newsworld last night about #9, which may be reversed to bring bitumen crude to Quebec and possibly beyond -- and even going through Toronto to do so, apparently. Does look like it will require more attention, either in a section or a separate article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Offensive demographics tables

So does anyone find these demographics charts that seem to getting added to numerous Canadian articles offensive ? They show all the "visible minorities" in a list and then way down at the bottom the "white" population which is usually by far the largest population in the chart. What I find offensive is why are all the "visible minorities" listed first, and then the prodominent race at the bottom like an afterthought ? I for one hate these charts and would like them all to be removed, but if they are to stay they should at least portray the demographics unbiasedly with the prodominent race (whatever it may be) at the top. Look at Point Edwards article, it is literally empty with 10 Chinese people, 20 natives, and then 98.3% white. This chart is completely useless and portrayed like "visible minorities" are a positive thing, and "whites" are a negative. I've even seen some charts named "visible minority" chart. They should all be removed or at least portrayed properly. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous that anyone would be offended by the order in which certain racial/ethnic groups are listed in a chart. I'm white myself, and I'm certainly not including "White" at the bottom of the chart because I think whites are inferior to other races. The reason I include White last in the chart is because Statistics Canada only categorizes people by "Visible minorities" and "Aboriginal groups", and the number/percentage of white people isn't specifically listed, but rather Statistics Canada leaves people to assume that everyone who is neither a visible minority or an Aboriginal is white. Therefore, the number/percentage of white people is calculated by subtracting the Aboriginal and visible minority populations from the total population. The reason I list white people last is because Statistics Canada designs their censuses in a way that means you can only figure out the number and percentage of white people once you've calculated those of Aboriginals and visible minorities. If it makes you feel any better, I'm not entirely crazy about the way StatsCan categorizes its ethnic/racial statistics. Djodjo666 (talk) 01:59, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! Not only that, but most of the visible minorites are at 0%—what purpose is that supposed to serve? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I’m not offended whatsoever. Statistics Canada asks census questions specifically to determine the amount of demographic minorities compared to the amount of demographic majorities, and then to learn more about each set of demographic minorities. I have no reason to believe that StatCan intends to collect and present census data to offend, to infer positive and negative slants or to be biased. They are providing a snapshot of the population as of a certain date.

StatCan’s community profiles includes a “Visible minority population characteristics” table (see Point Edward’s). Within, the aggregated “total visible minority population ⁸⁵” is presented first, followed by 12 disaggregated types of the minorities, after which the aggregated “not a visible minority population ⁹¹” is presented.

Now, following the superscripted note above, StatCan indicates those that are not a visible minority "includes respondents who reported 'Yes' to the Aboriginal identity question (Question 18) as well as respondents who were not considered to be members of a visible minority group."

Back at Point Edward’s community profile, there is an “Aboriginal population” table. Within, the total “Aboriginal identity population ⁵⁰" is presented first, followed by the total “Non-Aboriginal identity population” or White (Caucasian).

Then, for total “Aboriginal identity population”, this figure is further disaggregated into three types as presented at the article’s sourced second StatCan table, again followed by the total “Non-Aboriginal identity population” majority at the end.

The table at the Point Edward, Ontario article is a consolidation of the two tables within its StatCan community profile and the third table at the second StatCan source. The remnant majority in the article’s table is presented last, just like within the three StatCan tables. To assert that the White population in this table is intentionally an afterthought, or that there are positive/negative slants or bias going on here may also be an assertion that StatCan is guilty of the same. I think it is safe, based on the sources and presentation format at the sources, to assume good faith in the addition of these tables to community articles, as well as the presentation format within these tables.

The only real problem I have with this particular table at Point Edward is that presenting a detailed breakdown of a demographic minority where the sum of the demographic minority is a mere 1.7% of the total population is not notable and not encyclopedic. Therefore, I agree that the table at the Point Edward article has no purpose to serve as suggested by Curly Turkey.

If there was a community of a similar size that had a significant demographic minority population, inclusion of such a table would be encyclopedic in my opinion. And for those articles where such a table is encyclopedic, the table needs an appropriate title, such as “Visible minorities and Aborignal populations” based on the themes of the StatCan source tables, like at Demographics of Ottawa and numerous other articles. Hwy43 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that "presenting a detailed breakdown of a demographic minority where the sum of the demographic minority is a mere 1.7% of the total population is not notable and not encyclopedic", and it's not what I wrote, either. What I objected to was presenting raow after row of data where the group listed represented 0% of the population. As in, not a single member of that group is represented, so why include the "data"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Misinterpretation, and therefore struck. Same question to StatCan though, why include the data? Hwy43 (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not a visible minority and I'm not offended at all. But it is totally unnecessary to have rows with 0% (fortunately the info hasn't been updated to the 2011 census, because that includes far more minorities, see [2]). It would actually be better to present this info in paragraph format and not a table... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What is being presented in the 2011 profiles thus far is language data rather than visible minority and Aboriginal population data. It is likely the forthcoming equivalent 2011 data will include the same categories as presented in 2006 and 2001. Paragraph format is a suitable alternative for places lacking diversity, with zeroed out categories, such as Point Edward. Hwy43 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• We should definitely be including information on the demographic breakdown of places... But a chart or table is unneccessary unless there is some multiculturalism going on... And once you get out of the GTA or major population centres, the people are as white as the snow, and natives are the only other demo. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Floydian's edit summary that prose can be used to describe races (in this case the applicable visible minority/Aboriginal groups). Hwy43 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, your assertion that the tables "portrayed like "visible minorities" are a positive thing, and "whites" are a negative." is not only ridiculous, I think it shows a hell of a lot more about your thinking than it does that of the editor who added it. That being said, a bunch of rows with 0s for the simple sake of standardization is pointless. If the tables are kept, I would eliminate rows that are not applicable. Personally, I would favour ordering the major headings "White, aboriginal, visible minority" in order of largest group to smallest, simply because that is what I expect when reading a table. I would also prefer to see 2011 data, if available, than 2006. Resolute 18:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, can you not go one day without being a complete a**hole ? Thanks for the personal attack, goes to show the kind of petty, useless editor you are. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated 2011 data is not available yet. I believe the visible minority and Aboriginal questions were asked in the voluntary 2011 National Household Survey. No data from the survey has been released by StatCan yet. Hwy43 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree nothing offensive here to anyone that understands the data. Do agree no need to list ones at 0% and that the largest groups should be seem first. That said over data is also not needed in articles with small minorities or non at all. We should also wait for the new data for 2011.Moxy (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying I don't understand basic census data ? You're right, It's not like I have a degree in urban human geography. Wait... I do. The Canadian racial census data is a complete joke. Someone who is a 3rd generation Korean-Canadian can list themselves as "Korean", and someone who's been here for a few moths and just got permanent residency yesterday can list themselves as "Canadian". Also, I do find it offensive that "visible minorities" are the highlight of the tables. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Look at the Demographics of Toronto article, even the chart is named "Visible minorities and Aboriginal population (City of Toronto)". If it's suppose to be a chart on demographics why is named that ? Whites don't count ? I will never understand why some Canadians are so obsessed with race. Like the fact that London, Ontario has 0.1% Japanese people somehow defines the city. It's absurd. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that you think info from Stats Canada is a joke. As someone who has a degree as you say - you should know that statsCanada is a world leader in statistics. As for the term "Visible minorities and Aboriginal population" being offensive - I just dont see that at all - that said the charts should be in-order by sizes and could be named simply "Ethnic demographics". As for Canadian obsession with race - Multiculturalism is often cited as one of Canada's significant accomplishments and a key distinguishing element of Canadian identity.Moxy (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, "Ethnic demographics" would be too general. I've had a related discussion about this previously. StatCan published two sets of "ethnocultural" demographics in 2006 – "ethnic origin" and "visible minority groups". Some visibile minority groups are aggregations of certain ethnic origins based on "like" geographies (e.g., South Asian, Latin American and Southeast Asian). Hwy43 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a "joke" as well as horribly inaccurate. Anyone from any given race can respond in a variety of ways. And yes multiculturalism one of Canada's significant accomplishments and a key distinguishing element of Canadian identity. I love the way it segregates people and defines them by their former homelands instead of assimilation. It really is a distinguishing element of Canadian identity. At least that's what the drivel-filled liberal rag (Toronto Star) tells me. Also, I'm glad you agree that it is improperly ranked and named. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'm seeing Moxy outright agreeing with that. I'm seeing suggested alternatives from him. Obviously he can advise otherwise.

Nonetheless, yes, the question about "ethnic origin" can be answered inconsistently upon review of the 2006 long form (Question 17 on page 10 of 40). But this is moot. That question fuels the "ethnic origin" census data, not the "visible minorities" and "Aboriginal" data that is subject of the concern. Questions 18 and 19 fuel those data sets. Both are much less open-ended and thereby less prone to widespread inconsist answering of the "ethnic origin" Question 17. Hwy43 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct! In that Canada has a much more progressive position then the United States. Multiculturalism is often contrasted with the concepts of assimilationism and has been described as a "salad bowl" or "cultural mosaic" rather than a "melting pot" that is the American model. Also would like to point out that multiculturalism policies were written by a conservative party member and implemented and reinforced by both liberal and conservative governments over the years in Canada. For more info pls see Multiculturalism in Canada#Evolution of federal legislation.Moxy (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your POV is getting a bit off topic. The point is (as you agreed) that if these charts are to stay, they should at least be renamed and ranked from highest to lowest (whichever) races those may be. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a POV its fact backed up by government policy and years of publications. If your going to call us Canadians racist because we believe that all cultures and ethnic groups have the right to keep there own identity within society - you will have to expect a spirited rebuttal - as this is a core principle of tolerance that Canadians are proud of.Moxy (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, you know I'm Canadian too right ? To group all Canadians together and assume "we" all think the same is foolish. But again, we are way off topic here. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree off topic a bit - but wait a sec here this is very interesting - are you saying you as a Canadian dont believe in cultural tolerance and ethnic diversity? Do you believe we should not have immigration from non-white European countries? Or are you simply saying all should be forced to conform to the per-existing European based culture?Moxy (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying that giving labels to everyone such as Korean-Canadian, or Pakistani-Canadian while labelling european descendent Canadians "white" or simply "Canadian" is both odd and could be seen as offensive to some. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like something you should be taking up with your MP, not with Wikipedia. Whether something is offensive or not is not any kind of reason to keep it off Wikipedia. Please note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing here with your politics. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't want to get into a political debate with anyone. All I'm saying, as many will agree with, is the charts should be reformatted to display the ethnic divisions unbiasedly in a largest to smallest fashion. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Demographic tables should be from largest to smallest groups. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally, something we can agree on GoodDay. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as StatsCan lists their breakdowns in the order they do, it is guaranteed that editors will continue to add the stats as StatsCan has presented them. We could come to an agreement here that they be ordered in some other way, and we can even put it in the guidelines, but it means someone will have to keep patrolling all these pages to make sure they conform, and continue to conform after the stats are updated. Anyone interested in the job? 'Cause I ain't. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested. Developing a guideline and then implementing it is an unnecessary "make work" project as there is no biased injustice at play in replicating StatCan's ordering. Hwy43 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be opposed to removing "Visible minorities and Aborginals" from the title of the tables as there is no bias associated with the title and it is not offensive. The tables are named as such because the two source tables from StatCan community profiles that create this table are entitled "Visible minority population characteristics" and "Aboriginal population". (edit conflict) As others have offered, I guess I should also indicate as well that I am 100% white of European descent. Hwy43 (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The title should be non-bias and reflect what the table is showing, ethnicities of that certain division. There are more than visible minorities and aborginals being displayed. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We know where at least two of us stand! Hwy43 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Two ? It was more than two. User:P199, User:Floydian, User:Moxy, User:Curly Turkey and User:GoodDay all agreed the tables should be renamed or reconfigured in some form. It's just you that is dead against it. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Be careful to not spin here – I'm going to assume good faith that my last two posts were accidentally misinterpreted.

To repeat, I said "at least" (last post) and was referring to "title" and "title" only (both posts), and not reconfiguration. As of my last post, neither User:P199, User:Floydian, User:GoodDay and User:Curly Turkey had expressed any opinion on the title (Curly Turkey has since). As for User:Moxy, he offered a "should" regarding re-ordered content and "could" regarding renaming. If he could clarify his position on the title, then we would know exactly where he stands. Until then, we now know where at least three of us stand (regarding the title).

As for "dead against it", this is much too strong of a characterization of my position. If you look closer at my second last post, my position was opposition to "removing Visible minorities and Aborginals from the title" because of its source tables. It is just that simple. An appropriate alternative to the current title, to be more inclusive of the majority, could be "Visible majority, minority and Aboriginal populations". Hwy43 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm all for renaming the tables to reflect their content, as long as whatever they're named is truly neutral and not some PC freak's biased idea of what "neutral" would be; and I think the tables should ideally be ordered in some logical way (either ascending or descending). Ensuring that these jobs get done, however, I think is a pipe dream.

More important than either of those points, though, is removing unrepresented ethnic group clutter. Again, I pass the buck. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

file:Gimli glider.JPG

image:Gimli glider.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

file:AmandaToddVideo.jpg

image:AmandaToddVideo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I wonder now many participants here are aware that they can view all Canadian articles currently up for deletion (lots of them at the moment) here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Canada#Canada? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming of Stadiums

When naming stadiums do we include the sponsors name if the stadium will be known to that title for only two weeks? What I am referring to is the 2015 Pan American Games. The athletics stadium will be known as the CIBC Pan Am and Parapan Am Athletics Stadium during the games but before and after them as Pan Am and Parapan Am Athletics Stadium. Any thoughts and/or opinions? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The sponsored name is only marginally more horrid the the general one. Who determines these names? Anyway, to answer your question: redirect the sponsored name to the general name, and mention the sponsored name in the lede for the duration of the events, and thereafter in the history section. Mindmatrix 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea thanks! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mountains of Lists of Mountains

There's a conversation over at WT:WikiProject Mountains (thread) about some potentially overlapping lists of the montane variety, all involving Canadian peaks. I've just become aware of a few of these, so if anyone else is familiar with them, drop by. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes of Premiers

I've noticed that roughly half of the premier bios infoboxes don't have the lieutenant governors listed in them. IMHO, this is the proper way to go, particularly when at times 3 o 4 ltgs can clog up an infobox. Any thoughts? GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you point out which ones don't have them? I took a brief look through, and it seems to me all the premier pages have the 'appointed by' space with the applicable lieutenant governor. The personal pages of the incumbants seem to all have, as far as I saw, lieutenant governors included as well. I don't see any reason not to include it. And in respect to 'clogging up' an infobox, there is a section for every position they've held within government. Pauline Marois for example, has a long six section info box, with only one lt gov marked. I don't see how having an additional line for an extra lt-gov out of the 33 or so lines already present makes it a deal breaker. Trackratte (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually a vast majority of these bios don't have the LtGs listed. Here's the examples:

For starters, the Manitoba premiers up to Gary Filmon, then the Saskatchewan premiers up to Grant Devine, the Alberta premiers up to Ralph Klein & the British Columbia premiers Arthur Sifton to W.A.C. Bennett & Bill Bennett to Ujjal Dosanjh. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we have, all the Ontario premiers up to Frank Miller, then Mike Harris & Ernie Eves. Also, Governor is listed at Bob Rae. All the Quebec premiers up to Jean-Jacques Bertrand, then Daniel Johnson, Jr. to Lucien Bouchard. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the New Brunswick premiers up to James Kidd Flemming, then Walter Edward Foster to Allison Dysart, then Hugh John Flemming to Richard Hatfield & Ray Frenette to Bernard Lord. Then we have all the Nova Scotia premiers up to John Hamm. So you see, a vast majority don't have LtGs listed. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• @GoodDay, do Canadians care who "the viceregal representative" is? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I'm a republican, I hope they don't. What's your point? GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

After 10-days, there have been no objections. I've deleted the ltgs from the few premiers bios infoboxes that had them. Now, all the bios are consistent. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough then. I don't agree with the purported reasoning behind it, but can live with the result within the personal bio pages. Trackratte (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Regina's historic buildings and precincts

This article, under the sub-heading 'Gallery of theatres and concert halls' has an image of the 1914 orchestra of the Rose Theatre (posibly the Roseland) in Regina. I'd be very interested to see the original article from which this came (presumably a newspaper) and to know the names of those shown in the image. Ian Payne email — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.108.250 (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

100th Grey Cup and ITN

Hey guys, I'm not sure how many of you are aware, but for the past couple of years there have been attempts to get the result of the Grey Cup on the front page of Wikipedia in the "In the News" section, but each time it has been rejected due to the article not being up to snuff. Things like playoff game summaries or a lack of prose have been major reasons why the game has been rejected.

I figured this year it would be a good idea to bring this up ahead of the game in case there are any football experts who would be capable of expanding the 100th Grey Cup article to a standard which would be acceptible for the front page. Hopefully this year we can finally get the Cup on the front page. I posted a copy of this on the Canadian football WikiProject page, but there doesn't seem to be much activity over there, so I hope some football fans will see this here. --PlasmaTwa2 08:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I was already thinking the same, actually. I will take a stab at a path to the Final section for Calgary and Toronto - most likely tomorrow. Also, Grey Cup will be the featured article on the main page for Sunday (actually, about 8PM ET Saturday night to 8PM Sunday), so that article will lead nicely in to the game. Resolute 14:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done the preview. Should give us a good base to start from for an ITN nomination. I may or may not be online for the game, so hopefully someone can do some good (sourced) updates of the game itself on Sunday. Resolute 01:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much. I'm hoping to get a chance to expand the section on the 100th anniversary festivities sometime this week, but being a university student writing term papers that might not happen until after the game. :/ --PlasmaTwa2 07:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that! There are some statements in the existing section that need sourcing, but my wiki time is going to be quite limited until Sunday, so I am not sure I can go hunting sources. Resolute 15:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

100th Grey Cup, not 100th anniversary. 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes, I know it's not the real anniversary, but I was at a loss for words. Anyway, I wrote two short paragraphs about the importance of the Grey Cup being recognized by the government and the Queen. It isn't much, but at least it will help show the importance of the game in Canada. I hope someone will be able to post a good summary of the game itself fairly soon after it ends. ITN seems to have a limit on potential items. If it's not ready within a day or two, it doesn't go up. --PlasmaTwa2 21:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

New Democratic Party (Canada)

Someone has moved "New Democratic Party" to "New Democratic Party (Canada)" I think this is a good move as there are many "New Democratic Parties" around the world. BUT was this done properly as we now have a problem that I am hoping someone familiar with bots can fix - problem is we now have thousands of pages that link to the disambiguation page at New Democratic Party that need to be directed to the appropriate New Democratic Party (Canada).Moxy (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if my change did that, but I did view the change as necessary. What can be done about this?--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There must be a bot that can fix this .... I agree with the move as i said before - we just need to fix the links that's all.Moxy (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change too. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It should've been moved to New Democratic Party of Canada, per the articles Conservative Party of Canada & Liberal Party of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay has a good point. Pardon the alliteration. Trackratte (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And after all the work our illustrious meteorologist has put into changing it...will leave a note on his talk page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done just under a hundred and there are still 2700+ to go. It don't really matter where the article ends up as New Democratic Party of Canada is a redirect to New Democratic Party (Canada) so the ones I changed will redirect to the correct place in the end. I'm not sure that a bot can be used to fix it either as not every link to New Democratic Party can be changed to either of the preferred titles, see Violence against LGBT people. Anyway I'll stop for now until the final target is sorted. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the party was officially named the "New Democratic Party of Canada". On its English website, it routinely refers to the party as "Canada's New Democratic Party". I based the name on the naming procedures of other articles with the same title such as New Democratic Party (New Zealand) However upon looking at the website it does indicate the party is named the New Democratic Party of Canada, therefore I endorse it being renamed "New Democratic Party of Canada", as this is the case with the provincial NDPs, like the New Democratic Party of Ontario for instance. Those that have recently been renamed "New Democratic Party (Canada)" can be linked to arrive at "New Democratic Party of Canada".--R-41 (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, this problem was going to come up one way or another, because there is more than one New Democratic Party in the world, the person who created the article did not have the foresight to recognize it. If you want a rational systematic way of reducing the numbers, I suggest starting by going through articles specifically about the party and its leaders and members. Second, go through articles on elections. Third, go through articles on politics and government in Canada. Fourth, go through articles on international politics and government that involve the party, such as the Socialist International article. I will begin by going through the elections articles and Socialist International article.--R-41 (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well given this discussion and the fact that it is -30 C outside I took the liberty of moving the page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just thought does anybody know where the templates are that use NDP? AWB isn't picking them up. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And now I see we have Category:New Democratic Party and Category:New Democratic Party of Canada. I think we really only need one. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The federal party is simply "New Democratic Party", the overall organization is "New Democratic Party of Canada". I thought we just got this cleared up, and all of the articles moved the other way. 117Avenue (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The constitution of the party calls it the "New Democratic Party of Canada" - you can access a pdf version of the constitution of the party on its website. On its website is referred to as both "Canada's NDP" and the "New Democratic Party of Canada". The NDP english language website on the bottom left corner currently says: "© 2012 New Democratic Party of Canada, all rights reserved. Paid for and authorized by the registered agent of Canada's NDP." The provincial parties are subunits of the federal party, the NDP of Quebec exited the federal party, but other than that they are subunits of the federal one that are required to not have principles that violate those of the federal party. I see no evidence of some overarching phantom party that is neither federal nor provincial but includes both, such does not exist in the party's constitution.--R-41 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, except that you are using the term "party" and not "organization". The organization's name is "New Democratic Party of Canada", that is why you are finding it on their constitution and copyright statement. Articles related to the organization can be found in Category:New Democratic Party of Canada. They have a federal political party, that is registered with Elections Canada as "New Democratic Party", New Democratic Party is the article on this. The ten provincial parties are subunits of the organization. Elections Canada, and its counterparts in the provinces and Yukon, require that an organization or association be organized legally and have a constitution, before the organization or association can register a political party. The elections agency does not require that the registered name of the party, match that of the organization or association. For an association with three names, see the lead sentence of Wildrose Party. For the discussion on the categorization of NDP articles see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 22. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you advocating making an article about the NDP organization separate from the federal political party? If so, we'll have to start talking about what good disambiguators for the two will be. However, I'm don't see any need for a separate article right now. If we're keeping one article, and the federal party is not the primary global use of "New Democratic Party", then I think "New Democratic Party of Canada" is the best disambiguation for the federal branch. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all, the main article and History of the New Democratic Party is enough. 117Avenue (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Unannounced new area for this project (wikiproject Canada)?

How many participants here are aware of this new section: Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Vital Canadian Articles? where was it announced? I am curious to find out how we are supposed to find out about such new areas and how we can have input into the development Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Resolute announced it on October 13th. See Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 17#Vital Canadian articles. PKT(alk) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The new page can be seen from Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Tab header at the top of all the project pages that are in use. Also on navboxes like Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Navigation and {{Canadian quick links}}. It is also on the main project page listed with all the other pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada#Project organization and collaborators.Moxy (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On top of all that, a link was added to the notice board at WP:CANBOARD just in case anyone missed everything else noted above. Ottawahitech, not only were there clearly lots of opportunities in this case to find out about this new page, the invitation for everyone to contribute was made several times. I am not sure how this was "unannounced". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I got an answer to two of my questions:

• Where was it announced? - here on October 13
• How many participants here are aware of it - at least four (counting myself)

What I still have not figured out and would like to is:

• how we can have input into it

I asked on the talok page how to enter Nortel and the answer I got was "be bold" so I was, but Nortel is still not on the list? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, this was not meant to be posted. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton

Hi gang - I stumbled across List of buildings and structures in Metro Moncton today, and I'm not sure what to do with it. It has become a haphazard, incomplete collection of stuff. I started the AfD process and reverted my edit, because while I personally don't think it has the potential to become a useful list, I do note that there are other Lists of buildings and structures in places like Dallas, Hong Kong, Singapore and Missoula, Montana(??), among others.

Thoughts? PKT(alk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this appears to have been moved from List of buildings in Moncton in February. It's true that a list of this type would be valid if it were properly sourced and structured, this particular list isn't very good as currently constituted. Not to say that those other lists are really a whole lot better — but the Missoula list, if nothing else, is at least able to contain subsections for buildings that happen to be listed in particular "historic building" registers, which makes it more useful than this one is. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary of Canadian Biography Articles

If anyone is looking for some Canadian historical biography content in their editing, I would encourage them to visit the Dictionary of Canadian Biography listings at DCB Initiative. There are lots of new articles to be created and stubs to be expanded and you start with one good source. Any suggestions as to creating awareness of this site among editors would be greatly appreciated. --Stormbay (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Popular page statistics for Wikiprojects

I was visiting the village pump technical (has it suddenly become a lot more popular - or is it only me?) and saw this discussion. Do we have such a page for this wikiproject, and if so where is it? thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We do. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Popular pages. The page is linked in the expandable "all project pages" header on the side bar navigation template. Cheers! Resolute 14:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Answers to copyright issue

So after many months of delay, I finally received the response today. I'll allow others to decipher and figure out some next steps (life is topsy turvy for me at the moment and I'm on a bit of a break), but this does validate that crown copyright was not affected by the URAA, so far as the copyright office of the Government of Canada is concerned.

---

Hello Mr. O’Neil,

To begin, I would like to apologize for the length of time it took to respond to your request and subsequent queries in this regard.

If I understand correctly, you originally contacted our office in order to be granted a blanket permission, or some alternative authorization whereby you would be able to reproduce/republish photos or archival material that is still subject to Crown Copyright.

As you are aware, your request and query consist of many questions. I will do my best to answer them accordingly. Please note that my answers and confirmations in this regard may not be in the order you first addressed them. For a matter of convenience, the issues at hand are set forth hereunder.

• Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA) and its applicability to copyright period of Crown owned material
• Has Canada renewed the copyright of images in through the 2030s
• Does the Crown copyright protection start upon the date of creation or publishing date
• United Kingdom and its public domain agreement
• United States and its public domain upon creation
• Russia and its public domain agreement
• Non-commercial republishing versus commercial republishing
• The possibility of obtaining a blanket permission or an alternative for the republishing/reproduction of photos or archived material that is still subject to Crown protection

Before I proceed any further, I wish to confirm that the information I am about to provide you with is based on the subject matter of photos only. Although you also make mention of wanting to use archived materials, I cannot concretely address this matter, as the duration of some Crown copyright material varies. Should you wish for me to address Crown copyright periods for material other than photos, please provide me with the exact nature of such material.

URAA and its applicability to copyright period of Crown owned material

The URAA resulted in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which Canada in one of its members. Canada must therefore comply and abide by the obligations set out in any international trade agreements that are overseen by the WTO. Among one of these international trade agreements, one can find the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, otherwise known as the TRIPs Agreement.

Article 12 of the TRIPs Agreement deals with the period of copyright protection. The TRIPs Agreement is applicable to photographic works through its incorporation of the Berne Convention, in which it is stated that the copyright protection lasts for a minimum of 25 years. However, as brought forth in sub-article (6) of Article 7 – Term of Protection of the Berne Convention, “The Countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraphs”. Please visit: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/index.jsp for additional information. Canada being part of the Union, it can therefore apply Article 7 of the Berne Convention. Subsequently, the period of Crown copyright is effective as of the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following that calendar year. Please see section 12 of the Canadian Copyright Act, at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html.

Has Canada renewed the copyright of images in through the 2030s

Our conclusion is that Canada’s membership in the WTO has not occasioned a reset of the clock that ticks for 50 years until expiry of the copyright in its photos.

Does the Crown copyright protection of its photographs start upon the date of creation or publishing date of the photograph

Our understanding regarding this matter, is that protection of Crown photographs is effective upon the making of the photo as opposed to the first publishing date. In the case that you have brought forth, this means that any archived photos you would like to republish are subject to Crown copyright protection as of the date of creation of the photo.

United Kingdom and its public domain agreement

The Government of Canada does not have a public domain agreements, and from what we understand, there are no plans for Canada to conclude such agreements in the near future.

United States and its public domain upon creation

Canada copyright legislation does not allow for this. Canada can most certainly consider granting permission for republishing purposes, but it does not place its information into the public domain. There are no plans to do so in the near future. In fact, Canada grants many permissions for republishing on a daily basis.

Russia and its public domain agreement

The Government of Canada does not have public domain agreements, and from what we understand, there are no plans for Canada to conclude such agreements in the near future.

Non-commercial republishing versus commercial republishing

Requests for non-commercial republishing of Government of Canada material is not a requirement. However, commercial republishing necessitates permission. Although we appreciate your concerns regarding GC material being created by Canadian citizen tax dollars, we are bound by Government of Canada policies. Our office is not in the position of changing GC policies.

The possibility of obtaining a blanket permission or an alternative for the republishing/reproduction of photos or archived material that is still subject to Crown copyright protection

The Government of Canada (GC) does not issue blanket permissions. However, it does issue alternative republishing agreements such as licensing agreements. In these agreements, the GC will grant rights for the republishing of Crown works whereby the rights granted are subject to certain terms and conditions of use. In many cases, we are looking at agreements that deal with a commercial republishing in which the persons end-product consists mainly of GC owned material. The Government of Canada will also issue licensing agreements whereby the material is being translated or revised, and this in order to comply with moral rights of the author. In these cases, permission must be secured with GC as owner of the material, as well as with the author, as owner of the message that is set forth in the material. We want to ensure that the original essence of the message, whether dealing with text, images, tables etc., is not changed to the point that the original message is misconstrued.

I trust that the information set forth in this E-mail is useful to you and that we have answered your questions.

To conclude, in order for our office to further assist you in your request for an alternative agreement to republishing GC material, can you please provide me with a list of the photos you wish to republish. If the extent of this list is too long, can you provide me with a link or resource whereby we can find these materials. I suspect you might be finding some of these in the Library and Archives Canada bank.

Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you wish to further discuss.

Sincerely,

Christine Jetté Chef d'équipe, Octroi de licences | Team Leader, Licensing Droit d'auteur de la Couronne et octroi de licences | Crown Copyright and Licensing Programme d'éditions | Publishing Program Direction générale des services intégrés | Integrated Services Branch Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada | Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa, Ontario | Ottawa ON K1A 0S5

--- Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there is a contradiction in the start date of copyright. I one question, Christine notes copyright protection is the year of first publication, plus 50. In a later answer, she says that the copyright term begins at creation. Based on how the law is worded, I would take the former answer as accurate, and that is what we already go by: publication date. The note that URAA does not impact the expiry of CC in Canada is good to know, but I think this still leaves the copyright status of an image in the United States (and elsewhere) undetermined. It is thus still quite possible that a government crated image could be PD in Canada, but still copyrighted in the US. Resolute 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think what they are saying is that the signing of the URAA does not reset any countdown that was explicitly set by the copyright holder. This is the office in charge of the copyright, so the US has no say at all - these are the copyright holders that would pursue an infringement case. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely missed this when it was posted. Thanks for sharing the response, Floydian.

This response does not do what we need it to do. While it's nice of them to have responded in detail, it's clear (from the second paragraph onwards) that they did not understand the question. She seems to think it's about a blanket permission for crown copyright images.

She also acknowledged that once copyright expires in Canada, a photo is public domain in Canada. But, of course, that was never the issue. This has nothing to do with the U.S. "having a say", but rather the fact that copyright would persist in other parts of the world, including the U.S. All this response tells us is that they do not think international treaties extend the 50 year crown copyright period, which also is not the issue. What we need is confirmation, as we have with U.K. crown copyright, that the government has no intention of asserting copyright in other countries once crown copyright has expired in Canada.

This is a worthwhile effort, Floydian, and I am glad you have pursued it. Would you mind if I took a crack at drafting a reply. I'd like to try getting them on the right track. I'd post it here for comment and advice before it was sent.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Canada and their being right wing or centre-right

There has been a long running battle over how to characterize the party on the left-right scale. Some recent activity centres around indivdual judgment of the CPC government's actions and applying their own conclusions, which is obviously not allowed. However, the current sources justifying the centre-right claim are used the same way. The Reuters story does not make a claim on the left-right scale, while I find the Political Compass link highly dubious - and have tagged it as such. Frankly, I think there is a huge bias applied to that graph, but regardless of that, I can't see how it is considered a reliable source. What we need, I think, is some good RS links that can offer a definitive answer. Do any politically minded editors have ideas on good sources? Resolute 03:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There's many sources saying that it's left wing, but then they're American sources... -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I have seen written (but I don't have sources in front of me) is that the PC party was centre-right. However the new Conservative party is right. People tend to meld the two parties together in their mind and think of them as the same thing, but really they are two different parties. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

files up for deletion

image:City of Charlottetown crest.png and image:Canadian Coast Guard College.png have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The latter image, I think, cannot be saved. But thank you for the notification! Resolute 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Paula Todd

I recently cleaned up the mess of a page at Paula Todd. Since 2006, a number of new editors (see the redlinked names, which have peculiar similarities) periodically appear at that article and add unproved claims, cleanse the article, and generally muck it up. (And all of them excise mention of Steve Paikin as her co-host for Studio 2 for some reason.) Can some of you add this article to your watchlist? Thanks... Mindmatrix 15:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Added. Resolute 16:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian papers planning to put up paywalls in 2013 - a threat to Wikipedia?

If the papers carry out this threat - where will we get material to update Canadian Wikipedia articles with? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's one newspaper and is rarely seen outside Ontario. Is it used that much as a source that paywall is going to cause problems. There is the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail and the National Post all seem to have material available without payment. The last stuff I looked at to update an article didn't even involve a newspaper but government sources. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• @CambridgeBayWeather, I just started updating Paywall and the ref I posted says that it is not only The Star. I believe the Globe and Mail has already erected a paywall and Postmedia Network (National Post +) will soon too (or is it the other way around?) Ottawahitech (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no shortage of other sources. Moreover, if you have access to the Star or any other paywalled publication, you can still use your offline or subscription access to cite your changes. As it is, I already extensively use paywalled content, including the Star's archives and Highbeam. Plus I get free access to the last 30 days of most of Canada's newspapers through my library. Resolute 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Will the shift to subscribers over advertising for income work in the long run for newspapers. Is this helping the New york times - still to early to tell?? But I would not invest.Moxy (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Moxy, thanx nice graph. I wish it would tell us the breakdown between print and online ad revenue. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Resolute, but what about readers of Wikipedia? Especially those who are located outside Canada who cannot subscribe to the papers? Also, what about casual Wiki-editors? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• No different than sourcing to books and other off-line publications. One of the unique aspects of the New York Times paywall is that it gives you a couple of links free per day, then forces you to pay if you want more. Postmedia (The National Post, Calgary Herald, Vancouver Sun, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, et al) are looking to emulate the model. It will limit some editors and will prevent some readers from independently verifying sources, but that is out of our control. Wikipedia seeks to bring free knowledge, but the source of our knowledge isn't always free. Resolute 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff that I have added a newspaper source to use a paywall, News/North, but as I was already buying the paper it's not that big a deal. I suspect that there are some other editors who will have subscriptions to other newspapers. As I pointed out before there is non-print media that can be used as well. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Most big- and medium-sized city libraries have this product: CanadianNewsstand, as do most universities. If your library has the "complete" version, you're golden for a lot of Canadian papers. Can be accessed from home through the library's online catalog. The Interior (Talk) 05:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I also have a good amount of Canadian Newspapers availeble through my library as well, the CanadianNewstand one as well as the Globe and Mail's online archives. – Connormah (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have created a new category Category:Websites utilizing paywalls to help wikipedia track websites that put up a paywall. I hope others will help populate this category (and that it will not face deletion like the previous similar categroy Category:Read online by subscription) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for helping with the populating of this category. Don't forget to also add text to the article mentioning that the publication uses a paywall (otherwise someone may remove the "unsupported" category). Ottawahitech (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• It's important to remember here that there is no requirement that Wikipedia's sources be publicly accessible on the web. We certainly like to link to an accessible web version if possible, but we don't have to. We can cite non-web sources (such as print publications, books, etc.), so if a newspaper goes paywall, you can still use it as a source if you have the ability to read it; just cite it as if it were a print article without a weblink. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Bearcat, here is the problem: Yes, perhaps enough editors have access to print sources(?), but this certainly cannot be said for many consumers. Since consumers require access to sources to gauge an article's reliability - this can be major drawback for using wikipedia as a public source of knowledge. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require that every user has immediate access to the sources for verifiability purposes. If we did, we wouldn't be able to reference stuff to books, or to old back issues of magazine or newspaper print editions that predate the widespread publication of print content to the web, or to stuff that's archived in a news retrieval database like Lexis-Nexis or Highbeam — because those can't be instantly accessed by every single Wikipedia reader on earth either. Rather, we require only that it be possible for some users to access them. A source needs to exist, certainly, but its availability does not need to be instantaneous or universal. Think of it like writing an essay in university — you need to properly cite your sources so that the professor can find them if needed, certainly, but you don't need to hand in your essay with a wheelbarrow stacked with physical copies of each and every individual book you read.

There are always other ways to verify the source. For example, if you have a question about a source citation but don't have direct access to it, you can go to the library to track down the book or pull out the relevant microfilm, or you can ask for assistance here because somebody will have access to the relevant site or database, or might actually have a copy of the book in their possession, and on and so forth. And that's not to mention that there are ways out there to bypass or "smash" paywalls without actually paying — not that I'm actively encouraging such activity, of course, but it is possible. We don't require that every user has perfectly equal instant access to the source; we only require that it's possible for somebody to access it. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require readers have access to the sources

Is this not going to become an issue for users of Wikipedia when many paywalls go up? Let's face it a lot of the material here is questionable (see this for example) and the only way to keep people coming is to let them check the sources for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs)

Nope. Wikipedia itself says don't blindly trust it in the disclaimers. Also, readers don't usually check the sources. That is our problem as editors. Resolute 15:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Resolute, you say readers don't usually check the sources. Is this your personal observation, or is it based on some formal statistics? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Observational, and therefore obviously subjective. And to partially answer your question to Bearcat below, I don't think there are specific statistics of that type at present. But for one example, my most recent GA is Joe Mullen. Of its 60 citations, 16 are offline and 13 are behind paywalls. Virtually half of the citations are not available to a reader who does not have a library of media guides, books and access to Highbeam like I have. Resolute 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that you'll find that references are even more skewed toward offline and paywalled content for medical and scientific topics (while the number is steadily increasing, there are still relatively few top-tier scientific journals that offer unfettered free access), and for people or events whose notability predates widespread near-universal access to broadband internet in the developed world. To take the first examples that come to mind, look at the references used in basal cell carcinoma (in the first category) or World War II (from the latter category).

I also suspect, but cannot prove, that articles tend to accumulate more offline and paywalled sources as they expand and improve. Initial efforts at writing an article are often supported by fastest-to-find and quickest-to-add sources gleaned from Google searches and other online outlets; it's only as articles mature and subject matter experts have time to really sink their teeth in that we see a leavening with more scholarly, specialized, or technical references provided by editors who know the deep literature on a given topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That is very true. Many of the articles I expand are sourced only to a few online places when I encounter them. The first step I always take on a major expansion is to pull out the right books in my library (if hockey), or get the right books from the library (if Canadiana). I've also got four binders of newspaper articles printed from microfilm for various projects. There are very few topics that can be treated in depth without significant use of offline sources. Resolute 16:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as another example I'm familiar with off the top of my head, former Sudbury mayor Maurice Lamoureux has 15 footnotes in his article, one of which encompasses two separate references rather than one, for a total of 16 distinct citations — and none of them are actually online, as User:CJCurrie pulled every last one of them out of a news retrieval database. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• This will be no different than off-line sources, i.e. references taken from books and magazines. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Again, you seem to be missing the rather critical point that a lot of Wikipedia content is already referenced to books, print-only newspaper and magazine coverage and other content that is already not immediately available on the web, and thus already not immediately available to every single Wikipedia user with a yen for spotchecking references. So paywalling simply does not present any new problems that we don't already have with plenty of other sources that we're already using. Bearcat (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Bearcat,you say that a lot of Wikipedia content is already referenced to books, etc. - just wondering if there are statistics with breakdown of wiki-reference types? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SNC, again

Another topic that was discussed here briefly. Anyway as those who live in Canada probably know the former CEO of this international construction company has been arrested on charges of fraud 3 days ago. I am just curious why no one has added any information either to the SNC Lavalin article to to the Pierre Duhaime one? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This brings up again that SNC Lavalin scandal is about one out of many scandals at SNC Lavalin, and should probably be renamed... -- 65.94.77.181 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason you haven't added that information to the article. My apologies if this appears snarky, but there are many reasons why this is the case, usually involving editor interest and time constraints. Mindmatrix 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Mindmatrix, no it is not snarky at all, it is a fact IMO. We don't have enough editors to do the enormous amount of work that is required around here. The question is how can we retain more editors? Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Okanagan

Wikipedia:WikiProject Okanagan is a new WikiProject.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks more like WikiProject Grey's Anatomy to me. Resolute 00:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - a Wikiproject for those who want to works on articles relating both to the B.C. interior and the top medical drama on U.S. television. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Considering the tumbleweeds at WikiProject BC, it would be great if energies were directed there. The Interior (Talk) 00:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And thereby totally redundant. Hwy43 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll go say hi to TBrandley. The Interior (Talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Municipal political parties

I've been working on Template:Canadian party colour, and I've noticed that there are at least 50 templates for municipal-level parties for Vancouver, Edmonton, and Montreal (for example, here, here, here, and here). Does anyone know how official these parties are and whether I should add municipal party jurisdictions to the Canada template? Are those parties officially registered with the cities? Are they registered with the provincial elections office to run in any city in the province? Are they unofficial designations claimed by the candidates? Are they unofficial endorsements by the parties? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the articles on the Edmonton elections, it doesn't appear that they were officially recognized, since some decided to remain unaffiliated. But why does it matter? Can't you add them to the template anyways? I suggest using a three letter abbreviation for the jurisdiction abbreviation, like the ones you would see watching a sports game. 117Avenue (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Montreal has official parties, and has had them for decades, and several suburbs current and former, have had municipal parties. The corruption scandal in Montreal-area shows these parties in the news. These are not informal parties, they raise money for party coffers, have fundraisers, party whips, etc. (and are under investigation for corruption) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the municipal parties to templates. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Map of Laura Secord's walk: Any volunteers?

Is there anyone here who can make maps and would like to make one of Laura Secord's 1813 walk? Or is there anyone who knows of a free map that is also legible that could be used? I'm trying to bring the Laura Secord article up to FA by the 200th anniversary of her walk in June 2013, and I think a good map would be a big plus to have. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember from school (in the 1980s) the path(s) taken is pure speculation - guess work like her clothing.Moxy (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

aboriginal Canadians TF?

I was wondering if we should create a Amerind, Non-Status, Status, First Nations, Metis, Inuit task force joint between WPCANADA and WP:NORTHAMNATIVE. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We could - however as I am sure your fully aware of - many nations and there peoples are in both Canada and the United States - thus a joint project (the current format) would seem more cohesive for the topic over all I believe.Moxy (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

English and French school categories

FYI, there's a proposal afoot to make ESL/EFL-school categories to be renamed to "English language schools", and similarly for French. Since this seems to impact Canada out of most English-speaking countries, I thought I'd let you know. This is currently at WP:CFDALL Speedy Renaming section.

70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid

FYI, Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid is under discussion at WT:MILHIST -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I came here to post a note and someone has already. The article is in dire need of expansion IMHO. I don't have a decent library nearby an can't seem to find much info on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Canada

Could we get some more opinions at Template talk:WikiProject Canada#Edit request on 21 December 2012.Moxy (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OKANAGAN

Please see Template talk:Canada#Edit request on 21 December 2012. TBrandley 17:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Which discussion from 2004/05 at the above link are you requesting us to look at? Hwy43 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Disregard. I'm guessing you meant to point to Template talk:WikiProject Canada#Edit request on 21 December 2012, which Moxy already posted in the thread above. Hwy43 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Track and field athletes

Someone created Category:Canadian athletes a few days ago, and is now requesting that the longstanding Category:Canadian track and field athletes be replaced by it. See the CFD discussion. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for a undelete to be processed for the category talk page. Someone deleted Category talk: Canadian track and field athletes for the reason that the category did not exist, but as it is a blue link with years of history, it clearly does. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The talk page has been undeleted -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• @65.92.180.225, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. In my experience (and opinion) wp:CfD is one of the most disfunctional areas of wikipedia. The discussion you pointed us to is a result (I think but have not had the time to invesstigate thoroughly) of inconsistent category deletions/merge that happened sometime in the past? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • AFAICT, some years ago, some British editors decided to delete "track and field" since it was obvious to them that "athlete" only meant the track and field kind, so went about standardizing it to being without. This was not popular with North Americans, so our categories retained the older usage. Then a few years after that, it was pointed out that athlete was just too confusing, so the Olympics and Paralympics categories became "athlete (track and field)" just to be clear of what is what, and that they weren't being categories for all Olympic competitors, just T&F ones... Ofcourse, the push for plain "athlete" seems to have happened several times using various processes (like the current undiscussed moves and deletions surrounding the US categories) Now the current nominator is saying that because racewalking isn't track or field, the usage is wrong, but then if you call it plain "athlete" the entire thing should be merged into sportspeople with no distinction in American and Canadian English. However, racewalking is placed under track-and-field, as is steeplechase and marathon, usually in common usage. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Head of state

I notice there's a Australian head of state dispute (Australian head of state redirects to it)... with the issues presented there, it seems that we should also have such an article, since it's been a topic of discussion in Canada for decades as well. Canadian head of state dispute/Canadian head of state would be good articles to have. -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Lucky for us in Canada this can of worms has not been opened to the same extent - pls see this CBC News video at 13:30 into the segment.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That article was created by an editor who is against the Australian monarch being recognized as Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Athletics in Canada

Following the previous athletes in Canada thing, I found this category, that was created just now Category:Athletics in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that violates Canadian English usage. I have since nominated for deletion as a violation of WP:ENGVAR -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Decade of Darkness

FYI, there's an article called "Decade of Darkness" about the time when the LPC put Canada's financial house in order. It has multiple cleanup tags on it, and a notice at WT:MILHIST about it. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Western Front- Flanders

Also, at WT:MILHIST there's a notice about The Western Front- Flanders, another article related to Canadian military. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the Youth Criminal Justice Act apply to Canadian articles?

An anonymous editor recently added a then 12-year old convicted murderer to Medicine Hat's notable residents section. The editor didn't use the person's name, but used the person's initials in both the edit and the edit summary. I've reverted it as I'm not certain where Wikipedia stands on publication bans of Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act. I'm hoping someone with knowledge in this area can advise if this is or is not allowed, and explain the reasoning in case the anonymous editor decides to re-add. Hwy43 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've provided notice of this discussion to the Canadian law WikiProject to assist. Hwy43 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is covered by WP:BLPNAME. 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on whether that edit should be redacted just to stay on the safe side? – Connormah (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by United States law, specifically that of the state of Florida. It is under no obligation to follow Canadian laws. However, editors within Canada do fall under the jurisdiction of our laws. However, I question whether the girl's name has even been released by reliable sources. I haven't followed that case closely, but I don't recall the media releasing her name. Resolute 15:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember vividly that the media released the name of the missing daughter when the news of the crime broke before she became a suspect. It remains to be seen if the name on the referenced website is accurate however (given name anyway). Hwy43 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for Metrotown neighbourhood (Burnaby, BC)

(Cross-posted from Talk:Burnaby and WT:VANCOUVER)

I've been working on a draft for the Metrotown neighbourhood in Burnaby, BC at my sandbox, and I think it's almost ready for launch. There are a few things that I think need to be discussed (in particular the article title), so please head over to the talk page for the current Metrotown article to share your thoughts.

P.S. not sure if this is the right venue for this, but I didn't know how many people would see it at Talk:Burnaby and WT:VANCOUVER, so I figured I'd post here anyway. - Hinto (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nortel, again

A month or so ago I dropped a note here about the deletion of the Nortel wikiproject. I am here now to report that the deletion drive continues with one of the wikiproj delete participants taking 5 Nortel product articles to deletion. At the time there was quite a lively discussion here on the topic. Is this update also of interest to anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you thought of making a http://nortel.wikia.com and exporting the nortel pages there, to be sure they're around? -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• @70.24.250.110, Interesting idea! I know nothing about wika.com but this is what it says here:

"Wikia operates the world’s largest network of collaboratively published video game, entertainment, and lifestyle content on the web through a trusted and customizable platform designed to help people share what they know and love."

So (thinking aloud), is this the right venue for Nortel?How long will it survive there? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The various wikis on Wikia cover multitudes of subjects, not all of them lifestyle/entertainment. There's several electronics, computing, etc wikis on it (such as http://computer.wikia.com) and wikis on companies as well (such as http://apple.wikia.com). Wikia was founded by Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia), and several wikis there started as exports from Wikipedia (such as having more articles on details that would end up at AFD here).

There's even a wiki for MediaWiki templates (http://templates.wikia.com) and for Javascript for MediaWiki (http://dev.wikia.com) and a scratchpad wiki (http://test.wikia.com ; if you don't like http://test.wikipedia.org) or the Monobook MediaWiki skin (if you still use that... http://monobook.wikia.com). If you do found a new wiki there, you'll need to import the template compatibility pack (Wikia's basic template load on new wiki creation are rather spare)

And ofcourse the Canada wiki http://canada.wikia.com or the Ottawa wiki http://ottawa.wikia.com and Quebec province wiki http://quebec.wikia.com

-- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• @70.24.250.110, Thanks for your continued guidance. I am leary about moving (again) to a new environment which probably means learning a new language (I don't see categories at wikia?), new people, new environment, in other words lots of new that will require a long learning curve? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• there's nothing new to learn there. There are categories, they run MediaWiki version 1.19 (Wikipedia runs 1.21) categories were introduced somewhere around 1.07, IIRC. Turn off Visual Editor in your preferences, and turn off the Category Tool. If you choose to use the Monobook Skin, it will look like an older version of Wikipedia as well. (Wikipedia currently uses the Vector skin, but a few years ago, it used Monobook, when the searchbox was on the side, instead of the top.) Just use the "create a new wiki" tool (after creating an account), and you become a bureaucrat&administrator of your wiki. Then just Special:Export the page from Wikipedia and Special:Import it to your wiki. -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, you need to use http://nortel.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Import to import the page you exported from Wikipedia (pasting it doesn't work) If you don't want to use Export/Import, you can always place on the talk page, attribution notices for the edits from Wikipedia (there's a template for that http://nortel.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia and http://templates.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Wikipedia-deleted ) -- 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

My first impressions of Wikia

I finally managed to import one article from Wikipedia to http://nortel.wikia.com/wiki/Nortel_Wiki but two others that I thought I imported the same way have disappeared (I think). I am still confused about everthing, for example I do not see the usual tabs like Talk, History, Edit etc. and have no idea what an admin is or does. I have received a lot of help there which makes me feel even more incompetent than I normally feel around here, (but I have to keep reminding myself that I have been here a lot longer)… Ottawahitech (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You should go to preferences and switch your skin to "monobook", it will look like Wikipedia (well, old wikipedia) If you turn off visual editor, then the editor will look like wikipedia's. If you turn off the category tool, then categories will appear like they do on wikipedia when editing a page.

The default skin on wikia is "Oasis", which places history in a menu under edit, and talk is a bubble button (unless you turn on "comments" from the administration menu, in which case, it disappears) If you turn off "message wall", your user talk page turns back to normal wikipedia-like thing, instead of the current facebook-like thing. (but all messages are sequestered in each function, so message recorded under message wall mode won't appear if you turn it off and vice versa) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Canadian articles

I rarely see any Canadians (whom I recognize) in any of the deletion nominations of Canadian articles. This concerns me because a lot of historic stuff related to Nortel has been recently deleted and more is on the chopping block. Strange thing is that there is a fair amount of participation from non-Canadians.

I wonder if anyone here would care to articulate why this is. I promise to listen and not judge. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't see me on the deletion discussions of Nortel-related articles because they are of absolutely no interest to me. What us members of the Canadian WikiProject have in common is an interest in Canada as a whole. For many, this is where the commonalities end. Frankly, it appears no member presently within the WikiProject shares the same interest as you. Other than that, I echo Bearcat's comments below at the other discussion you initiated. Hwy43 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't participated in the Nortel-related discussions (so far) because I have no knowledge of the subject matter, and therefore no opinion as to their notability. For example, I have no knowledge of the Protel language and therefore no way to know how widely-used it may have been. PKT(alk) 01:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oak Bay Sea Rescue

Note, at WT:SHIPS there is a notice about Oak Bay Sea Rescue -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Oak Bay Sea Rescue is also included in the deletion discussions transcluded (and hidden) in this wiki-project. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone here participate in deletion talks?

This talk page is visited over 1000 times a month. So I was just wondering if anyone who follows this talk page ever participates in Canadian deletion talks (scroll down a page to see the actual list}? I know this is holiday season and many are busy with offline activities. However, deletion discussions are closed within seven days, even if only a couple of people have participated in the discussion and wikipeia may be losing a lot of Canadian content that does not deserve this treatment. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

People here participate quite extensively in deletion discussions when they have something to contribute, yes. Based on what's on there right now, however, I suspect that you're overpersonalizing discussions that fall within your particular range of interests into "attacks on Canadian topics", because while it's true that some of the Nortel-related articles you've been commenting on might be salvageable with significant improvements, not one of them even comes close to being as critical to the scope of WikiProject Canada as you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• @ Bearcat, I may have what many Canadian editors consider to be odd interests, but how does that justify the deletion of articles that scores of editors, many of whom are no longer around, have contributed to over many years? I thought this project was here to support Canadians, no? I myself try to contribute to many articles that I do not necessarily have an overwhelming interest in, and, by the way, I have contributed little, if any, to many of the current batch of Nortel articles up for deletion right now (such as Protel, Wellfleet Communications , List of Microsoft–Nortel Innovative Communications Alliance products + recently deleted with little comment Nortel Communication Server 2100 and Nortel Secure Network Access). I also I stopped trying to defend those articles at deletion discussions since it seems my participation draws the attention of even more editors who see no value in any articles connected to Nortel.

I still believe that others’ contributions should be better protected if we want to retain editors at Wikipedia(do we?), and, having said all this – thanks for being brutally honest – much better than receiving the usual silent treatment. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This WikiProject is here to support the Canadian articles not Canadians. And supporting doesn't mean keeping everything. Sometimes it means deleting articles that shouldn't exist. Looking at the list of articles you have there. Most of them don't seem of much interest to Canadians anyway. List of products of a company that at one point was Canadian doesn't exactly make them critical articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Djsasso, products? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles you have been complaining about over the last few months have been products of a company. For example one of the pages you list above is List of Microsoft–Nortel Innovative Communications Alliance products. Other articles you have mentioned in the past have been individual product articles. Not every article was a product of course but a lot of them have been. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't, for the record, say that the content was inherently invalid or that your interests were "odd"; the technology industry ain't that odd a topic of interest. I merely said that they don't constitute a content crisis for this WikiProject. Whether the articles should properly be kept or deleted is a perfectly valid discussion to have — it's just not a particularly urgent emergency in the context of WikiProject Canada. Simply put, you'd be much better off soliciting assistance and input from more directly relevant WikiProjects, where the participants are more likely to share the necessary interests and expertise and thus more likely to have useful input. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)