Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 20

< Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Bearcat in topic Myrna Lorrie or Don Grashey?


Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Request for assessment

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added the article The Next Step (2013 TV series) to this project as the TV show was filmed in Toronto. Can you please assess the article? Thanks. CanadianDude1 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Draft" rating

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class Canada-related articles‎, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Frost quake

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the events in the Maritimes, the article on cryoseism seems to need updating, especially the map that only shows the United States -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Order of Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo, is Membership of the Order of Canada considered to give WP:Notability? There's a discussion at Talk:John H. C. McGreevy. PamD 21:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Closure of Canadian science libraries

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It has been reported that some materials from closed Canadian science libraries would be digitized upon request.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And it has also been reported (in those same articles) that since that (false) promise, they have been dumped in landfills, burned, or taken by private research companies. Sure, would have been nice to get them all into WikiSource, but when the country's major university and public libraries weren't even asked if they'd like them, it's pie-in-the-sky if you're suggesting that they be brought into Wikipedia. They're already gone, poof; into the dump, turned to ashes, or coopted by companies who were given the tip-off that they could be gotten for nothing and are now out of public reach. Including Wikipedia's. Your point in posting this was...??Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
PS, I raised this for inclusion in the respective article at Talk:Environmental policy of the Harper government but I do not keep that watchlisted so am not sure who has added anything, if anything, so far. Since you have posted this on three different WikiProjects, might I suggest that any further discussion take place at that one spot?Skookum1 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Prime Minister

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I see that User:Tommy Douglas has changed Template:Infobox Prime Minister in alot of the PM articles to Template:Infobox officeholder that is what Infobox Prime Minister redirects to....so should we just delete Template:Infobox Prime Minister at this point after all are done? -- Moxy (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The people that work to condense our templates into as few inflexibile meta-templates as possible usually take care of the deletion requests, if feasible. Sometimes they need to be kept to retain edit histories though. I wouldn't worry about this too much. Resolute 20:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this a good change? User:Tommy Douglas seems to have done this without any prior discussion. Let's see what others have to say about the change before deleting the template. Ground Zero | t 22:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you've reverted him, he's gone back to his IP hopping ways, and has been adding non-free images to pages like List of premiers of Ontario, List of premiers of New Brunswick, Ontario general election, 1943, List of premiers of Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick general election, 1987. I'm signing off this weekend, so these pages need to be better patrolled. 117Avenue (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CFL USA

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI CFL USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:CFL USA -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hierarchical organization of Canadian cities and towns

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I'm having a tough time organizing locations in Canada by hierarchy. For example, in the Niagara Falls, Ontario article, there is a list of "communities", as well as a list of "neighbourhoods". I'm not sure what the difference is? I looked at Canadian Geographic Names but it wasn't much help. In the United States it's easy. Most states have counties, and everything is listed on GNIS. Is there some master GNIS-type list for Canada that says, "this is X City, and these are all the communities within it"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

At Niagara Falls, Ontario, at least four of the six "communities" are former municipalities. Crowland and Silvertown may be former municipalities as well. If they are, I suggest that sub-heading be renamed "Former municipalities".

Hierarchies vary by province, territory and municipality, so a national list accurately reflecting each hierarchy would be tough to come by. At the provincial and territorial levels, I rely on provincial and territorial sources. Hwy43 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In BC Names, you will find some places e.g. Fleetwood, Surrey, I think, listed as "urban communities", and various others as "communities", some of which are not in municipalities. "Neighbourhoods" is not a designation on BC Names, and though there are official neighbourhoods (and communities) listed on various municipal sites, there are long-standing "unofficial" neighbourhoods (ie. existing before such things were defined by municipal councils). Some of the last are citable, in various ways, others are well-known and exist parallel to the "official" neighbourhoods; e.g. in Grandview-Woodlands in Vancouver, "The Drive" (Commercial Drive from Hastings to where Commercial bends into Victoria) is distinct; "West 10th" is a distinct area with Point Grey (I'm not sure what the "official" city neighbourhood is out that way); Gastown and Chinatown are distinct within the Downtown Eastside; and while they do have formal boundaries their actual real-world boundaries are different from the formalities. And in some cases, like the many semi-rural used-to-be-exurbs of Kamloops, now styled "neighbourhoods" like Cherry Creek (now a development area), they were "localities" before being integrated into the new expanded city; Tranquille was its own municipality before amalgamation....not sure about Brocklehurst. I recall Milner, Langley as not being on the "official" neighbourhoods list, even though it is readily citable as a distinct community; in Mission, Silverhill is almost a century old but was nearly wiped off the map when Genstar omitted it from a new still-pending mega-devlopment plan until the community stood up and asserted itself. And there are cases where neighbourhoods within municipalities are on IR and governed separately, such as those on the Kamloops IR and those in West Kelowna and Tsawwassen and... well, it's a long list. What I'm getting at is that there is no cogent "hierarchy", though there is in terms of formal governance/designation by one level of government or another. This applies within IRs too; within the complex of Seton Lake First Nation IR lands (several IRs, some contiguous, some not), there's Ohin, Shalalth, South Shalalth (which isn't a native community), Slosh, Nkiat and Spider Creek. Within Lillooet Band lands, there's "T-Bird" (the old main rancherie), and Seton Beach. Wikipedia of course is bound by the notion of "reliable sources", which tends to mean government and media sources. Another issue re "populated places" and "unincorporated settlements" is that many citable names on the BC map which show up as localities have no sign of a village or hamlet, some have in fact never been inhabited, some rather large ones still inhabited do not appear in BC Names. So there is a fallacy on relying on government and media sources; the media tend to get things wrong, also, as with Bradian, which is really Bralorne's "Third Townsite", which the media often report as if it had no connection to whatever's around it (usually as a pitch for whatever developer is trying to flog it at the time). To me, trying to impose a "hierarchy" on community names and statuses, and using "towns" and "villages" in the small-t, small-v senses (i.e. unincorporated as Towns or Villages) is complicated because of the lower-case "rule", and with places like Squamish or Lillooet, commonly called "towns" but actually District Municipalities, wording of articles gets complicated. The Prairies, e.g. Saskatchewan's numbered municipality systems, where distinct towns are within those numbered municipalities, seems extraordinarily difficult to convey in terms of an "organized hierarchy"......likewise in Kenora (Unorganized District)...these are just some observations about how difficult it is to impose a hierarchy; Wikipedia's job is not to organize the world, but to report on how it is structured, or not structured, not mandate how it should be structured; relying on government sources only, which often obliterate past history deliberately, needs to be balanced with materials from the historical record and from current community sources; that some of these sources are "blogs" or "commercial sites" doesn't mean they're not valid; which is why britishcolumbia.com's various community/town and regional writeups are tolerated, even though that is not a commercial site (since the government doesn't have many of what they have in there....). Just thoughts, not meaning to muddy the water, only to remind all to keep an open mind and not let the government, or the media, dictate what is in Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The only GNIS-type site who have some hierachy is the Commission de toponymie du Québec, but the engine search is in French only. It permit search by category and by territory (administrative regions, "geographical RCMs" (vs juridical RCMs), municipalties and even some protected areas). Like Skookum1, I beleive that "organized hierarchy" can be tricky in Canada. In New Brunswick by exemple, should we use the old and abolished since 1966 Counties/Pariches division or the new (since 2013) Regional Service Commissions/Municipalities and Local service districts division? --Fralambert (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
A reasonable way to deal with administrative changes is to deal with each administrative entity during time of its existence. If it's just a name change, one article with a redirect solves the problem. However sometimes the changes are more fundamental. For example, in Ontario townships are being absorbed into larger municipalities, counties into regions, and sometimes there are border differences as well. An article about township X could contain information until the time of its legal demise, with a link to the new municipality (or several if it's split up), and then an article about the new place can start with a summary of amalgamation and go from there. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, it came to me during dinner out tonight that there's also hundreds of "railway points", some of which are reckoned as communities locally, others that are just placenames; though many of these used to appear on BC highways maps; many along the PGE/BCR line were wherever the road crossed a road, such as Poole Creek and Lone Butte or Soo Valley, without so much as a store or even a house. Confusingly sometimes, as with Soo Valley, as it was known to Whister locals but actually was Parkhurst, British Columbia, formelry a mill and the site of a very famous (locally) nude skier group photo, the name is moved along the line aways from the actual Soo Valley railway crossing; don't ask me why; so the point is popular folklore is also a "source" though hard to cite....and yeah, not part of any hierarchy. Thing is that WP:TRAINS people have added railway points all over BC, some gets listed as "unincorporated settlements" when really they're barely more than a whistle stop; many should be merged with actual communities and IRs where they're located though....Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The distinction between a "neighbourhood" and a "community" can be a fuzzy and arbitrary one sometimes, but Hwy43 brought up a good example: many of the places in Niagara Falls that are described as "communities" instead of "neighbourhoods" are former municipalities in their own rights. Being originally from Sudbury, I can also use that city as an example of the distinction: areas like New Sudbury, Minnow Lake and the Flour Mill, which certainly have distinct names and identifiable boundaries but are found within the city's contiguous urban area, are better described as "neighbourhoods", while areas like Lively, Coniston, Hanmer and Chelmsford, which are separated from the main band of urban development and thus have more self-contained identities, are more generally understood as "communities" (and some of them, in turn, have their own named smaller "neighbourhoods" within them, such as Lively's "Mikkola" and "Dogpatch".) Of course, there also are a few places (Garson, Copper Cliff) that straddle the line between the two; Garson, for example, is directly contiguous with the city's urban area but is still more commonly understood as a distinct community, because it was part of the separate town of Nickel Centre prior to the municipal amalgamation.
One helpful test can be to look at how Canada Post handles mail delivery for residents of that area: Lively, Coniston, Hanmer and Chelmsford (and Garson) are each their own distinct mailing addresses with their own distinct postal code ranges, while mail going to New Sudbury, Minnow Lake or the Flour Mill is just addressed to "Sudbury" and has postal codes inside the "Sudbury" range of addresses. It's not the only possible test of the distinction, but it is a pretty strong and fairly reliable and easily consulted one.
As for railway points, what actually happened is that back when Wikipedia was new and our content about geographic places was still just being put into place, one or two users undertook a comprehensive plan of just creating a basic stub for every single named dot they saw on a map, without really investigating or researching what was or wasn't really at that dot — and so, thus, we ended up with a lot of articles about unpopulated whistle stops which described them as communities instead of railway sidings. So in most cases, when you come across an article like that, you should just chalk it up to "creator error" and fix it if you can. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
should those be redirects to the places that they're at (which in many cases they are part of)? Keeping the redirects in the railway points directory, I mean. And then there's seasonal camps, like Dawadzli and Caribou Hide, which are not "unincorporated settlements"....I'm not sure anyone's camped at Metsantan/Caribou Hide for a long time (it was a hunting camp of the Tahltan); Dawazdli is still a busy eulachon-processing sites at certain times of the year; that name also is the name for the whole of Knight Inlet btw. Both are notable in their own remote way; in Metsantan's case because it's the only once-upon-a-time human habitation for a hundred miles in any direction (or more). Taku, British Columbia is also only seasonally inhabited, if at all; sometimes there's only one house at any of the places that do show up in the name registries; sometimes it's only a crossroads. Moha, British Columbia is really only the Moha Ranch, but is part of a larger rural neighbourhood known as Yalakom (vs "the Yalakom" which refers to the valley the community is around the lower end of). Back to railway points; some that are just blips now were once very important...those rank as ghost towns (Brookmere, Emory Creek....I could name others). I guess back to one of my original points; not everything fits into a hierarchy, and as I've noted before things that predate regional districts or are independent of those governments' control should not be classified in the RD directories.Skookum1 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that a geographic location's status — the question of whether it's a "neighbourhood", a "community", a "railway point", a "hunting camp" or whatever — has a bearing on whether the location is notable enough for an article at all, and thus the "hierarchy" question comes in because some places might be teetering on the edge of notability or non-notability depending on which classification we give them. That's not how it works, though.
Regardless of whether it's a "community", a "neighbourhood", a "ghost town", a "former municipality that's been annexed into another one" or a named but unpopulated "railway siding", any geographic location whatsoever can have a Wikipedia article if a reasonably meaningful article with useful and properly encyclopedic content about that location can be referenced to reliable sources, but should just exist as a redirect to a larger related topic if all you can realistically source is that the location exists. A good and well-referenced article about a geographic location is allowed to stand alone regardless of the location's type and status, but an unreferenced or poorly referenced stub which just asserts that the place exists, or whose only source is the fact that the name happens to appear next to a dot on a map, should be redirected to a larger and more sourceable related topic (the municipality that it's located in, a geographic name for the surrounding region that it's a part of, the railway line that a flag stop happens to be on, etc.)
The question of whether the location should be a standalone article or a redirect is not, however, a question of the location's status — it's a question of how much meaningful content you can or can't actually source and write about the topic. So the "hierarchy" issue has no bearing whatsoever on whether the location qualifies for an article or not — the location's status will certainly have a bearing on what word we use in the body text to describe what that location is, and it might have a bearing on the most appropriate title for an article about it, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether the topic should be covered in a standalone article or a redirect to another topic.
And consequently, it's not even really meaningful to get into questions of "hierarchy" when it comes to geographic locations. Whether Milner or Tranquille or Dawadzli or Moha, or any of the other locations you've talked about in this thread, qualify for independent articles or not is entirely a question of how much content you can or cannot actually write and source about those places — whether we classify them as "neighbourhoods" or "communities" has absolutely nothing to do with it one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

not sure what to do with Asleep by the frozen sea

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This I found via a piped link on the phrase "confined themselves" in a passage about the HBC on the North West Company page. It's well-written but its content seems to be more suited to a history article rather than an "English phrases" article, as currently categorized. It had no WikiProject Canada template, though has been around since 2012. All material cited from Ashley Morton and Peter C. Newman, I haven't looked closely to see if there's any POV or SYNTH. Other than my doubts about surreptitious piping of this kind, I'd venture the article needs cleanup and some section headings....or a merge into the History section of the HBC article?Skookum1 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Universities' Application Centre - Conflict of Interest

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I posted this comment on the Talk page for the OUAC wiki page, but have not received a reply.

I tried contributing to this article in December 2012 from a publication I created for non-public consumption for the OUAC's 40th anniversary. The content was deleted, quoting copyright infringement, and I was also deemed to be an editor with a Conflict of Interest (COI) due to the fact that I work at the OUAC. I had edited the additions and spent a great deal of time formatting and submitting to this article, so I asked the editor who brought this to my attention to return the content to me. I also asked how I could go about getting the wikipedia article edited, if not by me due to the COI, but I never received a reply.

I'm asking again for this article to be expanded upon - some of the information is outdated (e.g., "Compass") and could also be explained further. I believe that the priority of adding to this article is more important than deemed by WP:Canada as it is not just an organization/service within Ontario. It serves the entire world as the OUAC accepts applications for Canadian and international students for many forms of university education.

I don't believe the COI applies to me. I am not out to promote the OUAC or gain anything, save for providing accurate information and a more robust history on the organization. The OUAC is a not-for-profit organization, so what do I have to gain from this other than providing accurate information? However, if it is still deemed inappropriate for me to be the editor of this article, please let me know how I can have someone else expand on the information. I'd be happy to provide the information for re-writing. Thanks. CarlaWhite (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the way that WP:COI is written, I agree with you, but let me be very clear - you have a potential COI situation simply because you work at OUAC. Now, is that a problem? Not necessarily, as long as your editing remains unbiased. I urge you to read WP:COI if you haven't done so already, and please ensure you also understand Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I have added OUAC to my watchlist; please add good information to it and I'll try to keep things balanced. I will also add this comment to the article's talk page. PKT(alk) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
PKT is correct. What our COI policy is primarily meant to prevent is the kind of editing where somebody who has a personal association with the topic publishes content that violates Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view or reliable sourcing (for example, a politician who replaces our article on him with his own self-penned public relations bio from his own campaign literature.) It's not meant as a blanket prohibition on ever touching the article at all if you have an association with the topic — because indeed, sometimes our articles get outdated or cite sources which actually got some of the basic facts wrong, and sometimes a person associated with the topic is actually in a better position than most other editors to recognize when that has happened and to provide updated or corrected information.
COI is, rather, a prohibition on decreeing that your association with the topic gives you the right to disregard or override our content policies, or to dictate that other people aren't allowed to make contributions that you haven't "approved". As long as you respect and follow those content policies, however, the fact that you're an employee of the organization does not mean that you're not allowed to even touch the article at all — you are allowed to make factual, verifiable and neutral edits to the article, and just need to exercise some caution not to step into promotional content or unverifiable "insider baseball" (such as claims about what a horrible boss the new assistant deputy minister of colleges and universities is to work for, and on and so forth. Yes, people have actually tried such things on here.)
If you want to add something to the article and have a concern about whether it might be stepping close to the edge of a COI problem, you also have the option of posting that content for discussion on the talk page, so that other editors can review and give feedback on it.
Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

John Havelock Parker

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm looking to see if anyone has access to sources that would clear up the inconsistency on the John Havelock Parker article. The bottom of the page says that he was MLA representing the Mackenzie River (N.W.T. electoral district) from 1954 until 1960 and was succeeded by John Goodall. However, the Mackenzie River article says that John Goodall was the representative acclaimed in 1954 and held it until the 1967 election. It seems more likely that Parker was the MLA for Mackenzie North given that the district included Yellowknife, which is where Parker lived.

The Northwest Territories general election, 1954, Northwest Territories general election, 1957 and Northwest Territories general election, 1960 also show that Parker was representing Mackenzie North. Any sources in those articles do not appear to be available online. Another odd thing is that Parker did not move to the NWT until 1954, which means he managed to get elected within 8 months. Also the previous link does not mention that he served as an MLA. So if anyone can help it would be useful. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an odd one I think there is 2 John Havelock Parker from the area - Women Who Lived and Loved North of 60. Trafford Publishing. 2000. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-55212-449-9.. --
@Moxy: thanks that was a great find. There was enough from that page, coincidence because the next chapter is about J. H. Parker, to let me find G-1979-014: 0006. And then Google gave me Advocate for the North. Not sure how much of the book you can see but there is enough to tell that there were two of them. Coincidence there too because the magistrate Parker represented Stephen Angulalik who was from around here. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WW1 anniversary

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This past summer I took lots of time and worked on the Military history of Canada during World War I article adding sources etc. Being that its 100 year anniversary would love if we could get others involved here. More content, copyedit etc... A new section "Royal Canadian Navy" was added recently by someone (looks like a copy and paste from the main article) and needs a bit of work. We could use some info on Canadian women during the war and merchant shipping. Any help would be nice sources can be found and seen (can read many of them) at Bibliography of Canadian military history#First World War and at the ref section on the article. -- Moxy (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Tyler

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Canadians: Here's an old abandoned Afc submission about an interesting Canadian. It will soon be deleted as a stale draft. If anyone thinks this is a notable athlete, coach, or whatever, and wants to find some references, this would be the time! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think he is notable if he was truly THE coach of the Austrian Olympic team, and not merely A coach. It should be in the IIHF Record book if that is the case. I'll double check when I get back to my copy. Regardless, I would think the article would need to be stripped down, because as the article exists right now, it is just a copy of his CV, His Red Cross training (and much of the other stuff) is not relevant. Canada Hky (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Canada Hky, it's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs are major weakness of Wikiproject Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This is my first time posting here, but I have been a Wikipedia user for some nine years now. I noticed early on that a lot of Canada-related pages are incomplete, and particularly BOLP lack photographs. Is there a reason for this? Is it very difficult to find legal photographs of Canadians? I'm really not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to understand things so that I might help contribute to a solution. In short: we need more photographs, LOTS more photographs. --Rhombus (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WikiProject Canada is more restricted in what we can grab from outside sources than some (not all) other countries are; Canadian federal and provincial government photo repositories, for instance, are licensed under Crown copyright, unlike the United States where the comparable repositories are almost all in the public domain, and Crown copyright isn't compatible with the licensing requirements for Wikipedia content. So, for just one example out of many, we cannot just grab and upload the "official" headshots of most Canadian MPs from Parliament's website the way American editors can for congresspeople. So we generally have a much narrower range of sources that we can actually use photographs from — unless we can convince a copyright holder to file an OTRS allowance, or we happen to get lucky and find some images that are already licensed under Creative Commons or GFDL, we're mostly restricted to uploading and using photographs that a Wikipedia contributor took with their own camera. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. I was going to ask, "has anybody from the Foundation tried contacting Industry Canada about negotiating an agreement?" but then I read this. That does not make one hopeful. --Rhombus (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, people have indeed tried in the past, and the effort failed. We have occasionally had some success with some other entities — the Wildrose Party, for example, filed an OTRS permission for us to use the headshots of its MLAs from the party's website, and I believe we've occasionally gotten permission from towns and cities to use an image or two from their municipal websites, or from specific individual people to use an "official" publicity shot of them from their own press kits — but federal and provincial government ministries, as a rule, turn us down.
One thing that does tend to trip some people up is that some (not all) content licensed under Crown copyright is permitted for reuse in a "non-commercial" context — which some people erroneously think means we can grab it just because we don't actually charge a fee for use of our site. But in reality, for a variety of other reasons Wikipedia is still considered a commercial, not non-commercial, use, so finding a "non-commercial use permitted" photograph doesn't actually help us at all.
And one final thing that I want to add, just for clarity, is that some people in the past have erroneously tried to turn this into a "Canada vs. US" thing, and tried to pick a fight about Wikipedia "disrespecting" Canadian law — but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with that. Crown copyright isn't fundamentally incompatible with US law, and Creative Commons/GFDL aren't fundamentally incompatible with Canadian law, but unfortunately Crown copyright and Creative Commons/GFDL are incompatible with each other. So as unfortunate as it is, it isn't a nationalist war. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Monte Ck, BC

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The information you have posted on line about Monte Ck, BC is not accurate. I wrote the book Pursuit Of Memories and spent many years researching the history of this area. A mexican named Monte did not own property at Monte Ck. There was an early squatter by the name of Alphonse Matteo. The area was called La Montie referring to the climb up the brigade trail to the Okanagan. The area was first called Ducks after Jacob Duck who with his partner Alex Pringle pre-empted land on both sides of the South Thompson River.

Wendy Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.118.48 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The story you have is interesting, but the bit about the Mexican is from 1001 British Columbia Place Names as cited on Monte Creek, British Columbia. If you have a published source to cite, by all means add it to the article in the format "another version of the name origin's says that....". All published citations and versions are welcome, hearsay is not. BTW the final vowel on "La Monti" whether pronounced Chinook jargon style or in French, is like "pie", and would not lend itself by adaptation to the pronunciation "Monty", though the Anglo-spanish nickname pronunciation would be "Monty". I'm not saying the Akriggs are correct, often they aren't; but they are a published source.Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Wendy, your book is in my library - I'll take a look tomorrow if I have time, and see if we can add some detail to the naming information in the article. I would be good to have multiple cites for different possibilities, as is the case for many BC place names with ambiguous origins. The Interior (Talk) 22:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Turns out the new edition of Akrigg makes no mention of horsethieves, Mexican or otherwise. I see Skookum1 was using a 1969 version - that must have been an errata that was caught. I'll add some more info from your book, Wendy, and what the Akriggs say in the newer edition - which is the mispelled French connection ("La Montie"). Thanks for leaving this note, Wendy. The Interior (Talk) 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Show Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

CBC mentioned that this Canadian company was deeply involved in the production of the 2014, 2012 Olympics ceremonies, seems like we should have an article on it.[1] -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi 70.50.148.248, Can you find reliable secondary sources that describe this company? XOttawahitech (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Power station - > Generating station bulk CfD

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I haven't launched it yet though have prepared the list with proposed name changes. "Power station" was imposed by UK editors for "global consistency" a few years ago, even though the US was granted exemption for the use of "powerhouse". 90% or more of Canadian articles use "generating station", whether for tidal or nuclear or hydro. I'm cutting-pasting a query I put on User:Good Olfactory's talkpage and putting it here instead......as to whether or not this can just be a speedy because of Canadian English naming conventions and MOSFOLLOW. I've changed the list article titles from "List of electrical generating stations in" to "List of generating stations in..." just now.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, MOS:FOLLOW no longer exists, as discovered here. It was something that was deleted some time ago, and then retargeted to an irrelevant section at WP:TM. Thought it may be helpful to advise it no longer exists to save you grief when bringing it up and opposers confront you on it. Hwy43 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
To quote Blueboar at this RfD, "the short-cut MOS:FOLLOW was originally created in Feb of 2011, and pointed to this section of the main MOS. That section was removed from the MOS with this edit (discussed on the MOS talk page here)." Hwy43 (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, moving the goalposts, another time-honoured Wikipedia tradition huh? So is it a "style" issue and "consistency" when the names of places and things as given in their primary sources are ignored in favour of a "consistency" dictated by overwhelming use in another area/region? My point is, other than one in Alberta and a few in Saskatchewan, the usage "power station" is not Canadian English and is not used in the name of e.g. the Gordon M. Shrum Generating Station. So if not citing MOSFOLLOW, is there something other than WP:RS which can underscore "Canadian English usage in Canadian categories" as is the whole point here?Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, well, hmmm, it seems that the US categories and list articles have all been changed to "power stations" even though individual articles say "generating station" and "powerhouse" and "power plant". So it seems that the UK-English cabal has imposed a "global standard" based on their own usages in the long while since the power stations CfD went down long ago....this is Wikipedia affecting English usage, directly influencing or mandating it, not reflecting it, and speaks to me a peculiar kind of arrogance about Wikipedia's role and the Heisenbergian conundrum about observation affecting behaviour. I don't know where to look for the reversions/changes for so many articles and categories, nor to find the previous discussion re the CfD which mandated "power station" as a global standard; the gist of it was that in non-anglophone countries then British would be used, the US was to be given an exemption bcause "power station" is not used there, Canada was a former colony so would have to make do with the British term. The US exemption is now gone, and why and how is it that a British standard was imposed without extensive discussion on so many articles and categories?? My guess is that this was not widely discussed and was the doing of a very few editors doing it all by fiat.....being bold, and not in a good way.Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm gritting my teeth for another go at Category:Power stations in Canada -> Category:Electrical generating stations in Canada Category:Generating stations in Canada; the list articles all reflect the normative Canadian English usage, i.e. "electrical generating station" or "generating station", as do the article titles; the "power station" usage is anomalously British but was imposed despite the US exemption for "powerhouse", the rationale being that since only one Canadian spoke against the imposition of "power station" (me, that is) there would be no appeal. But the sources have always said "generating station"...there's one or two out t here that are "power station", others that are "powerhouse".... There's several families of subcategories for nuclear, hydro, fossil fuel etc.....I don't have time to compile the full list of subcategories, looks like a big multi-template project, I just don't have time today; but this is long overdue and I think this time other Canadian editors will chime in.....nothing worse than having linguistic imperialists in the Mother Country dictate to us what's best for us ignorant colonials....Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thinking maybe I'll sandbox it, as there's so many and templating so many at once strikes me as a bit....overwhelming. I'll post the sandbox or whatever once I make it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Lots to go yet, but sandboxing it here.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WEll, I've got the list prepped to go, but before I start adding CfD templates to all of them, I'm wondering if re speedy renaming whether CFD-2 - B, C and/or D apply. "established naming conventions for that category tree", if taken to mean "in Canada" as the parent, then Canadian English and also MOSFOLLOW apply. The related "main" articles are currently titled "electrical generating station", though now on reviewing all the various articles I see "generating station" is all that is used in the sources, and though I could change e.g. List of electrical generating stations in British Columbia to List of generating stations in British Columbia, then a speedy wouldn't match a "long-standing" title but one freshly changed. The contents of the categories are clear as to what t he proper term is - "power station" occurs once or twice, other terms like "demonstration project" also turn up; but 95% of item are "generating station"; even when you'd think "solar power" or "wind power" might make natural +station names they're not; you see wind farm, solar park, and re tidal power Annapolis Royal Generating Station. Am I being cowardly/sneaky in wondering about speedy renaming these, or playing within established rules? (a) it's what the articles within these categories and their sources use (b) Canadian terminology should be used in Canadian hierarchies. I was originally going to propose these changes as "electrical generating stations" but now it's just "generating station" per the usages observed. I think I'll change the list-article titles anyway, but your thoughts on to speedy or not to speedy please. I don't see the point in another vote by non-Canadians about terms that Canadians should use as dictated from outside (i.e. from the UK), after protracted discussion about "global consistency" when the sources are clear that Canadian usage is not consistent with UK English usage.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Hm, I see that Template:Canada-powerstation-stub will also need changing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

here is the sandbox-list of changes. I think I've got all the categories covered, and there's some overlap here.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that "power station" is used by SaskPower, and there's one "power station" in Alberta. Could be debatable that the Saskatchewan category doesn't change to the national norm.Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing Canadian Wikipedian

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looks like User:Canoe1967 has stopped editing Wikipedia. Since I see he/she was a regular participant on this board berween 2012-12-22 and 2013-06-16, I wonder if anyone here knows why - I miss having him/her around. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another CfD for Squamish

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Squamish.Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Volcanism of Canada Workgroup}}

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Be aware of the discussion regarding Template:Volcanism of Canada Workgroup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and {{WikiProject Volcanoes}} at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 59#Depreciated template -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like template:WPCANADA should be updated to support this workgroup? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Indian Scout"

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The usage of Indian Scout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Indian Scout (motorcycle) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox government cabinet

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Infobox government cabinet has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox cabinet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IRS will soon have your private information

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

I have added this project banner to the talkpage of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act – yes it is unusual to add American legislation to the Canada wikiproject, but it appears this legislation will touch on the lives of just about all Canadians. Yes, I know this sounds like one of those fringe theories –- that was my first reaction when I saw FATCA back in 2012. Since that time however, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom and others have signed agreemnents in this respect.

I hope you agree that this article needs more eyes, and that some editors here will at least check it out. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The same reality applies to Canadians re Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Government records of all kinds are now stored with US outsourcers, including medical records and government accounts and more. Whole government agencies and crown corp departments are outsourced now.....Data on our comings and goings to/from the continent are tracked by Homeland Security. Finding citations of this is possible, but not generally in the mainstream media, who avoid the subject.Skookum1 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning that the CCRA has been wanting to monitor Canadian accounts abroad; various countries have told them to go shove it as it undermines their own banking laws. The TransPacific Partnership I think will engage this issue, there's so much in that that does .... well, so many things, I won't belabout the point. Which is that the IRS isn't alone in this game.Skookum1 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Skookum1: there is a fundamental difference between the CRA wishing they can get information about money that resident Canadians have stashed aboard and the IRS requiring Canadian banks to provide information (at our expense) about accounts of Canadian citizens who are Canadian residents.
Also it appears that two editors whom I have not seen around here have taken it upon themselves to remove this project’s banner from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. I hope someone other than me can put a stop to this. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... guess I should stop emailing top secret nuclear weapon hideouts to my North Korean contacts...
Secrets aside, I don't believer the fact that it will affect Canadians (or Americans living in Canada) is reason enough for us to tag the article. We'd have to tag half a dozen other country wikiprojects as well. The globalization banner seems appropriate. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Floydian: Fair enough. Do you also support the nomination for deletion of FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States by user: Mrfrobinson which went up within hours of its creation? XOttawahitech (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi I was the rogue editor who removed 5 or 6 of these wikitags that were only added on Jan 18. It is a USA law and doesn't need to be a part of a bunch of countries' wikiprojects. Happy to readd it if there is a consensus here but like it is stated above the USA has hundreds of laws that affects Canadians. Also the title of this section is borderline fear mongering! Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
@Moxy: I am surprised at your comment above-- I spent a lot of time and effort talking to the one person who has been reverting all my recent edits. I wish more would join the disscusion. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am posting here after an editor posted on my talk about this.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and not a webforum. The discussion above about the merits or otherwise of a law simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and Ottawahitech's spamming of several articles wit boilerplate text about FACTA was also inappropriate; it was rightly reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What sort of edits are acceptable on Scotiabank

I have been criticized for "spamming" a subsection titled The 21st century into the history section of Scotiabank. It was based on an interview with Scotia’s CEO Rick Waugh and another Financial Post article. Since it appears most participants here support the reversions of those edits, I wonder if anyone would care to tell me (and others) why history older than 21st century is OK, but history related to this century is spam? Must we wait until this century is over before adding it to Wikipedia? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not discuss it on the article's talk page, as already requested by other editors?
That is standard practice per WP:BRD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I prefer to discuss this here for reasons I would rather not get into. Why can’t you, or anyone else tell me what is wrong with adding a 21st century sub-section to the history section? XOttawahitech (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: consensus-forming works by editors explaining their reasons for things. If you don't want to explain why you won't discuss an article on its talk page, I see no reason to break the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Every revision of the FACTA information was accompanied by opening a talk page discussion and putting that into my edit summary. To date you refuse to discuss why this information should be added, refuse to discuss on the talk pages and continue to demand that we explain why it should not be included (despite being given numerous reasons). Please respond on the article's talk pages. The foundation of Wikipedia is community consensus, right now no one can reach a consensus because you refuse to participate.
Instead of feeling like it is the world against you (such as the statement on your userpage) try and work with others to accomplish what you feel should be. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A few eyes over at Talk:Scotiabank#FATCA please !!-- Moxy (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"work with others to accomplish what you feel should be"

@Mrfrobinson: Most of my time is spent adding uncontroversial missing stuff to Wikipedia. It is true that I do not spend a lot of time on talkpages working with others when I feel it serves no purpose other than to reduce what I can give to Wikipedia (but I did take the time to participate in another controversial discussion this morning).

As you probably already know, my time on Wikipedia is limited. I am sorry if you feel I have not given you enough attention, but to be blunt, I feel the opposite. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what I will be ending any discussion with you on this talk page as you continue to refuse to follow BRD, provide any rationale for your edits or challenged edits on the talk pages and continue to spin things. You accuse me of wanting you to accomplish what I feel should be allowed. How about read the NUMEROUS talk page comments on your page, here, and article pages asking you to stop? Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec)@Ottawahitech:, consensus is the basis of all work here. Editors are encouraged to be bold and edit proactively, but when there is disagreement, editors discuss the issue to seek consensus. You have complained about the reversion of your edits, but then refused to discuss why you think they should stand.
This looks like a rejection of collaborative working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

demographics again (in general but here also about RD articles including IR populations in EA listings)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Long title, see Talk:Skeena-Queen_Charlotte_Regional_District#aboriginal_population_in_electoral_area_figures.3F.3F. The visible minority/aboriginal table problem is on this page, too, among so many, but this page also jumbles EA populations with IR figures, which are not in StatCan that way; IR residents to not vote in RD/EA elections, and those populations are not part of RD population figures; combining them is SYNTH.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Culture of Canada ‎ and Culture of Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we get a few eyes over at Template talk:Culture of Canada#Pornography in Canada. Got an edit war of someone trying to add Pornography in Canada to the culture template...they are also trying to add pornography section to the Culture of Canada article. What do others think? Should we mention the fact that all men jerk off (as is implied by this edit) and have a wonderful image of Peter North (pornographer). Not sure about you guys but I think Peter North is a great addition ...hes the kind of Canadian we should teach our children about and hes is definitely a part of our culture and represents all that is Canadian - a Legendary Canadian bisexual porn cock "woodsman" as per the edit (ROLFMoxy (talk)) -- Moxy (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I work for the College of Family Physicians of Canada and would like to see this page expanded with helpful basic information. I understand there is a conflict of interest if I post content and the guidelines say to suggest changes on the talk page. Could someone review the following information and post what is appropriate? I have included third-party references at the end of each paragraph:

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) is a professional association and the legal certifying body for family medicine in Canada. This national organization of family physicians was founded in 1954 and currently numbers over 30,000 members. Members of the CFPC belong to the national College as well as to their provincial chapters. As a national organization, the CFPC offers services in both English and French.

The CFPC establishes the standards for the training, certification, and lifelong education of family physicians. It accredits postgraduate family medicine training in Canada's 17 medical schools, conducts the certification examination in family medicine, and grants the CCFP and FCFP designations. Hehepps (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC) In 2013, the CFPC collaborated with the Medical Council of Canada (MCC) to deliver a new certification examination in family medicine. Those who pass the new exam, and who meet all other qualifications of both organizations, are awarded both the Licentiate of the MCC (LMCC)—the medical license to practise in Canada—and certification in family medicine designation (CCFP). [2]

The CFPC runs a program designed to support the continuous professional development of its members called MAINPRO® (Maintenance of Proficiency). This program assesses proposed learning modules and seminars against established standards and awards various types and numbers of credits learners can earn by participating in these learning opportunities. Credits are recorded and physicians must meet a standard number and type of credits in order to maintain their CCFP and FCFP designations. [3]

Each year the CFPC hosts Family Medicine Forum (FMF), a national family medicine conference. The conference offers hundreds of clinical and professional development sessions for family physicians over three days in November. The conference is held at varying host cities and provinces each year.

The Research and Education Foundation (REF) of the CFPC was established to provide funding for honours, awards, scholarships, and grants bestowed by the College to its members. It is a registered charity with the Government of Canada. [4]

The CFPC is a member of the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA). [5]

The CFPC’s official journal is Canadian Family Physician.

History The CFPC was founded in 1954 as the College of General Practice of Canada out of a need to ensure family physicians were dedicated to continuing medical education. At inception, it had 400 members. [Woods D. Strength in Study. 1979.] Dr Victor L. Johnston was the first Executive Director and remained in office for ten years. The first College Executive Committee and Board of Representatives consisted of 17 members. [Solomon S. Patients First: The Story of Family Medicine in Canada. Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books; 2004.] In 1964, the College changed its name to the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

The CFPC is governed by the Executive Committee and the Board, who meet times per year. The current Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer is Dr Francine Lemire.

Mission: To support family physicians through certification, advocacy, leadership, research, and learning opportunities that enable them to provide high-quality health care for their patients and their communities. Vision:

The people of Canada have timely access to quality care provided by family physicians committed to the CFPC’s lifelong learning requirements. Summary of Goals • Quality patient-centred care • Rewarding and valued careers • Relevant and progressive educational standards • Research capacity • Organizational effectiveness • Social accountability and equity Hehepps (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Candidates for Toronto Mayor 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In the papers , TV, and Radio they only show (4) four candidates untill today, but looking in your site I see that there are 33 names listed in the running, why are the not mentioned in any of the media. and why would so many people want to run in this election

Regards Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.50.176 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ray. This is actually pretty typical for such elections in some cities. If the nomination process has low bars to clear, then you end up with several people who run just because they can, because they think it makes a good platform to preach a message, because they do want to make a difference but are otherwise unknown, or who are simply crazy. The media will of course only focus on the legitimate contenders. We include the full lists out of a desire for completeness. Cheers! Resolute 14:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The complete list of mayoral and ward councillor candidates can be found here. Mindmatrix 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The mayoral race in Toronto always attracts a large list of "fringe" candidates who (a) don't really have a chance in hell of actually winning, and (b) don't really garner that much in the way of substantive coverage because they don't really have a chance in hell of actually winning. As long as I've lived in Toronto, there have always been at least 20 or so candidates in every mayoral race — but only four or five, and sometimes even fewer than that, who were actually treated as genuine contenders by the media. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course, sometimes you get Enza Anderson. Mindmatrix 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
True dat. The 2000 election was a special case, though — the result was such a foregone "we all know who's going to win" conclusion right from the start that no other mainstream "contenders" even tried. So Enza and Tooker Gomberg got a lot more coverage than "fringe" candidates usually get, in part just because there was no other way for there to even be much of a story to cover. And let us never forget the distinguished Ben Kerr (RIP), either. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with a Canadian film

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I need some help with looking for sources on the article Walter's Christmas. It looks like this film is part of an overall series called Walter & Tandoori, but I have a very strong suspicion that coverage will be primarily in French since the earliest title I could find for the film was Le Noël De Walter Et Tandoori. Can anyone help look for sources for the film? I'm thinking that it might be better to have an article for the series as a whole and redirect there, but I'm coming up with a dead end as far as sources go- partially due to language barriers and also because well, most of the search engines I use tend to primarily reference English language papers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The series is very likely to be notable enough to qualify for an article, as it aired on Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and Vrak.TV — but for that very reason, you're right in guessing that the bulk of the available sources are going to be in French. That said, even the article about it on fr:, fr:Walter (série télévisée), doesn't actually cite any sources either. I'd agree that probably the best course of action here would be an article about the series, with the Christmas special in place as a redirect to that instead of a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ottawa fashion week

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear editors: I have been trying to fix up this old Afc submission, but I could use some help from someone who has attended this fashion festival or who at least knows where to find references for the Ottawa area. It sounds like an interesting event. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

RMs on the Comox and Squamish disambiguation (and town) pages.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Those Canadians who did weigh in at the CfD on Category:Squamish are being ignored and their views buried under more than my attempts to explain what people do not have the patience to learn what they do not want to know that gets in the way of their imposition of guidelines without any larger context. The name-conflict problem between aboriginal topics and primarytopic geographic names is not going to go away; these new RMs are a bit WP:POINTy, but to me so are the hide-bound invocations of COMMONNAME without any respect at all for PRIMARYTOPIC or the larger context of indigenous-titles conventions (conventions which are being swept aside by piecemeal applications of COMMONNAME and UE by those resistant to "unpronounceable" names). These RMs may muddy those waters further, but since indigenous preferences and cultural sensitivities/realities are not being respected, it stands to follow that, if that is the case, then the Comox and Squamish articles should not have comma-province on them...nor should Chemainus if it is disambiguated (Tzu'menus is the "new" spelling for the First Nations people there); tons of other examples. I know a lot of you have come to "keep away" from things I propose, but what's happening is that non-Canadians are running roughshod over Canadian titles and category structures who don't know what theyre talking about, and are creating name-conflict problems beyond their understanding (or concern). The chauvinism underlying their WP:POINTyness re COMMONNAME and UE is often shocking/glaring......when not just plainly parochial in attitude. As usual, rathre than address the points I raise (or that other Canadians raise) I'm being made the primary topic of t he discussion; in last year's CfD I had made a good case for Category:Skwxwu7mesh but the closer decided against it because I'd had to spend so much time responding critically to bad ideas and mis-suppositions by the other participants I was construed as engaging in personal attacks. But I'm the one being attacked by way of evading answering to very bad logics and mis-taken "evidence" and the ongoing blinkers-on mentality of those in the RM and CfD cabals/turfs....apparently criticizing what someone says is tantamount to criticizing them but it's OK to attack ME (as Ottawahitech has observed at the Cfd or Rm can't remember which)Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Jean Chrétien

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone's interested, it seems that Jean Chrétien's article could use plenty more images as it seems to be an unsightly wall of text at the moment after an editor added a substantial amount of content. --Connormah (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Female Canadian Party Leaders

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Dear fellow Canadians: Here's an abandoned Afc draft that someone put some work into and then never got around to sourcing and submitting. Is this something worth improving, or is this already covered under some other title? Or maybe its unnecessary to sort our politicians by gender? It will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Women in Canadian politics, List of female first ministers in Canada, List of female viceroys in Canada, and related articles cover women in politics. 117Avenue (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, 117Avenue, for taking time to check this out. Can you be a little clearer? Does your post mean (1) articles like this are acceptable and the draft should be kept, or (2) the topic is already well covered and the draft should be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't really giving any indication on what to do with the draft, I was expecting other users, like Bearcat and Arctic.gnome, to join the conversation. I saw your comment before I wanted to log off, and just wanted to make you aware of the other articles. I since remembered there's the Category:Female Canadian political party leaders. Now that I've had the time to think about I'll try to give a clear reply. I think that Women in Canadian politics does a good job of covering the topic, and my first thought is that a "list of female Canadian party leaders" article would duplicate this article. However, Women in Canadian politics does not mention everyone that would be on the list, so it is a valid idea. Women in Canadian politics is also a long article, one could argue that a split is possible. However, I do not feel this way, and my opinion is that this is too broad of a qualification (not a notable enough position) for a list article, and Category:Female Canadian political party leaders fulfills this role. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We already have a category for Category:Female Canadian political party leaders — and as noted, there are other lists and articles that already cover more specific accomplishments of note. Per WP:CLN, further, not every category has to be matched with a corresponding list — and this seems to me like a case where we don't need both. I'd say that the list should probably just be deleted, since it isn't serving any useful purpose that we aren't already meeting equally well or better in other places. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Portal:Canada at FPOC

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just wanted to come by and let you know about the FPOC going on for Portal:Canada here. If you have any comments concerning the Portal, feel free to bring them there. Achowat (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

RMs re indigenous people names and corresponding town/geographic names

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#current_and_recent_RMs_re_indigenous_names. Also note that unique town names still disambiguated that need not be include Chemainus, British Columbia which should just be Chemainus (the band has changed its name to Tz'uminus to avoid confusion). Canadian disambiguation practices and indigenous title conventions (not codified, but should be) are being given the short shrift on the various RMs and on the thorniest CfD, whether or not my efforts to refute the false claims and bad suppositions/narrow quotes from guidelines fielded by many opponents of the move are "TLDR" (which is a bore to hear, but not surprising from people who don't even read the whole of the guidelines they simplistically invoke as if they were ironclad, which they are not cf. COMMONNAME) the four Canadians who agreed that the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish" is the town, not the people, have been drowned by "votes" from the cabals, and denunciations of myself for whatever reasons suits my attackers at the moment. The notion that the town is not the PRIMARYTOPIC has also been claimed on Talk:Squamish#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently open RMs are:

Noting again that Chemainus, British Columbia doesn't need its disambiguation; and that re the PRIMARYTOPIC issue on Comox and Squamish, that the use of native names means that there is no confusion between the Kwikwetlem First Nation and Coquitlam, likewise re Nanaimo/Snuneymuxw and various others. Note my comments on the link about about Tsawwassen as to why it should remain disambiguated - because of the MOSTCOMMON use being the ferry terminal, not the FN. I may file an RM on Lillooet/Lillooet, British Columbia since the town name is decidedly unique and also demonstrably the primary use.Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I just filed another RM on Chemainus (Talk:Chemainus, British Columbia#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Also on Talk:Sooke, British Columbia#Requested move for the same reason.Skookum1 (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isabelle Leblond

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Dear editors: According to the guidelines, information about the above candidate should, instead of being a standalone article, be added to an article 2014 Quebec provincial elections. However, there isn't such an article right now. Is the upcoming election covered under another title, or should a draft of this article be started so that candidate information can be added? Or is this a bad idea altogether? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Quebec general election, 2014; I've set up a few redirects for alternate names for the election article. Mindmatrix 14:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW: We usually redirect to an article about candidates for that party for each election, such as Alberta Liberal Party candidates, 2012 Alberta provincial election, but I couldn't find such a list for this election. Mindmatrix 14:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The candidate lists, for the record, have never actually been created consistently for all elections in all provinces — Ontario is the only one for which they've been consistently created, while in all other provinces it's completely random as to whether any given list actually exists or not, if any lists ever actually happened at all (which they haven't always). That's also leaving aside the open question of whether such lists actually serve any useful or encyclopedic function at all under current Wikipedia practice — they're not allowed to contain WP:BLP1E sketches anymore, which was their only genuinely substantive reason for existing even when they could, and thus now serve no real function that the election's main article isn't already fulfilling — but debating that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to look at this. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The list of candidates is quite comprehensive already and will be checked at the end of the nomination period with the official list released by the DGEQ. As for Ms. Leblond, she's already listed as a PLQ candidate in the Bertrand riding. If she wins, she'll get her article. As for adding articles for every candidate, let's just say that 892 people ran in the 2012 general election...  Bouchecl (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, the discussion about "candidate lists" wasn't referring to the table of election results in an election's main article, but about the separate lists of candidates by party (e.g. Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, and on and so forth) that exist for some, but not necessarily all, parties in some, but not necessarily all, elections in some, but not necessarily all, provinces. Articles about individual as-yet-unelected candidates in an election are against our inclusion rules, but still happen quite regularly when there's an election campaign underway, so we have had to have a strategy in place for dealing with that — but the current practice is to redirect them to one of the more specific candidates-by-party lists, if an appropriate one exists, not to the comprehensive results table. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I wasn't aware of that. As you point out, we never created listings of party candidates running in Quebec general elections before. Bouchecl (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Mindmatrix, I think 2014 Quebec provincial elections and 2014 Quebec elections are somewhat excessive and incorrect. It's only one election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I know. One was the link provided in the comment above, and the other from eliminating the word 'provincial' from it. As redirects, they don't affect the base article, and they assist individuals who are used to the plural form (eg - those from some non-Canadian jurisdictions). Mindmatrix 18:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical information removed by a wikipedia admin

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

See Talk:Alasdair_Roberts_(academic)#Making Policy Behind Closed Doors - the reference (which this admin rejects) was a piece published in the Globe and mail. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That Arthur Rubin is an admin is completely irrelevant to his editorial decision to remove the passage. I have no opinion on the question of whether the material belongs, but I would side with Arthur in believing that that was most likely a letter or an editorial published in the Globe. Newspapers don't publish papers in the context you have presented there. Resolute 16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Resolute: May I ask why you would side with User:Arthur Rubin without even checking? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Simple logic. Newspapers don't publish papers in the context you suggested in the article. It isn't a case of siding with anyone - as I said, I have no opinion on whether this piece should be mentioned. But I do believe that it should be accurately presented. And as Bearcat notes on the article talk page, it is in fact what I expected it would be - an editorial. Resolute 15:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Resolute: Yes you are siding with user:Arthur Rubin – your words (above), not mine. You agree that it was published in the Globe&Mail – so why can’t this be mentioned in Alasdair_Roberts_(academic)? If you want to remove the word paper and replace it with op-ed be my guest, but having four Wikipedia admins dictating what can&cannot be included in Wikpedia articles is pure censorship.
Please don’t forget that the paragraph in question has been in the article since 2010 and was only recently removed with this edit summary: There is no evidence that it was published! XOttawahitech (talk)
If you tried making a case for why it's important to mention in the article — relating it to an important issue, for instance, or making a case that it's genuinely representative of the kind of work he generally publishes — then people might be more willing to consider your position carefully. But as of right now, you haven't even really tried to present a cogent argument for why it should be there — all you've offered is unsubstantiated assertions of administrator malfeasance, and misrepresentations of what the piece even was in the first place. Try giving an actual, substantive and productive reason why the information should be in the article, and the discussion might go differently. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Why do I need to make a case...? it was removed with this edit summary: There is no evidence that it was published. Now we know this was incorrect.
Please notify me when you respond. Thanks. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, I don't know that it was published. The only evidence provided is that someone, on a newsgroup, said it was published. Even if it were published, it might be a "letter to the editor" or possibly even an "Op-ed"; in neither case, should the Globe & Mail be mentioned in the text. Only if it were published as an article should the text be accepted, and that is extremely implausible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, as nice as it would be if everybody always used an accurate edit summary, not everybody actually uses edit summaries at all; some people write confusing ones; some people write ones that misrepresent what they actually did; some people have good intentions but sometimes make mistakes (e.g. accidentally selecting the wrong one when performing an automated edit). So you need to judge an edit by its substance, not its edit summary.
Accordingly, the reason you need to make a case for inclusion is that you're the one arguing that the information should be included, in a disagreement with someone who's said that it isn't noteworthy enough to warrant mention. The rule on Wikipedia is not that absolutely anything that could possibly be written about a person belongs in our article about them — there are many kinds of information that could be added to an article but aren't actually worthy of inclusion here, such as an article topic's favourite cheese or the name of their great-grandmother's neighbour's nephew or insider gossip about their private sex lives. (Every single one of those things has actually been tried on here many times, trust me.) So if somebody disputes whether a piece of information belongs in an article or not, as long as they're acting in good faith you need to make a case for why it does belong there, rather than relying solely on "it used to be there". "I like cows" used to be present in supermom too, as you may remember from one of your past attempts at campaigning against administrator "malfeasance" — but that doesn't mean it belongs there. So the fact that somebody added it at one time doesn't mean it has to stay there forever — if you think it belongs there and somebody else doesn't, then you need to provide a substantive reason why it belongs there and cannot just assert that removing it was a bad faith action.
And finally, as nice as it is to get a courtesy echo/ping when somebody replies to you in a discussion, that's not a requirement that all editors are obliged to follow in every discussion. Some editors do it, some don't, some would if they knew how, some do sometimes but forget other times, some just resent the expectation, and some actually dislike all the pings cluttering up their notifications queue and thus don't want to get pinged. Appreciate it when people do it, sure, but if you're interested in an ongoing discussion then it's your responsibility to monitor that discussion for new posts when you have a chance, regardless of whether you've gotten pinged or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't read the comment that the op-ed was found in ProQuest; I may have made a mistake in my edit summary, but at the time, I could accurately have said that there was no reliable evidence presented that it was published. I shouldn't have escalated my edit comment without additional evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bearcat: Thanks for the notification above.
I am really not sure what cows, cheese, great-grandmother's neighbour's nephew and malfeasance have to do with this topic. However, I would like to note that you (and the other 3 admins who have opined on this issue) have still not addressed my statement: "it is a paper nonetheless, complete with bibliography." XOttawahitech (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Your statement has been addressed but you refuse to accept it and are using your usual "rephrase and push" approach. The paper may have been published and may even have had a bibliography, that is not the problem. It is a opinion article published as an op-ed article. It does not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Let me clarify this for you. Not that it was really all that unclear the first time, but since you obviously need the clarification:
I raised cheese and great-grandmother's neighbour's nephew as examples of the kinds of information that it is possible to add to a Wikipedia article, but are not actually important or relevant enough to belong there. You have yet, however, to demonstrate that this particular op-ed isn't in the same class of trivial information; you have yet to demonstrate that it's important enough to warrant mention. All you've demonstrated is that the op-ed existed, which is no different than cheese and the nephew — yes, somebody might have a favourite cheese, but why should we care? Yes, the nephew existed, but why should we care? Yes, the op-ed existed, but why should we care?
Rather, instead of providing any actual evidence as to why or how the piece might actually be important enough to warrant mention in his article, your entire argument so far has boiled down to two points: "it used to be there, and thus it has to stay forever", hence the cows as an example of why that argument doesn't wash, and "it was a paper", which has been refuted repeatedly but you keep asserting it anyway.
And every time you raise one of these campaigns against something that happened on here which you don't like, you always adopt a pose of "campaigning against administrator malfeasance", even when you're actually deeply misunderstanding what actually happened and what can or can't be done about it. Which ties into the cows again, to boot: as you may or may not remember, what actually happened was that you raised the "ADMINISTRATOR MALFEASANCE!" alarm because somebody had deleted the original iteration of supermom. You assumed that a real article had been written at that topic and somebody had arbitrarily deemed it non-notable — so I looked at the deleted article and informed you of what it actually contained, which was the aforementioned "I like cows". And again, you're doing almost exactly the same thing here — you're simply asserting that the editor who removed the content was acting in bad faith, and have done nothing at all to answer any of the numerous editors who have asked you to explain why the information even belongs in the article in the first place. You just keep reasserting the "bad faith" claim without responding at all to the actual crux of the matter. You really do seem to spend a lot of time on here jumping to conclusions instead of assuming good faith, you know?
Is that perhaps a bit clearer now? Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat:Since you are the only editor with access to the Globe&Mail piece, would you please tell us if there are 17 notes at the bottom of it as can be seen on the 1998 usenet posting of this piece at:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/can.org.cips/uYqzadeknGI/gqEZ_t7XMu4J? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm understanding your continued insistence on characterizing it as a "paper" much better. You're relying on a Google Groups posting? I'm confident that I don't need to tell you that Google Groups does not count as a reliable source, but I'll say that anyway just in case it's news.
That said, just for the record: the version printed in The Globe and Mail does not include any footnote annotations at all. Where the footnotes begin on the Google Groups posting, the G&M just includes the brief credential note that "Alasdair Roberts is an associate professor in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. An annotated version of this appears at [his own faculty web url at the time, which no longer exists...and yes, I checked it]." The annotated version that was posted to Usenet clearly came from copying the annotations from the version on his own website, rather than from the G&M itself — and thus, crediting it directly to the G&M instead of to his own website constitutes an incorrect attribution of the source material. Which is, bam, one of the reasons why a Usenet posting archived at Google Groups doesn't count as a reliable source — you can certainly use that to help you track down possible sources, but you have to actually consult the original source for yourself if you want to cite something to it, and cannot directly cite to the Google Groups posting itself, because it's impossible to properly verify the accuracy of the Google Groups posting until you see the original source for yourself. And if we credited it directly to his own website instead of the G&M, then it would violate WP:SELFPUB in addition to still not having an actual reason why it was important enough to merit mention at all — and, for the record, the fact that the content was sourced exclusively to a Google Groups posting completely absolves User:Arthur Rubin, because his edit summary was a completely accurate assessment of what he was actually looking at.
So we still don't have a reliable source with any of the footnotes in it, nor a reason why it's important enough to warrant mention...but at least now I understand why you were so hung up on calling it a "paper". Not that having that knowledge actually makes a difference here, mind you. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Note also that there is a significant difference between something that is published (such as opinion pieces/editorials, or newspaper columns), and something that is peer reviewed. Stating something in a newspaper article without subjecting it to peer review is an example of original research, against which Wikipedia has strict rules. Mindmatrix 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed over at Eaton's

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we get some eyes on the Eaton's article, specifically the section called "Eaton's in Quebec"? Two users got caught up in an edit war in June 2012, which quickly degenerated into a series of insults and other unproductive behaviour on the talk page (see Talk:Eaton's/Archives/2014#Eaton's in Quebec (section)). That fight died down, and then one of them quietly reinserted the text in question a year ago, and the other editor just noticed, so now they are back to reverting one another. One of the editors is willing to discuss on the talk page. Could editors with fresh eyes take a look at the section in question and please add their two cents? Some new input is desperately required. No need to read the past discussion, since it's mostly just insults back and forth. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Genie Awards

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

While I recognize that not really giving a hoot about Canadian film is pretty much one of the defining characteristics of Canadian culture, I'd still like to request some assistance in getting our coverage of the Genie Awards up to contemporary formatting and content and referencing standards — with the exception of a couple of years that I've recently updated (1st Genie Awards and 19th Genie Awards, and I've been tackling 24th Genie Awards today but am not done with it yet), very nearly every related article has one or more major problems that need some concerted attention.

Many of the award-by-year articles, for example, have never actually been properly updated with anything beyond the "big six" (best picture, best director and the acting awards) categories; sometimes, but not always, the screenplay categories have been added, as well as, again sometimes but not always, winner-only lists for a completely random selection of other categories (in one year it'll be the documentary, in another year the animated short, in another year nothing, and on and so forth). And many of the award-by-category articles, in turn, are missing significant pieces of information too; before today, for example, Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television Award for Best Achievement in Music – Original Song went "11, 17-20, 22-32", and was missing everything else, and even for some of the years it did contain it was still missing the names of the songs (which is pretty damn important information in a list of songs, isn't it?) — I've got it completed as far back as 1990 now, but would still appreciate some assistance tracking down the older years.

Is anybody willing to help out with this, or am I stuck driving a lonely road here? Bearcat (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Guess I'm on the lonely road here. Would still be nice if someone were willing to assist. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Bearcat, recently I've been busy cleaning up and expanding articles about Canadian banknotes, and I also have an extensive list of articles I'm trying to clean up or write in addition to those. Not that it helps, but I know your pain... Mindmatrix 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I can put a bit of time in later this week. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who is willing to help out, I've created a "project guide" at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Genies cleanup project to explain what needs to be done and how to do it. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for what it's worth, I've gotten so little interest here that I'm going to try soliciting some assistance at WP:FILM instead. Anybody who wants to help out is still welcome to do so, however. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

David Suzuki

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lots of vandalism at David Suzuki. XOttawahitech (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FAR

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Paul Kane for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please participate in talk:Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia move discussion, we are having a rather heated conversation -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"heated" in reference a hot springs-related article is cute, I guess unintentional, but PRIMARYTOPIC and MOSTCOMMON apply.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Logan Lake, British Columbia

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please participate in talk:Logan Lake, British Columbia move discussion, we are having a rather heated conversation. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "heated" just thorny, because of your attempt to include not-suitable, and not even linked, items to the dab. Logan Lake and your Lake Logan dab are two different names, resolvable by hatnote.Skookum1 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I did. I added a hatnote. I didn't object to your move request. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Questionable notability of Michel Auger (politician)

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I received a post on my talk page notifying me of an impending deletion of Michel Auger (politician), because the subject is not notable. I strongly believe that all Canadian MPs should have an article so I would like to get input on what exactly should be included in these articles to deter any potential request for deletion. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:CANSTYLE#Federal or provincial office. Mindmatrix 19:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged the article with {{refimprove}}, which is what should have been done instead of prodding. Mindmatrix 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, the article actually got tagged for prod — and declined within two hours, for exactly the reasons given above — six weeks ago. And you addressed it with the tagging user at the time, to boot, so I'm not sure I understand why you're only bringing this to the WikiProject's attention now. Regardless, you are correct — the standard for politicians is that anybody who has held a seat in the House of Commons (or a provincial/territorial legislature, for that matter) is always notable enough for an article. Additional references would certainly help, but basic notability is not up for debate if the person is properly confirmable as having been elected to the HoC. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was curious about that. I figured some discussion was occurring in some nether regions of WP and didn't want to invest the time ferreting it out. Mindmatrix 18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re the CfD closure at "Squamish people"

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Well, seems like targeting me and being insecure about long passages of responses detailing why bad ideas are bad ideas is a successful tactic (and we're seeing the same game of illogic joined with accusations of unintelligibility of the proponent's rebuttals to wrong ideas, and we still have this problem category that was moved/changed by people who aren't even from the area or know anything about the topics at hand. The "Squamish" and "Squamish (disambiguation) RMs were non-admin closed despite other similar RMs on primarytopic=town have gone through, in many cases items of the very same kind. See Category_talk:Squamish_people#Re_the_2nd_CfD for other comments. Rather than complain about me writing in paragraphs instead of bullet points, I really think a lot of people in Wikipedia should start taking remedial reading..... and that they shouldn't "vote" on CfDs and RMs until they're knowledgeable about the subject at hand. "Waaah he uses big words and long sentences" is not an adequate excuse for not educating themselves as they should instead of complaining "I don't have time, but I want to make a vote based on a guideline I think is mandatory". This was wiki-lawyering of the worst kind but typical of the legal world also; don't examine the evidence, attack the proponent. Content and titles are suffering. What's up next? A MoveReview on all three of Squamish people, Squamish and Squamish, British Columbia at the same time to get them jointly relisted so a long hard look at the primarytopic nature of the town and the pattern of endonym titles that was SO OBVIOUS......ah, well, this'll be snitted at as another "wall of text" and it's a tiresome thing to be around people writing an encyclopedia that don't have the attention span to be able to read your average articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt any of these people could handle reading a 19th Century novel or a philosophical treatise....Skookum1 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

MoveReview, of course, is not written about reasons or logics that the decision was wrong; it's primarily about etiquette and conduct, rather than content or rationales or the actual reality of the real world; it's an inner/higher level of Wikipedia that's even more strictured than first-tier procedure; I'm probably hooped there too huh? This is not over, that's all I can say.Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
So we have had people from other countries decide for us that they can decide what the primarytopic of a Canadian title is.....and who dismiss CANENGL and CANSTYLE as irrelevant to global English "MOSTCOMMON" uses. Guidelines were cherrypicked, guidelines against things staying the way they are were ignored, and I was attacked instead. Things are going a bit more positively at Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move and Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move, which are parallel situations. Chemainus, Sechelt and many other native-names-as-town names have all been recognized as primary topics and obscure/new band names stand alongside them; but this one, nooooo, Stz'uminus is even more obscure than Skwxwu7mesh. Does anyone else here see the problem? People who don't know anything about Canada or BC or the way such names as St'at'imc, Ktunaxa et al are now common in Canadian English is rejected as meaningless to those who want to cite linguistics texts only...... in all their voluminous irrelevance. Five Canadians weighed in on this CfD, all of us were ignored, not just me. Cultural colonialism at its worst, but then nobody ever said Wikipedia had morality did they?Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For info, I have given Skookum1 a break from Wikipedia for 48 hours. – Fayenatic London 08:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

About which I'll have quite a bit to say later, elsewhere. Right now I'm catching up on 48 hours worth of wiki-work..... and looking at preparing an NPA for my principal opponent in re his repeated derisions and insults; in fairness I'm not the only one who should have been blocked; he gets away with way too much.Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R.J. (Bob) Huggins

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear editors: This old declined Afc submission was forgotten, and another editor later made a fresh article about the same person: Robert J. Huggins. Is there useful material in the draft that should be moved to the mainspace article? Or should it just be let go as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That draft looks and reads very much like a promotional biography, and relies almost entirely on primary sources. (Even the live version needs sourcing improvements, but it's at least more neutral and less blatantly advertorial in tone.) I don't see anything substantive or properly sourced in the AFC draft that would actually improve the live version at all — so I'd just kill it. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to look at this. I've nominated it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Riley Senft

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Would anyone like to review this Afc submission that was a stale draft until I decided to improve it? I don't believe it can be described as a single event, since Dr. Senft was in the news for months, and is still getting into the news for his cancer-fighting activities. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is in mainspace now as Riley Senft. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Heather Cooper

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

My seven-year old article about Heather Cooper, designer of the iconic Roots Beaver was deleted by an administrator as it "Seems to fail GNG and have zero appearances in media". I argued for its return and it was added as a special page under my user name with the admonition: "Do not move it back to mainspace until it is properly referenced." The administrator asks: "How is it that no-one has managed to add any independent evidence of notability?" So I am calling on the community: Does anyone think the article and subject is worthy of retention? If so, please help by improving the article.Verne Equinox (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The admin goofed big time. "Fails GNG" is not among the criteria for speedy deletion. The article should have at least had the benefit of the WP:PROD or WP:AFD processes. Pburka (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That was not a valid speedy deletion. However, we're here now anyway, and I am not finding a great deal of coverage. this is a good local resource, and this has some interviews. After that, a couple blogs and a couple primary sources. It's pretty iffy as to whether this would survive a proper AFD. Resolute 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The Canadian Encyclopedia confirms the design credit, and is a better source than a corporate blog. It looks like there might be a review of her book in Art Direction, but the GBooks preview is truncated. She's also listed in the 1995 Canadian Who's Who; GBooks truncates this again, but it's probably easy enough to find a paper copy in a local library. Pburka (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Territorial items in need of undabbing or other issues

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Port Burwell is a TWODABS item per NU and ON and should be redone with a hatnote; which one would be PT, if either?
  • re Bathurst Inlet, the inlet article is currently undabbed; is it more of a PT than the community?
  • same question re Chesterfield Inlet.
  • by what the hatnote says, it seems Killiniq, Nunavut should be merged with Port Burwell, Nunavut; currently Killiniq is a three item dabpage that could be better handled with a hatnote; to me THREEDABS is little better than TWODABS as being unnecessary title-clutter.
  • Whale Cove is a TWODABS page, though I think there's another in BC somewhere; I'll consult BC names; seems a potentially very common name...nothing in BC Names, but there are 19 listings in CGNDB, and there are probably lots of Whale Bay names in Canada and elsewhere, in English or in translation (one famous on in Baja comes to mind). Wow 195 entries for "Whale*" though including Whaley and Whalen and things like Whaleback and Whalebone....lots of Whale Coves too.Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Canadian native/aboriginal endonym titles currently at RM to remove needless and contra-guideline disambiguations

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Some have already been closed with "people" stripped from them back to their original titles. Here are the currently open ones; unless otherwise noted the non-people title that is the RM target is a redirect to the current title, created in the course of undiscussed moves by zealous over-application of the miswritten and misused WP:NCL. Links given are directly to the RMs:

I don't have time /energy to continue this right now, I will continue this at another time and also list standalone titles eitehr long-standing or recently RMd.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Help to create a consensus around University Canada West Wikipedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please, can you review the University Canada West Talk page. I need to form a consensus because as of now it's me and another editor; this is not a consensus. Please, take a few minutes to see my referenced contributions and content on the University Canada West Talk page. I would appreciate if you could weigh in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goburst (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC) --Goburst (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Goburst: Welcome to the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. It is not clear what consensus you are trying to build at Talk:University_Canada_West#Help_build_a_consensus_around_University_Canada_West_Wikipedia. Can you please spell out the issues? XOttawahitech (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Stawamus/Sta7mes re-RM - please read

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please read here as to the disambiguation issue here, vs the original title which is completely precise and needs no disambiguation at all.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note: at issue here is a dispute that Canadian dab standards are allegedly not relevant; i.e. the dab Stawamus (village) implies a village municipality; the obstructionism over the undiscussed move from Sta7mes by Kauffner on Dec 1 2011 saying "moved Talk:St'a7mes to Talk:Stawamus: Move to English-language name. See discussion at Talk:Squamish people".

Suffice to say that neither Stawamus nor Squamish are English words......there are various places in guidelines that have to do with needless disambiguation vs another name in use that does not require them, no matter whether most common or not; I've found I can argue til I'm blue in the face with people who won't yield either to common sense or guidelines; Kauffner is also who moved the main Skwxwmu7mesh category to "Squamish" and did the same for the Squamish template. Consistency within the ethno category with other village names is not borne out by this, nor is "Self-identification"......but in this case, BDD's move to Stawamus (village) rather than Stawamus (Skwxwu7mesh village) or back, as per guidelines when an intractable dispute is at play, to the original title, produced a dab which to me is totally unworkable by our guidelines; as with other RMs, there are those how either don't know about WPCANADA dabs or CANYSTYLE, and others who say that it's not relevant....hmmmm it turns out the Kauffner has been has been banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry.....makes me wonder who his other socks were....maybe are...and does call into question other actions of his, and the issue of whether or not RMs/CfDs he took part in he may have taken more than ONE part in.

The Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish move, the RM of which he took a part in as a vocal oppose, was a bot-instigated CFDS even though there hadn't even been a week since the close of the RM.......hell bent for leather, he moved the template, and this one, too...... Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at CfD?

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
this isn't going anywhere fast and it's the wrong board to boot. Ottawahitech is welcome to continue the discussion at the categorization project or CFD talk page. This is way off topic for this board, having nothing to do with canada.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All it takes to delete a catergory is to nominate it at wp:CfD. No discussion necessary and no need to state what policy/guideline the nominator is relying on. See for example: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_17#Category:People_in_the_food_industry.

Am I mising something? XOttawahitech (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The nominator did leave a message on your talk page, but neither you nor anybody else left a comment in the deletion discussion, so the closing admin rightly assumed there was no objection to the deletion nomination. As an aside, this isn't specifically relevant to WikiProject Canada; you'd probably get more insightful responses from those that deal with these issues frequently at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Mindmatrix 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: I posted my comment here in the hope of informing those who are interested in wiki-categories and participate here but not in ‘’’Categories for discussion’’’. I was also hoping for a less toxic environment here than there.
No objection does not mean agreement — many editors avoid commenting at CfD discussions. The example I used is only one of many, and closing discussions just because no one objects, is not my understanding of how consensus is reached. Those discussions should be re-listed just as the practice is elsewhere at Wikipedia. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, this concept is discussed in the essay at WP:SILENCE. Short answer, yes - if no one objects that is interpreted as no one disagrees. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Thanks for joining this discussion. If I understand it correctly WP:SILENCE talks about reversions which are not at all the same as deletions. wp:CfD is an established process that gives administrators the permission of the community to delete content that editors have previously contributed. Consensus building in this context should be much more robust since its sets precedents that others rely on. Am I making sense? XOttawahitech (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You actually need a "robust precedent" to tell you that it's not helpful or valuable to create a category that's literally just a duplication of another category that already exists, and then make absolutely no effort to actually explain how it might constitute a distinction of value instead of a duplication? Yeah, rules and guidelines are important — but so is having and using a modicum of common sense. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Yes I do need a robust explanation of how Food industry is equivalent to food and agriculture occupations. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, all it takes to create a category is a few keystrokes; no discussion necessary and no need to state what policy/guidelines the category creator is relying on. Ottawa, you seem to be annoyed that some of your categories are deleted, although I have no idea why you are using this noticeboard instead of a more appropriate one. That said, the cost in terms of time for editors and admins who nominate, close, and delete duplicative categories that you and others create is likely much greater than the time you spend building the categories, and you seem rather devoid of concern for that. Deleting duplicative and unworkable categories is GOOD for wikipedia. My suggestions to you to avoid such issues in the future are:
  1. take CARE before creating a new category
  2. think carefully about whether it is truly needed and useful
  3. consider and search for whether an existing category might cover the same scope
  4. consider what the potential contents could be and whether it could be sufficiently populated
  5. check to see if there is a head article for the category, or if one could reasonably be created
  6. if creating a new scheme, consider what that might imply for the rest of the tree (for example, your Category:Women by organization scheme)
  7. Add inclusion criteria at the top of the category to ensure people know what is supposed to go in it
  8. if it's a gendered or ethnic category, make sure it follows the precepts of WP:EGRS and past consensus on gendered categories, and that it doesn't violate last rung rules, and that, most importantly, you can demonstrate with sources a strong and special connection of gender to the topic
Esp. for gendered cats, you should seriously consider whether your concept of a valid "women" category is aligned in any way with current WP consensus.
  1. If your category is nominated for deletion, show up at CFD and tell us why it should be kept. I have often changed my mind on deletion of a category after the creator showed up to explain their reasoning.
You have maintained a lovely long list of duplicate categories, or categories that violate WP:EGRS, that you've created - so rather than complaining that your duplicative cats are deleted, you should consider being more careful before you create them in the first place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You do appear to be missing something, or a couple of somethings. Firstly, the fact that your new category wasn't substantively different from another category that already existed and had been much more actively populated. And secondly, the fact that if you had a real reason why your category was genuinely needed and not just an unnecessary duplicate of another category that already existed, you had a whole entire week in which you could have posted to the discussion to provide a real reason why the category was actually needed. And finally, the fact that the category in question has almost nothing whatsoever to do with WP:CWNB, and you should take your issue to a more relevant venue if you want to continue discussing it. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat: I have already responded to your first and last points. As far as having an entire week to participate in this sham discussion board called CfD please check my talk page which can supply a full time job to editors who prefer to spend their wiki-time in circular non-productive talk. Please notify me if you would like me to respond. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If those editors who you claim spend their time "with circular non-productive talk" did not do this it would be the wild wild west of non-notable articles, the categories would be a mess and Wikipedia would be a bloated spammy mess. Please watch this talk page if you would like to respond, not everyone uses Echo, knows how to use Echo or cares to use Echo. The onus is on you to participate in this discussion, not be summoned by others. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent font change - type face

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Font size and style for more info.

To change back to the old style (sans-serif style in Vector).....

Go to Preferences → Gadgets → Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)
-- Moxy (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy! PKT(alk) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick question - to me the new font is blurry and all text is bold ...is this what others see? -- Moxy (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I find the new font to be blurry and it makes it really hard to focus. Wish there was Reddit Gold on Wikipedia (ok well "Wikipedia Gold") for times like this! Thanks! Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

COI/SPA edits on McBride, British Columbia

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As often happens, municipal SPA has edited the McBride article, deleting cited material and in this case even the weather box, though an infobox was added on the last edit at least; the COIs of this kind are tricky, as like FN communities quite often the best source of info, but also of POV, is from COI sources. I'm up to my eyeballs and don't have time to integrate what was deleted with what was added, so posting this here hoping that someone else will take it on.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Château Haldimand

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know who Hallows AG is or where they're from, but declining Chateau Haldimand as "not notable" is very wrong.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, non-notable just means it needs better sources. There's an article in the French language Wikipedia ([6]), but it is basically unsourced, so no help there. Any one know where to find some good history sources about early Quebec? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong - see below (should be able to see them). I have more if need be -- Moxy (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New France
Quebec and New France
Okay, thanks; with these sources someone could improve fifty or sixty articles! I have THIS LIST of old Afc submissions that I am working through, so it may be a while before I get to it; if anyone else is interested and wants to do it now, please go ahead. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe this Chateau isn't all that notable - I checked all of those books and found one (1) reference to the this building HERE. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Not much out there in English - Lots out there in French. - There happens to be an image for you that is in French ..it says IMAGE HERE - There is also this page that is translate. As for english we have only Various. The Makers of Canada: Index and Dictionary of Canadian History. Library of Alexandria. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-4655-7197-7. -- Moxy (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Here stood the Old Castle or Chateau Haldimand, established on the curtains of the old Fort St. Louis. Started in 1784, opened in 1787, this building was demolished in 1892 to make room at the Château Frontenac. Here Stood Château Haldimand or Vieux Château, Occupying share of the outworks of Fort St Louis. Begun in 1784, completed in 1787, this edifice WAS Displaced by the erection of the present Château Frontenac in 1892.

Sources in French are fine. I have added what I could from the items that you've provided, and move the article to mainspace. It's a little skimpy, but it's a start. Thanks for your help, Moxy. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reif Estate Winery

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reif Estate Winery is located in Niagara-on-the-Lake in Ontario, Canada. Reif Estate is primarily known for playing an important in role pioneering the Ontario wine Industry, as well as planting some of the first Vitis vinifera vines in the Niagara region.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaksr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

should unincorporated communities be subject to CANSTYLE re no-comma-province dab is unique?

Latest comment: 10 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

I've launched RMs on all but two of the items in the various municipal categories which are primaryuse and/or already redirects to themselves to strip the comma-province dab from them for consistency.

Should this be applied to unincorporated settlements also? The two I've avoided are Squamish, British Columbia and Lillooet, British Columbia, the first because of two failed RMs decided from people from elsewhere who didn't have any clue about the town on Talk:Squamish people#Requested move and Talk:Squamish people#Requested move (thanks for showing up and flying the flag, folks...) and there is a still-open RM on Talk:Squamish#Requested move which includes the de-dabbing of Talk:Squamish, British Columbia (which hopefully will be more well-attended by Canadians as so far a lot of BC-related RMs are deluged by people not from BC who are unfamiliar with the town and insist that the people are the primary topic, despite the extant examples of Sechelt, Kamloops, Penticton, etc... Lillooet I may file an RM of the same kind on because of the items on the Lillooet dab page, the primary topic is the town (open to debate but in wiki terms the people title is St'at'imc and the Lillooet Indian Band is the T'it'q'et First Nation.Skookum1 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it applies to unincorporated communities as well. There are at least three unincorporated communities in Alberta at their undisambiguated titles. Hwy43 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

    • Comox and Squamish were just closed as "no consensus" and "not moved", in both cases invalid points were counted in the course of not-determining the "no consensus"...... I was already going to take Squamish people to MoveReview, now I'm thinking the whole cluster of Squamish articles should be taken to somewhere like ARBCOM or RFC as the Move Review process is extremely limited in scope (and is biased towards wikiquette instead of points of content). Comox was an open and shut case, as Skeezix also observed; those disputing it as a primary topic were not from Canada and not in a position to judge "primary topic" or not; the notion that the electoral district, named for the town (actually for the Comox Land District, which was named for the town), is equal enough to be construed as a parallel primary topic is ridiculous. Don't any of these people read WP:UNDAB and, well, I know from experience they have no clue about PRIMARYTOPIC and MOSTCOMMON when it comes to places and things in Canada. I know a lot you give me a wide berth for whatever reasons you may have, but these are all important RMs and are the babies that shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. I myself started those titles as dab pages long ago before I understood CANSTYLE and the implications of PRIMARYTOPIC. Before all the rest are closed by "votes" by similarly uninformed contrarians and "no consensus" declared by someone else who doesn't have a clue, please have a look at the rest; I'll list them all here shortly.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

list of remaining open RMs

  • Lillooet, British Columbia → Lillooet (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
    • closed/moved by Cuchalainn
  • Saanich, British Columbia → Saanich (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
    • closed/no consensus/not moved by User:DavidLeighEllis despite ample sources/stats vs. unsubstantiated and undefined PRIMARYTOPIC claims.
  • Comox people#Requested move, all participants want Comox, British Columbia to move to Comox, even though that dual RM was closed last week on alleged PRIMARYTOPIC disputes and Comox has been listed again right away as part of the new one.
  • Bella Coola, British Columbia → Bella Coola (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
    • despite ample googles and view stats, and treating ridiculous primarytopic alternatives as valid, this was closed "No consensus/not moved" by non-admin User:DavidLeighEllis who, like so many who feel compelled to close such RMs, has no knowledge of BC....and disregarded qualitative evidence with respect to off-the-wall obstructive "oppose" votes.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Bella Bella, British Columbia → Bella Bella (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
    • again, despite obvious facts and mass of evidence, this was closed "not moved/no consensus today by BrownHairedGirl, who is in Ireland and has no knowledge of BC (nor did the oppose votes).
  • Fort Fraser, British Columbia → Fort Fraser - PRIMARYTOPIC dispute by Vegaswikian because of minor items on the dab page; I've already done exhaustive googlesearches on Lillooet, Saanich, Bella Coola, and Bella Bella; the same will bear out on this title but I've wasted enough time on wild goose chases when the goose is already in the pen, as demonstrated by the googlesearches listed. That a long-time editor with obvious local expertise is so persistently challenged in knee-jerk fashion is becoming tiresome and is needless disputatious.
    • This was closed today "not consensus/not moved" by BrownHairedGirl], who btw used the "shouting" all-caps "NO CONSENSUS" in the edit comments here and on Bella Bella and also Sts'Ailes people. That she is hostile to me and is among those participating in the ANI against me in hostile fashion, and has made TLDR her reason for one of the Squamish closes, makes this bad-call all the more dubious, as also with Bella Bella. She has also closed "NO CONSENSUS" on Haida people and other indigenous topics (Sanpoil tribe, Spokane people...I'm thinking that she views the ample stats and google searches as "TLDR", and also hasn't read PRIMARYTOPIC fully, as Haida Gwaii was posited as a primarytopic, which by definition it is not. Closures like this are against guidelines, and though she doesn't say it (other than shouting "NO CONSENSUS"), I believe these closures of RMs I started and which are needed to be invalid and tendentious; all such RMs should be revisited, or overturned by Canadian admins who "know better" than closers from distant countries with no respect or regard for CANENGL or ENGVAR, or me for that matter.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Atlin, British Columbia → Atlin - PRIMARYTOPIC dispute by Vegaswikian

The listings below are all simple redirects to the current title and someone here with admin powers can please move them without further fuss, though the formality of the RMs means they need to be closed first.

There are going to be many more more now once the populated places in regional district categories are investigated. By the time I/we are done covering the country there will be maybe "thousands" of RMs....I wonder if I'll be dressed down for being "disruptive" like I have been on the indigenous names titles, which are in similar number.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For those that you've moved to their undisambiguated titles, and for those you are about to do, please add them to the BC list at WP:CANLIST to keep it up to date and useful. Hwy43 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been updating that on the fly, though it's still not fully covered re new successful RMs and some moves that CambridgeBayWeather did with his admin powers.
Much later, I've been up since 8:45 am and it's 2:18 now and though I had a light breakfast I haven't had lunch yet. I'm aware of the need to update "what links here" items.Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll also add a list of the new RMs here for perusal/input by WP:Canada community.Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Other items:

Recently closed

Atlin, British Columbia was just closed by non-admin closure as "no consensus, not moved" because of Vegaswikian's "trouting" there (as Floydian describes such objections in his comment on the Lillooet item). The same non-admin user closed Comox, British Columbia similarly even though that is now back on the table, informally, by all four support votes in Talk:Comox people#Requested move though no action has been taken, as I requested on the RM talkpage, to relist it as part of that new RM - which is irregular as it re-opened an RM on Comox even though the town-closure was less than a week before. I didn't have time to do similar searches such as I have fielded on Bella Coola, Lillooet and Saanich and have not yet had time to do on Bella Bella. IMO Vegaswikian is out of line with all his objections, and "ironic" is a soft word for his own failure to properly address the town-as-primary-topic issue at the first RM on Talk:Squamish people#Requested move which moved the long-standing Skwxwu7mesh title to "Squamish", which resulted in the bot-instigated speedy of the ethno category to Category:Squamish and has since required two, now failed RMs in which I was made the target of the close instead of the decision, and IMO were improper closures.

All Squamish RMs and CfDs need to be revisited as a group, at some higher level now apparently than where my forthright, frank and detailed analysis will be treated with TLDR complaints and shoved aside. Local expertise is being too consistently derided and anti-AGFd by such oppositional activities; Atlin like others is a clearly open and shut case but because of Vegaswikian's interloping, which I believe to be partisan/POV in origin, and ill-informed about Canada to boot, we are seeing undesirable results that fly in teh face of precedents for town-name-with-no-dab RMs elsewhere. "Something must be done" but as I am personally being made the reason to attack RMs I file, or to close based on my alleged lack of cogency or manners (by people who do not take the time to read what I have to say, after asking for PRIMARYTOPIC proofs that are dismissed as "verbose response" and "Excessive text", per Vegaswikian's sniping at me on the Lillooet RM. To me, those constitute worse than AGF and are NPA but, because he is an admin, it is pointless to take him on at an ANI where I will, once again, be made a target, just as he has been targeting my RMs wantonly.

Having been blocked summarily for 48 hours for "criticizing other editors and not addressing content" even though others persistently criticize/NPA me, including him, I find this whole matter to be coming something of a farce. Atlin, Comox BC and the Squamish RMs/CFDs need overturning and reopening so that they are congruent with the way other RMs have been being closed in recognition of both PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CSG#Places. How to reopen and relist them I am at a loss as to where to start and where to go. As can be seen at the Lillooet, Saanich, Bella Coola and other still-open RMs, I have put a lot of time and energy in answer to the repetitive PRIMARYTOPIC challenges from Vegaswikian, but because I have not had time to do the same for Atlin "we" have lost that one and "he" has won. But it is Wikipedia that is losing because of such activities; Atlin should have been, if anything, relisted, as also should have been with Comox and, last year, and this year, with Squamish people/Squamish, British Columbia, not summarily closed as they have so rudely been, by people who don't even know about the subject matter, or downplay the importance of such places based on their low populations, despite their being regional centres and towns of historical importance in Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Listing of remaining comma-province dabs solvable by overwriting redirects

For lack of a better place, though maybe a sandbox in WP:CANLIST can be made, I'll start listing items that are solvable by overwriting redirects, to avoid the hassles of the RM process; some may involve minor dabs that can be resolved by two-item hatnotes or transformation into "FOO (disambiguation)"; I'll do the same for ethno and language RMs that do not need their current "people" or "language" dabs later...some are already at RM....

towns/places needing undabbing

@Hwy43: I'm not clear on what it says on CANLIST about unincorporated settlements; I've just been adding them there; is there a different list for non-municipal items?

  • "Articles on unincorporated settlements (e.g. neighbourhoods, hamlets, former municipalities, etc.) can be listed here if they were subject to a move proposal and discussion pursuant to WP:CANSTYLE; otherwise, articles on such unincorporated communities should be referenced in the section below (preferably through inclusion in the relevant neighbourhoods category)"

Please advise.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The above quote on CANLIST is out of date as the section it refers to has been removed. I'll correct it on CANLIST. Hwy43 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's just say I haven't had too much luck with admins lately ("*Cough**Cough*), a few certain ones in particular, (*Cough**Cough*) including one who throws down PRIMARYTOPIC disputes even in cases where the redirect goes to the current title; about his own failure to address PRIMARYTOPIC properly in one particular case (the Squamish RM was closed by him y'see) I must remain silent, as I have been threatened with a semi-permanent block for criticizing the actions and wikilawyering and similar activities; claiming those as NPA which to me is an abuse of that policy; AGF I have not been given by him and others, rather I have received belligerent commentary and derision.
Trying to place PRODs on the redirects, if I do them, I believe would be met by dispute and needless and time-consuming challenge by editors who don't care about CSG (even disparage it as subordinate to "global" PT even though searches for these names overwhelmingly are from Canadian sites and refer to the towns rather than anything else (the imputation of those PT disputes is always, though, unstated, the premise that an archaic term for languages/peoples is still globally more common and relevant than anything published in Canada and are equally PRIMARYTOPICS (which sources show in various cases where I have searched show is very, very wrong).
Hwy43 had asked me to compile the above list per CSG#Places so that action can be taken by people empowered to overwrite/bypass redirects. Again, due to the persistent opposition and even hostility I have encountered in such cases, I feel it better for someone else to take the necessary admin-power action; me trying CSD G6 is not going to get us anywhere, I fear. I have, when I encounter a redlink available for the no-comma province title, moved those myself; if you look at the history of WP:CANLIST you will see which ones. British Columbia has pretty much been finished now, in terms of listing here or on CANLIST or on the open RMs list above. Williams Lake and Campbell River are still not-RMd though I believe googlesearches should at least confirm that Campbell River should be undabbed as PRIMARYTOPIC. All those in the collapsed list above, other than those noted as having dabs and possible PT issues, are simple redirects that can be admin-moved without need of the wait, and possible needless dispute, by using PROD.Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to compile the above list. I asked that WP:CANLIST be updated with those moves that have been executed so that list remains current, which it appears you have been doing. Hwy43 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that you'd asked/agreed that I should move them; that list on this page I started before I was made aware of WP:CANLIST which, yes, I have been regularly updating. This list here was an attempt to draw admin help to the unmoved items; since that was ignored, I wound up having to file the now-infamous group of RMs, 90% of which have passed successfully, and rightly so. The others, well....my advice from others that I should have kept them in-Canada matters is borne out by teh oppose votes and the resulting no-consensus moves by non-Canadians and the dispute against CANSTYLE and ENGVAR and dubious and undefined PRIMARYTOPIC claims from the dissenting votes.Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As an example of aforementioned resistance and AGF towards my moves and RMs, here's a very good example. I was the principal author of this page and yet am being told that my extensive googles are irrelevant to the claims of equal PRIMARYTOPIC for the (archaic and in disuse) name of the people/language; I'll let you read AjaxSmack's quantititave theory that the town of (less than) 3000 is less important than the people/language (there are fewer than 200, maybe 100, fluent speakers of the language alive), and my replies yourself. I'm actually from the place, am a respected local historical researcher and commentator and even speak a little St'at'imcets, and yet being told that in spite of CANSTYLE#Places and a good dozen other parallel cases, I am wrong and people who've never been to the place, or heard of it before in fact, and don't realize that it was the TOWN's creation that's why the name is where it is (it was originally and still is associated with the Lil'wat at Mount Currie, 60 miles away.Skookum1 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I moved some and crossed them off the list above. I didn't update Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/List of undisambiguated communities as that looks to be out of date based on the NWT and NU listings. And looking at User:Skookum1 and User:Floydian I think you could both do with a bottle of this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This is more like it......about CANLIST, I've only been updating the BC section so far, as I haven't moved on to the rest of the country yet; thanks to your move I'll add the strike-outs above to that list. Oh, I just noticed I missed Yuquot, British Columbia but like Kyuquot, British Columbia that name is associated with a group of Nuu-chah-nulth also, like the difference between Hesquiat, the spelling for the location and Hesquiaht, the article for the group, and Ahousat and Ahousaht, also. Yuquot is no longer a people name; the group from there are the famous Mowachaht. Maquinna's people, who now live with the Muchalaht at Gold River, British Columbia, but the Kyuquot are still a known name and are jointly incorporated as a band government with the Checklesaht as the Kyuquot/Checklesaht First Nation, however the latter is spelt (one of those names that's hard to get right). Ucluelet is of similar origin but the band government uses a "more Nuu-chah-nulth" spelling.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Finished the first column. Didn't do Pinchie but did add a redirect at Cannabis smoking. Will update the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/List of undisambiguated communities next before starting on the second column. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Did most of the rest except a few I wasn't sure about. Updated the list but I still think it is missing a lot. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

bot-adding {{Canadian English}} to talkpages - ?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the onslaught of negative and rather hostile comments to ENGVAR and CANSTYLE - dismissive comments or re-fieldings of old complaints/issue long since resolved within WPCANADA - leads me to think/suggest that the CE template should go on all important talkpages; maybe this could be done by bot? Selection would go "if has WPCANADA template, and no other from WPUS or WPUK etc, add it". This couldn't be a blanket "botting"....but a targeted selective one somehow. I've been adding some by hand where RMs are going on where these issues have raised, but there's too many for one person to do...or even for twenty of us to do.Skookum1 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:History of the socialist movement in the United States#Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion for moving "History of the socialist movement in X" to "Socialism in X" , X = USA, Brazil, Canada, UK.

Please refer to WP:ARTICLETITLE and ancillary policies & guidelines.

All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 01:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim Gordon

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to request some assistance at Jim Gordon (a former mayor of Sudbury.) Earlier this year, a user replaced the article with a new, much longer version which did represent an improvement in some respects, but also pushed significantly into public relations territory in others (e.g. going into extensive tangential detail about the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, WP:NPOV violations about how uniquely accomplished he was, the addition of an extensive linkfarm directory of city press releases which named him even if they weren't about anything more notable than his attendance at a community luncheon, etc.) So I revised the article a few weeks ago to tone down the marketing bumf, the irrelevant digressions and the policy noncompliant sections while trying to maintain the quality additions — but the same user reverted it back to her own preferred version again this morning. (There's also some evidence that the editor in question may be a professional public relations consultant who's violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules to present a version that Gordon has been directly involved in creating and maintaining, but that's a matter for the COI noticeboard rather than CWNB.)

So I'd also like some assistance, if possible, in ensuring that the article is properly compliant with our content policies. Some content may still need to be rewritten for neutrality or removed for unverifiability, some of it is still sourced to primary sources rather than reliable ones, some may still be coatracked addition of excessive detail about tangential topics, and on and so forth. I've done some toning down already, but (a) I'm not sufficiently confident that I've been able to catch everything, since some stuff that seems obvious and straightforward to me as a former Sudburian might seem less so to a person who has less firsthand familiarity with Gordon, (b) while some recent Sudbury Star coverage is available in the ProQuest database that I have access to via the Toronto Public Library, it doesn't go far back enough for me to be able to comprehensively improve the article sourcing all by myself without assistance from other editors, and (c) I don't really have the time to stay on top of this all by myself without some further assistance. So would somebody (or a few somebodies) be willing to assist in reviewing the article for content and policy issues? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

World city rankings

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been sometime since I have seen a section called World rankings on city pages. I remember a talk long ago on this topic with the result that we removed them all over and is an FA guidelines not to have them. A few factors were involved leading to the removal - notability of some stats - only positive reviews get mentioned leading to unbalance etc.. I bring all this up because of Calgary#World city rankings do we want to see the section being added to other the major city with good reviews ? At Ottawa the lede has a few of this as well. What do others think should the section be deleted at Calgary with the info interrogated into the article and/or removed all together? --Moxy (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Metric conversion in Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Metric conversion in Canada has been proposed to be renamed to Metrication in Canada, see talk:Metric conversion in Canada -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

During 1831-1834 who was the speaker of the above assembly? Ewan Cameron or William McNeill. The above page says it was Ewan but I have got a source which says William McNeill was the speaker. Please clarify.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a reference in the article (external links has a broken link). I say change and add this as a reference since it is a reliable source. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Drafts about Canadian topics

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Dear Canadians: Here are some old Afc submissions that will soon be deleted as stale drafts unless someone takes an interest. Feel free to improved these, or please comment if you know of a reason why one of them shouldn't become an article. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

—Anne Delong (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Canadian folklore and myths article?

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I have noticed we seem to be lacking a parent article for Canadian folklore and myths. There is lots at Category:Canadian folklore to build a parent article from.

What do others think here is this a topic worth its own parent article? )and is anyone willing to help?) If so what are the main ones we should talk about? We have things ranging from the Black Donnellys all the way to Bluenose Ghosts with characters like Big Joe Mufferaw and Johnny Canuck. We also have the famous and elusive Sasquatch and Ogopogo.

Anyone have a copy of Edith Fowke; Carole Henderson Carpenter (1981). A Bibliography of Canadian Folklore in English. University of Toronto Press. - or the one by Edith Fowke called A pioneering anthology, Folklore of Canada There is Canadian folk-life and folk-lore (1897) but its so old.-- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that there are articles such as Salishan oral literature and categories like Kwakwaka'wakw mythology (both names which I dislike but never mind that for now) which presume to cover the native folklore traditions; in some cases like Sasquatch and Ogopogo there is considerable overlap with non-native traditions; there's also cases like Simon Gunanoot and Slumach where a native individual is the subject of folklore. Also in many cases Canadian folklore is about real people and real stories, whether expanded into apocrypha or not. The Mad Trapper was also, for example, a real person much transformed in the folklore tradition.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
About the sasquatch, I found today this collection of stories concerning indigenous stories and knowledge about them, some by the Government Agent at Chehalis BC in 1929, including articles published in Macleans and other magazines. Integrating them into ethnographic articles may be dubious, dunno, but when is a native belief/legend or folklore not admissible? Where to draw the line between native oral traditions and non-indigenous folklore and, indigenous peoples being Canadian, is it possible or even correct to draw such a line? One rider to this is that, as with the Sts'Ailes, as the people at Chehalis call themselves today, they keep their knowledge to themselves so as to not be ridiculed by white men; yet are also outraged, per that one story from Harrison Hot Springs, when someone says sasquatch are only legendary.....that's such a good compendium of "bigfoot stories" I'm tempted to add it to Salishan oral literature which has an omnibus title but is very thing on the ground for Salishan-wide coverage; and no doubt these stories, being relatively modern in origin, would have someone object that they are not "traditional tradition".....and again, where do we draw the line, since there is a continuity to native culture and beliefs that these stories and knowledge are an expression of??Skookum1 (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The European convention of "folklore studies" and the concept of "folk" aren't a good fit for native culture, which I think I should state up front in discussing native oral traditions in any Canadian folklore article. A standalone article on Aboriginal Canadian traditions (or a similar title) is one that I also would like to create to provide a survey of the topic, and it can discuss cultural issues and approaches to studying native mythology and so on. There are already a handful of articles on specific groups like Inuit mythology, etc. OttawaAC (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep lots can be said over a few articles - what if we set it up for a few articles - parent article Canadian folklore and myths with sub articles for the other big topics like Aboriginal Canadian mythology and New France folklore and myths. -- Moxy (talk)
I recently created Quebec folklore. I can get a start on a Canadian folklore article in the next few days. Anyone looking to contribute can join in, or you could post suggestions here.OttawaAC (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
While you're discussing folklore, would it be advisable to merge Big Joe Mufferaw into Joseph Montferrand? Bouchecl (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me recommend the long bibliography in Pauline Greenhill; Diane Tye (1997). Undisciplined Women: Tradition and Culture in Canada. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. pp. 273–95. note especially the works by Edith Fowke. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I put in a decent start to the new article Canadian folklore. If anyone else wants to add material to it, please feel free. OttawaAC (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Air Transport Command

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Canadian Forces Air Transport Command's article name is being discussed at Talk:Air Transport Command (World War II) -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Canadian politicians

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I wanted to ask for your help in creating articles about the politicians listed on the above page. These articles may prove to be a great asset to your project.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Canadian English}} needed on many, many talkpages

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Because of derisions towards Canadian English and CANSTYLE and Canadian lexicon/endonym/toponymy usages and PRIMARYTOPIC disputes on various RMs, I have begun adding them to native-ethno and town talkpages and related dabs. There are simply too many in need of it for me to do it all by myself, if others would remember to add it to talkpages that they come across in the course of their editing and commenting that would helpe out a lot.Skookum1 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I find this a problem with some British editors who seem to "know" what Canadian English is about, and use British terminology (also seem to assume that Australian and Kiwi English is also the same as British; and Indian and Pakistani, etc.). -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition or amendment to {{Canadian English}}

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see Template_talk:Canadian_English#proposed_addition_amendment re adding passage from TITLE to {{tl:Canadian English}} to make it stronger/more explicit.Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a flag should be added to {{WPCANADA}} to activate Canadian English as well? ({{WPCANADA}}) -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

undiscussed move of List of filming locations in the British Columbia Interior to "in British Columbia]]

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please see here where I have asked Eelamstylez77, if his intent is to merge the Vancouver-area list into this one? My own impression is that he doesn't understand that the British Columbia Interior and Coast are two different places, and t hat "British Columbia Interior" is not synonymous with "British Columbia". I note he also move List of filming locations in the Toronto area to List of filming locations in Toronto....Hamilton, Ste Catherines, Belleville are "Toronto"??Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't see an issue with it other than Vancouver should be listed as a heading with a link to the article (not the entire list), rather than in the see also section. A section on Vancouver Island included, unless you intend to create a new article based on areas that are not interior or Vancouver. I don't see the need to have three separate lists. As for Toronto, where do you see locations on that list that are not within Toronto? --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Interior" is capitalized as a proper name. And yes, List of filming locations on Vancouver Island and List of filming locations on the British Columbia Coast or "Vancouver Island and the British Columbia Coast]] are needed. The Interior is a separate list because of the marked distinction and distance between the Lower Mainland and the Interior. "Vancouver area" was used because locations such as Squamish and Whistler and Pemberton and the Sunshine Coast are not part of the Lower Mainland. I see no reason to merge any of these; the Vancouver area one grows regularly and will continue to do so; the use of Greater Victoria locations is growing also. Locations in the Interior are of a different order and are, for now, much rarer; merging these would be like merging the Alberta list into BC - the Interior is very much a distinct region and filming milieu. In any case, the person who moved the title has moved it back, per my explanation that "British Columbia Interior" and "British Columbia" are not synonymous.Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need separate lists for each individual region within the province? I strongly doubt that somehow. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell Mills (publisher)

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

For those around here too young to remember, Russell Andrew Mills was the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen who was fired back in 2002 after controversy surrounding our prime minister Jean Chrétien. Wikipedia used to have an article about him but it was tagged as an attack page and speedily deleted in 2010. I am attempting to revive this piece of Canadian history, but it looks like my days of Wikipedia are numbered since I am actively being pursued by an admin who has been gunning for me for some weeks now, and who is (indirectly?) helped by participants of this board who are of the opinion that I am a crackpot and who have posted here openly expressing this opinion over the years.

Back to Russell Mills that no one participating on this board has expressed any interest in, now or in the past, and who is now in danger of being deleted once again, this time for being not-notable. How is it that no one here has the guts to remove this ridiculous notability-tag from the the article? How can an American admin openly state that Mr. Mills is not notable and no one dares oppose this view? XOttawahitech (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability is clear. He's received important awards and significant coverage in reliable sources. I've added some info, and am watching the article. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Pburka:Thank you - you have restored my faith in this project. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
At the time that user came across the article, it looked like this. A reader unfamiliar with the subject matter would rightfully assume WP:ONEEVENT applies, and tag the article accordingly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this edit. Quit assuming other editors are pursuing you, and instead consider the reasons why an article may be tagged, for example that not everyone has the same interests as you and may not have your knowledge about the articles that interest you. The onus is on you to add enough information to articles about subjects that interest you to prevent the addition of tags, or to have them prodded or AfD'd. (By way of example, should I complain that you did nothing about the copyvio text on Canadian banknote series articles? Stop saying things like "that no one participating on this board has expressed any interest in, now or in the past"; nobody is required to hold the same interests as you.) Oh, and the original article was deleted because it had existed for over four years without single reference being added to support it, a clear violation of WP:BLP. Mindmatrix 14:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: You are putting words in my mouth:
  • I am not "assuming other editors are pursuing" me - I know for a fact that there is one admin who has been gunning for me for weeks.
  • I did not say I expect everyone to think like me, but I would be surprised if there are no editors at all on Wikipedia who have an interest in a publisher of a major news paper who was fired when he allegedly refused to tow the editorial line set by the owners of the paper.
  • I did not complain about the tagging of the new article - I expressed surprise that no one here had removed the tag 5 days after its creation even though the article is clearly marked with WikiProject Canada.
By the way I disagree with your statement: “The onus is on article creators to add enough information to articles …” - Can you provide a link to a Policy or guideline that supports this assertion? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
In order to be kept, an article has to make a strong and credible claim that the topic passes one of our notability rules, sourced to enough reliable sources to demonstrate that they have been the subject of enough coverage to warrant an encyclopedia article. A biographical article about a person is not automatically entitled to be kept just because the person exists — rather, the onus is on you to ensure that the article's notability claim, and the presence of sourcing, are sufficient to pass our inclusion rules. It's certainly clear to those of us who are familiar with Canadian politics that a properly written and referenced article Mills would indeed be keepable — but a single sentence asserting that he exists, sourced only to a single newspaper article, does not cut it. So yes, the onus is on you to ensure that a new article you create is living up to our minimum inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, I'm really surprised that you ask such questions having been here so long. See Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid - namely "A particularly common special case of this is pages about people, companies, or groups of people, that do not substantiate the notability or importance of their subject with reliable sources, so we have decided that such pages may be speedily deleted under our WP:SPEEDY policy. This can offend – so please consider whether your chosen topic is notable enough for Wikipedia, and then substantiate the notability or importance of your subject by citing those reliable sources in the process of creating your article." Also see Wikipedia:Notability, specifically "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." from WP:WHYN - these are core policies and guidelines and content rules. I would never create an article and then hope someone else would come along and buffer it into notability - if I don't have enough of a case I keep it in draft, or I ask for help, but I don't stick it into article space unless I'm confident it won't be prodded. Finally I am completely gobsmacked that you seem to be complaining about editors from WikiProject Canada not rushing to the defense of this article just because you tagged it a few days back. Do you think editors here, and at any other project, are at your beck and call to rescue forlorn articles? This project has around 27,000 start-class articles in its purview, and another 27,000+ stub-class articles - why should people rush to the rescue of this particular one? WP:SOFIXIT is quite apt here - if you think an article needs rescuing, rescue it, but please don't complain that a project isn't backing you up. If you ask for help, and someone comes to your aid, then THANK them, but don't critique the whole project en-masse since they didn't drop everything to save this bio. It's offensive - as you well know, we are ALL volunteers here, not just you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I expressed surprise that no one here had removed the tag 5 days after its creation - so you expected someone from this project to deal with an article they may not have known existed. The fact it was tagged with {{WikiProject Canada}} does not imply editors will know about it. This WikiProject has tens of thousands of articles associated with it, not all of them of interest to all (or any) Wikipedian that frequents this board. You can disagree with the statement "The onus is on article creators to add enough information to articles..." all you want, but it seems to amount to you complaining that other people aren't editing articles of interest to you. So whose responsibility is it to add this information? Do you expect other editors to expand these articles for you? Did you expect the tag to be removed without addressing the underlying issue? I'll also note that you failed to remove the tag; it was removed by Pburka (three days after it was added), who also added enough information to ensure the subject's notability was suitably stated. Canuckle then greatly expanded the article. Neither of them had to invest their time doing so, and if they hadn't, I suspect the article would still be in its original state, on the cusp of deletion because its creator didn't invest enough effort to establish the subject's notability. (I'll thus paraphrase my original statement: The only person you can guarantee will invest time in an article about which you care is you.) Mindmatrix 19:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, nobody here thinks you're a crackpot — but quite a few people here do think you need to drop the chip on your shoulder, and start devoting a bit more attention to understanding how Wikipedia actually works. You do have a really unfortunate tendency of jumping to conclusions that aren't actually borne out by any investigation of the facts, or by any understanding of the actual state of Wikipedia policy and procedure — if you're feeling persecuted, you'd do well to understand that there are actual reasons (lack of proper referencing, violations of policy, etc.) why stuff gets deleted. You've gone to battle over stuff that was completely unreferenced, or sourced to unreliable sources; you've gone to battle over categories that were explicitly in violation of our categorization rules; you've gone to battle over content that didn't even vaguely resemble what you assumed it was; you've gone to battle over stuff that explicitly failed our inclusion rules — but I have yet to see you raise even a single issue where your "going to battle" attitude was justified at all.
Our rule is not that any class of topic gets an automatic presumption of notability even in the absence of any reliable sourcing; if you want an article to be kept, then yes, the onus is on you to actually add enough sourcing to get it kept, and not on anybody else to grant you the benefit of the doubt.
If it helps at all, consider that you should always write an article from the position that your primary audience is not people who already have the background knowledge of the situation, but people who don't already know anything about the topic. So yes, that American editor who didn't think Mills sounded notable at all is who you need to write for — the primary purpose of an article is to educate and inform people who don't already know very much (or anything at all) about the Mills dismissal controversy, not those of us who do. So if you want an article about Mills to be seen as valuable and keepable, then putting the effort into writing and sourcing an article that's strong enough to convince him to change his mind about Mills' notability is much likelier to succeed than just writing two sentences which barely get beyond the level of asserting that Mills exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on article

I'm not convinced that this article is needed. It seems that the WP:SINGLEEVENT of his firing is what's notable, not the fact that it was Mills; moreover, he does not seem notable for any other reason in that he has maintained a low profile in the decade since the event. Since the article on the Ottawa Citizen already mentions the firing, the information in this article would be better included there and this article deleted.

Additionally, this article isn't especially neutral in that it only discusses Mills' side and does not mention the newspaper's rationale for firing him. Wherever this content ends up, both sides need to be told. Ca2james (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HMCS

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See WT:SHIPS where a discussion on the use of HMCS in infoboxes is underway -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Government Agent (Canada) turns out to have been prodded long ago

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'll pen up a new one when I get a chance, unless someone else gets to it first, with cites from the BC government usages; there's no specific citation on the Government of Canada site. The deleter said:

Unshake that head. The exact text of the article at the time of deletion was

And just for the record, that's the only version of the article that has ever existed at that title — I don't know what you're remembering, but it ain't that. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I thought there was one more legitimate one; that position in early BC was one of the capacities of Gold Commissioners, that must be what I was thinking of.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Blair McCreadie

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Grumpy Midget has reinserted defamatory information into the article Blair McCreadie, see my reversion here. The comment regarding Nazis, I have not been able to find anything reliable, and the reference template does not have a URL. The closest I could find was something on a website called Ottawa Punk (or something to that effect), which seemed far from a reliable source, in particular when talking about a BLP. The second part regarding links to faciast groups is sourced here, and while not unreliable is not actually an article about McCreadie, but rather about Tory (so if it was suitable for inclusion it should be in the article John Tory article, not McCreadie). There is merely a reference to him at the end of the article. GM seems to be trying to get negative information about the Tories inserted McCreadies article as sort of a guild by association, by including it in articles about lesser-known politicians. Would someone please keep an eye on the McCreadie article (I am not particularly active for the next week and a half), and maybe have a word with GM if there is an issue. Note that he also nominated for deletion, I'd Rather Be Baking Cookies: A Collection of Recipes from Lisa MacLeod and Friends, claiming I was using Wikipedia as a soapbox, where I have a feeling (just looking at his edit contributions) it is the other way around.--kelapstick(bainuu) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Note I do agree with GM on the point that a lot of these politician articles are written like resumes, but dumping unsourced, information linking them to Nazis and faciasts is not the way to deal with it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversies regarding the subject is said to be involved with either indirectly or directly should not be summarily deleted. It should have been moved to the talk page.

The controversy regarding the Now Magazine source is directly related to an invited guest of the Tories under his oversight as party president not about John Tory. Political parties invite controversial guests from time to time, on the left and the right.

You seem to be getting your stories mixed up though.

Given the subject's involvement in party training[1], this is valid information regarding the subject being discussed. The material in question gives insight to what goes on behind the scenes that parties don't want you to know about. Does the acronym CLF stand for "Conservative Leadership Foundation(s)." Difficult to tell, as the link appears to be broken but it does go into great detail some of the sessions he's chaired. It is conceivable that since the initial entry, other sessions have taken place on various matters of business and various subjects.

As for the Canadian Press article about the John Tory gaffe, it is described as a "Real-time news wire feed for newspapers; radio/TV stations; websites; magazines; others." This is a media industry feed that wouldn't necessarily have a link to pull.

John Tory himself has a history of gaffes going back to Kim Campbell's 1993 campaign and religious school funding controversy. The information gives further insight and some striking similarities in how the subject reacts to deflect the issue at hand.

As for Lisa MacLeod's baking cookies article, it is self promotion. "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal." It also should not be used as a politician's personal cookbook to aide in re-election.

Let's use the talk page. Grumpy Midget (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)GrumpyMidget

My sentiments exactly about "a politician's personal cookbook to aide in re-election"; I've de-watchlisted most living-Canadian-politician bios for various reasons, includng general annoyance; but trying to deal with the salting of countless Stephen Harper blurbs on various town/etc articles "Stephen Harper opened a new...." etc, and addressing the little cluster of "FOO Policy of the Harper government" series during the last election campaign saw me get blocked by someone without any knowledge of the political environment/terminology and where commentors on the AfD openly declared their COI as conservative/right-wing; most of those were from other countries. Politicians using Wikipedia for advertising has its apposite side too; hostile POV edits on politician pages are also common cf Talk:Adrian Dix, and censor edits on some e.g. Christy Clark are/were rife; I just don't look now as I got "blamed" for "censorship" by IPs and SPAs etc....and outed in the press, too. How to patrol and deal with this when discussions can include (a) the uninformed or those lacking political acumen (b) people not familiar with the Canadian political environment and its word-games and (c) people who pretend that obviously POV material is NPOV and (d) the disingenuous, for whom equivocation and deflection are an art form - how to deal with that, and issues like the one you've raised on "fringe" elements (not all are politicians is not easily solvable by regular Wikipedia procedure; Kevin Annett and his supporters/followers are also a problem.....that many such political-party/politician edits may also be COI in the paid-consultant sense, particularly SPA and IP users, is another factor. Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
GrumpyMidget, you're wrong about one thing: unsourced controversial information does not get to stay in Wikipedia pending discussion; it stays out of Wikipedia (inclusive of talk pages) until you can source it properly. And if you don't like the article about the cookbook, you always have the option of taking it to WP:AFD for a wider discussion — I don't think it's notable enough to really warrant an article either, but there's clearly enough disagreement on that point to make it ineligible for a unilateral prod. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
GrumpyMidget, I have no idea why you think that the article on the cookbook is being used for promotion on Wikipedia. I wrote it, along with a guy from Alabama. I don't live in Ontario, I have never lived in her riding, I have never voted for Ms. MacLeod, I don't own a copy of the book. I wrote it because I heard a story about it on the news and thought it sounded interesting. That is how I come up with ideas on what articles to write. You should try it some time, actually writing articles. It is much more satisfying than filling low-level politician articles with defamatory BLP information, and it is actually in line with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you for your due diligence Bearcat, an AfD nomination will hopefully bring about the discussion required to bring this subject to a close (one way or another). --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Also GM, a "gaffe" (as you put it) as significant as that would surely have been picked up by a media outlet that has it's own website, claiming there is no link to pull doesn't cut it for something like that. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, so the Canadians have their own chatroom now? Cultural fascism I call that, and I'll prod this imminently. That McCreadie article, that's a gem:

    McCreadie defended a 2003 party organizing session that included a prominent British Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell as key note speaker, who's invitation was considered controversial for his links to a European political group said to have ties a youth wing of Alleanza Nazionale, the party that descended from Mussolini’s Fascists.

    So, the smear here is that one upon a time a guy was said to be controversial because the group he was with was said to have ties with a party supposedly descended from a fascist group, and your guy defended that guy's presence at some function. That doesn't even hold up in a conversation over beer, hockey, and maple syrup, let alone in a BLP. Or, no way, per Bearcat and K-stick. As for the cookbook, meh. I don't even know what a riding is, and I don't have voting rights west of Europe. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Dear editors: Some time ago the Canadian encyclopedia reorganized all of its articles, causing a lot of dead links here on Wikipedia. At the time I made a list of the affected pages (User:Anne Delong/CE links needing update). There was some talk of automating at least some of the needed updates. Did this happen, and if so, is there a way to see which pages were fixed automatically so that I can remove them from my list? Please also feel free to remove any that you happen to know have been fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that sometime after we identified the problem, The Canadian Encyclopedia reinstituted their old "params=" URLs as redirects to the new-format versions — I haven't comprehensively checked every link to TCE that exists on Wikipedia, but certainly whenever I've come across one recently (e.g. on Alistair MacLeod), we still had the old-style URL but it got me to the right article on TCE anyway. So the project lost much of its urgency. It is still a worthwhile project in principle, and people should still update the links if and when we come across them — but also, since it no longer requires active editor involvement to actively track down the new location of the articles, it's now a project that could be even more easily automated if anybody with bot-programming experience wants to write a bot to handle it. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Same problem for formerly-BCGNIS links; though I guess not for the same reason as the CE, because the "params=" function isn't on their site; but all URLs have been reorganized on different server-names. Some {{bcgnis}} and {{cite bcgnis}} links still work, but not all; not sure why. Both those templates are "deprecated" as the latter is too cumbersome to bother with, and I've gone back for a long while now to using URL brackets. The name of BCGNIS has changed to, it's now the BC Geographic Names Office and is under GeoBC (see about who they are, which also hosts BC Basemap and other resources; in URL links I've been using "BC Names/GeoBC entry "FOO"", on coord source: fields I've been using BCNames.Skookum1 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The other day I started checking some of the pages on my list above, and of the ones I checked about 1/3 of the links worked. If that's a representative sample, there are still thousands of bad links. Is there a way to use the search engine to separate those which still need repair from those which don't? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe next time you find a bad one, copy the URL and leave off the [number] field/page off the end; that should find all of them if you search for it; I'll try it myself next time I see one; can't recall which ones didn't work just now, could go back in their histories maybe.....other thing is once t hat's located, the unique identifier numbers are the same, running a bot to change the URLs seems like a good idea, given the volume there'll be.Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

citing for "set of regions" demanded for Category:Rivers of British Columbia by region

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

One of the "support" voters for the CfD which attempted to delete or merge all subcats in Category:Rivers of British Columbia by region, who also joined the nom there in challenging all all British Columbia region titles/articles, has demanded cites as somehow mandatory for BC regions, claiming there has to be a citation for diffusing categories; I have yet to get an answer for any such guideline or policy and had intended on starting a discussion myself. Input from people actually familiar with BC's geography and regions is needed.

  • NB in areas of the province that are barely populated I'd begun using major mountain range-groupings like Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges and Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains in lieu of the usual and conventional subdivisions of the province i.e. Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland, Okanagan, Cariboo etc. The Rocky Mountains and Pacific/Kitimat Ranges are regions in their own right; there are parts of them where, respectively, East Kootenay or North/Central Coast or Chilcotin and Nechako Country do not readily apply. Such category challenges being made on the basis of unspecified guidelines as if they were rules and an ignorance of BC's geography are, to me, a nuisance and a waste of time. But since the discussion has been launched, I am announcing it here, since the creator/perpetrator of that discussion did not see fit to.Skookum1 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    WP:CAT decrees that Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. If a region isn't well defined (as supported by reliable sources) then it will be impossible to add articles to it in a reliable manner. More generally, the policies of WP:V and WP:N apply to categories as much as they do to articles. If reliable sources can't be found to support the diffusing scheme, I would argue that it is WP:OR and should be removed. Pburka (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And replaced with WHAT? There will ultimately be 1000+ rivers in Category:Rivers of British Columbia if it is not broken up by region. If WP:CAT "decrees" that (never mind "there are no rules", which rule-tossers seem to never pay attention to) then that should be amended; guidelines derived for places that are not a "sea of mountains" the size of three European countries are not readily applicable to British Columbia; IMO instruction creep is becoming dominant in Wikipedia, at the expense of navigable content/titles/categories, with "rules" being imposed/demanded on topic areas by people who have no knowledge of same (I just looked at your usercontributions, you don't seem to have any previous exposure to these rivers or regions or mountain ranges).Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:CAT says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. " Cites exist or are available for each article in question as to why they are in the given categories, there is nothing in the guideline saying that the the category "system" has to be citable. The demand, implied here and made at that discussion and by the nom of the CfD, that one [official] system must be produced is purely fiction and yet more instruction creep that has little relation to actual reality. There is no one "official" system in BC, what there is is history and names that are COMMONNAMES to be found on various maps and books about BC, and are implicit in the many differing kinds of official regionalization systems where those names form the basis of those different regions/regionalization systems. The ongoing premise that the titles are OR made by people who know nothing about the geography and places in question is genuinely boring and is itself OR....Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The further premise/extrapolation being made from " If a region isn't well defined (as supported by reliable sources) then it will be impossible to add articles to it in a reliable manner" is that the regions are not cited/citable, which is just not true. What's impossible is discussing this with people who don't want it to be possible, or who dispute that cites exist at all when they do. The regions are well-known in British Columbia. Add on top of this the already-observed extrapolation that there must be an official system cited is just more wikilawyering and "contrary to the spirit of the guidelines".Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 again

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
non-admin close per IAR. I can't see any good coming of this. If there are serious concerns about a user's behavior they should be taken to RFC/U or if urgent to ANI. Otherwise engage with user on their talk.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would someone please explain to Skookum1 that this edit of mine did not do what he is accusing me of doing. Perhaps he doesn't speak American English. I cannot think of any other reason he has been making the comments accusing me of doing something which was never actually done [7] and [8]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It would seem fairly obvious that I speak Canadian English, which in case you didn't realize is not the same as American English. Duh.Skookum1 (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Is "escape" as in "Escape character" American English? I suspect he doesn't speak computerese, and I suspect he wasn't aware of what he was screwing up by linking the category (not that I necessarily blame him—linking categories is a mistake whose output doesn't make it immediately obvious). Not the first example of Skookum assuming bad faith, either. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have apologized to Arthur at that discussion, and struck out my comments; I just got up, it is is ten to nine in the morning my time; I should have recognized the snide retort as being unmistakeably in the style of another editor, whose ongoing bad faith and NPAs seem immune from redress. And no, I don't speak computerese, nor should I have to; and CANTALK is not the place for this complaint to have been made, nor a condemnatory response either.Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
And since wikiquette and AGF are being brought up here, you should both be reminded that this is a discussion page for Canadian topics, not for complaining about Canadian editors. And the tone of Curly Turkey's reply, including "he was screwing up" is AGF, very pointedly. Repeat: this page is for discussion of Canadian topics, not for whining about Canadian editors, which is against any talkpage's guidelinesSkookum1 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
"Very pointedly", my rear—notice that "not that I blame him"? You've driven home my point about your habit of assuming bad faith, in the most exasperating manner. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh (zzzz). You want to take your WP:DEADHORSE to its stable? I've apologized - get it?!!. Your own bad faith and bad wikiquette in spouting off about me here on CANTALK, which as noted is not for criticizing Canadian Wikipedians, is typical of the hypocrisy of those I see who stalk other Wikipedians for the sole purpose of criticizing them, without saying or doing anything useful. Go park it and feed it some hay, and work on articles, not engage in tsk-tsking those who do. Skookum1 (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If your "apologies" weren't loaded with relentless relapses into ABF sniping, maybe your snoring over "dead horses" and "those who do" would carry some weight. Your reputation precedes you, as per the thread title, and many of us would like to see a productive Skookum1 rather than a prolifically disruptive one, constantly looking for some way to be offended (who's next?). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What part of "this is off topic for this discussion board" do you not understand? You are making personal attacks, without ever having to my knowledge posted to this board before; the apology has been made, discussion at WP:NCL continues, and yet here you are wanting to rev things up again. It is inappropriate for me to delete this entire section, but it is off-topic and not about Canadian topics or Canadian articles. As for my "apologies being loaded with AGF sniping", the fact of Kwami's tone being recognizable is not AGF, it's obvious to anyone who knows his track record; and that little comment, like this one - "Your reputation precedes you, as per the thread title, and many of us would like to see a productive Skookum1 rather than a prolifically disruptive one, constantly looking for some way to be offended (who's next?)." is NPA and AGF and NOT ABOUT CANADIAN TOPICS OR CANADIAN ARTICLES. You are in attack mode, and should walk away now; you have no purpose on this page other than to attack an editor, and nothing more;
  • @Arthur Rubin: Arthur, you should not have canvassed here about this; Resolute already got to me on my page and I realized my mistake and apologized; this discussion, seeking support against me, is entirely OFFTOPIC for CANTALK and should be deleted/undone. I'm tired of the baiting from those who have a penchant for yapping at my very big Size 15 heels and have nothing constructive to say or do, and snipe even at apologies......if Curly Turkey is a regular here on CANTALK, then he found me here because of your post here; otherwise he's only here to tub-thump and whip up hostility and contempt....
  • I don't think you intended this to be a slagfest, and you do have a sincere apology and an admission and explanation from me as to my mistake.....that should be all. But instead we have someone here wanting to throw more mud, to escalate argument, to bark at what he thinks is a treed dog......I'm bored with this, and going to go create this article; you should blank this section, it serves no purpose to engage Canadian editors on Canadian topics and has only produced an out-of-the-blue AGF/NPA attack x20 which I've had quite enough of for one year; I want to get at some work done that needs doing........and am tired of the baying of hounds....that's not an NPA, it's a metaphor for being treated like a treed fox, which I definitely am not.Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I posted to your talk page as a direct result of Arthur's thread here. Regardless, I do agree with Skookum that this is not a productive discussion on this particular talk page at this point. The incident complaint is resolved, lets please let this thread lie. Resolute 16:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Culture of Canada sidebar

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We need to find a better image for this template. Any one got any ideas? Can someone make one or should we use an image like The Jack Pine? -- Moxy (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

City weather

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, there's a notice at WT:USA about a discussion at WT:CITIES concering {{weather box}} -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Climate data from farmzone.com and weatherbase.com

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is climate data from farmzone.com and weatherbase.com deemed reliable in the absence of similar data from Environment Canada for Canadian communities?

The former is provided by The Weather Network, whereas the latter is provided by CantyMedia and is littered with advertising.

I was involved in a previous discussion (that I can't find) where a website similar to weatherbase.com (or maybe it was weatherbase.com) was deemed an unreliable and unacceptable source.

I ask this question as Hylke95 just added climate data from each source to Red Earth Creek, Alberta (diff) and Fond-du-Lac (diff).

If some sources are deemed reliable and acceptable while others are not for climate data in Canadian articles, I think we need to add something to WP:CANSTYLE or elsewhere stating such (unless it is somewhere that I've yet to find). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked at farmzone for Red Deer, Alberta and Environment Canada for Red Deer. As can be seen the data is accurate but it's older data from 1971-2000. On the other hand Weatherbase for Red Deer and Environment Canada for Red Deer are for the current 1981-2000. So both look OK but weatherbase has the newer data. Also I wonder where they are getting the data from? Red Earth Creek puts out hourly weather but there is no listing for a 30 year average. And Fond-du-Lac does not put out hourly weather. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Where are all Judges lawyers and where are they not?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where are all Judges lawyers and where are they not? Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canadian_law#Where_are_all_Judges_lawyers_and_where_are_they_not.3F. Thanks. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wheelchair Basketball

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This Australian Wikipedian will be visiting Canada for the Women's Wheelchair Basketball World Championships on 20-28 June 2014. It's being held at the Maple Leaf Gardens, which I'm told is a sacred site to Canadians. If anyone would be interested in meeting an Australian Wikipedian, watching a game, or even improving the state of the Paralympic sport articles, let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And an early "Welcome to Canada" to you, even if it's Toronto ;-) . The locale is one of the most sacred temples to the national religion of HNIC (the other most sacred temple being the Forum in Montreal). If you're lucky, we'll be celebrating a Canadian (as opposed to American) Stanley Cup win from earlier in the month. You will be nearby the only major league (ie. elite league) Canadian profession basketball club arena, the Air Canada Centre for the Toronto Raptors while you're there. Interestingly, Toronto also hosted the 1976 Summer Paralympics -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
All news to me, except for the bit about the 1976 Paralympics. Thanks for that! Canada has always been a strong nation in wheelchair basketball, and while the Canadian men are not competing this year, the women have a good chance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Election, 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Ontario_general_election,_2014#Libertarians.3F regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the Libertarian party in the tables (and a healthy dose of meat attached to it). --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are outsiders interfering with this board?

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

See for example this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=604544046&oldid=604534877 ? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "outsider". No one owns a wikiproject. Anyone is free to edit. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an outsider, the diff you posted was someone acting in their admin capacity as well. Stop trying to be disruptive! Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact to add to the above, please stop being disruptive on this board and Wikipedia in general. You keep accusing everyone of hindering the development of the encyclopaedia yet you continue to start arguments, bring non-relevant discussions to different discussion boards when one group becomes aware of you (also called forum shopping), neglect to include information for the purpose of pushing your POV. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
100% agree with DJSasso and Mrfrobinson on all points made. The Canadian WikiProject is not an exclusive club. Hwy43 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
And I agree with the others. This board is, and should always be, inclusive. Resolute 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Since everyone here agrees that anyone can edit this board, then why am I not allowed to revert the edit I mentioned earlier? See: Arthur Rubin's post where I have been threatened with a block if I revert this edit which should never be applied by involved editors. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between being allowed to edit and being reverted. You were allowed to make that edit. It was just disagreed with and reverted. People are just asking you to stop being disruptive. That discussion was just disruption, should someone else have made the edit perhaps. But it was the right thing to do to the discussion. And you weren't threatened, you were warned. There is a difference. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, what is the specific purpose of this new discussion you've just started? Do you want to revert the closure of the now-archived discussion about categories? If you really have a concern about a particular CFD, you can take it to move review. If you have a general question about how CFDs are closed, you can take it to the category boards - there are several. If you want to have a discussion away from the CFD regulars, you can start a discussion on one of your own talk pages, and invite whoever you like to join. I just don't see how rehashing a closed discussion that was started in the wrong place in any case does anyone any good. What do you hope to accomplish, exactly?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is another example of you trying to be Wikipedia:DISRUPT, please stop and no I won't even bother giving you specific examples since it applies to all your edits in this entire discussion. If you continue this may be a good time to open a case on AN/I. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, @Ottawahitech:, the impression I'm getting here is that you're operating under a misunderstanding of what this board is actually for. You really seem to think that as long as the contributors to the discussion are Canadian, the topics under discussion can be absolutely anything that a contributor who happens to be Canadian wants to raise about absolutely any aspect of Wikipedia whatsoever — but that's exactly bass ackward. It's the topics that have to be specifically Canadian in nature — as long as they have something to contribute to the discussion, the editors can be from anywhere in the world. (It's certainly true that in most cases the majority of editors with an interest in Canadian-specific topics will also be Canadians, but that's not a requirement for participation here — non-Canadians are allowed to contribute to and participate in discussions here.) You initiated a discussion that was completely irrelevant to this project, and are now taking issue with the nationality of the editor who closed it — but again, it's the topic under discussion that has to be relevant to this WikiProject, not the citizenship of the contributors involved in it. So the only one who actually acted in error here is you, by initiating that discussion here instead of in a more appropriate venue for the discussion you wanted to initiate. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
A good point Bearcat, the title is a bit of a misnomer, while it is named the Canadian Wikipedians' Notice Board, the board is certainly not reserved exclusively for Canadians, but rather Canadian Topics. When I lived in Australia, I regularly followed and participated in the Austrlian Wikipedian's notice board, despite not actually being Australian. The general use of this board is to notify editors whom are interested in Canadian Topics (which as mentioned is largely made up of Canadians, naturally), and to discuss things broadly related to Canadian articles (i.e. how WP:CANSTYLE relates to articles in general, for example). Specifics about editors and articles are best dealt with on there respective pages. This is by and large the WikiProject Canada notice board (not that I am suggesting a name change), one would not go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States to discuss the actions of am American editor. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Farley Mowat

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated Farley Mowat at ITN as a recent death, however the article has a lot of issues. These range from poor to non existent references, to borderline plagerism/potential copyvios. I have gone through the early life and the start of literary career (first two or three paragraphs, although the part about Never Cry wolf I didn't look at yet). The literary section relies on a lot of explanation of the books, which isn't the best in my mind. I would rather have articles on the books (I may do later) and focus that section on broad descriptions about the books in general (although I am sure others will differ). I am done for the evening (it's getting late and my laptop speed is pretty rubbish for this sort of editing on such a large article), I would appreciate if someone could have a go at the article, it would be nice to have the article on such a distinguished Canadian better shape and linked on the main page (it has been tagged since 2007). --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article has been undergoing regular collaborative improvement for several days now, so I guess your posting was effective. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it did. Much thanks for your work Anne, and the work of all the others. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

old BCGNIS templates that don't work

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Someone had asked here, or on the WPBC board, about examples of when {{bcgnis}} links don't work; must have been archived, I note this page doesn't have much on it now; Found a set, and yet another example of how "cite bcgnis" has failed to live up to its billing as keeping things up to date automatically....garbage in, garbage out.Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC) That link is to an IR redirect to that locality, IR No, 6, the other refs there are of the same kind.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The references in the article about Nesikep were hard-coded with URLs and did not use the Cite BCGNIS template. I have now substituted the templates, with corrected ID parameters for the Indian Reserves, and added a few minor other things. The Cite BCGNIS templates work fine. --papageno (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, I didn't look at the page edit-code but had just followed the link, which had the same wording as the old {{bcgnis}} one I asked to be created; "cite bcgnis" is time consuming to use when writing articles, and I don't and won't use it; other template-driven bcgnis citations have not worked, and in those cases I know they were either/or the old or new template....the parsing code for the BC Names ID number must have been revised..... this was a widespread problem for a while....and the bulky nature of the "cite bcgnis" template (which needs renaming/rescripting as they're not called BCGNIS anymore) wound up "breaking" pages by turning them into masses of hidden characters (the BC-Alaska Boundary Peaks list is where that happened); what was supposed to be quick and easy to use, the old template, got replaced by somebnody "improving" it who didn't have to use it in the volumes that I do.....so I bare-URL things.Skookum1 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Question for project

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if any aboriginal Canadians inhabited Rocky Harbour at one point in history 99.245.179.58 (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Much thanks in advance

Did you visit and read Rocky Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador? Hwy43 (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Family Channel 2011.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

commons:File:Family Channel 2011.png has been nominated for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nicole Redhead

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A rather negative BLP on Nicole Redhead has been created. I am wondering if it meets notability requirements. Apparently an inquest was/is being held and findings have been published in the last 6 hours. Anyone familiar with the event/s may care to take a look. --220 of Borg 00:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this subject to WP:ONEEVENT? Is she notable apart from the event/legal case? At any rate, the phrasing needs to be brought to encyclopedic standards, as the tone is not appropriate. (And text such as "It must be noted..." needs to be pruned.) Mindmatrix 02:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I would say so. I have now idea of how significant, as far as wp:notability the death of the child is, which is what the page is really about. (Naturally any childs death in the circumstances noted is significant, but it keeps happening ) There seems to be a fair amount of current coverage in Canada. ie.[9] The problems with overworked social workers/ child protection workers seems to be in all countries. I know similar cases have happened here in Australia. Perhaps it should be rewritten and retitled "Death of Jaylene Redhead"? Or deleted. As it stands it reads like a negative BLP, which is what brought me to it from New pages feed. --220 of Borg 03:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Sad as the story is, I don't see that it meets WP:Notability, and it's a WP:ONEEVENT situation. PKT(alk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I've requested it be renamed, see Talk:Nicole Redhead -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Argyle in Nova Scotia

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a pair of interrelated move requests (possibly should have been a multimove?), one of which is confused and poorly stated; concerning two Argyle articles. See Talk:Argyle, Nova Scotia (community) and Talk:Argyle, Nova Scotia -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

New Democratic Party (Canada) ‎

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is the New Democratic Party (Canada) left wing or left of centre this is the debate difference here? Is this edit summary correct "All NDP's other articles agree on centre-left"? Should we base a change according to this source that to me is saying ...that despite support from thi centrist demographic the party itsself is still a "unreformed social-democratic organization" and because of its ongoning "social-democratic ideology and its adherents within the party may inhibit its flexibility". What is the better source and is the new source being interpreted right? ""New Democratic Party" The Canada Page". and Doug Owram (1997). Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby Boom Generation. University of Toronto Press. pp. 299–. ISBN 978-0-8020-8086-8. vs "What's Next For Canada's NDP? | The Mark News". Pioneers.themarknews.com. 2012-08-13. Retrieved 2014-05-30.. -- Moxy (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The CCF and the "Waffle" and other elements were left wing; the NDP have always made a point of being "left of centre" though still embracing "the left"...the federal party under Mulcair and Layton definitely turned more centrist; as was also the case with Broadbent's days..... but all in the name of expediency for political gains in the still-crazed-by-commies populace (which is why it was so easy for the media to panic Ontarian voters about the Orange Wave)....... but between those two items, that's not much to choose from; the one is a bloggish and very terse summary (with some bad syntax but never mind what for now), the other is.... well, an academic work by a UBC Professor... Doug Owram has a Wikipedia article....he has a corporate role worth noting, and that connection and its client list call into question is own political biases about the anti-corporate party, no? It's not like there's not other Canadian political culture and political history books out there....not that finding one without an inbuilt bias/agenda is easy; and it's not like the NDP and its membership don't have lots of stuff to say about this themselves. By the look of that guy, it's like asking an editorial writer for the National Post or Calgary Herald or Conrad Black to give an objective description of the NDP...not gonna happen.Skookum1 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

RCAF Station Jarvis

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, there's a notice about this article at WT:MILHIST -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Head of State, in premiers' infoboxes

Latest comment: 10 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion

We should exclude the Canadian Monarch from the provincial premiers infoboxes (and other provincial offices infoboxes), IMHO. For example, you don't see the American President listed in the infoboxes of his country's state governors (or other state offices). GoodDay (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. I can see the case for including the Lieutenant-Governor, but the Queen is unnecessary. Elizabeth II has absolutely no impact on or relationship to provincial affairs. Resolute 13:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I would include the Lieutenant-Governor but I probably wouldn't include Lizzy. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the comparison to state governors is apples and oranges, but otherwise I agree. Lieutenant-Governor suffices. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed there. The United States is an entirely different system. However, and of note, even most of the articles on the current leaders of the UK's devolved parliaments (i.e.Scottish Parliament) don't include the Queen. Australian Premiers do redundantly list both Queen and Governor, however. Resolute 13:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The lone difference & thus possible reason I can see for inclusion, would be that the Canadian monarch appoints the premiers (the lieutenant governors doing the actual appointing, as Elizabeth II's representatives). Anyways, I'll wait for more imput, as this deals with hundreds of articles. Such mass deletions/additions, are difficult to impliment without strong support. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Since 1892 with the decision at The Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. The Receiver General of New Brunswick, the LG is the direct representative of the Queen within provincial parliaments. With the last provincial upper house abolished in the 60's in Quebec, provincial parliaments now consist of their respective legislatures, and the Queen. The Crown has the same role within provincial government as it does within the Federal government, for example see The Attorney General (Canada) v. The Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, 23 S.C.R. 458. So, the Queen is the 'state' in right of each specific province, just as the Queen in Right of Canada and Canada (state) are one and the same in constitional law (and a corporation sole). The term 'head of state' doesn't actually make any sense within our constitutional system, its simply a term which engenders a common understanding within an international context, but that's another topic. The removal of reference to the the foundational authority underpinning the entire constitutional system does no one any favours here. The U.S. has a completely different political system. What American templates do or do not contain is of absolutly no relevence here. trackratte (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a question of legalities, but of usefulness to our reader. We aren't talking about the legal status of the Queen within Canada, but about what information is important to a reader about a specific individual. Namely, the Premier. The monarch has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Dave Hancock is the Premier of Alberta. None. It's unnecessary information that adds only clutter. What you are describing is perfectly reasonable in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and parallel articles, but not individual biographies. The Lieutenant-Governor, on the other hand, does have a relevance since that is the individual the Premier works with. Resolute 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The office of LG has no authority or powers inherent to itself. Same as the GG. The office exercises the authority of the sovereign in Right of the province in question based on letters issued via personal prerogative, letters which can be changed unilaterally by the sovereign. See Letters Patent, 1947.
The premier of a province is the premier advisor to the Queen, and thus takes responsability through democratic processes for all decisions taken by the Queen in Right of a province (the fundamental consitutional convention known as Responsible Government). This is the constitutional relationship that they share, so yes, it is of absolutle relevance. I acknowledge that this may not be evident to someone who does not have any background in Canadian constitutional studies as this fundamental relationship/role is not necessarily present within our day to day reality. However, that does not negate the fundamental role with which the Crown plays within our provincial political system. So, if you want to use the term 'Head of State', then the Queen is the 'Head of State' of the province, and the premier is its 'Head of Government'. Or you can have something like "Queen Elizabeth II as represented by...". trackratte (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
We are all very familiar with the constitutional status of the monarch. But I agree with Resolute when he says "The monarch has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Dave Hancock is the Premier of Alberta. None." The infoboxes should be for key information. This constitutional formality does not meet that threshold, and has no measurable impact on (to borrow your term) "our day to day reality". Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
By that threshold (to take my quote out of context), you can get rid of pretty much all of the information held within that template. If the fundemental relationship underpinning the entire office of the premier is not relevent to the office of the premier's template, then what is?
For example, information within the template such as the fact that the current premier (to use your example, Dave Hancock) was preceeded by Mike Percy as MLA for Edmonton-Whitemud in 1997, or that he was replaced by Thomas Lukaszuk as Minister of Education in 2011, or that he has three children, or that he went to the UofA, is all nowhere near part of the "day to day reality" of the office of the premier. However, his constitutional role, and who he is responsible to is. If this is simply an exercise in removing clutter, then getting rid of every office he's held, who he replaced, and who replaced him, over the last two decades is far and away a higher priority in that regard.
And regarding the position that "The monarch has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Dave Hancock is the Premier of Alberta" is simply false. The premier, as a Minister of the Crown, is appointed by the monarch, serves at the pleasure of the monarch, advises the monarch, and exercises the executive authority of the monarch (all legal facts). trackratte (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Repeating the same thing again isn't making your case more convincing. Where the Premier went to school, his family, who he replaced as MLA, are all infinitely more relevant than a woman who has no real bearing on his performance of the job. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up sooner. The infoboxes of premiers were discussed in November 2012, at that time it was decided not to even include the LGs. When the Egyptian IP hopper began adding the monarch, LGs, and commissioners to the infobox, there wasn't any opposition, so I thought consensus had changed on the issue. I've chased the Egyptian around Wikipedia, reverting many bad additions, having to protect some articles at some points, but most of his additions have remained. 117Avenue (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Good news. The existing consensus can be implemented then. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That existing consensus was for personal bios, not for changing the template for the premier of a province. The premiers template should only be used for premiers (office and present incumbent). Former premiers should use "Template:Infobox person" or something similar. So, yes, I don't think former premiers should have the monarch in their infoboxes (nor, by extention, the LGs). However, this info very much should be in the premiers infobox, since the two work in tandem within our political system, regardless of what your personal feelings are towards politicians, the monarchy, or our political system in general. The fact is, Canada is a parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy. I also think that the present prime minister would/should be included in the infobox for the Canadian monarch (realising this is not how we have it set up). trackratte (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which template you use, the purpose of the infobox is to list key information about the article subject at a glance. And the subject of the article is the individual person, not the job function they hold. That Elizabeth II happens to be Queen of the Commonwealth at this moment is not key information pertaining to the person or career of Kathleen Wynne. It would be as silly as putting Gary Bettman's name into the infobox of any current NHL player. Resolute 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
If the subject of the article is not the premier but the "individual person", then it should use the person infobox and not the premier infobox. If the subject of the article is the premier, then it should use the premier infobox. So, no, the office of the monarch is not key information to the person of Kathleen Wynne (independent of office), but it absolutly is to that of the premier.
And that analogy makes little sense. In the absence of Garry Bettman, there is still an NHL, and there are still hockey players. Without a monarch, there is no monarchy, and there are no ministers (premier or otherwise). The two roles are so constitutionally intertwined that one cannot exist without the other within our political system. In other systems, such as the U.S. example above, in the absence of a president there are still state governors, so it makes sense not to have the president listed. In our system, the two are co-dependent.
As an aside, is any one else loving the fact that this debate on the Canadian Noticeboard has devolved into hockey analogies? I'm pretty happy about that. trackratte (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned that inclusion of the Canadian monarch in the infoboxes-in-question, may give the readers the wrong impression that Elizabeth II is the Monarch of province; when she's the Monarch in province. PS: We should also consider 'deleting' Prime Minister & Commisioner form the Territorial premiers bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, what distinction are you drawing or worried about presenting to the reader? The Crown functions in the same way at both the provincial and federal levels (the concept of the "compound crown") ie the Queen in Right of Canada, the Queen in Right of Ontario, the Queen in Right of Quebec, etc. Or am I off base in addressing your concerns here?
And I see no reason not to support your second proposal, vis a vis PM and Commissioner for territorial levels. Or why not consolidate in both provincial and territorial templates with something like "Monarch: Queen of Canada as represented by the Governor General/LG (office)/Commisioner (office) as applicable? trackratte (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That's alot of clutter for a political office infobox, in a bio article. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It would actually result in less 'clutter'. The infobox MLA you cited from Kathleen Wynne's article page has 39 lines, combining "monarch1" and "lieutenant_governor1" into a single line would bring us down to 38. Getting rid of every political office they've ever held, over which years, who they replaced in office, and who later replaced them, is a far more pressing concern. If I want to know who they replaced in office X 20 years ago, I can go to the appropriate article section. That type of information, which depending on the article is taking up to 30 lines, needs to go. So we're worrying about a single line describing the foundational relationship underpining the entire office as 'over cluttering' the infobox, then treating the 30 lines of deep into the weeds historical information as not clutter? trackratte (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) trackratte (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss other entries in the infoboxes as well, but that is a separate discussion. And you are still missing the point. It doesn't matter one iota what infobox the article uses. There is no value to mentioning who the monarch just happens to be. The argument about which infobox to use is also rather pointless, since they just redirect to {{Infobox officeholder}}. Resolute 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You're completely right, who the monarch is is largly irrelevant as you say. If you read my above proposal though, it doesn't mention who the monarch is. The office of the monarch itself is what is important here. And I'm not aruging for the inclusion of the monarch in biographical articles, or for official office holders, but only for LGs and premiers, ie Premier of Ontario, Premier of British Columbia, etc and not Bob Rae or Gordon Campbell, etc. In fact, ex-premiers should not have a premier infobox on their article space at all, but a bio or official post one (if applicable).
The other entries in the infoxboxes are only important in determining the threshold of importance necessary for inclusion in the infobox itself. My only argument with that being that if it's sufficiently important to note who replaced who as the minister responsible for whatever in 1993 in the infobox, then its certainly important to note on whose authority they were exercising the powers of the state. Remember, in our system the premier/PM are de jure non-elected appointments made by the crown who are allowed to exercise the powers of the crown on a temporary basis, and whose loan of such powers can be revoked by the crown at any given time (by convention governed by democratic processes). Ie the office of PM/premier in our system posseses absolutly zero organic authority. All of the authority of the state resides in the Crown.
The 'clutter' argument is a non-starter, and I don't see how it even logically applies, especially when the proposal results in an overall reduction of lines.
I understand that the nominator is a republican who wishes to see Canada cease to be a monarchy (I do not consider myself a monarchist, but a constitutionalist), however Canada is a monarchy and thus the operation of the Crown is the foundation on which our system of governance is built, and of central relevance to the heads of government (office) themselves. trackratte (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, "the operation of the Crown..." is important to note on articles discussing Canada's political makeup and governmental processes, but is immaterial to these individual biographies. And if the monarch doesn't belong on the infobox of a former Premier, it doesn't belong on the infobox of a current one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
As I've been saying, "immaterial" is a subjective term. Based on the 'threshold of materiality' which has been presented (ie knowing who replaced person X in office Y in 1993), the foundational authority underlying the office of the premier is absolutely material to an article about the premier. If you would like to discuss changing the threshold for inclusion for the infobox then that is another matter.
And again, I'm not talking about random "individual biographies", I'm talking about the office itself, and its current incumbent. trackratte (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is not about the office itself, so that is irrelevant. Resolute 14:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Nom: "We should exclude the Canadian Monarch from the provincial premiers infoboxes". Provincial premier is an office. So, yes the discussion is about the office, and more specifically the infoxbox used to illustrate it, and its current incumbent. trackratte (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So far, we've only 'one' objector to the exclusion proposal. That being the case, I'm reluctant to begin deletions, if it's going to create a hassle. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Auzzie style

Note that the infoboxes in the bios of the premiers in Australia, exclude the Australian head of state. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The New Zealand First Minister and the Australian First Minister have "Queen Elizabeth II". Australian state governors also have "Queen Elizabeth II". Australian state premiers have "Governor of Name of State". So, New Zealand and Australia both have the office of the Crown in all of their infoboxes.
The First Minister of the UK has "Monarch of the United Kingdom", and the First Minister of Scotland has "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". So, the UK also has the office of the crown in its infoboxes at the state and 'devolved government' level.
And this includes the infoboxes for both the office, as well as the bio article for the incumbent (such as Premier of Australian states, and First Ministers of devolved governments within the UK which both have "Elizabeth II").
My proposal was to eliminate two lines for "Queen Elizabeth II" and "Governor General David Johnson", and replace them with something like "Queen of Canada represented by the Governor General". This way we reduce on 'clutter' by getting rid of a line, and we standardise templates for federal/provincial/territorial first ministers and governors. Having the office of the crown, or the name of its incumbent in the infobox for first minister pages, and their incumbent bio pages, is the standard that other countries with the same system follow. Not that that forces us to follow, but I fail to see why we would not include such an important aspect into the infoboxes. trackratte (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The examples at Campbell Newman & Colin Barnett, are ideal. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Ideal why? Because they don't conform to the norm? Because they fit better with your republican ideals? To be clear, I'm not judging. You have your beliefs and that's cool with me. It's just that the reasons behind such a change that have been presented, such as 'cluttering' the infobox (opposite would happen), or that what we're doing now is out of the norm (it's not), or that it's redundant (when much more 'redundant' info is fine, just not if it involves the Crown), leaves me suspecting that the only reason behind this move is simply not liking any mention of the office at all. Which, to be honest is a perfectly fine sentiment to have. It's just that this is an encyclopedia presenting knowledge, so the fact that a monarch is central to governance within a monarchy (and thus to a head of government) is one that, fortunately or unfortunately, is simply inherent within our system and its offices.
So, to recap, the proposed way forward reduces 'clutter', is in line with what the UK, Australian, and NZ articles are doing, and gives the briefest of mention in the infobox to the fundamental authority on which the highest political office operates, which within a constitutional monarchy, is simply the monarch. trackratte (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The suggestion of fitting better with a republican ideal, is unfounded. I haven't been calling for the Head of State's exclusion from the individual Prime Ministers infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, but the role of first minister, and its relationship with the crown, is the same at the provincial and federal level. You cannot logically advocate for the removal of the office at the provincial level, and not at the federal level. They are both the 'first servant' within their respective parliaments.
And I'm not accusing you of bad faith, so please don't take it that way. I'm saying your natural inclination is for the removal of the Crown, which I said was a perfectly fine position to have as a republican, however we do have to be aware of it. And to be perfectly honest, my natural inclination is to preserve our present constitutional order, and to ensure it's accurately represented within this ol'pedia, as a self-admitted constitutionalist. So, this isn't a republican vs. monarchist brawl, but a reasoned discussion to ensure that we are outlining pertinent facts for general education.
In this case, the office of the premier has no organic authority inherent to the office itself, but only temporarily 'borrows' the authority of the crown based on democratic process. "Whether the government is federal or provincial, authority to govern ultimately flows from the Crown." Crown of Maples, p.24. One cannot exist without the other, and this connection is fundamental to any understanding of the office itself, and is, in a nutshell, why I feel it so important to an article purporting to educate. Yes, we may not need it in the infobox as a matter of style, however if the fundemental principle underlying the office does not deserve mention, then certainly, nothing much else does. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa Train Station

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
It's in the capital of Canada, so we better get this one right

Are we bad Canadians if we call it a train station instead of a railway station? What do the people of Ottawa call it? How many people still think they can catch the train across the street from the Chateau Laurier? Please share your thoughts at the discussion at Talk:Ottawa Railway Station#Ottawa Railway Station? Ottawa Train Station? - you will not be required to tip the red cap. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Oriental Riots (Vancouver) needs help/work

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This was created by RfC, using primarily an American writer and had a number of non-Canadian wordings, plus some strange usages for post-RfC, like apostrophe-s for a plural and needless capitalizations; and a category Category:Anti-Chinese activities in Canada, which strikes me as....problematic. There's lots in Vancouver-written histories about this; I don't have time to work on it and User:Bobanny, whose specialty is Vancouver labour history and general heritage, is one of the WP:Missing Wikipedians who finds his writing time better spent somewhere there is less interference than here; I've asked him for confirmation that "Coal Harbour", though used in this source, and by Jean Barman in her works, is wrong; that "Chinese MacDougall"'s camp of Chinese workers used in his contract to clear the Brickmaker's Claim (the West End) was around Nelson & Broughton or Jervis; that's not Coal Harbour, it's the West End. The American author's claim that the Vancouver riots were the "direct result" of the Bellingham riots is highly dubious, and points to the ongoing problem of "reliable sources" that really don't deserve that term, whether the author has an academic pedigree or not. At present the article has a POV tone, though that's nothing unusual in certain types of history articles; comes off like a tub-thump at this point though.Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Resturant (White lunch)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am looking for a photo of the White Lunch Restaurant from back in the 60's. The building was located on the northwest corner of Hwy#7 and 48 ( or Main street & Hwy#7) i believe it was a Real Estate office and a Pizza pizza place. Thanks Greg Delorme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.246.76 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Argyle, N.S.

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See the closure rationale at Talk:Argyle, Nova Scotia (community) where there is a suggestion for cleanup for Argyle. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Newfoundland

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Category:Newfoundland (island) and subcategories have been proposed to be renamed to Category:Newfoundland and coordinate changes to the subcategories. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_6#Island_of_Newfoundland_categories -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


The primary topic of "Newfoundland" is under discussion, see talk:Newfoundland -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion can be found at Talk:Newfoundland (island) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Pre-emption

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Canada experts: While reading this article: Mount Lehman, Abbotsford, I came across the term "pre-empted", which led me to read this one: Preemption. The appropriate entry appeared to be Dominion Lands Act, but surprisingly there is no mention of pre-emption or preemption in this article. Without it, the first article is confusing. If this is a proper Canadian legal term, can someone who understands it please add something about it to Dominion Lands Act, to that the Mount Lehman article can be linked there? If not, perhaps the entry in Preemption should be removed and the Mount Lehman, Abbotsford article reworded. Thanks in advance for your help with this. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There was a major revamp of the URL scheme at The Canadian Encyclopedia some time ago which created many broken URLs. URLs of the form http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?... no longer work. --Big_iron (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. It seems like not too much has changed since then. Most of these links are still broken; however, from the earlier discussion, it seems like some may work. --Big_iron (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed something in passing that I am noting here regarding migration of old URLs - there was a URL format that was previously supported which referred to a separate section linked from the main article. This feature no longer appears to be supported since these entries have been incorporated into the main article. For example, the Guido Basso article referred to the URL http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1SEC886605 (Recordings) which was linked from the main article http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0000217 (Basso, Guido). I replaced both URLs by the new format URL http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/guido-basso-emc/ since neither of the earlier URLs work. --Big_iron (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 01/07

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Draft:Bill C-24 Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD for Category:Chinook Jargon place names

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:Chinook Jargon place names has been nominated for deletion/upmerging, with a suggestion that List of Chinook Jargon place names be upmerged. Please add any comments to [[10]].Skookum1 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

{{GTA Mass Transit}}

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, Template:GTA Mass Transit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Banting House National Historic Site of Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am interested in expanding the amount of information available on Banting House NHSC. I am currently collecting sources and information to contribute to the page. I would love it if this project would contribute as well! Washoe42 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to include a link! Henrietta also had a house in a border town called Stanstead, Quebec, which is now a B&B, although I suppose it's not quite relevant. - Sweet Nightmares 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm new at this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banting_House . That's very interesting about Henrietta, thanks for the info! Washoe42 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently added a request to this page and noticed that there's about a year long backlog over there. Would an experienced Wikipedian mind going over the list please? - Sweet Nightmares 17:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Conservatory of Music

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy Friday afternoon. Could we have a bit more input over at Talk:The Royal Conservatory of Music#Merger proposal with a view to eventually closing this discussion either way. One of the participants is anxious to wrap it up. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Canadian current events for deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canadian current events is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian current events until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Sweet Nightmares 15:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As it has been closed for being in the inappropriate place, I have reopened discussion here. Currently rolling my eyes at Wikipedia's convoluted infrastructure for handling these things. - Sweet Nightmares 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Astroturfing from the federal government

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Story to watch: Twitter account highlights history of Ottawa staffers making Wiki edits

Articles affected:

- Sweet Nightmares 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a timely heads up. Dean Del Mastro has asked parliamentary staff to initiate an inquiry as to who was editing his article, as the IP addresses belongs to the Parliament of Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Source question

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Have a sourcing question that I wanted to ask for assistance with. I've been struggling for a long time to find a source for the complete nominee lists for the 2001 and 2002 ReLit Awards (I've even tried personally e-mailing Kenneth J. Harvey with no luck), and I finally hit an elusive "close but no cigar" source earlier today — ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database contains an abstract, but not the actual text, of an article in The Telegram (St. John's NL) for the 2001 list. So I wanted to ask if anybody here has access to a more complete database of Telegram articles from which they could pull the article for me.

If someone does, the article I need is "ReLit shortlist announced", publication date May 13, 2001. Molto grazie, if anyone can help. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried emailing the Telegram? Failing that, you could ask some of the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador; if the publication is unwilling to help, then a library with archival access is probably your best bet. - Sweet Nightmares 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Toronto Transit Commission buses -> TTC buses move request

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see discussion here. - Epson291 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rochdale College

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I am Stuart Roche, publications director of Rochdale 69-70. I have begun to put Rochdale publications up on the web. I would like to chat with former Rochdalians. Stuart roche44 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a place to chat with other people (WP:NOTSOCIAL), have you thought about using classmates.com or other similar services ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily assume that Stuart's only interest was in being social. He has been uploading Rochdale materials to Wikimedia Commons and may have a legitimate interest in discussing our coverage of the topic here on Wikipedia. In any event, Wikipedians routinely make connections on talk pages here that lead to off-encyclopedia discussions - there is no harm in him seeing if there are other former "Rochdalians" lurking around this WikiProject. Rochdale was an experient in cooperative housing in the late 1960s in Toronto, so it's not really a classmates.com kind of thing. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I was taking the statement at face value, no assumptions required. A more elaborate statement of intent would have added meaning to the statement provided. Though, I think that services like classmates.com would provide a chance at linking people, as our article on the place says it was also a school. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you were making assumptions. There is nothing on the face of his message whatsoever which indicates that he thought this is social media. Try not to bite the newcomers with patronizing advice. You can assume good faith and some understanding of Wikipedia without requiring "a more elaborate statement of intent" from everyone who posts here. And while Rochdale was originally intended to serve UofT students in part, it was not a school, and it is not really a classmates.com type of thing, unless classmates.com now focus on drug dens and hippie communes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see where the BITE comes in. I merely informed him that not all forms of chatting are done on Wikipedia, pointed to the guideline that lists the forms of communication that should or should not occur on Wikipedia, and suggested other venues where he may have better luck in finding people from Rochdale (since our article did say it was a school, therefore, places where former students meet up again would be a likely location to be able to find more people from Rochdale); It required no assumptions, except that our article was accurate, and no BITE, since it was a friendly message, I didn't post a uw-warning to his talk page, there was no statement of "don't do that here". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You undoubtedly had good intentions, but it wasn't a friendly message and the advice wasn't helpful. It was curt and not a great way to encourage a newcomer (i.e. this isn't the place for this, this is what NOT to do, why don't you go elsewhere). Just next time don't jump to assumptions - that's all. A Wikiproject talk page is the last place we should be posting responses such as yours absent a good reason to do so. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Rock"

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I've tried to add the Island of Newfoundland to The Rock (disambiguation) but it's being removed. There's also a related discussion about The Rock at RfD. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It appears Newfoundland was removed from the DAB page because the nickname wasn't mentioned over at the Newfoundland article. Fair enough. I added the nickname to the infobox over at Newfoundland (island), and then reinserted the link to it at The Rock (disambiguation). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you say that it so common that it should be at the top of the disambiguation page, with Alcatraz and Dwayne Johnson, or would it stay in the geography section? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It's fine in the geography section, in my opinion....PKT(alk) 03:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with PKT. The Newfoundland article does not seem to have the same traffic stats as the Alcatraz and Gibraltar articles. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Dwayne Johnson is by far, now, the most common meaning of "the Rock" worldwide, the Canadianism is really only known in Canada; before Johnson, it would easily be Alcatraz.Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses and Race and ethnicity in censuses

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pleas add information about this country to this articles--Kaiyr (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What a distasteful subject.....and the article is full of original research and marked as such (the race and ethnicity one); and I changed this, because "white" does not figure in the Canadian census at all; too many Canadian pages have that instead of European Canadian or in that case, the many different types of European Canadian should be listed, if others are given; the effect is to treat ethnicity as the same as "race". Noxious.Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Canada Club

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We seem to be missing an article about the London, UK business club that promotes Canada (IIRC, it's older than the Dominion of Canada); or am I missing an article where it is documented? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Railway station naming

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am in disagreement with another user regarding Halifax, Nova Scotia railway station and the proper naming. My opinion (which I think is standard with the MOS and Canadian naming conventions) is that the page should be either at:

It seems that many other stations listed in Category:Via Rail stations are listed using the City, Province railway station naming convention, this seems contrary to everything that I have seen as far as naming conventions with regards to buildings and structures which do not have unique names (i.e. Pantages Theatre) I would like some more input on this. The key points that I have is:

  • We don't just make up names for things (i.e. changing something from Halifax Railway Station or Halifax to Halifax, Nova Scotia railway station seems to me like Wikipedia making up a name to suit).
  • The article refers to it as Halifax Railway Station in all capital letters, implying that the actual name is HRS, and not just Halifax.
  • The comment on this move (and others that I have seen) is that the City, Province railway is standard for Canadian railway topics, I haven't seen that guideline, and regardless I would consider it incorrect compared to the WP:CANSTYLE and MOS naming conventions that we use.

Additionally this discussion extends to more than just this station, so I prefer to have it centralized here rather than on the article talk page. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with Halifax railway station? The city is, after all, the most populous/notable "Halifax" in the world, and frankly I'm surprised Halifax is a DAB since it gets nearly double the traffic than any other page. Further, take a look at the three most populous subcategories of the one you linked: Ontario, Manitoba, and BC. The vast majority only use the city. And honestly, "railway station" is precise enough that I doubt there will be much confusion. In my humble opinion, [City] railway station ought to be the convention, and if there come to be two conflicting stations, only then should we consider the province (e.g., Saint Paul railway station (Alberta) and Saint Paul railway station (Manitoba)). - Sweet Nightmares 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite a larger population in the Canadian city, the British station probably sees significantly more traffic than the Canadian as rail traffic in Canada is not popular, in particular outside the Windsor-Montreal corridor. Which would would be considered the primary topic is irrelevant to what I am looking for however. You are correct, that if there is only one station of a particular name it should not have the province in it (bracket or comma), and most don't. We only disambiguate when necessary, however we do have St. Marys, Ontario railway station (St. Marys railway station), Chatham, Ontario railway station (Chatham railway station), Musk, Ontario railway station (Musk railway station. So yes, notwithstanding that their could be discussion of which, if any, should be at the non-disambiguated name, I am looking for what we should do when there is disambiguation required. Having said that, I removed Her Majesty's Theatre above, as sometimes the Australians tend to go Structure, City, although Brookfield Place uses brackets. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't realize the link (Halifax railway station) was already blue when I posted my comment. - Sweet Nightmares 23:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

10th Queen's Own Canadian Hussars

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, there's a discussion about this topic at WT:MILHIST -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

{{PD-NT-DOT}}

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:PD-NT-DOT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion; any images that potentially used this license may have been deleted off Commons (or will be deleted). If those images are usable, they'd then need a fair-use-rationale. And would need to be moved to Wikipedia(s) (ie. English, French, Inuktitut, etc) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't seem to link to any active file on Commons. In any case, those files couldn't be moved to the French Wiki, which banned fair-use images in 2006. Bouchecl (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the fr.wiki issue. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment (again)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Would someone please mind assessing the articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment#Requesting an assessment? There is currently a backlog dating from 3 July 2013. - SweetNightmares 13:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to ignore SweetNightmares' plea, but this is a good opportunity to give kudos to User:PKT, who has quietly carried so much of the burden of WPCANADA-related assessment these past few years. Great work, PKT. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bring this up, SweetNightmares. I have begun reviewing the articles. As for Skeezix's comment: blush, blush... :) PKT(alk) 16:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree User:PKT has done a great job ...in fact for the past few years I was wondering why PKT was not more involved with the "requesting an assessment page"... you have that request page on your watchlist PKT? Would love you to look over the old ones for us located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment/Archive. -- Moxy (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

undiscussed Band government -> Band (First Nation) move

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I just tried to revert this, which happened overnight (in my timezone), but I got a red message saying "it appears this edit has already been undone". The justification given by @Kevlar67: is that "band government "legal name "band government" is a description, not a title", which to me is counter-intuitive and, um, it's now an awkward title with an awkward dab. Since when is a legal description not suitable as a title?? The further problem is that categories that are now "FOO governments" will be affected by some eager-beaver armed with BOLD and a bot. By the logic used there, regional district or district municipality would be County (British Columbia), since there are people out there in wiki-land who wrongly presume that RDs are counties (counties in BC are court districts only).

For the same reason we don't change Indian Act to First Nation Act or First Nations Act, and for the same reason I moved First Nations government to band government (I had created the FN government title myself, back in the mists of wiki-time), the "FN dab" has its issues; "Band government", for which "band" is a short casual form, "not a title", is the MOSTCOMMON way to describe a government created by the Indian Act. Sure, we refer to one in particular when speaking of it as "the band said this...", "the band bought Crown land..."....but when you get down to it, the MOSTCOMMON "dab" for it would be "Indian Band", which indeed is still used by many band governments.

My other problem with this dab is it's awkward to use when wiki-writing, e.g. [[Band (First Nation)|band government]], or [[Band (First Nation)|band]]. A lot of non-Canadians will go "band what?", also, and bring us back go ground zero, namely "a band government" or "a First Nations government".....so the legal description, which happens to be the simpler dab, is the better title. I won't bother posting this on WP:IPNA as kibbitzing from people in the UK and US who aren't already familiar with Canadian English, or Canadian aboriginal law and governance, will not be helpful.Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find it and revert it on the move log. I'm not eager for an RM on this, if Kevlar67 wants to launch one, because of the outside input that will come from people who don't know Canadian English, don't know about aboriginal governance in Canada etc. We (I) had a hard enough time getting rid of the endash imposed on regional district names, never mind too many other RMs where too many people unfamiliar with the topic weighed in on picayune points of guidelines, without even getting those guidelines right. "Band government" meets the Five Characteristics of titles, and is the most common usage; "band" is, as noted, simply a spoken shorthand. And not all bands call themselves "First Nation", some are "Nation", some are "Indian Band", others are just "Band".Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
My beef wasn't with getting rid of "First Nations" in the title, since that is not a legal title either. My problem was the inclusion of the word "government", which is a description of what a band is, not its legal title. I honestly don't think any of the proposed titles (the old one, Skookum's, or my own) is much better on the criteria (recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent). It will necessarily have to be imperfect. I differ the wisdom of the crowd on this issue. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"I defer to the wisdom of the crowd" you mean. The original title was my own, as was the change to "band government" (as distinct from other kinds of aboriginal governance, e.g. the St'at'imc Chiefs' Council, the Office of the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan, and so on. Non-parenthetical dabs are inherently preferred over parenthetical ones, and "band government" is a common usage and used in common speech and the media alike. That "band" has maybe another twenty meanings means that it needs some kind of dab; but not one with a problematic term which also has several meanings/uses...and remains largely obscure outside Canada.Skookum1 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

While I understand the potential issues with the name you've outlined, I'd like to point out that:

I suggest naming the article "Indian band" instead, because not all amerindian nations are First Nations tribes. In calling it a "first nation band" you are excluding the Métis and the Inuit. - Sweet Nightmares 14:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Exclude? they don't have band governments; Metis do not have this kind of government, and neither do the Inuit. And did you exclude Wikipedia and its clones from those searches? Did you limit the results to Canadian sources? Your use of "First Nations tribes" indicates to me that you're not Canadian and don't really understand the legalities, or Canadian usages. "Indian band" is, yes, a common usage, "First Nations government" has this other problem, that "first nations is an adjective" (increasingly lower-cased now), and "First Nation" is in the name of most band governments (others are, as noted "X Band", "X Indian Band" or "X Nation". The issue here will not be solved by quantitative and rather indiscriminate/unfiltered statistics but by qualitative meaning and the normal cadence of Canadian English; And btw, the Inuit aren't "amerindian nations" either. I'm the original creator of the First Nations government title but re the change from Category:First Nations reserves and its uncitable neologism, it was me who changed it to "band government" as "First Nations government" can include traditional governance (see the other sections on Talk:Band government) and also non-band government government bodies of various kinds; this article is meant to be specific about the kind of government prescribe/created by the Indian Act. Sources from outside of Canada are irrelevant in this matter; if they weren't, then all FN articles and Canadian articles would use "Native American", instead of "First Nation(s) peoples", and reserve articles and categories would be "reservation" titles.Skookum1 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to be impolite. - Sweet Nightmares 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not being "impolite", I'm being straightforward and pointing out the many flaws in your statements. Being oversensitive about being corrected is not constructive; nor are your uneducated, uninformed comments nor reliance on raw statistics.Skookum1 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because calling me un-Canadian, ignorant, oversensitive, and uneducated is not antagonistic; it's contributing to the argument at hand. I would have gone on to provide counterarguments to the points you raised, but your incivility here and elsewhere leads me to believe that discussing things with you is a waste of time. - SweetNightmares 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're wrong, it's certainly a waste of time, and you are wrong. Band (First Nation) flies in the face of the Five Characteristics, it's not concise, it's ambiguous, it's not common usage, it's parenthetical and more. It's also a pain in the ass to have to pipe when writing in ordinary English. Contesting that is uneducated, you reaction is oversensitive, and it is ignorant of the reality of how bands/band governments are spoken of in the media, and by locals, and by the bands themselves. Plain English is "band government". Your presumption that it is anything different is baseless and illogical. And that I'm seeing far too much of in Wikipedia of late, including from Canadians who should know better. Whining about being uncivil is just only more oversensitivity. Your Kevlar67's undiscussed name change is what was a waste of time....I did what is called for when a controversial move is undiscussed - bold-revert-discuss is normal practice. This is clearly controversial and if such a name change is proposed, it should be RMd - not complained and whined about and someone fielding terms they don't understand is not helpful nor constructive; I had moved it from a politically-correct title I originally authored, and as the creator of such title it's fine for me to move it...to something uncontroversial and which is common usage in Canadian English and is not a needless parenthetical disambiguation, which is against TITLE, which is policy. I note other than your recent mistakes, neither of you has actually worked on the article; typical to me of those doing name changes all over the place without ever working in improving the article.Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mount Polley mine disaster

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I was looking this up as readings for my morning's ESL lesson about to start, and found there's Mount Polley mine disaster in Wikipedia. It's not bad in terms of content so far, though there's lots out there to be added. First Nations throughout the region have condemned the company and I know are lining the Fraser with protests and drumming groups lining the river to pray for the salmon etc, led by a campaign by the Esketemc First Nation and I think a conference/gathering there (Alkali Lake, which is south of Williams Lake; the current Chinook run that's coming up the river is a record run, and is now viewed as severely threatened and in danger (salmon are very sensitive little fishies), and wildlife such as moose along the Cariboo and Quesnel Rivers are viewed as in danger of the toxins. So far no sign of POV in the article one way or the other, but this bears watching as it's doubtless p.r. people will be watching it, maybe working on it, and environmental and FN IP contributors can be expected (no sign of that yet, all editors so far are regular wikipedians).

I do know the company has claimed the spill has been contained which is of course loudly disputed; photos say otherwise (the article says the company says the tailing pond was "nearly empty", figures as to the scale of the spill indicate, again, otherwise). I'll see if I can get someone (possibly Sage Birchwater, whose article in the Williams Lake Tribune is one of the citations, and whom I know personally) but it may be assistance with licensing matters for any contribution of photos and maps may be needed (Commons licensing having become increasingly picky lately...maybe we can get a monkey to take a picture so it's public domain?).

I note that {{infobox event}}'s fields seem mostly to do with disasters involving deaths; cost of damages is a field, I'd imagine that includes cleanup costs; but no deaths of course are involved....is there any "environmental disaster" infobox that may be more suitable?

Anyways, if more people could watchlist this, that would probably be a good idea. It has the potential to be a "battlefield article". I added the current events template for obvious reasons; it may need more categories; Category:Cariboo Regional District is already there, rather than Category:Cariboo, but this does involve the regional government so that's fine. I'll maybe write a Mount Polley article, though it's a nondescript summit in the Quesnel Highland and not a true montane peak; really more of a "forested bump" as bivouac's siteowner calls such things. The bit about "deepest fjord in the world" is not verifiable and is not in the source given; I changed it to what Birchwater's article does say "cleanest deep water lake in the world (also not verifiable). The depths of many fjords, including other lakes in BC, is often not known at all (Seton Lake being an example as I know well, having lived by it). Exaggerated claims in enviro articles are nothing new, of course....as are exaggerated denials from corporate p.r. people. Follow-up coverage and commentary in coming weeks will be intense, this article will need regular updating.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside, I got a little chuckle as to the name of the Likely Chamber of Commerce.....Robin Hood.Skookum1 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I've placed a few news items on the talkpage of the article, and there's lots more; but even the three linked have large amounts of information and statements that do belong in the article, which I don't have time to work on much; currently battling with a Trojan I "caught" the other day.Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tag from 2011 on BC NDP article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd dropped by to check wording re the recent RM re New Democratic Party and the wording of the associated dab page and noted the POV tag, which is from 2011, and wonder about what it was about and if it should still remain, unless there are definite points as to what is POV about it; I see some things that I wince at, but do not want to get involved, as explained on Talk:British_Columbia_New_Democratic_Party#2001_POV_template.Skookum1 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal City Centre deleted

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Found out about this just now because of New Westminster being on my watchlist. Took all of one vote and one week to have it deleted, based on a google search and no consultation with WikiProject Vancouver or WikiProject BC/Canada....one of my big faults found with the AfD and related boards like RM and CfD is that there is no requirement to notify related WikiProjects. Something about 500k sq ft being the cutoff limit. This is the oldest shopping centre in New West, used to be Sears, and is the largest shopping complex in New West, and since renovations (huge towers now stand where the Sears parking lot was i.e. it was the top floor of Sears) is the largest residential complex in the Uptown (6th & 6th) area of the city, and pretty much the core of uptown New West....this deletion is an example of the blind leading the ignorant decided by the uncaring. But as always, rather than seeking input, deletionists base things on quantitative guidelines they treat as rules, do not deign to ask for input from the related city/regional/topic wikiproject community, and babble in isolation and push the button on deletion. Not inclusionism in decision making, and rather deliberately exclusionary. There is no requirement to consult is what I've often been told; well, that kind of guideline can and should be changed. A few Wikipedians have lived in New West, myself included, and the late User:Franamax; but there are fewer and fewer BC Wikipedians. I haven't looked to see what else there is in Greater Vancouver shopping centre articles; I know Pacific Centre Mall has an entry, Brentwood, Lougheed Mall, not sure about Highgate (what used to be Middlegate, on Kingsway) etc etc. At some point this article needs to be re-done; I have to wonder what else has been deleted by tiny groups of Wikipedians who never try to involve others in what amounts to closed-door discussions. Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First, please assume good faith. Nobody has time for comments like "the blind leading the ignorant decided by the uncaring" or other attacks. Name calling or suggestions of inappropriate conduct will not solve this issue. As for the substantive issues, there used to be a bot which notified WikiProjects of deletion requests, but I believe it is inactive. Does anybody know any details about that? As for the so-called "deletionists", there are many, many articles on non-notable shopping centres and plazas, usually unsourced, and I commend any Wikipedians who are trying to clean up that mess. To be fair to them, the Royal City Centre article was likely devoid of any indications of notability. That's the bigger problem. The best protection for these kind of articles is to ensure that they are properly sourced and have some indication of notability, not to blame people who are doing their best to improve this project. The onus is on article creators, and people wanting to keep articles, to ensure they meet the Wikipedia rules. Most WikiProjects are either inactive, or close thereto, and even when they are relatively active (like this one) it is sometimes hard to get people's attention (the archives of this page are full of notices which didn't result in any activity). While frustrating, there is nothing stopping someone from recreating the article properly in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. If you can find a couple of sources for the notability of this centre, you might also consider raising it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm in Thailand these days so that's kinda hard to do. But I note that the RCC is the main image in the infobox on the New West page (q.v.) and, again, it's the main feature of the cityscape of the Uptown area. I'll review that page to see if there are any other citations that may prove useful; as with another New West deletion (or two) I nominated as non-notable, it was observed that local media, i.e. the New West papers, are not considered reliable for notability purposes; histories of commerce and construction in the city are out there in book form, no doubt, but the New West Library is 10,000 miles away from me now...I used to live two blocks from it (before I ever got involved with Wikipedia); Greater Vancouver article editing/writing activity seems to focus mostly on the City of Vancouver; I'll see what kinds of citations there are on other similar complexes/landmarks in the region and get back. I stand by my comments about the nature of the deletion environment; at one time Wikipedia was more inclusivist and not so hasty with deletion; improvement means expansion and finding citation, and invitations to same.Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Well.....I just had a look at the first batch on the Shopping Malls in Greater Vancouver template, and all so far have only one primary citation; some have "references" sections which refer to the same primary website for each mall; and no third-party notability sections whatsoever:
With the possible exception of Pacific Centre due to its land history and prominence in the city core, maybe the Harbour Centre and the former Woodwards complex and maybe International Village, I daresay we can expect to find the same pattern with the other shopping centre articles as with the ones seen here; and I recall the RCC page as being similar in scale and formatting...nice pictures, a listing of stores, square footage etc. So given the logic applied to the RCC, these would all seem to be candidates for deletion in order to "improve the encyclopedia" no? And who knows, maybe the same applies on shopping centre articles for major things in Montreal and Toronto, too. I don't know how WP:Companies addresses things like this, or WP:Architecture, but I do know that WP:Hotels warrants notability as being for hotels that are landmarks, have notable architecture, are four or five star rated...and something else... oh yes, notability because of events that happened in them; notable owners and notable guests do not count, nor mentions in literature, according to what I remember of what List of hotels and WP:Hotels guidelines say. They, too, often have only the company website as a reference on them. There's no WP:Shopping Centres, not that I know of, but some guideline for WP:Companies or maybe WP:Real Estate must be out there. And it's late here, 1:22 a.m., so I haven't gotten to the other developments in New West; but it seems to me that pushing the delete button here was a little on the hasty side, given consistency and context of other parallel/similar articles. To me this deletion is a dangerous precedent; expansion and invitation should be used for such items, not two-person AfDs.Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That bot you mentioned, Skeezix, is operating which is how I found out today that Capri Centre and the Yaohan Centre articles have also been deleted, and I remember the major plaza in Nelson BC got deleted recently; can't recall its name just now except that it was Chinook Jargon, which is why I had it watchlisted; it's a major feature of the civic landscape in Nelson, not a non-notable mall in the West Kootenay by any means, again on the basis of only a cursory google search and that the only refs are self-referential. I also found the [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Malls|malls discussion on "common outcomes"] and posted there about systemic bias in favour of urban conceptions of notability re the 500k sq ft cutoff, never mind the 800k and 1mill cutoffs others have fielded. Landmark status, as with the RCC, should qualify.....but the obsession with numerical figures prevails in much of Wikipedia; and was used in the Bella Coola and Bella Bella discussion to pretend that their small populations made their primary topic status invalid (by people who know nothing about the area or t he locations or regular Canadian English usages); and re "deletionists", what else to call someone who is more interested in finding things to delete, and doing the deleting, instead of finding reasons to include and expand/improve articles. If this continues, half the cityscape of Vancouver will be eradicated from Wikipedia, and from smaller city/town articles all over Canada.....but give a monkey a button, they will push it. Give them a keyboard, and you get [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#monkey business|this bunch of hooey. I haven't had time to review the notability guidelines for shopping malls yet, but I submit that major civic landmarks and what function, as the RCC does, as community centres and major residential complexes are notable...even if they're not notable to somebody in Ohio or Hertfordshire.`Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The North Wall and Canadian Vietnam Veterans Memorial appear to be the same thing and should be merged. However, I don't know which is the better name. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be many more hits for either "The North Wall" Vietnam or "The North Wall" Vietnam Canada than for "Canadian Vietnam Memorial" OR "Canadian Vietnam Veterans Memorial." So, my vote's on "The North Wall," despite it sounding less official. - SweetNightmares 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Quebec Nordiques

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Should a link be included in the Nordiques article to Potential National Hockey League expansion? - SweetNightmares 23:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Bouchecl (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is that someone kept reverting it because "something something the new Nordiques won't be the old Avalanche," or whatever. Either way it appears to be sorted. - SweetNightmares 00:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The consensus there (so far) is to 'include'. PS: I'm the someone who opposes the inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Democratic Party (Canada)‎

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:New Democratic Party (Canada) has been proposed to be renamed -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Anybody have an Ottawa Citizen subscription?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ideally, I'd be happy to trade my library card info to give someone from Ottawa access to my 1890-2012 Toronto Star and Globe and Mail access in exchange for the same access to Ottawa Citizen archives. Barring that, I'm looking for someone who can help me get some sources and specific dates for the twinning of Highway 7 between Carleton Place and Kanata in the late 2000s. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 17:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Former capitals of Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I may have raised this before, maybe on the BC page, not sure. The syntax of this category title indicates capitals of Canada; the inclusion of Sydney, New West and Ft. St. James are in the context of "former capitals in Canada", not "of Canada", which those three certainly never have been. I'd dispute Ft St James in that capacity in any case; it was the HQ of the New Caledonia fur district, not the capital of a political unit. And if it is included, then Fort Vancouver, now in Washington, and Fort George (now Astoria, Oregon) should also be; but in none of those cases neither "of" not "in" is right. Ft St James' role as fur district HQ was short-lived, and ended when the NWC and HBC were merged in 1821....56 years before the Dominion of Canada was created, and 47 before mainland BC was made into a colony. It has been called "Capital of the Omineca" but that's in a loose sense of that region post-fur era, and never in any political sense Category:Former capitals of British Columbia would be very small, of course...and would include Fort Langley (actually Old Fort Langley at Derby) which was briefly colonial capital until New West was established as such. Fort San Miguel was the Spanish "capital" in the days of the Spanish presence, but the region was considered by the Spanish to be part of California, the capital of which in those times was Monterey.Skookum1 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The category itself is a bit questionable, as Canada has no former capitals. It has always been Ottawa since Canada, as the term is used today, came into being in 1867. The category obviously intends, as per its hatnote, to also capture the former capitals of the colonies that today make up Canada. Not sure that any of them are "former capitals of Canada" (even the capitals of the Province of Canada, which was a different entity). But I'll leave that debate to a CfD discussion if anyone is ever motivated to initiate one. Don't think it's made much better changing the category name to "in Canada", since that would be a bit of an apples and oranges category.

In terms of the category contents, Sydney was the capital of the colony of Cape Breton, so arguably merits inclusion (as much as Toronto and Quebec City). Same with New Westminster, being capital of the B.C. colony (both iterations). You are correct about Fort St. James. History of Northwest Territories capital cities probably shouldn't be included, since it only covers the NWT timelines from the incorporation of NWT into Canada in 1870, at which point NWT's capitals were territorial, rather than colonial, capitals.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is "overcategorization" and should be deleted. What is the likelihood of someone reading the article about Toronto clicking to see New Westminster was the capital of the Colony of British Columbia? Lists of capitals of each province would make more sense. TFD (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that someone interesting in Toronto's status as a former capital would be interested in other former capitals in Canada. But it certainly is an awkward category. We'd be better served by a Canadian version of Category:State capitals in the United States and perhaps by a category called Category:Former colonial capitals in Canada (to go with the Category:Former colonial capitals parent cat). We already effectively have a list of provincial and territorial capitals at Provinces and territories of Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Category:Provincial and territorial capitals of Canada already exists (probably should be "in Canada", but no need to quibble). Created Category:Former colonial capitals in Canada. Will nominate Category:Former capitals of Canada for deletion, as Skookum is correct to question it. I notice he raised the issue here back in 2013 too. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_11#Category:Former_capitals_of_Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Just an aside re former territorial capitals.... Whitehorse is now the capital of Yukon, wasn't Dawson City formerly? Not that it belongs in the colonial capitals category; thanks for nominating this Skeezix, I just voted. And also to note that if the Columbia Department had been a colony rather than a fur department/district, Fort George/Astoria and Fort Vancouver couldn't be in the new category, as they are now in the United States.Skookum1 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Also to note, I just added Victoria, which was missing.Skookum1 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops maybe. I see the provincial and territorial capitals of Canada cat is on Category:Victoria, British Columbia, I guess that the colonial capitals cat should be there, not on the article? I'd think that the best place for the capitals cat should be on the article, so it's visible to readers of that page, who wouldn't see it unless they made a point of looking at the city's category? Yes/No?Skookum1 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with backlog

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any user out there willing to help me with the backlog at Category:Unassessed Canada-related articles. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Unsigned comment left by User:TheQ Editor, 20:12, 13 August 2014

As is noted above, @PKT: has been doing a great job assessing articles. I'm still just a "filthy casual" when it comes to Wikipedia, but I've been trying to assess the most obvious ones on WP:QC when I am not writing/improving articles. Either way, thank you both (and @Moxy:!) for all the efforts you have provided in this area. - SweetNightmares 00:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Burleigh Falls

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear editors: I have recently added the article above about an interesting Ontario place. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Canadian English: Transport or Transportation ?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See talk:Transport in Canada where a discussion is open on whether to use "transport" (British) or "transportation" (American) , while both are used in Canadian English. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Mount Polley, re "current" template and also title challenge by IP user

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "current" template was removed because no edits in 16 hours.... the immediate disaster is over, the controversy and what amounts to a patronage scandal is ongoing; is 16 hours enough to justify removing the "current" template? Press releases and fresh news and commentary articles and background details are proliferating daily, as related articles links to those I listed on the talkpage demonstrate. Also, an IP user has challenged the title, claiming that google only shows "breach" and "spill"; that's not what I've been seeing but the challenge claims that the title is controversial so fielding this here....and hoping other editors take up incorporating the deepening breadth of press coverage and commentary that's out there can flesh out the article, which is about, as said in more than one article, the largest such disaster in Canadian history; I have had no time because of personal commitments and am dealing with communications...and emotions...arising from the very recent suicide of my best friend of 20 years.... See [11].Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

List of wineries in Quebec

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

List of wineries in Quebec is being considered for deletion. Interested users may comment here. - SweetNightmares 14:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

{{Lang-en-CA}}

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

FYI Template:Lang-en-GB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Canadian version is similarly being considered for deletion as part of the same overall discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I meant to say {{Lang-en-CA}}, I wrote down GB by mistake. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment (roads)

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Another editor and I are having a disagreement as to whether Lake Superior Circle Tour should be C-class or B-class. I would appreciate some outside opinions here, thanks. - SweetNightmares 22:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares: no action is necessary here as the assessment in dispute is for WP:USRD, not the Canadian projects. Everyone else: please disregard. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem is solved, thanks Imzadi - SweetNightmares 03:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute to Bieber DUI discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All editors are invited to contribute to a discussion regarding the inclusion of certain content and references for the conclusion of the court case of Justin Bieber#Legal issues for DUI and other charges. Thank you very much. starship.paint ~ regal 09:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

British Empire in World War II

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See talk:British Empire in World War II on whether this should cover Canada, and what the proper name is, if it does cover Canada -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Conrad Poirier Project

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone,

We finally have a first GLAM collaboration in Canada. During summer, a team of Library and Archives of Quebec (BAnQ) have spotted and planned to upload about a thousand archival photos of Conrad Poirier Fund [fr] (and they keep going). Unlike its French name, Conrad Poirier was an angophone and one of the first photojournalists in Canada. Freelance for various newspapers around Great Montreal, his active period runs from 1932 to 1960.

This GLAM collaboration is a pilot project for now. Like other pilots, the institution is looking for numbers (impression (online media)) in order to be convinced and keep on going with more projects in fall. Not to mention that if we want more Canadian GLAMs, this current pilot have to show stats to have a good case study... and we have some good stats, up until now: see this tool

So I need your help here:

  1. Correct my writing English on the Poirier project page!!! :p
  2. Add unused images in the articles. Feel free to add the images also in other languages.
  3. Categorize more finely images that are in Commons:Category:BAnQ-Projet Poirier.
  4. Add images in Wikidata using P18 property.
  5. If you can read French, please translate descriptions in English.
  6. Link descriptions to WP articles using template {{w}} (exemple)

I am currently working on a similar project with Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa. Like all GLAMs intitution, L.A.C. have high expectations. To meet their expectations, we need to have a first succesful GLAM within Canada. So if you have some free time, add Commons:Category:BAnQ-Projet Poirier's images in the articles, that would be fantastic. Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Patricia Arab

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been observing been a slow-moving edit war between two other editors at our article about Nova Scotia MLA Patricia Arab, over the inclusion-worthiness of an incident about halal hot dogs at a community barbecue. I've weighed in on the talk page that I think it's a pretty trivial story which doesn't warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia, but I'm not going to remove the material arbitrarily — are any other editors or administrators willing to look at the article and weigh in? Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarcastic tweet by Brad Wall being used as a "reliable source" that he invited Turks and Caicos to become part of Saskatchewan

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I'm absolutely flabbergasted. User:117Avenue is using reports of an abviously sarcastic tweet by Brad Wall to ref the statement: "In 2014 Premier of Saskatchewan Brad Wall invited Turks and Caicos to be part of Saskatchewan." His defence of this travesty? What for it———
"Doesn't matter if it was sarcastic or not, that's what he said. To imply something different than what the source says is original research."
He appears to be willing to edit war over this. Can we please get some damage control happening here? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If you watch the video of Brad Wall being interviewed on this he does note that while he was having a bit of "fun" with his tweet he does think it is a good idea to look at having the country join Canada. It also began a conversation on the subject again. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada article was that Wall had "invited" Turks & Caicos to join Saskatchewan. None of the articles or videos in any way support this claim. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A number of politicians over the years have expressed varying levels of support for Turks and Caicos becoming part of Canada. And it's a conversation that pops up every ten years or so, usually when a newspaper editor has space to fill. None of this is new. The issue is whether Brad Wall actually invited the islands to become part of Saskatchewan and whether we can take a tweet at face value. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada#Brad Wall invited Turks and Caicos to be part of Saskatchewan.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Bussin

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Another content dispute, this time on former Toronto city councillor Sandra Bussin. The situation is that two editors are disputing which version of the article should stand: one that briefly summarizes the various controversies that she was involved in during the 2006-10 council term, or one which delves into comprehensively deep, and possibly unduly weighted, detail about each individual controversy. It's also worth noting that the dispute ramped up almost immediately after Bussin announced last week that she was running again in the current election — thus immediately raising my conflict of interest suspicions that the weighty version is being insisted upon by an active supporter or staffer of one of Bussin's opponents. Can some additional eyes come review the matter and weigh in? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This matter really needs some additional input, because so far all there's been is a one-on-one with no opportunity to establish an actual consensus one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual activity at Laura Secord

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Laura Secord's normally a rather quite page, but it's been experiencing quite a bit of activity today—some clearly vandalism, some not. I'm pretty sure it's not all the same person (one of them thanked me for reverting them, and them me revert was reverted by an IP). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

more professors named to the Royal Society of Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

People who have been named to a national academy, such as the Royal Society of Canada, are generally notable. See this announcement about newly-appointed Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada: http://rsc-src.ca/en/friends-partners/newsroom/press-releases/royal-society-canada-names-new-fellows See also http://news.utoronto.ca/royal-society The individual citations should provide enough background to create or expand articles on each of the new Fellows. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

James Richardson (businessman)

All - James Richardson was the original founder of JRSL or James Richardson and Sons, Limited. The company is the largest agribusiness company in Canada and in the Commonwealth. They are similarly interested in energy and real estate. Privately held, by descendants of James, the company's value is only estimated in sources such as Business Week. James founded the company in 1857 in Kingston, Ontario. His business interest at that time was grain and it obviously continues to this day. Further, he was a Kingston alderman and friend of Sir James A. Macdonald. I welcome interest in the article and suggestion for improvement. My concern, reason for my post, is that others may not consider James Richardson to be a "notable person". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Richardson_(businessman) GMTEgirl 12:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Delino Dexter Calvin

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delino Dexter Calvin another successful Canadian businessman from Eastern Ontario, in the timber industry. Request that he be part of the Canada Portal. Not sure how to accomplish this. thanks. GMTEgirl 18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A WikiProject Canada banner has been added to the talk page. PKT(alk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) GMTEgirl 23:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMTEgirl (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not sure why someone would want to deleted one of our portals but can we get others to take a look .... Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aboriginal peoples in Canada -- Moxy (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Bussin

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Still need some additional input at Talk:Sandra Bussin about a content dispute that still hasn't had enough participants to assess or resolve any kind of consensus. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Durham"

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The usage of "Durham" is under discussion, see talk:Durham (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Municipal statuses in Ontario municipality infoboxes

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should "tier", "conventional" or both municipal status types appear in infoboxes of Ontario municipality articles? See discussion here. Hwy43 (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sophie Frank

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Canada experts: I posted this once before but received no reply. Is this a notable subject, and should the page be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not seeing a strong claim of notability here — this isn't so much a biography of Frank herself, as an essay about various interpretations of her influence on Emily Carr. It isn't sourced to any substantial biographical coverage of Frank as an individual, but to the text of Carr's short story about her and to various critical analyses of that story — which simply doesn't even come close to the standard of sourcing we would need to maintain a biography of her as an encyclopedic topic in her own right. Technically speaking, Frank isn't even the subject of this article as written — she's merely a WP:COATRACK for an article whose real subject is Carr's story about her.
I can see her qualifying for a much briefer and significantly less POV summary in the article on Klee Wyck itself, but absolutely not for a standalone biography written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I had the same impression; thanks for taking the time to look at it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Anne, I did look at Sophie the first time round, and neglected to reply. I couldn't find any discussion of her except in relation to Carr, for instance pieces like this. I agree with Bearcat that some of this content could be salvaged as a section in the Klee Wyck article, but, at present, we don't have what we need for a stand-alone bio. The Interior (Talk) 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of tallest buildings in Toronto for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

CfD on Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges etc

(Also posted in the Geography of Canada WikiProject talkpage)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Rivers_of_the_Boundary_Ranges on the Categories for discussion page.

Port Hope Simpson

Port Hope Simpson historic logging town - fishing, pottery, retail & public services, timber products, transportation - for full listing? llewelynpritchard

Myrna Lorrie or Don Grashey?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who actually wrote "Are You Mine"? Don Grashey's Wikipedia page says he wrote it. Myrna Lorrie's Wikipedia page says she wrote it.

"At age 14 she wrote and recorded the song "Are You Mine" with Buddy DuVall, which was released on Abbott Records and reached number 6 on the Billboard Chart."

Maybe they collaborated? Best regards, Howard (KD4ML) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd4ml (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that hard to solve — virtually every reference gives the songwriting credits for "Are You Mine" as Don Grashey, Jim Amadeo and Myrna Petrunka. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.clftraining.com/CLF05%20Jan%208%20Bio%20summary.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_20&oldid=1136424242"