Talk:Canadians: Difference between revisions
→Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022: new section Tag: Reverted |
→Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022: Removed edit request |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
:I'm not sure that [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] is relevant here, as that guideline is mostly about replacing <code><nowiki>[[redirect]]</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>[[target|redirect]]</nowiki></code>, rather than what's going on here, which is replacing <code><nowiki>[[target A|visible text]]</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>[[target B|visible text]]</nowiki></code>. This is entirely appropriate if target B is a more accurate reflection of the target article. As Catchpoke has pointed out here, and as others have mentioned elsewhere, this is a (slight) benefit to the reader, as it affects the hint that appears when they hover the link. Just by visual inspection, it seems pretty clear to me that the article at [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada]] is better described by its current title than by the previous title (as of 10 years ago), [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada]], since, well, the list contains more than 100 entries. (Also, a [[Talk:Lists_of_the_largest_cities_in_Canada_by_population#Requested_move_22_June_2021|recent RM]] found consensus for moving away from the arbitrary scope restriction of "100 largest" for a number of similar articles.) All that is to say, I support Catchpoke's changes. At worst, they're harmless (none of the "reasons not to bypass redirects" listed at [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] apply to this sort of change), but I think it's more correct to say they're a slight improvement, since one or more of the points under "[[WP:BRINT|Good reasons to bypass redirects]]" ''do'' apply. [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 22:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
:I'm not sure that [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] is relevant here, as that guideline is mostly about replacing <code><nowiki>[[redirect]]</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>[[target|redirect]]</nowiki></code>, rather than what's going on here, which is replacing <code><nowiki>[[target A|visible text]]</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>[[target B|visible text]]</nowiki></code>. This is entirely appropriate if target B is a more accurate reflection of the target article. As Catchpoke has pointed out here, and as others have mentioned elsewhere, this is a (slight) benefit to the reader, as it affects the hint that appears when they hover the link. Just by visual inspection, it seems pretty clear to me that the article at [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada]] is better described by its current title than by the previous title (as of 10 years ago), [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada]], since, well, the list contains more than 100 entries. (Also, a [[Talk:Lists_of_the_largest_cities_in_Canada_by_population#Requested_move_22_June_2021|recent RM]] found consensus for moving away from the arbitrary scope restriction of "100 largest" for a number of similar articles.) All that is to say, I support Catchpoke's changes. At worst, they're harmless (none of the "reasons not to bypass redirects" listed at [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] apply to this sort of change), but I think it's more correct to say they're a slight improvement, since one or more of the points under "[[WP:BRINT|Good reasons to bypass redirects]]" ''do'' apply. [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 22:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you {{u|Colin M}} for that valuable contribution. Now that we finally have a civil and understandable justification of the edits, I can see the logic of your argument. The changes do seem to make a slight improvement for readers who hover over the text. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC) |
::Thank you {{u|Colin M}} for that valuable contribution. Now that we finally have a civil and understandable justification of the edits, I can see the logic of your argument. The changes do seem to make a slight improvement for readers who hover over the text. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Canadians|answered=no}} |
|||
DELETE the line in your introduction stating your OPINION (or "cut-and-paste job" from a WEAK SOURCE) that "Canadian culture is heavily influenced by it's neighbour, the united states" (or some absurd wording to that effect). As this is wikipedia, I already know that my edit will be rejected, and that the existing wiki article (along with most of wikipedia's articles) are factually wrong, heavily influenced by personal opinion, and lacking in high quality sources to back up its claims. All the same, at the very least, you deserve to be told that your "Canadian identity is heavily influenced by america" statement (and accompanying information in the wiki) is about as cringeworthy and factually dubious a statement as saying "Korea's identity is heavily influenced by Japan", "India's culture is heavily influenced by Pakistan", or "america's identity is heavily influenced my mexico's"...............🤦♂️😆 |
|||
DON'T INSERT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION IN WIKI ARTICLES. And if it's not your personal opinion, then GET BETTER QUALITY SOURCES. Or else...............just stop "cutting-and-pasting" information you got from encyclopedia britannica entries from the early 1970s to create your wiki entries. Lol.🤣 |
|||
Smh....................Imbecile.🤦♂️ [[Special:Contributions/24.68.120.175|24.68.120.175]] ([[User talk:24.68.120.175|talk]]) 11:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:09, 24 April 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canadians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | Canadians has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | Spoken Wikipedia | |||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
Colours and flags
Hello Moxy! I'm sorry for calling you here. I'd like you to tell why you think we should replace flags with colours. This is the only page about an ethnicity where someone has done it (as far as I know). In my opinion, we should use flags instead of colours, just as it is done on other pages on ethnic groups. − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 22:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. You made this edit in violation of MOS:FLAGICON and Moxy correctly reverted it. Now you're claiming that other articles ignore FLAGICON and you'd like us to do so as well? Perhaps a better option would be to point us to those articles and raise that on the talk page of the manual of style instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
100
I fixed a link from a redirect so that it redirects to the main article. It is true not all links to redirects need to be fixed; however, the canadian lists were the only series of lists that listed 100 in their titles. I fixed the links so that they would match their current titles. Sometimes it is ok to leave the links as they are. This isn't the case for these links. For example, it is ok to leave the link for the binomial name of dog in instances where the scientific name is discussed. Catchpoke (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to change redirects. You've been told this by two different editors. Linking to a redirect is not a problem because it is WP:NOTBROKEN. I will revert one more time and we will both be at WP:3RR as a result. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- To be specific, the change you are making is from this [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada|major urban centres]] to this [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada|major urban centres]]. What the reader saw before your change was major urban centres and what they see after is was major urban centres. The target for the first is a redirect to List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada. So, in short, your "fix" is not, it is the very reason that NOTBROKEN was established. A piped redirect is the worst thing to fix as it makes no difference to the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- But hovering over the link will reveal the "true" target for the page... Catchpoke (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not the point. The link is NOTBROKEN. If you get that changed, you may change this link. If not, you can explain your actions to admins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- What a disingenuous comment. Catchpoke (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not really, no. Please take your concern to NOTBROKEN. You either do not appreciate or have any deference to the guideline and feel that you have an exception—one that two other, more experienced editors do not accept. You should get that clearly accepted at the guideline and codified in such a way that I and the other edit do not trouble you going forward. Without that, you will continue to glean warnings on your talk page. This, of course, may lead to your eventual removal from the project. If you don not have the sense to understand that and would rather continue to blame others, go ahead, but you will not get your way on this article unless you get more editors to agree with your claimed exception. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is simply WP:WIKILAWYERING. What meritable reason do you have to keep the redirect? Catchpoke (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for admitting that you are simply WIKILAWYERING, but to answer your question, NOTBROKEN is the only reasonable reason to keep the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Take a look at your block log: This is simply a troll post. Catchpoke (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Take a look at my contributions. I generally make more edits in a week than you have in your entire time. If you keep showing poor behaviour (self-admitted wikilawyering and trolling), you could render this discussion moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Another hypocrite. Catchpoke (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Despite Catchpoke's ad hominem argument, I have to agree with Walter Görlitz here. Bypassing redirects in this way is clearly at odds with WP:NOTBROKEN. If you feel that the guideline should be changed, please suggest improvements. If you feel that the guideline, although generally sound, should not apply here, please explain why this case is special. Otherwise, I recommend following that advice from multiple experienced editors. (Does anyone else see the irony in calling everyone else a hypocrite?) Certes (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Already warned Catchpoke for personal attacks. User immediately deleted warning and showed up on my talk page to ask which comments... I would say there's some irony in calling someone else "disingenuous" too. Note that the user continues to rapidly bypass similar redirects on multiple articles. Meters (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Despite Catchpoke's ad hominem argument, I have to agree with Walter Görlitz here. Bypassing redirects in this way is clearly at odds with WP:NOTBROKEN. If you feel that the guideline should be changed, please suggest improvements. If you feel that the guideline, although generally sound, should not apply here, please explain why this case is special. Otherwise, I recommend following that advice from multiple experienced editors. (Does anyone else see the irony in calling everyone else a hypocrite?) Certes (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Another hypocrite. Catchpoke (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Take a look at my contributions. I generally make more edits in a week than you have in your entire time. If you keep showing poor behaviour (self-admitted wikilawyering and trolling), you could render this discussion moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Take a look at your block log: This is simply a troll post. Catchpoke (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for admitting that you are simply WIKILAWYERING, but to answer your question, NOTBROKEN is the only reasonable reason to keep the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is simply WP:WIKILAWYERING. What meritable reason do you have to keep the redirect? Catchpoke (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not really, no. Please take your concern to NOTBROKEN. You either do not appreciate or have any deference to the guideline and feel that you have an exception—one that two other, more experienced editors do not accept. You should get that clearly accepted at the guideline and codified in such a way that I and the other edit do not trouble you going forward. Without that, you will continue to glean warnings on your talk page. This, of course, may lead to your eventual removal from the project. If you don not have the sense to understand that and would rather continue to blame others, go ahead, but you will not get your way on this article unless you get more editors to agree with your claimed exception. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- What a disingenuous comment. Catchpoke (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not the point. The link is NOTBROKEN. If you get that changed, you may change this link. If not, you can explain your actions to admins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- But hovering over the link will reveal the "true" target for the page... Catchpoke (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- To be specific, the change you are making is from this [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada|major urban centres]] to this [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada|major urban centres]]. What the reader saw before your change was major urban centres and what they see after is was major urban centres. The target for the first is a redirect to List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada. So, in short, your "fix" is not, it is the very reason that NOTBROKEN was established. A piped redirect is the worst thing to fix as it makes no difference to the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Catchpoke's recent edit history is full of "bypass redirect". The red flag occurred when the editor hit two BC city articles I watch. I have opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NOTBROKEN or NOTHERE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm here due to watching Brampton and Edmonton (to fix incoming links meant for Brampton, Carlisle; Edmonton, London; etc.) but I had already started a conversation at User talk:Catchpoke following similar edits elsewhere. Certes (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that WP:NOTBROKEN is relevant here, as that guideline is mostly about replacing
[[redirect]]
with[[target|redirect]]
, rather than what's going on here, which is replacing[[target A|visible text]]
with[[target B|visible text]]
. This is entirely appropriate if target B is a more accurate reflection of the target article. As Catchpoke has pointed out here, and as others have mentioned elsewhere, this is a (slight) benefit to the reader, as it affects the hint that appears when they hover the link. Just by visual inspection, it seems pretty clear to me that the article at List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada is better described by its current title than by the previous title (as of 10 years ago), List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, since, well, the list contains more than 100 entries. (Also, a recent RM found consensus for moving away from the arbitrary scope restriction of "100 largest" for a number of similar articles.) All that is to say, I support Catchpoke's changes. At worst, they're harmless (none of the "reasons not to bypass redirects" listed at WP:NOTBROKEN apply to this sort of change), but I think it's more correct to say they're a slight improvement, since one or more of the points under "Good reasons to bypass redirects" do apply. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)- Thank you Colin M for that valuable contribution. Now that we finally have a civil and understandable justification of the edits, I can see the logic of your argument. The changes do seem to make a slight improvement for readers who hover over the text. Certes (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- GA-Class Canada-related articles
- Top-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- GA-Class Ethnic groups articles
- High-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- GA-Class North America articles
- High-importance North America articles
- WikiProject North America articles
- Wikipedia articles that use Canadian English