Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Anyone from Ontario?

If someone has some time spare, they might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent control in Ontario. The article is an obvious keep, in my view, but I'm not canvassing for votes. Rather, it would be good is someone could spend some time transferring the sources I found into the article. I'm not Canadian so the whole thing is unfamiliar to me, though I was able to find a bunch of sources quite easily. Cheers, Stalwart111 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -  Fixed - thank you for bring this article to our attention. I have added your sources to the further reading section - I used sources that are used in other parts of Wikipedia.Moxy (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem - whatever works. Just seemed like an easy fix and while I've worked on historical Canadian stuff before, I didn't want to complicate a current issue with my fairly uninformed editing. Your changes look good - nice work! Stalwart111 14:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Canada

Don't know if anyone is interested at all in our country's Arms, but I was going through some government websites the other day, and to my surprise, found that all versions of the Arms are stated to still be under Crown copyright and protection as one of our official symbols. Looking on the commons though, all of these images are under free-use, copyright free licences. I don't know if there is anyone who is more familiar than me with Canadian copyright, and would be interested in looking through the list of sources that I compiled. The first discussion is over at the talk page under Commons:File talk:Coat of Arms of Canada (1923).jpg, the second Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Canada (1957).png and another Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg. Any input would be appreciated, as the concept of Crown perpetual copyright that is stated in three of the sources is a completely foreign co[ncept to Wikipedia it seems, and is causing a bit of a stir, which was never my intention. trackratte (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we get you to read over Commons:Coats of arms before nominating anymore for deletion.Moxy (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If they are protected, then they should be transferred back to En.Wikipedia. The pre-1924 would have expired under US law, so would be available here on En.Wiki; the others might be used under FairUse -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons

I've noticed that commons:COM:WikiProject Canada doesn't have a project banner? Some of the projects on Commons have project banners, so perhaps WPCANADA should as well? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A young Cree man, 1903

I've posted here before about the Canadian Copyright Collection we've been uploading to Commons - "Picturing Canada", a few thousand photographs deposited for copyright from 1895 to 1924 - but here's an update. It's been trickling up over the past month, and there's now just shy of 4,000 images (2,000 photographs with master TIFFs and cropped JPEGs) available. The last of the main collection should be up this week, after which there's a few more bits and pieces still needing sorted out.

Have a poke around - hopefully some of it might be useful! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Very useful, thank you.....it'd be nice to see something similar done for the Nat'l Archives and the VPL and other collections which are public domain.....a bit dicier with BC Archives, who claim copyright on prints of negatives in their holdings, but often have no actual rights to claim copyright on the images per se.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Bit of a mammoth undertaking for WP:CANADA members to add categories to all those so they can be found/used easier......I'm not sure of all the categories there are in the Commons in fact.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly going to keep me busy for a while! There are some aesthetic gems, though (eg right), and it's looking like we're going to get a large amount of historic photos for small towns. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
In general, all early photos were taken by professionals; not until the invention of the box camera (e.g. the Kodak Brownie) did casual photography become dominant like it is today. So composition, posing and lighting etc are generally more aesthetic and of high-quality, especially portraits. But also for building pictures, because the photographer had been hired to make a "portrait" of the structure for promotional reasons. It's a huge collection for sure and I had a glance over the categories in the Commons; so many pics, so many different categories.....and suggestions of new ones, e.g. Wildlife of Canada, as it was two Banff Park pix that I'd put in the park category, but didn't see where to categories them; there's a Flora category, no Fauna, for example......too vast a project to dabble my feet into, but makes me wonder what's in there......hard to navigate for now....almost needs a taskforce i.e. other than the one in the UK who made this....is there a category tree layout for the Canada categories somewhere i.e. that displays the category structure all in one place, not just as a categories page?Skookum1 (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No clear category tree, unless you want to start at commons:Category:Canada and work down - category documentation isn't great. However, I've found that you can usually categorise by
  • Year and (general) location - "1920 in Ontario", "1920 in Toronto". If no year-by-location category, use "1920 in Canada".
  • Location - "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan" or "Rocky Mountains". For some small towns, state or county may be the best we can do.
  • If of a thing or person, the specific building or person (sometimes) - "Temple Building", "Wilfrid Laurier"
  • If it fits a broad theme, then one of the subcategories of (eg) "Economy of Canada", "Culture of Canada", "Nature of Canada", "History of Canada"
If there isn't a category for a person, but they're notable, it may be worth creating one; if not, categorise the portrait with something like "Politicians of Canada" or "Criminals from Canada". There is a hidden tracking category on every image ("Picturing Canada images not yet categorised"), which I'm removing once they're complete, so don't worry about only sticking one category on and leaving it to be finished later ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
yeah I'm aware of the category structure, though it's different sometimes than the one for Wikipedia.....I categorized a pic of some buffalo in Banff Nat'l Park into the park category; didn't find a "Wildlife of Canada" or "Fauna or Canada" category in "Nature of Canada" which surprised me; but I've never really spent much time in the Commons, other than commenting on certain pictures....Skookum1 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just had a look there again, hard to browse nearly 5000 images....is there a search tool that could be applied only to images within that category? If there was, might also help in adding commons categories to them.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons doesn't support restricted searching by category (one day, perhaos!), but if you search for keyword hs85 you'll get all of the PC files with that keyword in the name or description - they all have filenames with (HS85-10-xxxxx) in them. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm OK I'll try that; would like to see what I can find for me region (Lillooet et al).Skookum1 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

how to use MediaWiki for a private site?

Looked around seeing if I could find the Canadian participants list for the Wikimedia Foundation's national chapter. I'm currently working on a rebuild/revision to my Bridge River-Lillooet history site and wondering about just doing it up in wikicode and/or having a section of the site that's a community-participants' wiki so others connected to the community can easily contribute. I've looked through the Wikimedia Foundation's pages, don't know where to look for the necessary downloads, wondering who here can point me in the right direction; best to email me but here is fine for an answer or links.Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh. MediaWiki's page. Still would like some input/advice.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm, finding the same daunting list of PHP and MySQL needs and more required to use it, run it.......ran into this with Joomla, which turns out to need MySQL and more, and other web design editors.....my site was written on Composer in the bad old days of HTML 3.0...been playing with Amaya for basic editing, but as all my pages will be interlinked, it seems like a good idea to be able to use wikicode......more and more "easy to use" seems to apply only to those for whom programming language is "easy".....feeling more and more like a dinosaur every day....Skookum1 (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Quebec (1775)

Today's featured article, Battle of Quebec (1775) is having ENGVAR issues, particularly, it's using American English, not British or Canadian. See talk:Battle of Quebec (1775) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheakamus dab items

Cheakamus had been a redirect to the name Chiyakmesh, which is the Skwxwu7mesh snichim name for Cheakamus Indian Reserve No. 11, and should also have been a dab; there's a few things that don't have articles that maybe should, though maybe the Olympic Village article could be merged with anything on the residential project that is Cheakamus Crossing. For other items see Talk:Cheakamus#other_items_to_be_added.Skookum1 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Niagara Falls, Creeks and Canyon in BC

I've added them as redlinks to Niagara (disambiguation) but also queried about one set, (falls, creek and the canyon) whether or not they're in Goldstream Provincial Park in which case they might be better as categorized redirects to that park; see Talk:Goldstream Provincial Park.Skookum1 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

re this image from the British Library collection on the Commons.Skookum1 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Twin Falls, Yoho Nat'l Park

please see Talk:Yoho National Park#Twin Falls (British Columbia), also re a British Library image; the Nat'l Historic Site/Teahouse already has an article.Skookum1 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic, Quebec

Lac-Mégantic, Quebec needs updating, to keep track of all the information coming accessible, due to being highlighted in coverage of the Lac-Mégantic derailment -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dieppe

The usage of Dieppe is under discussion, see talk:Dieppe -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Owen Hargreaves

Attempting to keep the historical information up about this controversial decisions to not play for The Canadian Men's National soccer team up is impossible. The neutral, third person written, fully annotated content illustrating the outcry in Canada is deleted by UK soccer fan boys whitewashing the players career.

You accuse me of having a political agenda? You clearly believe there is some sort of conspiracy against "smaller" football nations such as Canada when there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Put your own house in order before you start accusing others. – PeeJay 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, looking at the actual text of the deleted material in question, PeeJay was correct in removing it on WP:NPOV grounds. The text was not, in fact, "neutral", and gave WP:UNDUE weight (dedicated subsection of the article, some of the sourcing was to fan discussion forums rather than legitimate reliable media sources, etc.) to what is, in the scheme of things, a relatively minor aspect of his overall career. That said, I can understand the OP's concern about the particular edit summary that PeeJay used to justify the removal, as it certainly could be interpreted as "Canada does not matter because it's Canada" (though I'm confident that wasn't actually his intent) — but while there might be a way for us to include neutral, objective text about the matter that doesn't give it excessive weight, that text absolutely wasn't it. Bottom line, PeeJay was correct in removing it, but perhaps just didn't explain his actions as well as he could have. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The removal of that section was appropriate. The edit summary was not. The fact that his decision to play for England instead of Canada caused harsh criticism belongs... but only as a sentence or so in the section detailing his decision to play for England. It does not deserve its own "controversy" section, and the opinions of posters on fansites is quite meaningless. Resolute 22:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim Hiscott

I do not want to edit this article. I want to bring additional information to the attention of any editors, please. This will be the urls of three objective sources which have more information than the current article.

1) the German wik1pedia article, which has among other things a list of works up to 2007, vetted by de.wikipedia, which could be added. The url for this is:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hiscott

2) the biography page on Jim (James) Hiscott on the website of the Canadian Music Centre is more up-to-date. It has a url of:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.musiccentre.ca/node/37209/biography

3) the Canadian League of Composers website also has a biography of Jim Hiscott. This biography is also more up-to-date than the one currently on english wikipedia. It is at url:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://composition.org/clc-lcc/content/index.php/en/about-us/clc-council/54

Thank you for your help. I have included urls, but I am happy to write text in more detail if that is better.

Cocherhon (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I've added {{Expand other language}} to the article to notify potential editors of the situation. Mindmatrix 18:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Official histories

FYI, at WT:MILHIST is a finding of some official histories. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Toronto floods

Is there an article on the 2013 Toronto flood? I can't seem to find one -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there should be one, per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. PKT(alk) 14:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with PKT on this one. There's very little evidence at this point that the storm and the resulting localized flash flooding are going to have any significant long-term effects on much of anything besides people's memories of one single day's very unpleasant rush hour commute. (Unlike, for example, the recent Alberta floods — which lasted much longer than a few hours, affected several cities, caused a bridge to collapse, affected the Calgary Stampede, and on and so forth.) If a meaningful long term consequence does eventually emerge, then we can backtrack and start an article at that time — but as of right now, the mere fact that it happened is not enough to warrant a permanent article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

AeroVelo Atlas

We seem to be missing an article on the Atlas (Atlas,Atlas). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Which has now been created -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic, Quebec

You are invited to comment on the applicability of a picture of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec from space at talk:Lac-Mégantic, Quebec -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

infobox discussions

{{Canadian Trails}}

Yesterday, 3 short urban cycling routes were added to Template:Canadian Trails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is a list of multi-hundred-kilometre hiking trails, with this edit [1] ; shouldn't these be removed? Or if not, we should reorganize the template, and give it structure to distinguish cross-country trails and urban ones. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At minimum, the template should be organized as you suggested. If the template's purpose was for cross-country trails only, there should have been something in the talk page or an invisible comment that documented its purpose, which I can't find. PKT(alk) 11:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg - -- Moxy (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg is under discussion concerning its copyright status at WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

informal name discussion - "First Nations government" article vs "band government" title

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North_America#name issue: "First Nations government" vs "band government". Skookum1 (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Elizabeth II

A discussion about the lead of Elizabeth II (Canada's monarch) may be of concern to some Canadian Wikipedians: Talk:Elizabeth II#‎Opening sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory

I just tripped over this article while wiki-gnoming. In a nutshell, what used to be Quebec's Baie-James municipality was abolished by an agreement signed in July, 2012, and it has been replaced by a new regional government called Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory. My question is whether Wikipedia should have two articles (the current status) or rename the Baie-James article to reflect its new government structure. Opinions? PKT(alk) 14:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If there's an institutional difference and not just a name-change then I'd say they should be different; if there's more to this regional government than regular municipal status/composition then it's like the change from Athabasca Territory to Alberta.....or the difference between Oregon Territory and Oregon (state)....Skookum1 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Generally, my basic rule of thumb is that if something just changes its name but is otherwise fundamentally the same thing afterward (e.g. the recent renaming of Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield to Selwyn), then we should keep everything in one article — but if two things merge to create a new third thing, then we should try to keep separate articles if possible.
However, the "should...if possible" is an important consideration, as the question can also be dictated by how much properly sourced content we actually have about the topics. For instance, in principle New Liskeard and Haileybury could both legitimately be considered as separate article topics, rather than existing solely as redirects to Temiskaming Shores as they currently do — but in practice the city's merged article is still relatively brief and not particularly well-sourced, and would not be well-served by just chopping up the existing content. Accordingly, the old towns shouldn't get split out into separate articles until somebody is prepared to put a lot of work into expanding and referencing them well beyond the volume of content that we actually have right now.
In this particular case, the existing Baie-James article isn't exactly the most substantive article Wikipedia's ever seen, so merging it wouldn't necessarily be a major felony, but it's passable enough that leaving it alone would be perfectly acceptable too. However, if it were merged we would also need to merge Eeyou Istchee (territory) into the new article as well since the new municipality superseded that one as well, and merging both of those together would most likely make the new article too long and confusing to be useful.
Accordingly, my own inclination would be to leave the existing articles in place. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Stanfield plaque

Anyone familiar with Canada FOP is invited to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HFX Airport 8.jpg. Is the plaque of Nova Scotia Premier Robert Stanfield 2D or 3D art? 117Avenue (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

CfR for First Nations reserves categories

I forgot to put CfD in the main category but have done so on all the others. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_19#First_Nations_reserves_-_Indian_Reserves.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this one Skookum1. This "First Nations reserve" versus "Indian reserve" discussion needs the eyes of our Canadian community. Hwy43 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Amazingly, resolved sensibly and without too much arduous fuss. Wow.Skookum1 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

You might be interested in this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Montreal (STM) bus routes

A couple of years ago, somebody created articles for many of the bus routes operating in Montreal, governed by STM. (eg: 108 Bannantyne) I would like to propose that the articles for individual bus routes be deleted - they aren't notable, and the List of Société de transport de Montréal bus routes adequately covers the subject matter. For comparison purposes, note that a list is used for Vancouver area buses, TTC buses and GO buses. Some routes in Montreal might warrant their own articles, and for that reason I thought I would propose this strawman before going to the AfD process. Opinions? PKT(alk) 12:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that for the routes you feel are clearly non-notable, you can just redirect them back to List of Société de transport de Montréal bus routes. If anyone challenges the redirects, then we could conisder AFD. Resolute 13:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say they should redirect to the list article. Except for the Montreal BRT article, which should be kept as an article, per the wikiproject on buses's recommendations on BRT routes. And any route articles that also covers the preceding streetcar/tram/lightrail routes that the buses replaced, which should also be articles per the wikiproject on trains. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will set the redirects in place this weekend. Thanks for your input! PKT(alk) 13:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Serious libel problem with List of royal tours of Canada (18th–20th centuries)

On this list of royal tours, the entry for 1964 has a false statement. In 1964 the Queen visited PEI, Quebec and Ontario. The list also says she visited Kamloops, which is almost certainly false. The source given in footnote 11 is some weird website which is pushing the views of Kevin Annett, a con man. The website says Queen Elizabeth II visited Kamloops in order to choose some First Nation children to probably be murdered in a human sacrifice ceremony. You should understand that this is libellous.

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/society/the-monarchy/canadas-new-queen/truncheon-saturday.html About the Queen's visit in 1964, which set off riots in Quebec.

About Kevin Annett:

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/10/15/aptn-investigates-unmarked-graves-part-1/ … http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/10/15/aptn-investigates-unmarked-graves-part-2/ … http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/10/15/aptn-investigates-unmarked-graves-part-3/ …

The urgency of this matter is because currently there is legitimate research in the news about Canadian government and organizations doing nutrition experiments on malnourished First Nations people, etc., and abuse of children in residential schools in Canada, leading to the deaths of several thousand children at least, over the years.

But Kevin Annett makes wild exaggerations of the number of children who died and unsubstantiated claims of mass murder and ritualistic murder, which distracts from the real research, such as this; http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/histoire_sociale_social_history/v046/46.91.mosby.html

So kindly remove that false statement about the Queen being in Kamloops in 1964 because it will mislead people badly and there is no good evidence supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contextnanny (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Contextnanny. I agree that the source provided is very obviously not a reliable source and have removed the addition. Thanks for the notice, and FWIW, if you come across things like that again that are very clearly false or cited to very poor sources, feel free to remove the content yourself. If you are unsure, we're always available on this board. Cheers! Resolute 22:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
ALL FN articles should be watched for further additions/changes from "Annettites". They've also been active in the past on the Skwxwu7mesh and Capilano pages and on Sinixt and others......they can be very hostile; in relation to a discussion of the Sinixt in thetyee.ca long ago, I and others received emails threatening/indicating violence. I checked the only other edit made by that IP, it was a strange change to {{AFC}} have no idea why it was there, just reversed it after reading this.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to articles on Canadian governors general

An RfC about the use of images in infoboxes on biography articles about Canada's governors general has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RfC on infobox images. Please give your opinion on the matter there to help resolve a dispute. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Guess someone saw this RfC and brought one of the image up for deletion - thus maybe negating part of the above discussion - see File:Crest of the Governor-General of Canada.svg ........ -- Moxy (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Gretzky"

The usage of Gretzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk: Gretzky (disambiguation) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparing provinces and territories to countries of similar area

An IP and registered user (appearing to be one in the same) are repeatedly adding comparable counties to the tables at List of Canadian provinces and territories by area over the past 10 days. I have been reverting as, IMO, this is original research and unnecessary inclusion of trivia. The IP reached out to me a week ago where I explained my reasoning (see discussion here), but the comparable countries were added again today (which I reverted again).

Can others also keep an eye on this article, and also advise me if by chance I am actually in the wrong? Hwy43 (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have gotten our big neighbors to the south involved to see what they think of the same problem. See if we can get some overall concerns of these section of the chart. At Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by area#Comparable countries take two -- Moxy (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I always thought that US list was missing a few screws. We shouldn't do the same screwball things to the Canadian list -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Bit of a tangent, but this is worth a chuckle.Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Canadian Championship"

Canadian Championship and various year articles for it, are about soccer. It occurs to me, that these should be disambiguation pages or set indices. What do you guys think? (displacing the soccer articles to "(soccer)")-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. It may be audacious on their part, but the soccer championship seems to be the only one that uses that name - ie the others use modifiers to indicate their sports, eg Canadian Rally Championship. PKT(alk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PKT. We should only disambiguate a title when there is another article that is similarly entitled to the same title. That's not the case here. There is way too much "let's disambiguate just in case" going on in Wikipedia. Having said that, I don't think having two articles (Canadian Championship for the soccer championship and Canadian Championships for the disambiguation page) at title differing only by one "s" is a great idea. The soccer article can stay where it is, but at a minimum the DAB page should move to Canadian championships (since it is a generic term, not a proper name) and possibly it should move to Canadian championships (disambiguation). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The above article achieved feature list status on August 9 after an eight-month collaborative effort. Check out the before and after. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Francophones in Alberta

If you are a francophone or a francophile living in Alberta, please see my message on the WikiProject Alberta's talk page. (Sorry for double posting, but I know most people don't follow the provincial wikiproject's pages). Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Voltigeur dab needed

Please see Talk:Voltigeur#Disambiguation needed re the Canadian Voltigeurs and Vancouver's Island Voltigeurs (aka Victoria Voltigeurs though I'm pretty sure the former was their proper name) and what primary usage may or may not be. I'm a little under the weather so can't really focus on distilling the citations available on google from Metis history websites. Skookum1 (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian dollar

There is a discussion over at the Canadian MOS about how to identify Canadian currency - please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#CAD vs. CAD$. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Pot advocacy and developing view

Justin Trudeau smoked pot since becoming MP... Liberal leader also tells Huffington Post late brother Michel faced marijuana possession charge
We are going to have to keep a close eye on this. Nothing added yet ...but lets make sure we word this right -- anyone want to take a stab at it before IP's with an agenda get to these facts? See Talk:Justin Trudeau#Pot advocacy and developing view -- Moxy (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder

The article about Canadian musician Kellie Loder has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To-do list?

Is there a to-do list for this wikiproject? If so how can I add a request for participants to check-out the two categories at the end of Category:Canada:

to see if anyone can offer help in that area? XOttawahitech (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look through the unpopulated categories; and though I don't see any I've encountered, there are many out there were a category was created for only one article/topic......one that makes me wonder "what is this for?" is Category:Settlers of British Columbia, which has no clear parameters and FWIW the term "settler" is now a political term in indigenous politics, meaning non-native, particularly white. Big difference to me, also, between a settler who hacked a living out of the frontier and someone who came out with money and staked property, or just moved in. I don't want to CfD it, just wondering WTF it's for.Skookum1 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@.Skookum1, what is the category for? - I don’t know of many here who even care. When I followed your link to Category:Settlers of British Columbia and continued to its parent Category:Settlers of Canada I saw that the entry Category:Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been included in the list since 2 April 2012! (I have removed it)XOttawahitech (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the category in question isn't necessarily required — although I am listed in the history as its creator, I did so only by virtue of correcting an erroneously-named creation by someone else, not because I judged it to be worth creating on my own — but as I've mentioned before, the "settlers" wording comes from the international parent standard as defined by Category:Settlers, which also has subcategories for six other countries besides Canada and several of those have further subcategories for individual states, provinces or regions within the country (although none has an entirely comprehensive set of all the possible divisional subcategories.)
Any problems that it causes are not unique to British Columbia, but are the same anywhere. If you've got an alternative name to propose, or if you'd like to propose that the whole shebang for deletion, then by all means go for it — but any problems with the current name, or with the way it is or isn't defined, apply right across the board to the whole tree and are not exclusively BC-specific issues. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, for what it's worth here, Cfd is a counter-productive process. It gets editors involved in endless discussions that have not resulted in a clear set of rules. While editors spend a lot of time arguing in discussions, the categories themselves remain a mess, partly because of inconsistent policy, partly because many deletions end up breaking navigable category trees (without leaving a trace), but mostly because the process sucks up all the available good-will. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're not going to get any disagreement from me on that in principle, but unfortunately there still has to be a consensus of some kind to delete stuff. If we just let everybody on Wikipedia make entirely unilateral deletion decisions, it'd be an empty shell with no content at all faster than you can say "hacker vandal DOS attack". Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
@Bearcat , I never suggested that deletion powers should be expended. As a matter of fact I believe they should be curbed. Especially the category deletion process which is poorly documented, poorly managed, poorly executed, and poorly attended by the community. As an example take a look at Category:Biomedical research - can you tell me why it was deleted and when? (and how I know it even existed) XOttawahitech (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, here's what I can tell you about that category: it's never been deleted, because it's never even been created in the first place. Maybe you meant a deleted category that was spelled differently than that, or maybe you were just wrong about the name of a category that actually still exists and hasn't been deleted at all — I have no way of knowing — but deleted stuff leaves traces (deletion logs, edit histories, etc.) that administrators have the ability to track, and Category:Biomedical research has no records whatsoever under that name. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Embassies

Seems like some people have no clue why we are here at Wikipedia - that is to collect all knowledge and distribute it. Some odd reason all our embassies are being deleted/merged by people who have no clue about the topics see Talk:Foreign relations of Canada

Unfortunately it appears to be the norm rather than an aberration. The student paper of Waterloo University has also been sent to the bit bucket. See here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprint (newspaper) - note how deletion decisions are made by vote and not by informed consensus any more. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with your general complaint, but I do agree that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprint (newspaper) was wrongly/prematurely decided. Most of the contributing comments were bald statements about lack of notability or mere merge votes without any comments. There were only two substantive comments, one by GeoSwan and the other by Ebering, each taking the opposite position. One substantive comment for merge, one substantive comment for keep - that's not consensus for merge. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Wikipedia is not "about everything"; to collect all knowledge and distribute it is not really the mission here. Embassies are not a class of topic that's automatically notable enough to warrant a standalone article no matter how weak or nonexistent the sourcing is. Some embassies certainly have enough sourcing about them to stand alone — the Canadian embassy in Washington and the US embassy in Ottawa, for example, obviously fall into that class — but there are very few classes of topic on Wikipedia in which everything automatically qualifies for its own separate article just because it exists, even if the article contains no valid references whatsoever. An embassy certainly might be notable enough to warrant its own separate article — but it's not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because it exists.
If you truly believe that Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa warrants its own separate article, you're more than free to try writing a new version which is more than three sentences long and cites a more extensive array of reliable sources than just one single DFAIT press release. A deletion discussion does not constitute a permanent ban on the topic ever having an article — it just means that the topic isn't entitled to keep the particular version of the article that existed at the time of the discussion. We have plenty of topics, in fact, where an early version of the article got deleted or redirected as NN but then somebody else was later able to write a better version which made a stronger claim of notability and cited stronger sources, and thus the new version qualified for a keep.
A musician can, for example, be non-notable today but then cross the bar six months from now as he releases his album and starts garnering real press, and a politician can be a non-notable candidate today but then cross the bar in 2015 when she actually wins election to office. A topic's basic notability can change as circumstances change, as the availability of reliable sourcing changes, as the amount of work that people are prepared to put into writing a genuinely good article about the topic changes, and on and so forth. So the only thing you're not allowed to do in the face of a deletion discussion is to recreate the same version of the article again — you are allowed to write and source a better version if you can. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat, his comment makes a lot of sense. After that, if there is a problem with the procedure to delete articles itself (i.e. votes vs consensus), this needs to be adressed with the broader Wikipedia community. Amqui (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@Amqui, where on Wikipedia is this topic welcome? I believe many are tired of rehashing the same topic over and over? XOttawahitech (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This approach is very concerning to me and to many old timers. - not knowing our purpose here is concerning. We are not here to decide what is relevant - we are here to simply regurgitate what is out there in a format that can be distributed easily. We should have basic info on everything that may be of interest to our readers and is verifiable. I think people need to take the time and read our mission statement so we stop loosing editors and articles because we are deleted the good faith informative work of our editors. All should be trying to help collect and disseminate information.... not delete relevant info. Are you trying to make people go to other websites to find this info? Do you think redirecting areticles will help with there expansion? Think people think. -- Moxy (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure people understand what embassies our for or the fact people need to locate them for services - an lets not forget many of them are located in heritage buildings (building of historic significances). If people believe its best to make people go to other websites for this information not much can be said. I can only hope in the future that people will take the time to expand articles over deleting them - or at the very lest merger the content as per the consensus to do so. Best we stop driving away our content editors with this bureaucracy of we know what our readers want to learn about. -- Moxy (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You're making a tremendous leap of logic here. There's a big difference between saying that "we know what our readers want to learn about" (which nobody has) and saying that there are minimum standards of quality that our content has to meet (which is a simple, unavoidable fact). And if you really want the article to stand, then you have as much right and responsibility as anyone else does to expand the article yourself — criticizing other people for not doing it for you is not really a productive strategy around here. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont think my point is understood - yes anyone can help expand the articles or related content - but its hard to do so when they are deleted outright and the content not moved as per the talk about it. Zero info not even the pictures that people took the time to go out and take and then upload to Wiki was moved. I see that we simply have a different approach to how things should be done here - In my view we are here to expand the information we have not delete it when the consensus was to move it. I dont really care if they have there own articles - what I care about is valid info and contributions by good faith editors being deleted. All that had to be done was a redirect with the old title linked to the new section on the parent articles....nothing like this was done....all content was just deleted and related images orphaned. -- Moxy (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Bearcat, for the record I completely agree with what Moxy has said here. Also, one must be practical when one is dependent on a volunteer workforce. There is no way you, or anyone else, can force volunteers to work only on articles that "the community" has deemed as notable. Doing so is driving away editors who may be able to contribute excellent content, if a more congenial atmosphere accepted them into the fold. Just my measly $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And when did anybody ever say that volunteers were "forced" to work "only" on articles that "the community has deemed as notable"? I've said it before, but it warrants repeating here: an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the topic ever having an article; it's merely a judgement that the particular version of the article, as it existed at the time of the discussion, was not of good enough quality to merit being left in place in that form. And just for the record, the embassy's article as it stood at the time of deletion was identical in substantive content to the original version back in 2007. In the past six years combined, there was not a single edit to the article that was anything more than a minor stylistic adjustment such as the addition of a template or the renaming of a category — not even one single person, in the entire six years that the article had existed, ever added even so much as a comma to its actual content. Which means that Wikipedia isn't preventing anybody from working to improve it — nobody was making any actual effort to improve it at all.
As I've said before, you are allowed, if you choose to do so, to work on creating a better version — one which cites better sources, provides more detail and makes a stronger claim of notability than the original version did — of any article topic you choose to work on, even if it has been deleted in the past. No Wikipedia policy is preventing you from doing that. But the onus is on you to make sure that your new version meets Wikipedia's quality and sourcing standards, not on Wikipedia to just let poor-quality content stand forever without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A few pages that should be read by people who contribute here Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Deletion because someone does not think something is up to par is not how we are going to expand or obtain new content. See something that needs improvement fix it - dont delete it and say its up to you because its not my problem. -- Moxy (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Those mean that an article doesn't have to be perfect right off the bat. They do not mean that any topic is entitled to an exemption from basic content policies such as the use of reliable sourcing, or from even making a credible claim of notability (which is not the same thing as merely claiming its existence) in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont understand how anyone would think consular services that have budgets in the millions and service its own population by the thousands is not notable. People who travel around the world understand how important these places are and are the ones looking for information. Never convince me that deleting info after a consensus for a merger was done is the right thing. Best we move the info over deleting it - is a no brainier to me. We are getting tired of bureaucrats that dont have knowledge of topics deleting info. Admin Supervotes are getting out of control - time we weedout those that cant even follow basic consensus and believe its up to other to fix the mess or complete the work properly. -- Moxy (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Honestly Moxy, I might give your argument greater consideration if the articles you are fighting for weren't nearly empty. As it is, the information is still there in the history, and I recommend that you use it to form List of embassies in Canada. Resolute 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
See List of diplomatic missions in Canada and List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont think the people that blanked the information understand what consular services are and the fact that they have budgets in the millions a server there populations involving - arrest and detentions, children and family abductions, oversees deaths, emergency help financially, medically and legally - let alone the documents they provided like passports. Knowing where they are located is without dough something people will want to know. -- Moxy (talk)
And that is a fine argument for taking List of diplomatic missions in Canada (thanks Issac) and converting it to a table. Resolute 18:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Notability on Wikipedia is not defined by arbitrary inclusion criteria like how big the thing's budget is, who or what it does or doesn't serve, etc., nor is it defined by subjective assessments of what people will want to know (as if you could speak for all people anyway.) Rather, notability is defined entirely by the presence or absence of reliable sources which demonstrate that the topic has been covered in other media — and there is no class of topic that Wikipedia considers to be so notable that it's granted a "just because it exists" exemption from the requirement to cite reliable sources. Again, the embassy probably would be entitled to an article that did cite proper sources to attest to its notability — notability, again, meaning "has been covered in reliable sources" — but it is not entitled to an article that does not cite any evidence of reliable source coverage. Nobody's saying the information can't be in Wikipedia at all — Resolute is right that a list of diplomatic missions serves the purpose just as nicely — but it is not entitled to stand alone as an independent article until there are reliable sources actually present in that article. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Notability is defined entirely by presence of reliable sources"???

@Bearcat(not trying to pick on you , but you are the author of the title line) Notability is an issue in many wp:AFD discussions about pages that do not lack reliable sources. Would you like me to list examples here?

Then there is also the issue where articles lack references, not because references do not exist, but because no one yet has looked for them (example: supermom). XOttawahitech (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to try actually reading WP:N if you think what I said was wrong. Just as a couple of helpful quotes for you:
  1. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
  2. "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
  3. "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."
  4. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition"
  5. "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic."
As for supermom, here for your reading pleasure is the exact content of the only version of that article that has ever been posted to Wikipedia at all:
"Who the hell is supermom? WTF, eh? I like cows."
So, you know, not so much with that notability there. It's certainly possible that a well-referenced and notable article could be posted at that title — but Wikipedia was under no obligation to keep that version just because the word also has a more potentially notable meaning, and again nothing's stopping you from starting a good article about the real topic now if you choose to.
Trust me, just for the record, there have been deletions at both the AFD and CFD levels that even I've disagreed with, and in principle I understand and even agree with the argument that there are problems with the Wikipedia process that need to be improved upon. But you've got to come up with better examples than unsourced three-line stubs, WTF cows and categories that have never actually existed in the first place if you want to be seen as presenting a compelling case. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
All this above does not explain why the info was blanked. plus all one has to do is search the topic to find things of interest that we can write about ....LIKE ... Ottawa, police used pepper spray to help quell a demonstration outside the Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa Tuesday afternoon - National post. The action taken on these articles are simply the lazy mans way out and full of bureaucratic BS. Never convince me that a page viewed 459 times in the last 90 days is not of interest to our readers. I guess again its up to the content editor to clean up the mess made by this bureaucracy that cant even follow simple consensus. I will take the time this weekend to merger the content as per the talks. Wish people saw the bigger picture....how things are done is just as important as the rules.-- Moxy (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the fact that the embassy happens to get briefly mentioned in a 300-word blurb about something that happened outside of it does not in and of itself speak to the notability of the embassy in its own right. There is a difference between verification of notability and verification of existence, and there is a difference between being the subject of media coverage and merely being mentioned within media coverage whose actual subject is something else — and those are distinctions it's incredibly important to understand if you want your contributions to Wikipedia to be regarded as valuable and productive ones.
The reason the info was "blanked" is not, for the record, because anybody was being lazy — it's because there wasn't any substantive content to merge. A merge result does not mean that we have to copy the entire old article verbatim into the new one, complete with infobox — the old article didn't say anything substantive about the topic that wasn't already in the target article.
And finally, nobody has any responsibility to do the work for you: if you're the one who thinks the deletion of this article is an issue worth going to battle for, then you're the one who has to take the initiative to make sure that this article is upgraded to a properly keepable standard. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Telling me that no one will do the work for me is funny now that its I that has volunteered to go around and fix the mess that was caused by all this. We now have work to do because people simply cant follow consensus or proper maintenance. I will fix the info that was blanked because the consensus was to move the info. I will also take the time to do the related maintenance that should have been done like at Foreign relations of Jordan that still has a nice merger tag. If people cant follow consensus our do the required maintenance they should not be closing or just doing have the work. As for source as I have mentioned just have to take the time and look. -- Moxy (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, a merge consensus does not mean that the entire old article has to be copied verbatim into the new one. There was no substantive content in the old article which would have added anything to the target article that isn't already there — which means that nobody failed to follow the consensus. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
We simply will have to disagree. No content was moved nor is it in the parent article - in fact there not even mention of Canada at Foreign relations of Jordan that has the redirect Embassy of Jordan, Ottawa going to it. I will take the time to do the work properly. Seem logical to have a redirect with no content related to that redirect - Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule? -- Moxy (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability is defined entirely by presence of reliable sources"??? - Reply to Bearcat

Bearcat: You have claimed that Notability measured by an abundance of reliable sources is all that is needed in order to prevent articles from being deleted. You asked me to provide an example of an AfD deletion rationale based on other criteria, right? If so here is a very recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokenge P. Malafa (2nd nomination) Note that support of deletion is based on the following rationale – non of which talks AT ALL about the quality of the references:

  • language of the article is too promotional
  • the article creator is a (suspected) paid editor
  • The person about whom the article was written "is not one of the leading people in the field" (in the opinion of the Delete supporter)
  • Etc.

XOttawahitech (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

An active AFD in which there are several keep votes and only one delete, on an article that as of right now still exists, is also not a good example of the point you think you're making. For one thing, you also have to actually evaluate the quality of the references, not just their quantity, to determine whether the person is actually as notable as claimed — people frequently argue that articles are reliably sourced on the basis of press releases and other invalid sources (there's actually one article up on AFD right now which cites Frank as a source, for starters) — so the mere fact that there are references being cited does not, in and of itself, prove that the references are good ones. For two, there can be valid reasons besides a person's basic notability why an article is still deletable anyway — even an article about a person who passes our notability rules can still be deleted if it violates conflict of interest rules (paid editing, self-promotion, etc.), for example, or if it's a copyright violation (which large chunks of this article apparently are). And for three, what evidence do you have at this point that the article will even end up with a delete consensus anyway? Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ottawa asked for my opinion, because i wrote that delete rationale. I agree it's not a good example either way, because it has not been decided--but the keep rationales for this were entirely technical, in response to a rather odd refusal of the initial AfD nominator to give an adequate explanation. But I find myself agreeing with both of you: As two preliminaries, , obviously notability is not the only requirement for keeping an article--promotionalism, copyvio, BLP, and many other standards must be met also. I think it's also pretty clear, that quality of references is important--the GNG is often read as all or none in this respect, but I think that's naive, and leads to inclusion or non-inclusion on the basis of the exact details of minor references. One really significant discussion of something in a very good source is enough--this has been frequently held to be the case for references to entires in other encyclopedias, and twenty minor mention are not--they can just show active PR on the web.
The real issue is whether there are degrees of notability which would permit an article, but not necessarily require one.I think there clearly are: the Deletion guidelines are quite explicit that for manny topics there is the possibility of either an article or a section of an article. I have wished for many years we paid more attention to the possibility of making sections rather than full articles in many cases. Two things make this unlikely--first, sections are just content, and content is labile. There is nothing easier that merging an article into a section, and then progressively removing the content, and then finally removing the redirect because there is nothing to which it refers--this has been the very frequent fate of articles on fictional elements, or other aspects of popular culture. Second, there is sufficient attention on FGoogle and elsewhere paid to full WP articles that is not paid to sections as to make it very important for noticeability to have a full article--tho that doesn't really apply to this particular topic, it does to many others.
There's no fixed guideline for how much notability is needed for a separate article, and whether its a question of referencing or of amount of material. It's a matter of judgement, and there's no formal rule or set of rules that would fit the situation. (Except for one approach we have sometimes taken, and I wish we would much more frequently take: an arbitrary fixed determinable standard or decision--this would have the merit of eliminating most discussions like this and letting us work more on actual content.
we could direct all the material on the embassies of a country to a single article, or combine information on them to other articles. At present, we sometimes do and sometimes don't. Personally, I think it would in almost all cases be better to have separate articles in almost all these cases, and I argued for keep at almost all AfDs of articles on inter-country relations and embassies as long as there was any chance of my view being adopted. But it is not the general consensus, and therefore I know of no solution except to accept the inconsistent results of consensus at each individual instance. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sister projects

As we have a sister project on Commons, shouldn't we also have such on WikiNews, Wiktionary and WikiData? (there's a WikiProject Physics on WikiData) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

HMCS Saskatchewan (H70)

The fate of the article HMCS Saskatchewan (H70) is under discussion, see Talk:HMS Fortune (H70) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

After seeing File:Coat of Arms of Canada.svg added to the main Canada article again i realized its all over the other language Wiki's. I dont think its a good idea that we have this at all. Misrepresenting /original research of an official symble is simply not what we are here to do. -- Moxy (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know - Skookum1 left

This is what he/she says on User:Skookum1. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Going to need eyes at Luka Magnotta

See Talk:Luka Magnotta#Edit request on 1 September_2013. I have a strong suspicion I'm not going to like where this will go. More people aware would be beneficial. Resolute 00:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

St. Jacobs Farmers' Market

Hi all. I created the article St. Jacobs Farmers' Market earlier today. The food building at the market was destroyed by a fire yesterday, and I've been searching for CC-BY-SA photographs of the fire or its aftermath to upload to Commons for use on that article (specifically, the 'Fire' section). I've had no luck so far.

Did anyone who frequents this board get a photo of the fire or of the destroyed buildings, know of someone who did, or has found an image with the appropriate licence on the interwebs? (Twitter has some pics at #SJFMFire, but none that I've inspected can be uploaded to Commons. Perhaps someone here who has a Twitter account can contact Brent Mackie, who has a few decent photos posted.) The photo on this Toronto Star article by Andrew Collins is what I'd like to put in the WP article (the lead photo in this Globe and Mail article is also poignant). Here's a gallery of their photos of the fire and charred ruins. Maybe we can get permission to use some of these photos from Waterloo Fire Services (this one is fantastic).

Any help is appreciated. Mindmatrix 21:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of Flickr users who have images of the site after the fire (Nicole Hannusch, bill_bly_ca, Darin White, Mark Heine (appears to be a professional photographer) and others). In the past, I have had great success sending nice notes to Flickr users via Flickr mail, asking if they would consider freely licensing one of their images. Some people don't respond, others respond nicely but say no, but most people seem to be flattered to be asked and say yes. I've gotten dozens of images that way. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a sample request at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Flickr that I used with some success. It was created by Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Charter of Values

Do we have an article on the Quebec Charter of Values / Charter of Quebec Values / Charter of Quebecois Values ? I know it hasn't been released yet, but there's been alot of news and reaction on it already, so an article is not out of the question. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem at this point is that there's a lot of unverifiable speculation about what such a document might contain, but we don't yet know what it's actually going to involve — even some of the politicians who've commented on it have said they want to wait and see what's actually in it before they react — and it's still possible that the sheer unlikelihood of actually getting it passed in a minority government situation might lead the PQ to back off entirely. So at this point there's really nothing that we can write about it until a real piece of legislation is actually put forward. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with that. We often create articles for notable proposed legislation/policies/treaties, and{I can't actually think of an example where this had happened with a statute in Canada, and the examples I was thinking of were actually created after the release of a draft or a day before, so ignore my assertion on that point) it's not unusual (or inappropriate when it has been officially confirmed and subject to a lot of media coverage) to create such articles before the first draft is released. We have articles on failed legislation too. In any event, today the government released an outline of the so-called Charter, so there really is something to write about. I would agree, however, that we need to be very careful about the content of such an article at this point, given the speculative and political nature of so much of the commentary to date. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The Fr Wikipedia article (short and to the point) is at fr:Charte des valeurs québécoises. The official government website for the initiative is at www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/fr. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The English website www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en is also up. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
speculation and reaction are different. The reaction to the announcement is something tha can have coverage, such as the unanimous Montreal City Council rejection of the matter, or the reactions of various groups and unions. Speculation would be about what it would contain, but the broad outline was part of the premier's announcement. At any rate, now that it's been released, what should the title of the article be? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
They seem to mostly be calling it the Charter of Quebec Values in the media (see, for example, the Montreal Gazette here). The government website does not seem to attribute a name to it in English. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Unitary banners and Wikiprojects

You may be interested in this discussion, as the issue of merged project banners has come up at this project, as it has at WPUSA. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Election candidate lists

I've long wanted to raise a debate here about the practice of creating merged lists for election candidates who are not notable enough to stand alone as independent articles. The sheer scope of the problem has always held me back, but now that somebody has actually nominated one for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, it's worth finally discussing the issue.

The core issue is that the consensus to allow this practice was first established about a decade ago, at a time when Wikipedia's content policies were a lot looser, a lot more "being made up as we go along", than they are now. Since then, however, content rules such as WP:BLP have been tightened up considerably, such that many of the lists are now not properly in compliance with Wikipedia policy as it actually stands today. Most of the old lists were never properly revised as policy evolved, such that many of them are now violating the rules in one of two ways:

  1. Reliable sourcing problems: See Independent Renewal candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Initially, such lists just kept humming right along as collections of unsourced WP:BLPs, merely coatracked together into one big bad article instead of ten or twelve or fifty small bad ones. Many of the lists are, in fact, still unsourced to this day, and many can never be WP:HEYed up to adequately satisfy contemporary content standards.
  2. WP:BLP1E: See Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1987 Ontario provincial election. Although some of the lists did subsequently have reliable sources added, in nearly every case the article still falls afoul of our rules against writing about people who are briefly "notable" for a single event, but then slide back into obscurity — thus causing huge privacy problems for people who simply are not public figures in any legitimately encyclopedic way. Also note that to this day, this article still lists just two candidates out of a slate of 130 — further excluding the 19 people who actually won their seats, most or all of the remaining 109 are never going to be reliably sourceable enough to add anything but their names. If a person actually has sufficient notability to warrant being written about at all, then they should probably have an independent article anyway.

Rather, under current content rules these articles must look like Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, essentially a raw data dump that contains the candidates' names and vote totals with no WP:BLP information about anybody who does not have (or qualify per our notability rules to be given) a separate article to link to. However, there are problems with this approach as well:

  1. Under this format, the list essentially serves as little more than a duplication of content that's already present in Ontario general election, 2011 (candidates), and thus the question becomes whether the list is actually serving any encyclopedically useful purpose anymore.
  2. As you can see if you look at the article and its other-party siblings in Category:Ontario general election, 2011, people have typically put little to no effort into actually doing anything with them once the candidates' names were in place. The NDP's 2011 list is the only one that contains any information at all outside of the "Riding", "Candidates" and "Notes" columns, and even it hasn't been filled out comprehensively; the other three parties' lists are virtually bare name-only lists.

So here's the discussion that needs to happen:

  1. Firstly, given that the current Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election format is the only one that's properly compliant with the state of Wikipedia's content policies as they exist today, is that format even serving a useful purpose by which we can genuinely justify even bothering to keep it at all?
  2. Secondly, if there is value in keeping the lists in that format, there's still the fact that we have to start actually cleaning up the old policy-violating lists to conform to that format. So are people willing to start putting the rubber to the road to get the old lists cleaned up, or are we going to have to delete them as unsourced content and/or BLP violations because we just don't have the commitment necessary to actually get it done?

Either way, the status quo is not an option here. The old merged-BLP lists have to get either cleaned up or canned; they cannot remain in place in their current format anymore. So what are we prepared to actually do about it? Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The article "Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election" is more than just a list of candidates, it gives info on residence and occupation as well. Should those items go? Or are those columns ok? Because if so, than this article is different enough to stand on its own. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather see those columns expunged. Mindmatrix 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The separate list for each party does have utility, in that you can organize all historical candidates of one party into a tidy category tree. This can't be accomplished by restricting such pages to those like Ontario general election, 2011 (candidates).
One option is to create redirects for the names of each candidate to the appropriate candidates page (such as Ontario general election, 2011 (candidates) or Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election), for those individuals for whom there is no (and likely never will be) a WP page. These redirects could contain relevant categories about their candidacy in one or more elections, such as Category:Ontario general election, 2011 (or a child category specifically for candidates of each party). This would allow us to prune some of these pages, at the expense of populating many politician articles with election categories, and an investment of a great deal of time (though many redirects already exist). I agree that if we keep these articles, they should be formatted per Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election; we should discuss what info to place therein. (Perhaps we could include info about election spending or other elections in which the individual has run.) Mindmatrix 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, even if the consensus is to keep the lists the notion that each individual candidate should have their names redirected to the list and/or linked from other article definitely needs to go by the wayside. They aren't properly monitored for linking errors, for one thing — I've utterly lost count of the number of times I've come across articles where the redirected name was causing incorrect links (e.g. linking to an English soccer player instead of a Canadian electoral candidates list, or an American football team was linking to the list instead of to a football player). Those wronglinks simply aren't getting cleaned up very much at all — and since the 2011 list format contains no substantive information about any individual candidate, there's no real value in actually redirecting a candidate's name.
And also, my point still remains that if the consensus is that 2011-format lists are okay, then the old BLP-defying lists still have to actually get converted into 2011-format lists. There has to be a point at which the lists that are still in the old format start getting deleted if they still haven't been converted to 2011-format. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Not to be a thorn in your side or anything, but I personally support linking candidates to the candidate lists. So what if there are some errors? Wikipedia is a work in progress. I've fixed some links before, and I would no problem continuing that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
But my question remains, what value does redirecting the candidates' names to the list actually serve, if the list contains no information besides a repetition of the candidate's name? There's no policy-based reason why that can't happen — there are policy-based reasons why we have to limit how much information the list is allowed to contain, but that's a different matter — but why do we need the redirects? Under the old format, where the list was allowed to contain a more substantive mini-bio the redirects made some sense, but is there a useful purpose that they're actually serving under the more limited BLP-compliance format? Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to re-post a few comments that I made on a related page a few days ago:

I actually agree with Bearcat's arguments up to a point, in that I recognize Wikipedia's BLP and privacy policies have evolved significantly in the last decade. The approach that I took when creating [many of] these list pages (in most cases about five-to-eight years ago) is not one that I would follow today, and many of the candidate entries that I created do, with the benefit of hindsight, strike me as less-than-fully-encyclopedic by current standards (sometimes because the information seems unduly intrusive, but more often because it simply appears trivial). With that said, I do not believe that the approach advocated by Bearcat automatically or necessarily follows from current policy, and I certainly do not accept that current policy restricts us from including any significant biographical information about an unsuccessful candidate for public office.
There will, inevitably, be legitimate disagreement among editors as to how much information may reasonably be included on pages such as this; my view is that limiting this information to a brief indication of whether the candidate was an incumbent/cabinet minister/etc. is much too restrictive. My preferred approach, in light of current policy and best practices, is that candidate information on party list pages should be brief (usually 1-2 sentences) and generally limited to materials that are in the public interest. A candidate's electoral record and list of significant published works strike me as clearly within this category, while things like birthplace and education are more ambiguously so, and ephemeral newspaper quotes or campaign promises can generally be excised. (For a sense of what my approach would look like in practice, please see this page. Differing points of view are welcome.)

I'll also note that I've have made some efforts to start cleaning up the old lists in recent months (though, admittedly, I've not yet devoted any extensive time to this task). If there's a consensus that this is something requiring immediate attention, I could make it a higher priority. CJCurrie (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, one place where you and I differ is that I don't think that a non-notable candidate's electoral record is relevant or even interesting content for us to maintain. For a person who actually has their own article, their electoral record certainly counts for something — but if a person isn't notable enough for a full article of their own, then their comprehensive electoral record is just trivia, not useful or valuable or worthwhile content. If they're not notable enough for us to care about other aspects of their lives and careers, then they're not notable enough for us to concern ourselves with that aspect either.
And by a similar token, if a candidate actually has a "list of significant published works" that are notable enough to warrant mention at all, then by definition the candidate is likely notable enough to qualify for an independent article on the basis of their work as a writer or academic regardless of their success or failure in politics. If they qualify for an article on "writer" grounds, then the list can just link to that article instead of having to directly contain a list of their works, and if they don't qualify for an article on "writer" grounds (e.g. their only published works were the self-published Gnomes I Have Known and its sequel Gnomes I Have Known II, of which only 30 copies were ever printed and 29 of them are still in a box in the candidate's garage) then their published works aren't notable enough to warrant mention in the list either.
So those aren't pieces of information that the lists should be allowed or encouraged to contain. If the information is notable enough to be of encyclopedic interest to much of anyone at all, then in all likelihood the person is probably notable enough to get their own article anyway — and if they're not, then the information isn't notable enough to be included in the list either. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
We do, in fact, disagree on the first point you've raised. I think that the electoral records of defeated candidates are relevant for inclusion on this project. My rationale is simple: someone's record of having campaigned for public office is, by definition, information that is in the public interest. Whether it's interesting is another matter, and ultimately a point of personal discretion.
Concerning the second point, I should clarify that I added the qualifier "significant" for a reason. I agree that a defeated candidate's having self-published a work of fan fiction is not likely to be of concern for us. By contrast, a candidate's authorship of a scientific, activist, or specialist work strikes me as falling (or potentially falling) within the public interest, while not necessarily qualifying the candidate for notability under WP:AUTHOR. Others may disagree.
Turning to the larger point of discussion, I should clarify that I don't have as much of a personal investment in retaining these pages as was the case a few years ago. I recognize that the approach I used to create these pages in the mid-2000s doesn't conform with current best practices, and I'm very much willing to significantly scale back on the candidate information that's included. I simply don't believe that we need to excise all of the information, either as a matter of policy (which does not mandate this course of action) or otherwise. CJCurrie (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm seeing a lot of people assert that the information is in the public interest — but I have yet to see a compelling reason why, or how, it would be in the public interest in any genuinely meaningful way. The comprehensive electoral record of a candidate who ran for office three times in the 1980s and never got elected, or the publication history of a person who somehow failed to become notable as either a politician or a writer — what public interest is actually being served by us putting any effort into curating and maintaining that information? What value does that information actually have in 2013?
How is the fact that his name and vote totals are already present in the results tables on the election articles themselves (and on the electoral district articles) not already giving me as much information as I will ever actually need, such that I somehow need an extra place where I can consult an extra dropdown list which compiles all of his prior electoral runs?
How is his record still a matter of public interest in 2013, if the last time he tried to run for office and failed was in 1989? If he never ran outside of Brantford, what "public interest" even exists if the reader lives in Toronto or Chattanooga or Singapore or Jeddah — and for that matter, even if the reader actually lives in Brantford what public interest is being served in 2013 by giving them access to that kind of information about a person who failed to get elected to office 20 or 30 years ago?
At least to me, it's not enough to just assert that information is in the public interest, if you can't explain how and why it's in the public interest. What public interest is actually being served by retaining this kind of information about failed candidates, and how are we not already serving it as well as anyone will ever actually need? Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should start by defining my terms. I'm using the term "public interest" to refer to information that is (a) in the public record and (b) of concern to the public. Whether it's interesting to any significant number of people is a different matter entirely. I completely agree that few people outside of Brantford (and perhaps not many even there) will be interested in an overview of Jack Tubman's record within the public sphere. By the same token, however, I suspect that few people outside of Brantford will be interested in the public records of Dave Neumann, the winning candidate from 1987, or Phil Gillies, the defeated incumbent. In 2013, such information will be of interest to only a limited number of readers. And yet, there is no disagreement that having articles on those figures is suitable for this encyclopedia.
I would argue that having some information on unsuccessful candidates is relevant for much the same reason as having articles on successful candidates -- namely, that it serves some historical value. Someone researching Brantford's local history could benefit from having access to a short writeup on Jack Tubman's public life, as could someone conducting more general comparative research on NDP candidates, or the history of regional labour councils, the role of labour in Ontario politics during the 1980s and 1990s -- or, for that matter, views on self-determination for Quebec within English Canada. I'm sure more examples could be found. Are there likely to be many people in these categories? Of course not. But that isn't the issue.
I acknowledge that there must be restrictions on the information we provide. Short summaries of unelected (and otherwise non-notable) candidates should not be burdened with trivia or ephemeral news reports. For BLPs, special care should be taken that intrusion into the candidate's private life is avoided -- and that potentially damaging information is used only when this information is in the public interest (e.g., if a candidate for is reported in the media as being a secret member of a racist organization). But acknowledging these points should not lead us to conclude that BLP constrains us from including any information on defeated candidates -- it quite simply does not.
Like me raise the following scenario: would you object to the existence of candidate summaries on a page entitled Conservative and Liberal-Conservative candidates, 1867 Canadian federal election? Or United Farmers of Ontario candidates, 1919 Ontario provincial election? My suspicion is that candidate summaries on these pages would generate little objection and would generally be recognized as having historical value. I would argue that list pages pertaining to more recent elections have the same value, albeit that it may be more difficult to recognize their merits when we're still relatively close to the events in question.
Btw, I could also mention that Jack Tubman was a reasonably prominent person within Brantford, leading a CAW local and playing a major role in the labour movement more generally. He also held positions of some importance at the provincial level (labour law reviews) and the federal level (as a CAW representative). I don't think it would be completely out of the question to spin off his information from the candidate list page to a separate biographical entry. CJCurrie (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you're being overly generous to the failed candidates — though I suspect I'd be inclined to support a separate article on Tubman, especially if it could be expanded as easily as I suspect it could — or overly stingy with the elected MPPs (or maybe a bit of both), but I'd argue that the public interest served by writing a person who actually served in the legislature is not exclusively local or limited to their own time period. The fact that most MPPs never become particularly famous outside of their own electoral districts doesn't mean that there isn't a broad public interest to serve in making that information available — because they still held a role that was notable enough to be of broad, permanent and potentially international public interest.
Even if I've never actually heard their names before, I could live absolutely anywhere in the world and still find myself in a context where I wanted or needed to learn a bit more about Gillies or Neumann or absolutely anybody else who served as an MPP. I could live in England, for example, and be writing a research paper on LGBT history in Canada for which I needed to know more about Gillies' record as a supporter of LGBT equality rights, or about the 12 NDPers and three Liberals who bucked their respective parties on Bill 167, or about Keith Norton and Ian Scott. Or I could be an energy policy consultant in Texas who needs to know more about Northern Ontario Natural Gas, or I could be a journalist in South Africa who needs to know more about Shelley Martel's polygraph misadventure because something remarkably similar is happening in Cape Town.
So the public interest involved in having articles about people who sat as MPPs transcends the amount of "fame" that any individual MPP's name may or may not have accrued outside of his or her own riding, because there's a broader public interest to be served in writing about the government and the legislative process and the issues and scandals and personalities that bounced around inside it. But the same can't be said of most unsuccessful candidates; in the vast majority of cases, at least to me there's no genuine public interest being served by actually curating or maintaining any information about them at all, because they simply didn't have any significant impact on anything that any significant percentage of our readership is ever really going to need to know. For United Farmers of Ontario candidates, 1919 Ontario provincial election, for example, even if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply WP:ONEEVENT still might — so I still wouldn't encourage putting much more effort into it than one was putting into the 2011 lists; just because privacy isn't a concern anymore doesn't mean that the information actually gains all that much added utility. And if a person is researching a local history for which information about past unsuccessful candidates in their own riding might actually be of value to them, then they'll have access to the exact same sources you'd be using anyway — so it's not as though it's lost to history if we don't dig it out ourselves.
And, again at least to me, if there's a genuinely good reason why information about a failed candidate might actually be important enough to warrant any mention on Wikipedia at all, then there's a very good chance that what you really have, if you dig a little harder for sources and/or trust your judgement on the importance of what you've already got just a little more, is a potential candidate for a standalone article under a different notability criterion. (I mean, can you really imagine a case where a writer actually fails WP:AUTHOR, yet has still somehow succeeded in writing a book that is notable enough to genuinely warrant mention as an aspect, even a minor one, of the whole freakin' election? I suppose I should never say never, but I can say that it's not easy to imagine a scenario like that actually happening very readily.) Or maybe, just maybe, you might even have that rare David Popescu case where the candidacy itself garners enough press to become notable all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting that you'd raise the example of Popescu. I actually wrote his stub biography on a candidate list page before he became notable, and, while I had no way of knowing it the time, the information I provided would later be accessed by several journalists and activists writing about his case. This particular entry did provide a public service, in that it ensured there was an overview of Popescu's life available when people had a reason to look for it (indicating, among other things, that his call for the equivalent of genocide wasn't a one-time outburst, but something he had already said in a self-distributed video a few years earlier). I'll grant, though, that this was an unusual situation and not really indicative of how these list pages would normally be accessed.
Leaving that situation aside, I would still argue that there is value in maintaining some information about non-notable defeated candidates for public office. A researcher may find it noteworthy that a certain candidate was a Martin or Chrétien supporter, or a party dissident (Arlene Rousseau comes to mind here), or a recent defector from a rival party, or the child of a former MP, or a member of an immigrant community seeking greater political representation. Beyond this, there could be value in reviewing these list pages in the aggregate, to determine how many candidates of a given party were doctors, lawyers, farmers, journalists, etc. in a particular electoral cycle. I grant that this information will generally be less valuable than information about elected figures, but that isn't the same as saying it has no value.
I'll provide a practical example. I recently added the following three sentences to the line entry for "Normand Beaudet" on New Democratic Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election: "Beaudet has served as president of Montreal's Centre de ressources sur la non-violence. In 1994, he released a book entitled Le mythe de la defense canadienne. He had previously sought election as a NDP candidate in Terrebonne—Blainville in 2000 and 2004." (References and links are provided on the source page.)
This information is short, concise, non-intrusive, and provides a clear overview of Beaudet's public activities prior to the 2008 election. I would submit that all of the information provided here could be of use to a researcher, notwithstanding that Beaudet doesn't strike me as quite notable enough for a standalone page. Others may disagree, but I believe a page filled with summaries like this would provide a valuable resource fully consistent with Wikipedia's mandate. CJCurrie (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD submission

Hello,

While doing a bit of cleanup in the Quality "-Class" categories, I've stumbled onto the Category:WikiProject_Canada_lists category, which is old, article-empty and nearly orphaned (1 subcategory), so I've subsequently created Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_19#Category:WikiProject_Canada_lists. Thanks in advance for any input on the matter.

Best regards, Valmoer (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Also related discussion at template talk: Non-free Crown copyright -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem source by Robert A. Battram

Was reading an article today on an author named Robert A. Battram who has published a book in 2010 that is a best seller and has a five star rating at goodreads - titled "Canada in Crisis...: An Agenda to Unify the Nation"... The author has been highly criticized about the fact that to book simply has edited version of text from Wikipedia (as well as many other places) as seen here if you scroll down a bit. We must note the author does state the fact it is from Wikipedia (and other places) and edited, thus is not hiding anything. I used the source myself in Law of Canada and Religion in Canada for very minor citations and will replace them ASAP. Just letting other know there is a problem with the book so it wont get used again. I see its used on about 15 pages and I will fix the ones I find. -- Moxy (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Division and 2nd Canadian Infantry Division

See Talk:2nd Canadian Division where a discussion is going on about why an FA-class article was merged into a Start-class article -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The same user also merged 1st Canadian Division with 1st Canadian Infantry Division and 3rd Canadian Division with 3rd Canadian Infantry Division -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee

There is an ongoing featured topic candidacy for the articles relating to John Edward Brownlee, a former premier of Alberta. Any constructive contributions you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stuart Hamilton

Newly created article about a notable Canadian and recipient of the Order of Canada, but it needs a massive amount of copy-editing and reference checking, if anyone here is interested. Issues are outlined in the maintenance tags and on Talk:Stuart Hamilton. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Many Canadian photos up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 6 where many Canadian photos are up for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Desmarais

It seems as though we need an article on the Desmarais family ? Our Desmarais article and the various familial articles seem structured to indicate that we should have such an article. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Hello there! Would anyone care to have a look and work on this? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to inspect this submission? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

First problem I can see right off the top: the article contains a contextless list of "references" at the end, but the body of the article fails to contain any footnotes to clarify what content is sourced to which reference. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that you've created an article on an Order of Canada recipient and a Canadian Brigadier General from WWII. Just a few comments. The references, as Bearcat noted above, were the first thing I noticed too. I also don't see any apparent reason why non-standard references like "World War 2" (instead of World War II) or "Québec City" (contrary to WP:CANSTYLE, and it isn't even used consistently in the article) are used. I'm never fond of the use of postal abbreviations in articles ("Qc") either - this is an article, not a letter - and the practice is frowned upon at MOS:ABBR. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the author, I just work at AfC and needed external input, for which I'm thankful. Feel free to browse current submissions in the future, as we get plenty of Canada-related ones. Don't hesitate to review them with your particular set of Project goals and criteria. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that this one is fortunately very brief but looks to be pretty bad - assistance in cleaning up behind this guy would be very welcome, as every substantial chunk of text I've looked at that he added was copy-pasted from somewhere else. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a direct link to the affected articles: Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20131014b#Articles_1_through_20. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject stubs

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Article_assessment for discussion related to stubs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Sales Tax Rules - which location generates amt charged: seller or buyer?

Question: A small business with a Toronto (Ontario) address want to invoice a customer in Victoria (BC) and a customer is Calgary (Alberta). Is the sales tax charged on the customers invoice the Ontario rate or the BC/Alberta rates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.204.146 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent question, but probably not one we can answer. Or at least, not one that our article Sales taxes in Canada currently answers. You may have to consult someone versed in tax law if this is an answer that you need for a professional or business reason, rather than for personal knowledge. Thanks, Resolute 23:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a CGA and I know the general rules, but Resolute's answer is best. Talk with your accountant or a sales tax consultant to address the situation in your business's particular circumstances. PKT(alk) 02:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you can try posting your question at: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

CGI Group

CGI Group is very much in the news in the United States since its name has been linked with problems the new health care program is experiencing. Since this article is part of the collection of Canadian articles I wonder if anyone here wants to upgrade it a bit? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP/UNDUE on Port Coquitlam page re former mayor

I was here looking up something about PoCo - Minnekhada Regional Park, which is a former L-G's residence, not sure if it's in city limits or not - and noticed this section which strikes me as out of place and UNDUE and despite its citations more than a bit of a BLP violation. I'm not going to bother signing in to report this, just wanted to bring it to WPCANADA's attention for possible fixing/removal - Skookum1.70.68.136.193 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Alice Munro, Canadian 2013 Nobel Prize winner

Alice Munro, a Canadian short story writer, has made it Wikipedia’s Main Page. However, Category:Alice Munro has just been nominated for deletion, and only one entry (out of many) in the category has a WikiProject rating higher than "Low".

Comments?XOttawahitech (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The rule for creating an eponymous category for a writer is not that "any writer who has won X literary award automatically gets one no matter how small that category actually turns out to be in practice"; rather, to get one, a writer has to generate a substantial volume of spinoff content that doesn't already fit into the existing category structure.
If all we've got is the writer's main article, a "works by..." category and a "films based on works by..." category, then that isn't enough — for example, Category:Leonard Cohen has a couple dozen articles that are works about him rather than by him, and thus can't fit into any standard Leonard Cohen-related category. But Munro doesn't have that; her eponymous category doesn't contain anything that isn't already being linked to in the main Alice Munro article anyway, and thus an eponymous category isn't a navigationally useful thing to have.
But again, having an eponymous category is not a notability contest; it's solely a question of whether we have enough spinoff content to need it navigationally, and has nothing to do with "any winner of a certain award automatically gets one". Saul Bellow, Mo Yan, Elfriede Jelinek, Naguib Mahfouz, Doris Lessing, Orhan Pamuk, Tomas Transtromer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Nadine Gordimer and Octavio Paz all won the Nobel Prize too, and none of them have their own eponymous categories. So why should a Nobel Prize mean that Alice Munro automatically gets one, even though there's no navigational need for it? Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rana Bokhari

Rana Bokhari has just been elected the leader of the Manitoba Liberals, so I have gone to Flickr to look for free images. Is this her shaking hands with Ignatieff in 2011? 117Avenue (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're all probably right, shouldn't upload an image assuming it is someone. 117Avenue (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

I believe the second paragraph of Stephen Harper is non-neutral. These concerns have already been issued on the talk page by others and myself but my removal of that section is being reverted. Please weigh in at Talk:Stephen_Harper#World_View. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Denis Kestell Yorath

Hello fellow Canadians! This draft article about a notable Canadian hasn't been edited for over a year and has never been submitted. I have added some references, but I am caught up in a review of the 43,000 articles that are about to be deleted as stale drafts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue). Can some one take on this article? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Senators

I've got an issue, pertaining to our lists of senators by province or territory, to bring up for discussion.

In nine of the ten provinces and the merged list for the territories, the "Appointed by" column lists the Prime Minister; exclusively in List of Quebec senators, however, the Prime Minister is bumped over to a separate "On the advice of" column, with "Appointed by" instead listing the Governor General. Furthermore, whoever did this was woefully ignorant of the actual conventions for naming and listing GGs; I've been correcting it, but the list has been sitting for years with names like "Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood" and "Elliot-Murray-Kynynound" and "Petty-Fitzmaurice" in the appointing column instead of Dufferin and Minto and Lansdowne.

I know that the question of whether senators should be denoted as having been appointed by the PM, or by the GG on the advice of the PM, has been a contentious one on here in the past — but the solution to that dispute simply cannot be to have one list follow the opposite practice from the other ten of them. There has to be a consensus to pick one or the other, and keep it consistent across all of the lists with no exceptions.

Is there any way we can reach an agreement about which it's going to be? Preferably without it turning into a pissing contest about the moral superiority or inferiority of monarchism? Bearcat (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Quebec vs. Alberta lists, I would prefer to bring the Quebec article in line with the remaining ten. Trivial as it may be though, I'd actually like to see the column that explains why the Quebec senators left their post expanded to the others as well. Resolute 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Senators are politicians, chosen by the PM, usually affiliated with a political party and they belong to the respective caucuses. They are creatures of the PM that chose them. The GG's role presiding over the investiture ceremony, signing the appointment letter, or whatever process occurs, is a formality, and as such I'm not convinced we need a separate column for the GG. If we have to, putting "appointed by" and the name of the GG in small text in paratheses under the name of the PM would be fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
How about "Governor General" on the Governor General column, and "Prime Minister" on the Prime Minister column? 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Why? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Because a column header isn't big enough to explain the complexities of the system. 117Avenue (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
And adding the words Governor General does? And how is it complex? (it seems pretty simple) And how does that solution address in the inconsistency problem raised by Bearcat? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem Bearcat raised is that one of them is being referred to as the "appointed by", removing this term from the table, I think, removes this problem. Explaining the process can be done with text, outside the table, linking to articles that further explain the complexities. The process may seem simple to some, but it can't be accurately explained in two words. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I apologize, I didn't explain myself very well. The question of Bearcat's that I was focused on was the one of consistency - i.e. do we follow the Alberta or Quebec approach. I suppose you are saying the Quebec approach. If that's the case, then you are suggesting replacing "Appointed by" and "On the advice of" with "Governor General" and "Prime Minister" respectively? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I suggested. 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
o.k. I'm not sure that I agree that such an approach clarifies the chart, or that the GG is particularly relevant, but I'm not necessarily right. Thanks for the clarification. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Good grief! - Indian Reserve/Indian reserve = RM'd to First Nations reserve within 8 days....

And only two votes; see Talk:First_Nations_reserve#First_Nations_reserve. Nominated by IP user whose contributions I think should be looked at as to their interests, and relisted by User talk:Steel1943; and supported by User:Labattblueboy on the specious "avoids confusion with Indian reservation. Was this RM notified here, or at IPNA?? Needs immediate re-listing and overturning. So much for retirement....this is one of those items, like the endonyms for the native peoples, that needs a "lockdown" on the name because uninformed readers/editors will always come along and f**k with it otherwise. The preponderance of citable official sources and "most common usage" and proper terminology vs politically-correct neologisms is the core issue here; we went through this a while ago to the point that the categories and list pages were all changed. Is there no end to this silliness?????Skookum1 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing notice left here. Propose to move it back. No rationale was given for the move. The default rationale from the template, "Please place your rationale for the proposed move here", was left instead. Laughable. Hwy43 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've commented on this further on my talk page, but it's worth noting here that WikiProject notifications of RMs are the exception, not the rule. WP:FOOTY has a whole system set up for it, but I'm not aware of any other project that handles them systematically. Neutral notification are always a good idea, but in RM at least, the absence thereof is never a legitimate reason for invalidating a move. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Two votes in one week, one of them an IP user, and a nomination by an IP user, is not a reason to close an RM, especially not on an article of such importance. Did you even research the topic and past discussions before approving this move? Why did you not wait for more votes????Skookum1 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)
      • Skookum1, instead of attacking BDD, just reopen a new RM. As mentioned on BDD's page, it is unfortunate the move wasn't advertised on the Canadian WikiProject, but that is not BDD's fault. Hwy43 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Personally, I would have closed a RM with no rationale and only one support and one oppose comment as no consensus, but I'm not going to get worked up over what pretty much amounts to a WP:BOLD decision. BDDs closure is fair and there is no reason why further discussion cannot take place after the fact. But really Skookum, please don't come out of your latest hibernation firing assumptions of bad faith from both barrels. It is possible for people who do not agree with you to act in good faith. Resolute 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolute, as you'll see on BDD's talkpage, there were a host of technical reasons the categories were rightfully changed to where they should be and so far remain; unless someone comes along and speedies them because of this. And it's not about bad faith what I'm saying, it's about people acting rashly and not doing their homework on such an important article and related categories.....big difference between WP:BOLD and what should be WP:RASH. This should be a protected title somehow; as the one IP user complains in a certain section there was some prevoius text saying "Indian reserve" is a former term, even though in the RM it's observed there's still 2:1 google listings for IR. Wikipedia's big problem is neophytism on important matters; like letting tiny bulls loose in a massive china shop. articles that are main articles for important category hierarchies should NOT be so easily changeable. "Hibernation" isn't really the right word, I had a stroke and am now back in CAnada pursuing treatment....so I will bug off for now, but had to raise this issue as an important one; but must wonder what will become of the past if people in the future who do not know about the past or even much about the reality beyond their own little orbits can so easily muck about and upset massive applecarts.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My arm is tingling, I need rest.Skookum1 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hwy43 on this one. Input a new requested move and maybe a second round will see a more wholesome discussion. I do feel the current location is most appropriate and I don't know if I will change my position but I would certainly be interested in seeing the arguments.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer to that has already been provided, look at the discussions on the CfD on Category:Indian reserves, wherever it is. I tried to find the new RM's original pre-relisting but don't see it anywhere..... ?? And as per "Indian reservations" vs "Indian reserve", it's like the difference between "color" and "colour", it's American English and Canadian English, confusion is not a rationale. What's on the map is (show me anywhere on NTS maps or in CGNDB or BC Names or any other naming catalogue a map that says "First Nations reserve", vs the hundreds that do use "Indian Reserve". And in reading the intro to the article, which seems to be mostly a justification for the current name, Cite no. 1 is misused; go ahead, search on that AADNC pdf for "First Nations reserve", you won't find it; substituting "First Nation(s)" for "Indian" blindly is WP:SYNTH. And as noted I'm trying to limit my participation for health reasons; I will vote on the RM but the template-tossing involved is arduous; spewing words is not for me, I type 90-120 words a minute....but feel strongly this should be immediately reversed before someone comes along and speedies the categories back [groan]. Skookum1 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Eskimo

There is a requested move discussion at Eskimo.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-RM for First Nations reserve back to Indian reserve

Well, though I really didn't want to get involved again for health reasons, I think this is very important so assembled my points and tried to post it as technically as possible. See Talk:First_Nations_reserve#Requested_move_2_-_back_to_Indian_reserve.Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought you didn't have the energy to re-launch this, which is why I offered above to do it for you. Nonetheless, thanks for re-launching. I would have opposed the original RM if it were on my watchlist. Surprised it wasn't there already. Hwy43 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah thanks anyway, I had all the items noted, didn't take me too long; I'll just stay out of the debates. It's AfDs and CfDs that have more work to setting them up. I think I covered all the necessary points, and kept my boiling blood out of it....I'm off to the hospital tonight I think, just waiting on my ride....apparently the way I'm feeling late at night is when I should be going to emergency....I'm 58, it's no age to be toughing it outSkookum1 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford Nation

Should the Ford Nation article be about a one-episode television show, or about Rob Ford's supporters? Yesterday, I had started to transform the article to the latter, as it is by far the most common usage of the term and has been used in the media for several years, but recent edits restored it to be about the television show (retaining most of what I had added). Thoughts? Mindmatrix 01:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How much could be written about his supporters? Depending on size, the two could probably co-exist with the paragraph(s) about his supporters standing as an "etymology" section for the tv show? Otherwise, a split would possibly be warranted. Resolute 01:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't think we really need a whole article just about the cult of personality that's built up around him, any more than we need a separate article about Justin Bieber's "Beliebers" or Lady Gaga's "Little Monsters" (both terms exist on Wikipedia only as redirects to the objects of their hero worship.) In all three cases, there's not enough that can really be said about the phenomena to really justify separate standalone articlea, rather than relatively small subsections of the larger articles about the personalities themselves.
That said, I wouldn't have thought that we actually needed a standalone article about the show either — given that it's now effectively just a one-off special never to be repeated, I would have considered a brief subsection in Sun News Network to be all we ever really needed. But the current situation, in which the main topic is the show while the flailing cult is addressed in an "origin of name" section, is probably the right solution here. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Before the show, I was thinking of creating such an article. The topic of Ford's popularity is very interesting indeed. How could such a man rise to power, and still be fairly popular despite his personal shortcomings? Why not mention some poll crosstabs, like how much of his support comes from the immigrant community, from men, the less educated and from the suburbs? -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree that some coverage of the phenomenon would be a valid contribution to Wikipedia. But I don't think we need (or can justify) a whole separate article just about the phenomenon — for one thing, it would be hard to write such an article without teetering on the edge of original research and opinion punditry. Touching upon it in as an aspect of more general articles (e.g. Rob Ford itself, this article, etc.) should be more than sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Football"

The meaning of "football" is up for discussion, see Talk:Canada national football team (disambiguation) ; you may be interested in this discussion. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

101st Grey Cup

The Grey Cup games is an approved reoccurring item for the main page's In the News section, however rarely gets posted because of lack of updates. Another editor and myself got last year's article up in time, but I'm not planning on doing it again this year. So if anyone wants to do some work with a high chance of it reaching the main page, feel free to take up the mantle! Resolute 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is well on its way, thanks to several people - especially User:Plasma Twa 2, who's apparently a Rider fan... PKT(alk) 15:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone didn't notice when they checked the front page, the game was put up yesterday. --PlasmaTwa2 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

re Category:Former capitals of Canada

Shouldn't this be "former capitals IN Canada"? - as the syntax of the current title means capitals of Canada, per se. I note Ft St James is in there, it's touted as the "capital" of New Caledonia, the HBC fur district, really it was an HQ of the HBC. As was Victoria, and Fort VAncouver, now in Washington state. and if Toronto, Montreal and Quebec are included (despite the point that TO and Quebec City are still capitals), then why not Halifax and ?? Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador also comes to mind as capital of the French colony there, and also Louisbourg and.......Thunder Bay re the fur company, since Ft St James is included..... ??Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How would Fort Vancouver fit in your name? And T.O.,Q.C. are both former capitals as well as current capitals. They were the capital of Canada. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The sense of the category is supposedly former colonial capitals in what is now Canada, not just former capitals OF Canada. IN Canada, not OF Canada, y'see. And Ft St James was only a company HQ, only informally referred to as a capital, likewise Fort George (Astoria) and Fort Vancouver - which were the capitals of territories that were now British-claimed and included part of present-day British Columbia. All three don't belong, IMO, as the fur company was not a colony, only a license to trade; and what's why I didn't suggest Fort Garry either, though I did mention Thunder Bay (Fort William). Only former colonial capitals warrant being here; what New Brunswick's was I'm not sure, i.e. in colonial days, when PEI was part of the same colony. Halifax was a colonial capital, and I think the Acadian colonial capital was maybe Annapolis Royal rather than Louisbourg, I'm not sure; or Grand Pre? My main issue is with the preposition used, if it stays as it is then New Westminster should be removed; once it is changed to "IN Canada", then Victoria should also be included. And Fort Langley, come to think of it, since it was the original capital of the Mainland Colony, albeit briefly.Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Who owns the image?. If anybody here has any information can you post over there. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to fix up the dead links pointing to the Canadian Encyclopedia, the above is an alphabetical list of the Wikipedia pages which have these links. Feel free to edit this list and remove any that are fixed. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Photography requests

Is there a good place to make specific requests for photographs from Wikipedians in Canada? I'm looking to get photographs of a specific memorial tablet from two locations: Christ Church Cathedral (Vancouver) and the Church of the Ascension in Hamilton, Ontario. If anyone able to help could contact me on my talk page, I can give further details there or here as needed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

English exonyms for place names

English_exonyms#Canada. Is there not a main article that should be linked here above the summary? Can someone check this please. See also article Talk. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

St. Leonard, Quebec

The article has just been moved [2] without discussion. Previous discussions have not supported such a move. I think some may wish to chime in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The evidently needs to be a RM3. It has not been discussed since 2008 and there seems to be no logical reason for this district to be the only one with an English name in the template and category. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. But article names on Wikipedia are based on what is the most commonly used name in English in the real world, not what is arguably most logical vis-a-vis Wikipedia templates and categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Juno Award nominees 2001

Wikipedia has innacurate information regarding Juno nominations of 2001. For Best Blues album, Big Daddy G is indicated. Clicking on the Big Daddy G link you are taken to the wrong Big Daddy GCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)..

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/big-daddy-g-mn0001933367

Big Daddy G, also known as David Glover, recorded the album Topless in 2000. Please ammend the mistake. Big Daddy G aka David Glover is decesased. Killed in a car crash sometime around 2010. My name is Bruce Brooker. I played drums on the album Topless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.178.126 (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you Bruce Brooker

I've updated the page Big Daddy G to be a disambiguation page listing three uses for the term, including Dave Glover. (There is currently no Wikipedia page for Glover.) Mindmatrix 14:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

SYDENHAM INDEPENDENCE!

It has been suggested that the reference to the former Sydenham Township, in Grey County be lumped in with the amalgamated Municipality of Meaford, the current municipal government of Sydenham Township. This would be folly. Sydenham Townshihp is the oldest municipality in Grey County, pre-dating even Grey County itself. Sydenham Township has an extensive history [see History of Sydenham Township] which is exclusive to the area, and not to be confused with the Municipality of Meaford, which is largely about the TOWN of Meaford. Since the time of amalgamation in 2001 objections have been raised to the forced amalgamation of Sydenham Township, and there continues to be a large and vocal group of citizens determined to undo the amalgamation process. This is not only about the level of taxation but also about place names and identity related back to the origins of Sydenham Township and its ability to govern itself responsibly and independently for 150 years prior to amalgamation.LRR66.110.6.119 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia

So i am here to give the project some horrible news - The Canadian Encyclopedia has moved all its pages without any redirects. So to put this simply we have thousands of dead links now all over. This also includes many videos we have linked. -- Moxy (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

sonofabitch. But hopefully not too bad. I see in the Frank Slide article, the old URL for one of the references is http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/100th-anniversary-of-frank-slide-disaster, and the new is http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/100th-anniversary-of-frank-slide-disaster/. If the only change is a move from /articles/ to /en/article/, then we could probably request a bot task to easily update links. Resolute 00:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Shit. That was just a special case because it was a reprint of a Macleans article. There might be hope here though. Most of the TCE created content used a url hash, but now uses that same /article/en/English title format. So for cases where people have properly included an article title in their citation, we might still be able to rescue some... such as /article/en/canadian-imperial-bank-of-commerce on (oddly) the Anne Murray article. Resolute 00:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FWIW though, a linksearch for thecanadianencyclopedia.com returns 530 hits. I'll start some manual search and replace efforts on these now. Do we know if related sites (historica-dominion) have also changed? Resolute 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm responsible for a few dozen of those links, I should help out. Are you starting at the beginning or end, Resolute? The Interior (Talk) 00:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
No historica-dominion is fine. This is why I was saying only some videos have moved....as the ones from historica-dominion are fine. Very surprised to see only 530 links ....not as big of a problem as I was thinking. -- Moxy (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll start at the end, Interior... though I've only got about a half hour right now. And there is a problem... I don't think that is the entire list. I can't find Frank Slide on that list, even though I already know there is a usage. Resolute 01:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
At any rate, 520-530 done. Of course I grabbed articles like History of Canada that had a pile of them... Resolute 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This list is not complete. Dixie Flyers is not on it, and it has several links to the band's article, added by me. Also, all of the articles that were in the Encyclopedia of Music in Canada section used to have /emc/ before the title un the URL, and now they have instead -emc after the title. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
1-20 done, but Moxy'sAnne's right, we're not getting all of them in that External links search ... The Interior (Talk) 03:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I left a message at VPT asking if there's a way to get a more complete list. I'm afraid I can't help much with this; I am involved in the giant Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue project, which is time sensitive. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I received advice to use a wildcard in the search. Here's one with 5,550 results. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The link search you did was too restrictive - it finds only links of the form http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/path, but you want to find links in any subdomain therein. This requires a wildcard search using *.thecanadianencyclopedia.com, which gives these 5550 results. Mindmatrix 14:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Crap. I knew I had it wrong somewhere, thanks. I've put a request in at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 57#URL updates for The Canadian Encyclopedia to see if we can get some automated help for most of these. Resolute 22:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it not worth someone writing to them and asking if they are still able and willing to maintain the old URLs as redirects? How do websites in general handle this sort of thing? Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

They appear to have Facebook and Twitter accounts, along with a Contact page. Send a polite note (they are Canadian, after all) asking them to consider restoring the old links, since they have broken 5,500 Wikipedia articles that send them traffic. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've tested a few links recently, and it appears that redirects are now in place (at least for the links I tested, anyway). If this is true for all these links, then a bot could surely automate updates to replace old links with new, and to add titles to citations in which they are missing. Mindmatrix 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

disappearing red links?

Is it just me or has anyone else noticing a lot less red links on Wikipedia? NorthernThunder (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a corresponding increase in stubs? Or people removing "unsightly" redlinks? (I have noticed people "correcting" articles by removing redlinks, but that's always been happening) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Which is annoying, because links should not be removed simply because they are red. Only if there is no reasonable expectation that an article could be created. Resolute 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Found another one today, "Dewdney (community)" and several more in the last while since my return. The item numbers are the same on the BC names entry - in this case, 17283, but the base URL has changed, hard to know where all of these are, is there a bot that could be put to the task of scanning all BC articles for them (mostly geographic, municipal, and IR/band articles I think - BC Prov Parks too maybe)? I think there's another older base URL, too, the one above yields a 404 address when used, not sure where I saw the other one, maybe on Kluskus First Nation where I edited the other day...... Skookum1 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:First Nations languages with mobile apps

Category:First Nations languages with mobile apps has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Djembayz (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

licensing my own father's images

There's a photo on the Seton Portage, British Columbia page that I donated in my first months in Wikipedia long ago, it's now up for deletion because the licenses isn't fully confirmed that I had the right to release it to public domain; it was my father's picture and mine to release. What am I supposed to do? Hire a f&*&*&&g notary? Register copyright with the Library of Congress (which is in another country, no less). See User_talk:Skookum1#Images?? After all this time, I have to prove who I am??Skookum1 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you the heir to your father's estate (to the extent that copyright would have passed to you)? If yes, that would normally be sufficient at Wikimedia Commons, as long as it is made clear in the description (I assume the practice here is the same). Typically, we do not look behind claims such as "I took this photo" or "this photo was taken by my late father, and I am his heir and own the copyright" unless a contributor has shown to be less than truthful in the past (which is not the case with you). Hiring a f&*&*&&g notary is not required. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you please tell that to User:Sfan00 IMG. There were four heirs to my late father's estate = my late mother, and my two siblings; since Dad's death I have been the one in charge of the photographic legacy, of which this is a part (and now also my mother's). Saying "wrong license" without suggesting the right one is just annoying; image specialists know all that stuff, it seems the rest of us are expected to know what they're talking about; I find them obscurantist in the extreme to deal with....and often snobby about the rest of us not knowing all the rules theyv'e set out to trip the rest of us up with. Wiki-not.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Peace River = Peace River (disambiguation) - to RM or not to RM?

Or just WP:Be bold? See Talk:Peace_River#primary_use_is_the_river_-_.3F.3F_no.3F.3F.Skookum1 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Launched the RM, see Talk:Peace River#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments announcement...

Canada's first award: Hoodoos in Drumheller, Alberta.

Dear Canadian Wikipedians,

The international jury of "Wiki Loves Monuments" announced the winners, and surprise, a Canadian photo is in the top 10 of the world selection. That said, I wrote a small text to announce the winners, but I'm French speaking and I used an automatic translator for the English version and the result is, of course, disastrous!

So if any of you could read the temporary English version, I would be grateful. Visit: Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 Canada

Thank you in advance, Benoit Rochon (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Thanks, Ben! —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Arctic for giving a hand! Merry Christmas. Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-organization of assemblies and legislatures

I've been standardizing the names of articles and categories about Canadian assemblies and legislatures. See the talk page of WP Cangov to read an explanation of what I've done and to make any comments. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A few days ago I received an email from the Crown Copyright and Licensing Office verifying that they consider crown copyright to expire globally, not just within Canada. Despite this, some are still claiming that this is meaningless and are proceeding to delete images that are in the public domain based on a claim that the Canadian Government has no authority to declare the terms of copyright on the images that it owns. Please take a look and opine your feelings on the situation.

-- Floydian τ ¢ 17:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What I've gotten feedback on before about this is that because Wikipedia's servers are in the US, US copyright law - and the 100 year expiry there - applies, and that Canadian copyright law is irrelevant. Really strange to me, but so is a lot of the extraterrorial nature of US web-conduct. If we say it's public domain and the owner of the copyright (the Crown) agrees, how does it come about that US law says that the Canadian Crown still has the copyright, whether it likes it or not?Skookum1 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Now it's being said that the Crown Copyright Office has no power to declare that the copyright expiry after 50 year applies globally as far as they concerned... This weeks after being told that it was what was required, and when it's the same thing the UK government provided from their equivalent copyright office. - Floydian τ ¢ 08:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The government may not have the power to make the copyright expiry law apply globally, but I assume that as copyright holders they could specifically declare that they choose to release copyrights they hold into the public domain world-wide when Canadian copyright ends. If that's the case, our only option might be to send some politely-worded letters to the responsible minister asking them do so. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That's well done, Floydian. I will review. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hudson's Bay Company

Should the article refer to "HBC" or "the HBC" when using the acronym. Right now the article inconsistently uses both. Please assist at Talk:Hudson's Bay Company/Archives/2014#"The HBC". Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSFOLLOW applies, and the sources say "the HBC" with very rare exceptions. And other than the current New York-owned entity's self-style, the overwhelming historical usage is "the HBC" when used as a noun. cf. the Canadian Encyclopedia, nosracines.ca, heritage.ca, any number of historical articles in the major papers (e.g. Stephen Hume's excellent series in the Vancouver Sun), Canadian Geographic ad nauseam. Why don't you improve on the article's various vaguenesses and glosses and lack of important detail instead of thumping the tub over the use of the definite article?? You said on that page " a Google search seems to indicate that the only real usage of "the HBC" is when HBC is used as a modifier" but you didn't look very hard, cf my own quick search on googlebooks. Consistency is already in the article and is a reflection of the very long-standing usage "the HBC", along with "the NWC", "the CPR", "the CNR". The current company's "about us" page is a rebranding of the usage, and the newspaper headline you cited is irrelevant as grammar/style in headlines is different than in ordinary text. The article needs improvement, but quibbling over a fictive style issue is not productive in any way, nor is polling for support in your unwinnable argument here.Skookum1 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is at Talk:Hudson's Bay Company/Archives/2014#"The HBC". Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

the war on "the"

I'm seeing so much of this across a wide body of articles that it's troubling as to where the language is heading and why; the dismissive attitude towards the sources as "archaic" is only part of it. All over geographic articles I'm seeing phrasing like "in Fraser Canyon" or "on Rocky Mountains", "to Okanagan" and so on..... on the flip side, there's lots of evident second-language articles, mostly those from other countries, where "the" is used where it shouldn't be. WP:MOSFOLLOW is the main issue. But I'm seeing, e.g. on the CN article places where normal English would be, and always has been, "the CNR", and the "the" is missing only when the "railway(s)" is missing, or the "r" is missing. "Canadian National said..." or "CN said..." for example is correct. But company is not a person, nor is a railway, despite a certain infamous court verdict in the US. As someone observed in the HBC section, "CP" is correct, but "the CPR" is also correct. Is it a matter of tradition? Can it be transduced by some kind of grammatical or syntactical analysis or theory? Maybe. But WP:MOSFOLLOW is what it is, and must be. And very often, most often, the modern usage is no different from the historical usage. In cases like "in Fraser Canyon" or "in Fraser Valley" or the like, the missing "the" is just WRONG.Skookum1 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

new bios, long-needed

After noticing that William Culham Woodward was unreferenced, and knowing that an article on his son C.N. ("Chunky") was long-needed, I wrote up his father's article, Charles A. Woodward and also Chunky's at Charles N. "Chunky" Woodward. As with "Boomer" Walkem and "Ma" Murray, I think that the nickname should be included in certain titles, same as why Phil Gaglardi is titled that way instead of "Philip"; not sure what was done with Boss Johnson. Anyways, Charles A has needed an article for a long time, Chunky even moreso, and there's lots could be added to the Douglas Lake Cattle Company article yet; Chunky's bio or the ranch article are definitely long-term candidates for an eventual Featured Article or "Did you Know" bit.Skookum1 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I ran out of steam by the time I got to Chunky's and it's late now, User:Montanabw knows about it and may spiff it up some overnight; for now it's a very basic stub, but ultimately should be the largest of the three.Skookum1 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that Boss Johnson resides at that title, I'd almost venture that Chunky Woodward could/should be the title instead of as I've written it, but won't make that redirect just yet.Skookum1 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Portal Peer Revier

I just want to let you all know that I've done some serious work over at P:CANADA and have since opened a peer review of that work. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Achowat (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

pruning/refinine People from Vancouver cat

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vancouver#refining_People_from_Vancouver_category but also note that there's a lot of what seems like self-promo in there ranging from businesspeople to academics to minor bureacrats.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_19&oldid=1136424253"