Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Map

  Active WikiProject

  Semi-active WikiProject

  Inactive WikiProject

I've put together this useful map, detailing provincial WikiProject activity levels. MB298 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: Perhaps it should be renamed File:Canadian WikiProjects.svg doesn't indicate what WMF site this is for. File:Activity level of Canadian WikiProjects on English Wikipedia MAP.svg would fix that. (Since it's not for Commons, or WikiData, or French Wikipedia) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What criteria was used to determine a WP active v. semi-active? Also, I recommend that the map have a legend within it. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Still think our talk from years ago should be implemented....that is redirect the tlak pages here...we come here anyways. -- Moxy (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's horrible and imperialistic. the WP:QWNB already replaced the WPP Talk Page. And the region/city project talk pages deal with local matters that a national project wouldn't deal with unless there were no local projects. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons

Commons:COM:WikiProject Canada seems to be missing a banner template for tagging Canada related media on Commons. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Parent, Ontario listed at Redirects for discussion

Parent, Ontario is currently a redirect to Thunder Bay District, but the township is not mentioned on that page and I couldn't find any information about it. Therefore, I listed the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Parent, Ontario. Comments from this WikiProject are welcome there. Cnilep (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Regions of Canada

Does anyone know which are the most reliable definitions for defining the regions of Canada? It would be good to decide on which ones to use that closely reflects the climate since I may be planning to write a Wikipedia article on the Climate of Canada in a similar structure to Climate of India and Climate of Argentina (the latter that I have successfully expanded from start class to GA) in which the climate of different regions are described in these articles. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ssbbplayer This may be of some use. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review input requested for Canadian musician and businessman Michael Laucke

Hi. Please join in the peer review of Canadian musician and businessman Michael Laucke. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the coat of arms of Canada

There is an RfC at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RfC: Coat of Arms of Canada focusing on how many coats of arms the Canadian monarch (Canada) uses; in the federal sphere, anyway. Input would be appreciated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you forget Bank holiday in Québec ?

Please check the public holidays list from government site: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/hldys/menu-eng.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.145.4 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A proposed Wikipedia guideline for Naming conventions Canadian stations

Pls see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) -- Moxy (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is for transport and transit stations, and not TV and radio, so the name is rather poor -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bourque

I have reluctantly nominated this article for deletion after finding no quality references in doing a google books search and google search. However, if the claims in the article are accurate he certainly would be considered a notable Canadian. Perhaps there are members of this project who have access to sources offline which may rescue this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I commented on the AFD. I can't find anything offline through database searches myself, though by no means does that mean that there isn't anything. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

James Bay vs James Bay (singer)

See proposal Talk:James Bay (singer) to move the Hudson Bay water body out of the way and move in the English pop singer. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Street names

We usually follow the format Example Street (city), (and not Example Street, City), correct? Was just discussing a similar topic with Hong Kong related streets, and looked into Category:Roads in Toronto, and found it not entirely consistent. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen a policy, or anything consistent. I believe parentheses is the best way to disambiguate. 117Avenue (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: Coincidentally, see the latest thread at WT:CRWP and follow the link to the March 2012 version of the WikiProject page for naming conventions in Canada. Therein may lie an answer for you. It was just noticed as missing and a new home will be found for it tonight. Hwy43 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The WP:CANROADS naming conventions have been reestablished at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Naming. However, it deals only with highways and is silent on streets. Hwy43 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Does WP:CANST have anything? CRWP is for highways, but CANST is for streets -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of WP:CANST. Appears inactive since late 2011. Also nothing there regarding the above. I've since ploughed through all the sub-cats at Category:Streets in Canada by city. With the exception of in Edmonton, the dominant format appears to be parentheses, but it is not an overwhelming majority. IIRC, the MOS or something similar states default format for geographic-related disambiguation is to use parentheses except for communities, which uses the comma convention. WP:CANSTYLE#Geography speaks to natural geographic features, but not constructed ones such as streets, buildings, etc. I agree with 117Avenue that parentheses would be the best way to disambiguate streets. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CANST has never been active. I don't know why it was created, why it couldn't be handled by CANROADS. 117Avenue (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, CRWP and other roads projects refused jurisdiction for streets. Asking about tagging for the various HWY/RD projects to street articles gets rejections. But circumstances may have changed since the time the various STREETS projects were formed. (such as WP:CANST and WP:USST )

Personally, I think a single wikiproject to cover tracks/trails/roads/highways/streets makes more sense. Perhaps we should ask CRWP and CANST to merge together.

-- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Quebec City

anyone want to cleanup the worlds largest infobox--Moxy (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha... I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe removing the image montage at the top, and moving it somewhere else in the article? This might be worth discussing on the article's talk page, in case the people who added all the stuff in the first place have thoughts on it. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a pass at it, more work welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec‎

I am having a dispute at L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec‎ with an editor who is refusing to explain his edits, nor engage in a discussion on the talk page, see Talk:L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec. More editors and input are needed to resolve this. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

HMCS Quebec C66

FYI, HMCS Quebec has been proposed to be merged into HMS Uganda, see the discussion at Talk:HMS Uganda (66) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Mulcair: Is he still NDP leader or now NDP interim leader

We need input at New Democratic Party article. Is Mulcair still leader of the NDP, or is he now interim leader, after having lost a leadership review. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

See 43rd Canadian federal election article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Band government?

Please take a look at Talk:Mi'kmaq#Band government?. Are the Mi'kmaq a band government? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Jean Lapierre's death

The article covering Jean Lapierre's death, 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash, is up for renaming, see talk:2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Massacres in Canada inclusion criteria

For those interested, please see Category talk:Massacres in Canada#Inclusion criteria. Hwy43 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"Balfour Declaration"

The primary topic of "Balfour Declaration" is under discussion, see Talk:Balfour Declaration -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Chrysler reception, rankings, ratings

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.

References
References

Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger of Peace Village, Ontario

I've proposed a merger of Peace Village, Ontario to Maple, Ontario. Please discuss at Talk:Peace Village, Ontario. Mindmatrix 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Newfoundland cod fishery collapse. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose a "Prominent feminist"?

Pls see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rona Ambrose--Moxy (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#How should Indexes and Indicators be used?

Hello. A discussion has been initiated about if and how to include city rankings based on various indicators and indices in city articles. See the discussion here, and also note a similar thread above it. Hwy43 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The topic is how to include Indicators and Indexes, city rankings is not part of this discussion and is already being addressed in this thread. Mkevlar 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:SCref

This template, which is used in several Canadian places, does not seem to work for the 2011 census. As an example this should be for Montreal. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll check this out soonish. Mindmatrix 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

In your example, did you intend for the citation to be to the municipality profile, but instead get the CMA? (I'm assuming this is the case, but I wanted to verify it.) Mindmatrix 14:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you please post the template and values you used to generate that link? Mindmatrix 14:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble duplicating your problems. I've used the following:

• Montreal CMA: {{SCref|year=2011|unit=cma|type=prof|code=462}}, resulting in "Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23 (Code 462) Census Profile". 2011 census. Government of Canada - Statistics Canada. 2012.
• Montreal CD: {{SCref|year=2011|unit=cd|type=prof|code=2466}}, resulting in "Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23 (Code 2466) Census Profile". 2011 census. Government of Canada - Statistics Canada. 2012.

Both of those work for me. Mindmatrix 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The template fails if you don't fill in the year. It uses a default value of 2011, but appears to be incorrectly implemented or processed. In the meantime, fill in a value for the year. (Note that I see the point of failure, but not why it's failing. The template appears to be correctly specified, based on the documentation for the ParserFunctions and default value processing. Anybody curious about this can peruse the Mediawiki pages Help:Extension:ParserFunctions, Help:Parser functions in templates, and Help:Templates.) Mindmatrix 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Will Amos

An apparent WP:SPA editor is adding content to Liberal MP Will Amos regarding his position (or non-position, more accurately) on issues pertaining to Gatineau Park in his riding — specifically, the insinuation is that he had ethically dubious reasons for refusing to take a position that might cost him the support of a local homeowner's association, and the only source provided for the claim is Buzzfeed. This is not adequate sourcing for a matter which has not been substantively covered by any mainstream media, and the fact that the editor is an SPA whose edit history pertains almost exclusively to Gatineau Park strongly suggests an agenda that is not compatible with Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. However, I've tried twice now to remove the content from the article as improperly sourced and not neutral, but the SPA has reverted me both times. Is anybody else willing to take a look at the article to review the matter and weigh in one way or the other? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The content being added is improperly sourced, obviously failing NPOV and in one case original research. I've reverted the IP again. Maybe it is worth trying to engage with the person on the talk page? Ajraddatz (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree a stronger reference source is required especially considering the other controversy seems to be baseless. I reverted it and the user does not have a user page to post discussion inclusion tags. Mkevlar (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michele Heights

The article Michele Heights has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely uncited, fails WP:LOCAL and generally seems not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MacMed^talk_stalk 00:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Canadian border or Canada–US border

I have started a discussion at Talk:Canada–United States border about the use of "Canadian border" vs "Canada–US border" in articles. Would like some input either way. Alaney2k (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

sports group?

How active is the sports group of this project? I'm an active contributor at WP:CFL, but I just saw a WikiProject template from a CFL bio for the first time today. Would this project want biographies of those that played in the CFL to be tagged? ~ Rob^Talk 22:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How to apply WP:ENGVAR

An unregistered editor has decided to put "use British English" templates on the talk pages of three articles - Talk:Barclays Bank Canada, Talk:National Westminster Bank of Canada, and Talk:Lloyds Bank of Canada - on the basis that they are or were UK-owned. I have been started a discussion on those pages as I believe this is a misapplication of WP:ENGVAR. Comments would be welcome. Ground Zero | t 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No article alerts since 8 June

I noticed this project does not display any alerts more recent than 8 June. Any thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal has been nominated for discussion

Category:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadian television logs (an amazing resource!)

• The following FTP site contains Canadian television logs dating back to August 1999: ftp://support.crtc.gc.ca/
• It appears that this link is no longer being updated, and may soon be decommissioned altogether. I have therefore requested that a proper web archive be made of the site, which can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/support_crtc_gc_ca15052016
• Much more recent logs (starting from September 2014, so there is some overlap) are now being posted here, but the files seem to be constantly updated and thus potentially unreliable: http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/800106c1-0b08-401e-8be2-ac45d62e662e

Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is a generic citation for the current version of the logs directory (which is unlikely to be updated anyway): Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

And here's one for the newer link (note that the date given on the page is obviously wrong, and thus not included): Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Certainly of interest to some especially committed media geeks, but I'm not sure I see what use this is to Wikipedia as referencing for anything that warrants note in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The obvious use is for original episode airdates for Canadian television series. The number of entirely unsourced, and largely wrong, Canadian airdates on Wikipedia right now is astronomical. Even more bizarrely, the only other major source for this (AFAIK), Zap2it, seems to have almost as many mistakes of that type. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC about lead section of country article

I am requesting comments about the lead section of Singapore and I have cited Canada as a good example due to it being a featured article. I would appreciate if editors can comment here. Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New book

Maybe relevant for Sport in Canada or Manitoba#Sports, new history book: Thrashing Seasons: Sporting Culture in Manitoba and the Genesis of Prairie Wrestling, University of Manitoba Press (distributed in the US by Michigan State University Press), 2016. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism issue

Just a heads up to WikProject Canada: earlier this month, a user began undertaking a campaign of editing Canadian people's BLPs to replace the names of cities, provinces and Canada itself with "Traditional [Insert Name of First Nation] Territory" (e.g. writer Proma Tagore was described as living in "Coast Salish Territories" instead of Vancouver) — in addition to Tagore, the other affected articles were Larissa Lai, Harsha Walia and Rita Wong (and I think it not entirely accidental that the articles involved were all women of South Asian descent associated with the Vancouver area.) They were frequently reverted, but then rereverted the reversions despite talk page warnings, and in a couple of cases there was no reversion at all until I learned of this today — accordingly, I've blocked them as a disruptive editor, but I just wanted to let everybody know to be on the lookout in case this problem recurs. In particular, if you come across a similar situation, immediately check that user's edit history to ensure that the disruption isn't getting overlooked in other articles besides the one you already saw. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Hardcastle

Writer Kevin Hardcastle started an article about himself earlier today, but then misunderstood our COI rules and listed the article for deletion on "I shouldn't have started the article myself" grounds. However, our COI rules do not actually force deletion of an article on that basis — his base notability claim does pass WP:AUTHOR and its sourceability does pass WP:GNG, so all the article really needed was a quick review for neutrality and formatting issues. It's actually an entirely keepable article with a valid notability claim and valid referencing, so I and one other editor who's participated in the discussion have both already supported a WP:SNOW keep on the grounds that the deletion rationale was just an honest misunderstanding rather than an actual dealbreaker. Is anybody with experience in closing AFD discussions willing to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Hardcastle as a snow keep? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Always a pleasure when an autobiographical article turns out like this. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Molto grazie Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cadillac Fairview malls

As many of you know, Cadillac Fairview has started branding its malls with a "CF" prefix (e.g. CF Chinook Centre, CF Eaton Centre, etc.). Accordingly, for the past few months some of the mall articles have been moving back and forth between the traditional mall names and the new CF mall name monickers. Rather than having a series of individual battles, with possibly inconsistent results, I thought it might make sense to have a central discussion to try and find some comprehensive consensus. My gut reaction is that the new CF names have not yet been shown to meet the WP:COMMONNAME test, and I noticed this morning that newspapers in Toronto (I checked the Globe and the Star) are mostly not using the CF names (although someone should do a more thorough media review). If this discussion has already occurred, my apologies. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I did a search for Eaton Centre as an example and other than press releases or other non-independent sources, all other sources don't include CF. The CF shouldn't be included right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Did a similar look yesterday, before requesting move reverts. The user in question (@Echaryk: works in marketing for CF (simple Google search tells you this), and there are almost no reliable sources that put CF in front of the names.

Also, in general Wikipedia doesn't use sponsorship names (for example the many sponsored sports stadia that don't use their official/sponsored name). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody except CF appears to use the addition of their corporate identity. Recent advertising materials for high profile tenants don't (see recent Nordstrom announcements), nor do any of the websites for existing tenants that I have found. In addition, even CF's own website refers to the centres without the 'CF' in the majority of prose on many pages. Considering that the centres already have established public identities, unless CF is undertaking a gradual complete rebranding of all of them to simply 'CF Centre' or similar, I can't see how this clumsy agglutination will ever really catch on and we shouldn't be in the position of leading that process. Pyrope 19:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

On a side note, regarding North American sports venues: since the media typically uses the sponsored name, usually the corresponding Wikipedia article will be renamed when the venue is renamed. However it's unclear at this point if the subtle rebranding of the malls will result in a change in common usage. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Compare the former CN & CP railway hotels now in the Fairmont chain, all having been officially so branded for at least a decade: I just had a quick look at a handful of our articles, and none of those are under titles beginning with “(The) Fairmont”.—Odysseus1479 00:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fairmont Royal York does, although in that case this is to disambiguate the Toronto establishment from other 'Royal York' hotels. However, in the majority of cases you are absolutely right. Pyrope 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Other than noting the 'CF' in the article, I see no reason to change from the common names. If there is a new mall to be built with a new name, I could understand that possibly. But right now, I don't see the company being able to get the 'CF' into common usage. I believe it is more for industry insiders, and the retail and construction industry media. E.g. urbantoronto.ca. Alaney2k (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Yes I do work for Cadillac Fairview and I am simply just trying to update the content in the Wikipedia pages to ensure they are accurate. The mall properties were rebranded recently with "CF" at the end of 2015. This is not a sponsorship, rather it's the new legal name of the buildings. Signage in the buildings have been updated to reflect this change as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Echaryk (talk • contribs)

@Echaryk: We don't go by legal name in Wikipedia. As previously mentioned, 'CF' can be noted in the article, but the malls are commonly referred to by the public without your corporate suffix. I doubt if you do that internally either. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Echaryk, I think you should review our guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making any further edits to CF-related articles. Second, we believe our articles are accurate when they reflect the English-language naming that is generally used in the world (see WP:COMMONNAME), which does not necessarily correspond to official names or corporate branding (although the latter can be mentioned in the body of an article, as Secondarywaltz notes above). Thus, we have articles, for example, on Bob Rae, Rhode Island and Quebec City, not Robert Keith Rae, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, or Ville de Québec. If the general public and media start to routinely refer to these malls as "CF Eaton Centre", "CF Sherway Gardens", etc. then we would, of course, reconsider the titles of these articles.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Echaryk, what you're being told in this discussion is correct — the title of a page is dictated by the thing's WP:COMMONNAME, not its "official" one. So the "CF" addition can be noted in the body of the article, but it's not appropriate to move the page to a new title until somebody can demonstrate that the new name has actually superseded the old one in common usage. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. Many of the higher profile articles had already been moved back to the original titles some time ago, so I cleaned up whatever was left. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• On March 13, Echaryk changed the articles again, despite being told not to. I have reverted them. freshacconci talk to me 14:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Taking a few of your reverts at random, the changes made seem fairly innocuous and minor: [1], [2], [3]. This edit has a more subjective element, regarding what stores should be considered anchor tenants, but I don't feel the edit is promotional, which your warning on the user's talk page is about. Perhaps the editor can be given appropriate guidance regarding the best approach to make minor article updates? I know the usual advice is "use the talk page", but for low-profile pages there may be a lengthy delay before someone decides to take any action. Perhaps for trivial changes such as updating a web site link, minor factual updates, or insubstantial copy edits, something more streamlined could be suggested? (A paid-contributor disclosure still hasn't been given in the prescribed manner, which remains an issue.) isaacl (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Per my interpretation of Wikipedia:Article titles, I actually do think that the CF prefixes should be used. The relevant guideline states that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The old names are inaccurate because they no longer reflect the actual names of the facilities. The common names guideline also states that "if [reliable] sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match"; searching for CF Polo Park on Google News leads to a number of major reliable sources (including local news stations and the Winnipeg Free Press, the city's newspaper of record, referring to it by this name. Hence, it is approriate to apply this change.

In some situations, the new names actually lead to natural disambiguation, which is preferred.ViperSnake151  Talk  21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think this point was made before. If the common name becomes the CF-prefixed one, then it's normal to change that article's title. You could still probably get many more hits on the name without the CF though. I got over 300000 hits for Polo park and 17,700 for CF polo park. For '"polo park" shopping winnipeg' I still got over 100,000. So I would think it would still be premature. I have not seen any reference to Fairview Mall or Sherway Gardens with the CF prefix. So I think we would continue on a case-by-case basis. Alaney2k (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Alaney2k, as well as with the consensus above. The common names are neither ambiguous (nobody has proposed renaming Sherway Gardens, for example, to That big mall in Etobicoke) nor inaccurate (we are using the actual common name, and it is a well established principle here on Wikipedia that a common name, even if it differs from an official name, is not incorrect). I did a spot check for many of these malls, and 2016 references overwhelmingly still use the common names with which we have continued to use for the article titles. If that changes, any editor can come back here to initiate a new discussion to reconsider. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Switching Canada links to Canadians links

I have been changing links such as [[Canada|Canadian]] to [[Canadians|Canadian]] for articles about Canadian persons. I have been using AWB to do this. It was pointed out to me that I should have started a discussion about this first (see WP:ASSISTED which I was not aware of -- there are so many policies!). I think this is non-controversial so I had gone ahead and did a bunch of conversions. I got a few thanks, but I have got a couple of objections. Any thoughts here? Alaney2k (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I was one of the people who objected to Alaney2k's editing. To clarify, changing [[Canada|Canadian]] to [[Canadians|Canadian]] is not the only type of edit being made, and IMO is not objectionable if done carefully. However, there are also new links being added in contravention of various parts of the linking guideline, including WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE, as well as a number of more substantive additions being made using AWB. These I think need wider discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the adjective Canadian (about Canada) and the noun Canadian (the Canadian people). This would have to be done with care. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Using the link for Canadian writer, but not Canadian business, or Canadian province. I was doing that. Most Canadian bio articles do have links to the Canadians page, but some do not. I was adding the link to the Canadians page. I'm not sure, but I think that was at least part of the objections I received. I think wp:overlink does not prohibit Canada or Canadians links in the infobox, but I thinks others might disagree. Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No. It violates WP:OVERLINK as Canada and Canadians are a common term. Think of it this way. Would a person come to Wikipedia asking, "What is the nationality those people who live north of the United States. You know, Rudy Weibe is one of them. Oh, I know. I'll just check his article." No one is looking for that link on an author's page, so it's unnecessary. You should clarify on the linking talk page if you think I'm making too much of this. If however you were to link to Canadian nationality law, that would be a different issue, because the parameter is nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you are constructing something artificial there. I would go to the article for the article, not the nationality. I would see the link. Myself, I see a pop-up of the article. Both on my desktop and on my phone. And I get a bit of information. But at any rate, it would always be a secondary or minor thing. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a common term. That is why it should not be linked. The rationale is, would a read want to link to the subject to find out more? In other words, would a read intentionally go to an article about a writer to find their way to an article about that writer's citizens? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In a biography, most definitely, I actually do it all the time. Helps put the persons life in perspective. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that at least one link to the nationality of a person is expected in an encyclopedic context. I don't think you could create a consensus of Wikipedia editors otherwise. Just look at common practice here. Alaney2k (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I feel it is somewhat unexpected for the adjective "Canadian" to link to an article about the people of Canada. I would only expect such a link in articles that were discussing cultures or peoples. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This might be reflected in why I've found there is a split of links. Some link to Canada, and I've found lots that link to Canadians. I don't think it would be helpful to point to a disambiguation page. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

But it is common practice to link to the persons article, whether it is Americans, Scottish people, whatever. Alaney2k (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you are discussing the lead sentence in a biography, in accordance with English Wikipedia's guidance for biographies, the adjective generally refers to the person's nationality, so I think it is more expected for a link (if any) to go to the country in question. An article about the people of a particular background is about culture, rather than citizenship or residency. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

These articles about the people of a country are more than culture. There is demographics, citizenship info. Canadians also includes the First Nations, founding nations. Alaney2k (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear on how the split should work between a country article and a peoples article: it seems to me that citizenship information, demographics and discussion of the peoples within a country should be included in a country article, since these require the context of a country. In the case of Canada, I guess the peoples article can be considered a spinout of the country article, though it leads to inconsistencies with other peoples articles that cover residents of other countries who maintain strong ties to another ethnic background. isaacl (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've always expected it to go to an article about the people of that background, not the country. There was a move quite awhile back that was switching all articles from linking to the country to linking to the people page, but it like many things fizzled out which is why you likely see a mix of both being done. We aren't talking about the country when we say Canadian we are speaking about the type of person in a biography. If it was something like a product or a business it would be different. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The use of the word 'Canadian' as an adjective should be avoided in some cases. For example, 'Canadian village' located in province xxx. Also, when we are talking about things like Canadian music or Canadian musicians. It is a bit vague to say Canadian rock band. Do they play Canadian rock or are they Canadian nationals playing rock? It is a bit pedantic, because it usually explained later in the article, but in every case I've seen they are Canadian nationals. Alaney2k (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

According to guidance to which I linked, it is nationality being referenced, not background. In the case of Canadians, though, where there isn't really a diaspora to speak of, the two largely overlap. For other cases where background diverges from nationality, such as ethnic Chinese in other Asian countries, it's more tricky. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your nationality is part of your background. What you are trying to refer to is your ethnicity, which is also part of your background. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Canadians article is not solely about ethnicity, so I did mean to refer to background, which I agree includes ethnicity. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, my point was that the article Canadians isn't just about ethnicity, therefore it is the appropriate link as background is also about nationality. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As you are aware, the guidance specifically says that nationality should be specified in the lead, and that Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Thus the guidance is not for background in general, encompassing nationality, ethnicity, and other components, but just for nationality. Nonetheless, let's see what others feel is an appropriate link; perhaps there is a consensus for a more general link. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And since nationality is discussed on that page, then it does cover nationality much better than the country article which doesn't so much. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention that the persondata template is going away, and one of the alternatives is to put info in infoboxes. I've been deleting the persondata where there is an infobox. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Actuallly, Wikidata is intended to be the primary alternative to persondata - the template should be removed when the data is already represented in Wikidata, not just in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

They've already captured the persondata. But the infoboxes also make it easier to put data into wikidata. Alaney2k (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If you mean that having the information in an infobox makes it easier for someone to enter the info into Wikidata, I find the real time-consuming task is entering the source of the data, which then requires you to create entries for the properties of the source if they don't already exist. Maybe after a while I'd get more proficient at it, but there's still a lot of meta data that has to be entered. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so let's step back. If I simply change [[Canada|Canadian]] to [[Canadians|Canadian]] for Canadian persons only and not mess with infoboxes, adding extra links, other Canadian things/etc. that that takes care of objections? I think discussing more than that muddies the waters. I definitely went beyond what was simple and non-controversial. These other things can be another topic. I think it would be beneficial to discuss some of those things -- to get some of this recorded. Make my editing better and be a help to others? Alaney2k (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As above, I have no objection to that particular change so long as it is done carefully. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just run across the substituting of Canadian for Canada, purely accidentally, in the course of gnoming and correcting errors, and followed to this discussion; yes, i'm late to the party, but i think there are still issues, perhaps with execution rather than concept (though, in mine opinion, as someone else stated above, linking to Canada may well be overlinking. Anyway, i have looked at three of the edits made by Alaney2k, and found an issue with each of them; i have mentioned it on his talk page, but i'm bringing it up here, also, to get a few more eyes on edits which may contain potential problems. I found Warner Music Canada, where i reverted because the category "1990 in Canadian music" was changed to "1990 in [[Canadians|Canadian]]", which makes less than no sense. I also had to change part of his edit in Warren Kinsella, where something similar had happened in a category. The third is a little different, in that the opening sentence of Hnat Domenichelli now reads "'''Hnat A. Domenichelli''' (born February 16, 1976) is a former [[Canadians|Canadian]]-[[Switzerland|Swiss]] former professional [[ice hockey]] player"; to me this is a problem because "Canadian" links to "Canadians" and "Swiss" links to "Switzerland", which is a distinct lack of consistency. Sure, it's easy to change, but if AWB is being used to make these changes, it should be making all of them it comes across, not a random selection. I'll ping Isaacl, Nikkimaria, Djsasso, Secondarywaltz and Walter Görlitz as previous participants in this conversation; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I have the authority to make the Swiss change under this task. Alaney2k (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the Hnat A. Domenichelli one because that is typically how such changes are made. You work on one set and then go back and work on the others. WP:NODEADLINE and all that. The other two appear to just be clicking too fast on AWB. I suggest slowing down a bit on the changes to avoid such mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Alaney2k (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I also have had to edit several of these changes and to me this effort seems to be at best a waste of time. I think that if you are going to go to the trouble of finding all of the [[Canada|Canadian]] links then you would be better off just changing them to not be links. Cjrother (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be perfect. When using AWB, you have to be very vigilant, with some of the scroll windows being small. That said, I have edited several thousand articles successfully, so I believe my error rate is very small. As for changing them to not be links, I am aware of that issue, as described in wp:linking and its defenders. However, it appears that a majority of Wikipedia articles that do have links to nationalities do not observe wp:linking, and so I am working in a 'real-world' situation where the links exist. Based on the evidence, there does not appear to be consensus on the issue except for the editors who work on that section of the MOS. IMO, there is NOT a clear standard for that. If we had wording as simple as, do not link to countries at all, that would be more clear. Instead it is 'major geographical locations' which again IMO is vague. Provinces yes/no? And who decides? Not clearly spelled out. And, there seems to only be one buggy user script to edit to standard. And some infoboxes for persons have an attribute for nationality, while others don't. I think the sensible approach is to simply provide one link in the infobox and remove the wlinks in the prose, or the prose if no infobox place is available. I think it's best to accept this minimal amount, but I know that others feel very strongly about reducing it to zero. Alaney2k (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Governor General's Confederation Medal

Does anybody know if the "Governor General's Confederation Medal" is the same as the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Distribution of The 1867 Confederation Medal requires "an order of His Excellency the Governor General in Council" (and) so might be called the "Governor General's Confederation Medal". Debouch (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That won't work. The article in question is Rosemarie Kuptana so it has to be later than that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. Well, there's this. Debouch (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are in the article as references. It's a odd one. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Taliyah Marsman and Sara Baillie

Their murder has gotten a lot of media national attention in Canada. Should it get an article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. See WP:1E. Mindmatrix 19:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Likely not. The Tim Bosma case nearly got deleted at AfD, and that was far more prominent than this one.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sad as the story is, the victims were not notable people. PKT(alk) 20:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:1E seems to be discussing indiduals getting a new article who are part of an event. It doesn't seem to apply or discuss individual crime cases. There are countless articles on cases of children who were murdered and got national media attention. For example Cecilia Zhang, Leigh Leigh, Tia Rigg. Using WP:1E, you could argue that none of them deserve pages. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Every murder that happens is not automatically a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. The basis for an article would be significant long-term effects — e.g. legislative changes caused by the crime — that satisfy the ten-year test (i.e. is there a compelling reason why people might still need to read an article about this ten years from now?), not just the immediate blip of coverage in the first few days after it happened. Every murder that happens at all will always get some degree of media coverage at first — but unfortunately, murder is far, far too common in this world for every murder to be considered inherently notable, so getting a murder into Wikipedia requires far more long-term significance to be demonstrated than just the fact of being able to source that the murder occurred. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Peter Maxwell Ewart

Peter Maxwell Ewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would somebody from WP:CANADA mind taking a look at this article and assessing it. Most of the sourcing appears to be primary, so it's not clear how this person satisfies WP:ARTIST or even WP:GNG. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wolf Krakowski

Would someone mind taking a look at Wolf Krakowski and assessing it. It's unsourced so it's not clear if he is notable per WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:GNG. Article was created back in 2004 (when the notability guidelines might have been a little laxer than they are now), so it's not eligible for WP:BLPPROD. I googled his name and got quite a few hits, but nothing looked like the significant coverage needed for GNG. Perhaps someone else knows where better sources might be found? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Canada's Got Talent

Back in 2012, when Canada's Got Talent was running and nobody knew yet that it was not going to continue past one season, the articles were created under the typical reality show pattern of an overview article at Canada's Got Talent and a separate article for the first season. However, now that we know there's unlikely to ever be a season two, it's not so clear anymore that a standalone "season 1" article is actually necessary — so I've proposed at Talk:Canada's Got Talent that the season 1 article be merged into the main one. But since it's a low traffic topic, I'm not sure it's going to see enough input for consensus to get decided one way or the other. Are there any WCNBers who care to weigh in? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Capitol Theatre Windsor

Capitol Theatre Windsor looks like it's going to be deleted for copyvio unless someone wants to cut it back to a non-copyvio text. (Not sure about all the photos, either, if the permissions are in order.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done stripped it back to a stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October

I am not a regular participant to this WikiProject, so please excuse my intrusion. Still, I thought this would be of interest. Thanks RightCowLeftCoast for introducing this conference in a previous note here.

I am inviting participants in WikiProject United States to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

• We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
• We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
• More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact FloNight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
• Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
• This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. I thought that I should share this information here, as this conference includes the regional focus of this WikiProject. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oddly similar edits

Has anyone else come across edits by new and different users that seem to have the same purpose. For example, this diff by Rossgatih (talk · contribs), this diff by Desaandr (talk · contribs), and this diff by FrankWushuang (talk · contribs). All these accounts were created recently, and all have made edits only to one article. There doesn't appear to be anything inherently wrong with the editing, other than properly citing sources and lack of encyclopedic tone. Mindmatrix 21:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mindmatrix, we had a bonus assignment in our final essay, where we had to edit a Wiki article using data that we collected from the 2006 Longform Census, as well as the 2011 National Household Survey. So, several people from that course would have made new accounts in order to post one finding from the census. Rossgatih (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Those entire population sections are very poorly worded in general, even before the recent edits. They feel like someone has a racial axe to grind and the wording is most definitely not encyclopaedic. They really need completely reworked to be of encyclopaedic quality. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the details Rossgatih. Note: some of the other edits can be found from Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Neighbourhoods in Toronto. New editors I've found so far include:

BiancaRC (talk · contribs)

Cindy Lawrence95 (talk · contribs)

Daneoraptor (talk · contribs)

Etp89 (talk · contribs)

JanessaDuran (talk · contribs)

Jmonae7 (talk · contribs)

Kierraleyco (talk · contribs)

LMotta32 (talk · contribs)

Ragbeerk‎ (talk · contribs)

Saad Shafiq‎ (talk · contribs)

Sarahahmed11 (talk · contribs)

Sophieadds‎ (talk · contribs)

Sylvanniss‎ (talk · contribs)

Yuri Yasuke (talk · contribs)

Yifanyc (talk · contribs)

24.246.52.7 (talk · contribs)

Others which may not be linked to the above course, but still exhibit similar editing patterns:

Cveddpaddick (talk · contribs)

Jimmy.ckl (talk · contribs)

Are there any others? Mindmatrix 16:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am a new user and I did make edits to a similar article at a similar time as these other users, but as you will see it is not related to the same topics (2006 Census data and 2011 National Household Survey) as the other users listed above. I have no issue with you listing me here (as you are clearly trying to maintain the integrity of these articles) but just wanted to clarify that I am not part of this school project, I am just beginning to edit Wikipedia after religiously relying on it over the last 10 years. Also my incorrected citations have already been fixed by another user. Thanks Sylvanniss (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've stricken you're username from the list. (I had been hesitant to add yours, as you were the only user in the bunch with edits to other articles.) Mindmatrix 17:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Outline of New Brunswick

		The Original Barnstar
		is hereby awarded to PKT for creating and developing the Outline of New Brunswick. Well done. Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Fenian Raids and List of wars involving Canada

I'd appreciate some knowledgeable eyes on Fenian Raids and List of wars involving Canada. The issue is whether the Fenian raids into Ontario can be called successes, and whether the overall campaign should be deemed a stalemate vs. a victory for Canada. It seems a bit odd to me that a few raids across the border that were quickly repulsed and for which the perpetrators were jailed by their own government is even considered a war, but even more strange that one could argue that any of the raids were successful and that the action ended in a military stalemate. Meters (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Canada selected article and Template:Canada selected biography

Template:Canada selected article and Template:Canada selected biography have been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Canada. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Graham (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pat Hickey

FYI, there's a big red and pink cleanup notice at Pat Hickey -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Issue resolved by user Parkfly20 ...... PKT(alk) 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

List of people from Winnipeg

Hi there - could some of you please visit Talk:List of people from Winnipeg#Multiple entries and log your opinions? We would appreciate more input on the question being asked. Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 21:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we please have some more input to this discussion? TYVM! PKT(alk) 00:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Governor General as an author?

Dear editors: This article: Walter Ostanek has many references in which the author is listed as the Governor General of Canada. This seems unlikely to me. Perhaps some of them are published by the "Office of the Governor General of Canada"? I looked at the article in the Canadian Encyclopedia and didn't see an author listed. Should changes be made here?—Anne Delong (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the first ref from this link (found at the Gazette archive here). I haven't checked the others, though I suspect the same could be done for those. Mindmatrix 18:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

Over the past couple of days, a user named WSDavitt has been tarting Jian Ghomeshi up with a lot of point of view and original research punditry about whether the sexual harassment allegations and criminal trial against Jian Ghomeshi were justified or not. Some sample text; the only change I've made here is to replace a footnote number with a summary of the citation represented by the footnote:

“ As discussed above, the Rubin Report's conclusions were not based on full information and the scope of the investigation was limited. Consequently, the media's coverage was similarly limited. Ghomeshi did not participate in Rubin's investigation in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal proceedings. [Source: The primary source text of Rubin Report itself.] Therefore, the information in the Report is incomplete and one-sided. In addition, the scope of the Rubin investigation was limited to Ghomeshi's conduct. [Source: The primary source text of Rubin Report itself.] No inquiries were made about misconduct of other employees who worked at Q. Therefore, the fairness of the Report, and the related media coverage, is questionable.

Because of the substantial legal fees incurred, Ghomeshi's success at trial is a Pyrrhic victory.

”

Obviously this is inappropriate, and I've already reverted and bumped the page protection back up to admin only for the time being to put a lid on it, but the fact that it was able to go on for three days without anybody stepping in to kibosh it is still a problem. Are people just tapped out for giving a shit about the Ghomeshi matter anymore, or is this just another one for the "Wikipedia is dying out" file? Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I should note, as well, that there was also a post to the article's talk page a few days ago, requesting that we totally poleaxe any acknowledgement at all of Kathryn Borel's post-trial statement on the courthouse steps, on the grounds that it was libellous and therefore violates our WP:BLP rules. (Except, of course, that our rules prevent us from engaging in unsourced libel; they do not prevent us from including properly sourced NPOV content about other people's statements.) I don't know whether all of this is an active campaign by Ghomeshi's own PR flacks to scrub his reputation, or just a bunch of random MRAs tackling things themselves, but there appears to be a concerted campaign underway to turn the Wikipedia article into a POV editorial about how an innocent man got railroaded by an unfair system. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hip, hip, boohoo

A new article was created earlier today about The Tragically Hip's Man Machine Poem Tour. While I'm sure I don't actually need to explain to anybody here of all places the reasons why this tour would pass Wikipedia's rules for the notability of concert tours, the problem at the moment is that the article doesn't actually contain the content or sourcing that would demonstrate that — in its existing form, it follows the generic "the tour happened, here are the venues they played, the end" format that normally marks a tour as not notable enough to stand alone as an independent article. The content and sourcing that would get it over NTOUR is obviously possible — but it isn't present in the article yet. Is anybody willing to help assist in getting it up to snuff? Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Should be redirected to a section in the main article about the final concert that broke a bunch of records T-Star. "11.7 million Canadians tuned in to Tragically Hip's last concert -About 1/3 Canada's population". Https:. Retrieved August 26, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)...or ...a good move would be to put the main points in the album article..-- Moxy (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There was more than enough media coverage of the tour itself, and more than enough that can be said about how important a cultural phenomemon it was, for it to be eligible for a standalone article per WP:NTOUR. Most concert tours don't qualify for standalone article topics, but this one quite clearly does get over the bar more than most — the article just doesn't actually contain any of that potential content, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

New article: Martin Nordegg

Hi there! I'm new to Wikipedia and interested in promoting Canadian history. Specifically, I've been looking into the town of Nordegg, Alberta. I've been working on an article about Martin Nordegg, the town founder. He's a fascinating Canadian pioneer and entrepreneur (IMO)! I'm looking for people to review the article and help me with making sure the formatting is correct.

I'm also wondering how I can contribute or link the Martin Nordegg article to Wikiproject Canada. Is there a way I could do that? Is it within the scope of this project? Thanks! Genoah77 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the scope, I would think so; I’ve templated the article‘s Talk page.—Odysseus1479 09:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We need dit

Or perhaps Template:French-Canadian name.

Louis Riel mentions the subject's wife Marguerite Monet dit Bellehumeur, his friend Father Fabien Martin dit Barnabé, and "a passionate romance with Evelina Martin dit Barnabé, sister of his friend, the oblate father Fabien Barnabé", but links/says/indicates nothing about this "dit", not even a dot or a dah. See Talk:Louis Riel § dit, and please {{ping}} me and discuss there.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that Dit name ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Piché (film)

With the upcoming Sully (film), it seems like we should have an article on the Canadian equivalent « Piché — L'atterrissage d'un homme » -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the film's title was actually fr:Piché, entre ciel et terre, and I'm not seeing any evidence that Sully was directly based on or inspired by it. A film is not automatically a "related topic", or an urgent priority for immediate creation, just because it happens to have superficial similarities of theme to an otherwise unrelated film — it would become more critical for us to rush an article about Piché if Sully were directly based on it, but Sully doesn't boost Piché's priority level just because they happen to be about two superficially similar but otherwise unrelated real-life aviation incidents. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

Hello. After a content dispute, I recently took an issue to BLPN. The thread is WP:BLPN#Brian Day, and it is about how to frame the debate about a controversial Canadian physician. I don't really understand the issues involved so well, and I would really like for more clueful editors to both chime into the BLPN discussion and to watchlist the article. Thank you. I'm also going to post this to WikiProject Medicine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating - settlement vs. creek

Heyo, I just created a stub for a creek - Scotch Creek (Shuswap Lake). There is currently an article for the settlement of the same name - Scotch Creek. Is this the best way to dismbig the two? Or is there a better option. Best, The Interior (Talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In this case since neither topic is obviously "primary", I would move Scotch Creek to Scotch Creek, British Columbia and make Scotch Creek into a disambiguation page. I would also put hatnotes in each article pointing to the other. See Lac la Biche, Lac la Biche (Alberta) and Lac La Biche, Alberta for how a similar case is handled. Indefatigable (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Indefatigable, thanks for the Lac la Biche example. That seems like a good solution - I guess Scotch Creek (Shuswap Lake) should really be Scotch Creek (British Columbia) by that logic; it seems like the parent waterbody disambiguation is for when there's two waterbodies of the same name in the same regional subdivision ... The Interior (Talk) 18:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Another one for the watchlisters

Two days ago, an anonymous editor added Kellie Leitch to Category:Canadian LGBT Members of Parliament, and this wasn't reverted until I noticed it just now. I'm not going to claim to have any personal insider knowledge of whether she is a lesbian or not, but nobody else gets to claim that on Wikipedia either — and she's certainly not reliably sourceable as being out as lesbian, which is the baseline for categorization as such on Wikipedia. But if this went two days without getting caught, there obviously aren't enough people monitoring the article. Anybody willing to add it to their watchlists in case this recurs? Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

done Meters (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I added it too. It's a good one to watch. Thanks. Air.light (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Navbox Canada#Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

...your input is needed. Cabayi (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

is 1965 vintage. The later roundel for instance is

Actual I much prefer a real flag. 213.205.251.75 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

213.205.251.75, please keep the discussion in one place, at Template talk:Navbox Canada#Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2016. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

CHMB

There's an editwar brewing at CHMB over the admissibility of claims that the station is part of a network of Chinese government propaganda stations in North America. In 2015, Reuters did publish a news story indicating that a number of Chinese language stations in the US and Canada were broadcasting content syndicated from a company owned by the Chinese state broadcaster; however, that source did not explicitly name CHMB, but just vaguely alluded to "a station in Vancouver" and required original research to extract which station in Vancouver was being referred to. But the person who originally added the content has consistently reverted anybody who's tried to remove it. I've put the page under temporary edit protection to kibosh the editwarring, but wanted to ask (a) if anybody else has any additional input, and (b) if anybody else is willing to watchlist the page to aid in monitoring the situation once the protection expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Just Like Mom

The article Just Like Mom has received sporadic attention over the past few years to insert claims of pedophilia. These claims are quite extreme, but subtler claims, such as in this recent edit, are more legitimate. I've found a few online links (For All You Fergie Olver Fans Across the World at Maclean's, and Watch a game show host get to first base with children at Toronto Life, referring to the Maclean's piece, which refers to a NYMag piece, and all of which cite a YouTube video). An example video referred to is this one, which clearly demonstrates the subtler claims.

I'm getting tired of babysitting this article, and am seeking opinions about how to deal with this. (Aside: Are the source links I provided those magazines' blog sections, or is this the new style of journalism for these magazines? ie - SLYT) Mindmatrix 14:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jaime Weinman is an Associate Editor at Maclean's and Toronto Life is a reputable magazine, so both would qualify as reliable sources. Anything to be included should hew as closely as to what reliable sources say.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of those sources, for the record, are very brief blurbs which simply discuss the existence of a YouTube video rather than discussing in depth any serious allegations of improper conduct on the show. So while there might be a place for a very brief acknowledgement of that video, they fall far short of adequately supporting anything that Wikipedia editors have actually tried to write about the issue so far. One of the earliest edits I've seen, for example, actually crossed the line into claiming that Fergie Olver was actually on criminal trial for pedophilia charges — which is simply not true.

And even the YouTube video itself is not valid sourcing for allegations of child sexual abuse in and of itself, either. A YouTube video can literally be cut to take anything out of context in support of something other than what was originally intended — literally just two days ago, for example, I saw a YouTube video in which somebody took a clip from a French dub of Star Trek: Voyager, and subtitled it with imaginary comedy dialogue (not at all corresponding to what was actually being spoken) in which Janeway and Seven of Nine were presented as partners having an argument about Janeway's tendency to swear constantly. Funny, sure, but not in and of itself proof that Janeway and Seven of Nine were actually a lesbian couple in the real show, in exactly the same way as this video is not in and of itself proof that Fergie Olver was actually a pedophile. Literally all any of this could actually support is the fact that the show has come under some scrutiny on the internet for conduct that's perceived very differently now than it was at the time — it definitely does not support characterizing pedophilia as any sort of established fact about either Olver or the show as a whole.

There's a very narrow line here as to what's actually sourceable, with almost no path through it that avoids crossing over the boundary into BLP violation territory — I trust both Mindmatrix and Patar Knight as people who have demonstrated that they know how to get the balance right, but I definitely don't trust the internet in general about a thing like this. So I'm just not sure what else to recommend besides semiprotection. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's basically the crux of my concern - reliable sources that seem to act like internet social news media (eg - BuzzFeed). Neither article demonstrates any journalistic investigation, but only present a YouTube link and a brief commentary. I'd be willing to include this material (sans pedophilia claim) if these articles had included at least some nominal investigation into the claims. As it stands, it amounts to "someone on the internet said something about this". Mindmatrix 14:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maryam Monsef

Following today's Globe and Mail article revealing that Liberal MP Maryam Monsef was actually physically born in Iran rather than Afghanistan, the article has obviously been updated in all of the relevant places for the new information. Despite her physical birth, however, Monsef was born to parents who were Afghan by ethnicity and citizenship, and were not citizens of Iran at the time — so despite the nuances of the situation, she is still properly described as "Afghan-Canadian" rather than "Iranian-Canadian". So that description was not changed in the article's introduction by any of the recognized editors who've been involved in updating the article — but a burst of anonymous IPs have been trying to flip it to "Iranian-Canadian" nonetheless. I've placed the article under temporary semi, but wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help watchlist it after the protection expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Mindmatrix 13:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Meters (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done as well.   Aloha27  talk  02:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

{{MPC}}: redirect retarget request

{{MPC}} is an unused lightly-used (16 transclusion) template-redirect to {{Marijuana Party of Canada}} which I would like to use as the new home for {{MPCdb}} at WP:Astronomy. {{MPCdb}} produces links like: MPC, so {{MPC}} is the most appropriate template name. {{Mpc}} (unused, but untagged atm) & {{MPCdb}} would then both redirect to the new {{MPC}}, but if and only if I have support from both WikiProjects. For reference, {{Marijuana Party of Canada}} is currently transcluded 9 times, and {{MPCdb}} is currently transcluded 582 times.

Since {{MPC}} is part of WP:Cannabis & WP:Canada, I'm cross-posting at both WP pages. Thanks for your input.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I don’t see anywhere else this is being discussed, I’ll put in my 2¢ here (although the redirect’s Talk page would probably be the best place for any extended discussion, if needed): the Minor Planet Center seems to me much more deserving of the shortcut, for its global interest and much greater familiarity as well as the utility of the template’s reference function as opposed to a navbox.—Odysseus1479 21:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but, if successful, the redirect's talk page will be deleted to make way for the move. Discussing it here will at least save it for future reference (and edit history). Maybe an admin could've done some wiki-fu on the #R's talk instead, but, meh.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I say take the shortcut.....just fix Pages that link to "Template:MPC" with {{Marijuana Party of Canada}}. As you say MPC makes more sense for transcluded 582 vs 9....clearly WP:Astronomy should take it over. --Moxy (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with Moxy. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • All mainspace transclusions of {{MPC}} have now been changed to {{Marijuana Party of Canada}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you've done the hard work here, so there should be no issues switching the redirect now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I also agree with the request. There's not even a question to be had that the Minor Planet Center trumps the Marijuana Party of Canada as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a template named like this, the number of uses each template actually has plainly illustrates that fact, and I'm sure that the "MPCdb" template was named that way only because "MPC" was already being squatted on. I'm going to adopt my best "judge on a reality show" voice here, and say...yes. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• As others have said, the Minor Planet Center appears to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as far as use of {{MPC}} is concerned. Perusing the MPC dab page, I don't think any other entries there would use this template, let alone deserve it ahead of the Minor Planet Center. Mindmatrix 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you everyone for the WP:SNOW approval here. No dissenting remarks at WT:CANN after a week, so I'll make these changes today/soon.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Map question

I have a question about File:Canada-US border regions.png, which I wanted to ask for input and opinions about. What it is, is a map of Canada with every census division that has a direct land or water border with the United States coloured either green for land or blue for water. The problems are:

1. Even just looking at an uncoloured map of Canada, it's plainly evident which census divisions are or aren't touching the border, without actually needing this to rehighlight the obvious.
2. In the case of Ontario, where nearly all of the water boundaries are obviously located, it's quite deceptive as well: the entire Kenora district, all the way up to Hudson Bay, is coloured blue on the basis of a very small water boundary with the Northwest Angle in the very southwesternmost corner. And the blue also claims every single county or district in Ontario that touches one of the Great Lakes at all, even where the actual Canada-US boundary is wildly too far out in the middle of the futzing lake for that county or district to be defined by the border in any non-trivial way. Frex, from downtown Toronto if I went to the lake and swam or boated due south until hitting land again, I'd be in Canadian waters the entire time and make landfall somewhere in Lincoln Township — and if I headed all the way over to Scarborough and did the same, at about the halfway point of the trip I'd just barely pass through a tiny little corner of US water for about seven seconds before passing right back into Canadian waters and making landfall in Niagara-on-the-Lake. I'd have to go all the way out to Pickering, in fact, before the landfall would actually get me into the US. This fact is of no practical significance, and does not make Toronto or Scarborough or Pickering "border towns" in any productive or meaningful or defining way. And from the Sudbury District, also blued in, there's no possible way to undertake even a water-based trip to the US border without passing through either Manitoulin or Bruce first — if it has a water boundary with the US just because it's possible to get to the US by water, then so does Ottawa since you can technically use the Ottawa River to get to the St. Lawrence too. (And that's not just me trying too hard, either — Greater Sudbury is also blued in, even though it's also a division that has no Great Lake frontage at all, and where a "bordering the US" claim accordingly does depend on using a river to get to the lake that actually has the border in it.)

So for those reasons, I don't believe the map is serving any genuinely substantive purpose: every single thing coloured in green is just pointing out the already-obvious, and most of what's coloured in blue is a wild exaggeration of how much significance the border actually has in that location (and in the few areas where it isn't a laughable overstatement, such as around Windsor or Niagara Falls, it's as already-obvious as the green stuff.) I just don't see the point of it at all — a map of where actual border crossing facilities are would certainly be useful, but I just don't get how this would have any value. Effectively, it's like taking a map of Monaco, colouring the entire country red, and labelling it as "parts of Monaco that border France". Should it be nominated for deletion, or is there something I'm missing here? Bearcat (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree 100%--Moxy (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a particularly useful map, it also appears to be incorrect in northwestern New Brunswick, where the border is on a river. Unless land trumps water. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. This is a pointless map. The information conveyed would be better served by a map with the border highlighted (and we would no longer have the odd claims that the north shore of Georgian Bay, the south shore of Hudson Bay, and the west side of James Bay are US border US-bordering areas). Meters (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. I would not miss this map. I'm guessing its creation was inspired by File:US-Canada border counties.png, the not so mirror image of this. Hwy43 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It is also improperly named. Regions are not depicted; census divisions are. Hwy43 (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that map's all that useful either, but at least it doesn't commit quite the same "if it touches a Great Lake at all" sin, since it leaves some lake-fronting Michigan counties (i.e. the ones whose Lake Huron shoreline is on Saginaw Bay rather than the main body of the lake) unblued — and since all of the US counties are smaller and more compact than some of the Canadian equivalents, there's nothing on it that's as wildly misrepresentative as Kenora District either (although the Alaska inset does trend somewhat in that direction). Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging the creator of the latest version of the file User:Nwbeeson. The original was likely uploaded by User:Flawedspirit but this user appears to be inactive (6 edits, none in the last 4 years). Meters (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I note on the Commons talk page that another user has also previously questioned the blueing of Simcoe County, on the same grounds I mention here (even the county's nominal water portion goes nowhere near touching the actual border). So that effectively counts as one more piece of support for the view that the map misrepresents Ontario. I've accordingly listed it for deletion at Commons. Thanks, everyone, for confirming that my interpretation of the map's problems wasn't off base. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

10,000 Challenge

Hi, I wondered if Canadian wikipedians would be interested in me setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge, based on the British Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge? The idea would be to run a few contests to help fuel it but make it a long term editathon with quality article improvements/good creations. I'm currently running Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 350 articles in six days. An Africa Challenge is running already. I thought about setting up a North America challenge, but I have a feeling that Canadians and Americans would be happier with their own separate challenges which makes sense :-). If anybody is interested I'll set something up and people can begin listing their articles on it. It will also be a great way to highlight articles needing work or creation by area of Canada and inspire people to produce more content and have a long term goal together as a project♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would be interested. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Senate template

Question I wanted to ask y'all about {{Senate of Canada}}. While technically the senators are colour-coded for party affiliation, at least for me the chosen colours are so pale as to be virtually indistinguishable from the background — if I strain hard enough, from certain angles I can detect a vague halo of pink around the "Independent Liberals", but on a normal look I see nothing, and even the deepest squint, while standing on my head with a dead chicken hanging over me for voodoo vision, still isn't enough to discern any blue around a Conservative.

So I need to ask, is this just a matter of my monitor calibration or my middle-aged eyes going wonky, or are the colours really that indistiguishable for other people as well? If they are, then can we pick new colours that are easier to distinguish without being so dark that they flunk accessibility of design principles the other way (which was the mistake quite badly made by the last editor to attempt a colour adjustment), or should we just find an entirely different way to designate party on the grounds that any darker colour would pose an accessibility issue? Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Good news - it's not just you, Bearcat :) It's a weird way of using colours to designate party affiliations - I can't recall seeing the use of bgcolor in this way in any other template or table, in any jurisdiction. The method used by {{Current U.S. Senators}} would be better, using the Canadian party colour templates, of course. PKT(alk) 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. My monitor is fine, I'm still young, and the colours look terrible. It must be worse for those with colour-blindness issues. There's a guideline for how to use colour properly right? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup - see WP:COLOUR. Mindmatrix 20:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I have trouble distinguishing the conservative from the independents - the light blue and light gray look similar on my colour-calibrated monitor. I can distinguish all entries from the background, though. This may also be a matter of your WP settings, or whether you have an old 'skin' or 'theme' in your js or css files. In general, I find many templates override sensible colour schemes and ignore user settings. (I once tried a dark theme, but had to switch back when I found templates I couldn't read on a dark background.) I agree with PKT about using the same styling as {{Current U.S. Senators}}, or something in the same vein. Mindmatrix 20:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree that that style is a much better way to go about colour-coding the party affiliations — it gets the information across without obtruding on the text or having to be coded so faintly that it disappears entirely for some users. The challenge, however, is that due to differences in how the senates of Canada and the US are structured (they have two senators per state period, while we have one, four, six, ten or 24 depending on which province or territory), we couldn't implement it in exactly the same way they do — we would have to find a way to code that type of colour bar very differently than they do. It does look like those who've commented so far have a general agreement that we should go in that direction — though it might take a bit of experimentation to figure out how to actually implement it. I think what I'll do is post a request for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates to see if the template coding specialists can help. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW: this style was introduced by SFGiants (talk · contribs) in this diff from September 2008, so perhaps it's just a tad long in the tooth, as the saying goes. Mindmatrix 20:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, just to update y'all...somebody at WikiProject Templates created the necessary party shading blocks this evening, and the template's been converted accordingly. We have the option of adjusting the colour codes a bit if we want them a bit darker, although I think keeping the colour codes fairly muted so they're not too distracting makes sense — but I think it now makes a lot more sense, and the affiliations are much easier to see. Thanks, everybody. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly better. The colours for Liberal and Conservative are OK, but the yellow used for independents is far too bright on my monitor and needs to be toned down. However, it looks like the {{Party shading/Independent/block}} from which it derives has been in use since 2011, so it probably needs to be discussed...somewhere. Mindmatrix 12:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pushpin maps vs. relief maps for community article infoboxes

You are invited to review and comment at the discussion regarding the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba#Relief maps? Hwy43 (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2200 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1300 articles in 3 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CBC Digital Archives

Editor Smallbones wrote to me today with the following request: "May I ask that you help out a bit, say by looking through http://www.cbc.ca/archives/ and putting in a few links to the right articles? Some that I've done so far are at the Halifax explosion, Joni Mitchell, and the Highway of Tears murders. I usually use the external media template ‎where appropriate."

It seems to be a reasonable request, so I'm relaying the request to you fine folks to see if anyone else would like to use the CBC Archive resources. Cheers! PKT(alk) 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Would you please tell me what one must type to get the 'external media template'. SewerCat (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Smallbones for a response. PKT(alk) 16:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @SewerCat and PKT: Thanks for the ping. The overall template and most of it's usage is explained at Template:External media. It is a pretty complicated template until you get used to it. I tend to use a model for each source (e.g. CBC) and then just copy it and replace the specific details. I'll go and find an example for the CBC Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

{{external media
 | width = 210px
 | float = right
 | audio1 = [http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/mont-blanc-pilot-francis-mackey-recalls-halifax-1917-explosion Mont-Blanc pilot Francis Mackey recalls Halifax 1917 explosion], 6:38,  [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC Archives]]
<ref name="CBCArchives">
{{cite web | title =Mont-Blanc pilot Francis Mackey recalls Halifax 1917 explosion
 | work =
 | publisher = [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC Archives]]
 | date = October 3, 1967
 | url =http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/mont-blanc-pilot-francis-mackey-recalls-halifax-1917-explosion 
 | accessdate =October 14, 2016 }}</ref> }}

The most important parameter is the audio1, or it can be video1, audio2, video2, etc.

The format there is [link to page of audio Title of audio], optional time of audio, not really optional source of audio

The reference is optional, but very useful. In this case it just repeats the above info, so might be left out, but the accessdate is very nice to have. The named reference is very nice to have if you want to add material into the text and cite it as e.g. <ref name="CBCArchives"/>

I do like to have different links to the same material in the body and the ref. For example, often museums have a video on their own website and also post it to YouTube. I'd put the YouTube link in the top part (easier access for most people) and the Museum link in the ref. This helps stop linkrot, but isn't possible with the CBC.

Don't worry - after the 3rd time you use it, it's all copy and paste!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the advice and information. SewerCat (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Postal codes in info boxes

An unregistered editor is adding postal codes to infoboxes for a whole bunch of Canadian articles. This doesn't feel right to me. Do we have a policy on this that someone could point me to? I've looked around but can't find anything. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose this as well. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What types of articles are receiving this attention? Communities? if so, Template:Infobox settlement includes these postal code parameters and usage is permissible. Are the parameters being misused or abused? There is nothing at WP:CANSTYLE or WP:CCSG that discourages publishing of postal codes. Hwy43 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Hwy43 and Vaselineee. It's not communities, it's buildings: Bloor Street United Church, Francis Winspear Centre for Music, Clarendon Hotel, St. Alban's Anglican Church (Ottawa), University of Ottawa Heart Institute. I can see the merit of including postal codes in Template:Infobox settlement, but for buildings and institution, I'm thinking that WP:NOTWHITE applies: "The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." What do others think? Ground Zero | t 01:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I also see the merit of postal codes for settlements, for example at Richmond Hill, Ontario, but then again it's rightfully only the first 3 characters of the postal code. Just like the area code for phone numbers has merit for settlements. For physical establishments like you've listed above seem largely unecessary, especially since it's the full postal code and may breach NOTWHITE like you've mentioned just like listing it's full phone number would. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Although NOTWHITE does not explicitly mention postal codes, the list of examples ("phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses") is not exhaustive. Therefore postal codes seem like a similar attribute in alignment with the general intent of NOTWHITE. If there is no consensus established within a buildings WikiProject (if such exists), I agree addition of postal codes should be discouraged. Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have proposed a change at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to make this explicit. Ground Zero | t 05:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not get a consensus on my proposed change, so I withdrew it. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Old Stock Canadians"

Could someone with more knowledge of the topic have a look at Old Stock Canadians? The article claims that Old Stock Canadians are an ethnic group, but none of the sources cited say this. The only other content in the article is about the use of the term once by Stephen Harper. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be a valid descriptive term for the original European settlers, but I don't see how a mixture of French and British can be called an ethnic group. Meters (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I took it to mean a simple statement of racism to separate and demean the "new" immigrants. AFAIK it was a last-ditch attempt by the Conservative Party of Canada to avoid their impending defeat at the polls that October. To be honest with you I don't understand how this wasn't speedied right from the get-go. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  21:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It might well fail WP:EVENT, thinking about it. I don't think any of the speedy deletion criteria apply though, do they? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the article's AfD talk page. Meters (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I have taken the liberty of linking directly to the discussion. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Survived AFD after an extensive rewrite by User:E.M.Gregory Meters (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the shortcut for the Canadian dollar?

I found a Canadian company-related article which lists mostly figures in "$", which can mean in this context USD ($) or CAD (C$), especially for a Canadian company it is very unclear, what "$" really means. The last business reports of Mitel lists figures in C$. So I added the currency for the revenue in the infobox of the article. Is there a general rule, how currencies are indicated? If not, I suggest, that we always use CAD. Kwally (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• CAD is already the rule, in fact. I'll admit that there are almost certainly some articles that aren't following it because their variance hasn't been caught by established editors yet — but consensus has established that CAD is what's proper and expected, for exactly the "Canadian or US dollars?" reason you raise here. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• What is the complete, accepted formulation for presenting a Canadian currency value then? Would it be, for example, CAD$50.34? User:Bearcat, do you know? SewerCat (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It's CAD without the dollar sign. Since the D in CAD stands for dollar, CAD$ would be redundant. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Privy Council

An old dormant issue seems to be rearing its ugly head again of late — there's been an increasing number of anonymous IPs misinterpreting the "PC" postnominal after a cabinet minister's name as "Progressive Conservative" instead of Privy Council again, and thus "correcting" the postnominal to "Liberal". So just a heads-up to everybody to be on the lookout for this. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just as an update, I've created the shortcut WP:CANPRIVY, redirecting to the section of WP:CANSTYLE that addresses postnominals, so that there's an easy shortcut to point to in edit summaries or "stop it" comments to the offending editors' user talk pages. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a handy link to use in explanations instead of typing out the full explanation. Thanks! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking about posting some about this after the latest incident on the Bardish Chagger page. Would it be possible to make an editfilter that would put up a notice explaining this situation? Or use AWB to add a hidden comment about the PC =/= Progressive Conservative for every single page in Category:Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada?---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

How effectve is this wikiproject?

I looked up 5 women who are shortlisted to appear on next Canadian bank note http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/five-women-in-running-to-appear-on-next-bank-note-1.3174962.

Here are the results:

• Idola Saint-Jean - Suffragette and activist not listed on Canada WikiProject page views[4]

• Fanny (Bobbie) Rosenfeld - Athlete rated Low-importance page views[5]

• Viola Desmond - Activist rated Low-importance page views[6]

• E. Pauline Johnson/Tekahionwake - Poet rated Mid-importance page views[7]

• Elizabeth (Elsie) MacGill - Engineer page views[8] rated Mid-importance Ottawahitech (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

I added the Canada project banner to Idola Saint-Jean. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Canadian is the world's first woman aircraft designer?

FYI see :Talk:Elsie_MacGill#World.27s_first_woman_aircraft_designer.3F. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Request

I've proposed that the article History of the Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives be merged into Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, on the grounds that neither article is particularly long or particularly well-sourced, and the museum itself is not so very meganotable, as to require two separate articles about the institution and its history — while that kind of split might occasionally be warranted for an institution on the highly rarefied order of the Smithsonian or the Tate Modern, the Peel Art Gallery (and yes, that is Peel as in Mississauga/Brampton) is hardly of comparable status. We don't even have separate spinoff "history of..." articles for the National Gallery of Canada or the Art Gallery of Ontario or the Royal Ontario Museum, and they're all far more notable and far more spinoff-worthy than PAMA. However, it's been two full months since I first proposed this, but to date there has still not been a single commenter either way. Would anybody be willing to take a look at the articles and weigh in at Talk:Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives? Molto grazie. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good merge. I'll leave my comments later (done for tonight). Meters (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

After two months with no opposition it would have been acceptable just to go ahead and merge them. Even less of a potential issue now with support. Meters (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

possibly same person?

Leonard H. Nicholson=Leonard Nicholson?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's very likely. The reference in Leonard Nicholson says, "a member of the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association from 1965 to 1971", and Leonard H. Nicholson was awarded the Bronze Wolf in 1971. PKT(alk) 17:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I've found a Globe and Mail obituary which directly states that the RCMP commissioner was a former deputy chief of the Boy Scouts, so I've merged the articles and added that citation accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your hard work! Merry early Christmas from Japan!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ps-if you guys have better bio information available, James Blain, E. Bower Carty, H. Morrey Cross, John L. MacGregor, Jack McCracken (Scouting), John Neysmith, J. Percy Ross, Maggie Shaddick, Jack Sinclair (Scouting), Margaret Treloar, Geoffrey W. Wheatley, Reginald K. Groome, Robbert Hartog, James B. Harvey, David B. Huestis, and Luc M. Lacroix could use some help, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Green Party of Canada Shadow Cabinet

Seriously? We don't need to create this article. They have 1 member in parliament!! Elizabeth May IS the shadow cabinet. We don't need to do this to every single party. -- Kndimov (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not actually true. The Green Party does have party members outside the parliamentary caucus who are appointed as the party spokespersons on specific political issues, and thus serve as an informal extraparliamentary "shadow cabinet" consisting of more than just May alone. We could debate whether "shadow cabinet" is the right title for it because of the "extraparliamentary" circumstances, but it's not a list of one — it's a real list of numerous people that might just be at the wrong title (and might also be deletable because unsourced, but not because "hoax".) I should add, for the record, that a "Green Party shadow cabinet" list currently exists only for the Green Party Shadow Cabinet of the 41st Parliament of Canada, and not for any other. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ontario elections

I've come across some past editwarring in Ontario election articles, but I can't find any evidence that CWNB has actually discussed it for formal consensus purposes — so I wanted to raise it for discussion in the hopes that the editwarring doesn't resume.

The issue pertains to the Green Party of Ontario, which does occupy a bit of an unusual niche in provincial politics — although they have yet to actually win a seat in the legislative assembly, they do get treated by the media as a sort of "semi-major" party: even if they don't actually garner the same degree of coverage as the main Liberal/PC/NDP troika, they are taken more seriously and do get more coverage than any of the other "minor" parties. The result of this has been editwarring over whether they should be included in the main head-of-article infobox as a "fourth party" or not, with conflicting results in different articles — they don't appear in the infoboxes for 1999, 2003, 2011 or 2014, but until I revised it just now they did appear in the infobox for 2007. But since they got the same number of seats (i.e. zero) in all five elections, there are no grounds for treating them differently in some elections than we do in others: they should either be present in all of the infoboxes because of their "semi-major" status, or included in none of the infoboxes until such time as they win one or more seats.

Accordingly, I wanted to solicit opinions about which it should be. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not include the Greens in 'em all? They could conceivably win a seat sooner or later. I say "Giv'r". Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox should only list the parties that won seats. The information on the Green Party (and other parties and independents that did not win seats) is still in the article Ontario_general_election,_2007#Results_by_party. Hmm... having looked at a few other Canadian election articles it may be that the norm is only to list the top three parties even if other parties did win seats. For example, see Canadian federal election, 2015 where neither the Bloc Québécois nor the Green Party is listed in the infobox even though both won one or more seats. Meters (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not that simple after all. We don't consistently restrict it to the top three parties. For example, Canadian federal election, 2011 lists all 5 parties that won seats in the infobox. Maybe we should attempt to decide on a consistent standard for all Canadian election articles. Possible criteria are:

1. List the top three parties
2. List all parties that won seats
3. List all parties with a full slate of candidates
4. List all parties with more than a certain percentage of the popular vote
5. List all parties running more than a certain percentage of a full slate

1. and 2. have the advantage of simplicity. (Both eliminate the Green party from the article in question.) 3. is also simple but can't be used as the only criterion or we would lose parties that won significant numbers of seats without running a full (or anything close to a full slate), such as the Bloq in Canadian federal election, 2004. Commnets? Meters (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My personal preference, for what it's worth, would be Option #2 (all parties that actually won seats), with an addendum of "if a party had seats going into the election but got wiped out to zero on election day, they should still be in the infobox because they had seats going in". There's too much room for subjectivity — too much room for "why not the Libertarians and the Northern Ontario Party too?" — so we need to have a strictly objective standard about what the cutoff is for inclusion in or exclusion from the infobox. But I'm of course willing to stand by whatever the consensus arrives at on that question — my primary purpose in posting this question had to do with the inconsistency from one election to another, not a desire to impose my own personal preference. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That suggestion would be fine. I like it. Simple and easy to apply. If there are objections to dropping parties that win significant percentages of the popular vote without any seats then we can add a caveat that we also list parties above a certain cutoff. Say 10%?

I definitely don't agree that we should list a party simply because we (or some editor) thinks that they will eventually win a seat.

If we are going to attempt to apply this as a general rule we should change the header to something more general.Meters (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason it was included in 2007 was because it got 8% of the vote. IIRC the consensus for American presidential infoboxes has been to include any presidential candidate with more than 5% of the popular vote after the election. That threshold would allow the Greens into the infobox in 2007, and they would fall short in every other election they've contested (including just 0.16% off in the last election).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my preference would be to include all parties that won seats, option #2, and to exclude a party that had seats going in but were whitewashed in the election in question (should that ever happen). PKT(alk) 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

PEI Premiers

We may need some eyes at Premier of Prince Edward Island and List of premiers of Prince Edward Island, concerning a request to rename both articles. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Independence vs. Establishment

Hi everyone, some other users' opinions would be useful here [9]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan#Requested move 14 December 2016

I invite you to the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Edmonton, Ontario

Does anyone know the location of the historical village of Edmonton, Ontario? It should be within Brampton, but I haven't been able to find documents indicating concessions, lots, or any other relevant feature about this settlement. I've tried using the 1883 timetable for the Orangeville Branch of the Credit Valley Railway to narrow down the location; the two previous stops are at King Street and Creditview (Cheltenham) and King Street and Kennedy (Campbell's Cross), and Edmonton is a 9 minute trip from Campbell's Cross, and a 10 minute trip to Brampton. Mindmatrix 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, to answer my own question, it appears Edmonton was at the southern end of Chinguacousy, at Centre Road. Judging by the map features for Township of Chinguacousy North and comparing to a modern map, it appears Edmonton was the previous name of Snelgrove, Ontario. One more mystery solved... Mindmatrix 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to point you to that atlas. Meters (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh - I remembered it as soon as I posted my comment. BTW: I've created Category:The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project on Commons to group files uploaded from that project. Mindmatrix 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested page move

Please see the discussion on Talk:The Biography Channel (Canada) for a requested page move. musimax. (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanelli/Vannelli

For very nearly a full decade since 2005, Gino Vanelli (note the single n) existed as a redirect to Canadian pop singer Gino Vannelli (double n), as an extremely common misspelling of his actual surname. It's just come to my attention, however, that in 2014 somebody converted it from a redirect into an article about a different person, an Italian opera singer who died in 1969 — but they failed to correct the many inbound links that were using that spelling to get to the Canadian singer. I just did a dabfix run, and out of 28 mainspace links to that title, I had to correct 25 of them as intended for the Canadian while leaving just three alone as correctly intended for the Italian baritone.

I simply don't believe that one-n vs. two-n's is enough of a distinction to properly disambiguate these two people: to a contemporary English-speaking audience, the Canadian pop singer is vastly better known, and one-n is demonstrably a very common spelling error for his name. Accordingly, I've posted an RM at Talk:Gino Vanelli to propose that the opera singer be moved to a disambiguated title, with the plain title "Gino Vanelli" converted back into a redirect to Gino Vannelli. Is anybody interested in offering some input one way or the other? Molto grazie. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up

On at least two occasions in the past couple of weeks, I've had to revert editors who made erroneous "corrections" to List of House members of the 41st Parliament of Canada, changing the name of an MP or the name of a riding to reflect something that didn't become true until the 42nd Parliament (e.g. Darrell Samson being the MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore, or the name of Stephen Harper's riding changing to Calgary Heritage) — I was mystified by this at first, but then checked "what links here" and found that the redirect Current members of the Canadian House of Commons was still pointing there instead of to the new list for the 42nd Parliament. (And this probably also explains the third editor who changed the list's introduction on December 29 to reflect 2015-present instead of 2011-2015, but then self-reverted a few minutes later before anybody else had to do anything.) So for everybody who edits on politics and elections, I just wanted to post a quick reminder that the redirect has to be updated when a new Parliament is set by the next election. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Beneficiaries

The spouse or common law partner is entitled to the TFSP upon the death of an individual but a beneficiary must include it in the death tax of all the deceased assets. Another way the government gets back their money, anyone putting money in their TFSA is unlikely to spend that money, and in the end the government gets some of it back, a percentage depending on the size of their total portfolio and assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.40.199 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Featured and good content no longer automatically updating?

The WP:CAFG page states that the page is automatically updated, yet List of municipalities in Yukon, List of municipalities in Nunavut, the List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, and List of municipalities in New Brunswick do not appear despite being featured lists. The NB list has been a FL for ten months while the list for the NWT has been a FL for nearly three years. Any theories? The equivalent lists for AB, BC, MB, ON and SK are showing up properly. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Region of Queens Municipality, Nova Scotia → Region of Queens Municipality

You are invited to comment at Talk:Region of Queens Municipality, Nova Scotia#Requested move 7 January 2017. Hwy43 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for input on merger

I invite you to help build consensus on the proposed merger of M3 (Canadian TV channel) into the Gusto (TV channel) article. Please see Talk:Gusto (TV channel).musimax. (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Our Provinces are missing.

I have noticed that a number of Wikipedia articles about Canada are often missing the Provinces. For example, the other day I read, "Toronto, Canada." Correctly, it is either, "Toronto, Ontario" or "Toronto, Ontario, Canada." We do not say, "Dallas, U.S." or Cleveland, U.S." so why do people incorrectly say, "Toronto, Canada?" I believe this to be an error (which is both geographically and politcally incorrect) that orginates from the U.S.A., a country that is ignorant of anything to do with geography.

I would like to suggest that these errors be corrected.

Dr. S. R. Watkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwatkins13 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We already have exactly the rule you suggest, although you're correct that some American users don't follow it even though it's exactly the rule they follow for their own cities (i.e. a US city can be "City", "City, State" or "City, State, USA", but never just "City, USA".) Other than not knowing what province a city is in, however, there's no other reason I know of why they do that. You're correct that if you come across a situation like that, you should just fix it if you can — but we don't always have a viable way of tracking down such errors. If somebody has directly typed [[Toronto, Canada]] as one wikilink, then we can certainly catch that via the "what links here" list for that redirect, but if somebody has typed [[Toronto]], [[Canada]] or [[Toronto|Toronto, Canada]], then we have no way to find such articles besides stumbling on them by pure chance. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You CAN search for individual examples, such as "Toronto, Canada" by using the wiki search. (First click on the search icon to get the search page, then enter "Toronto, Canada" [with quotes] in the search box) I think it might be possible to correct specific examples with AWB. However, I'm not sure of the benefit of doing this. I would not agree that it is an error per se. If you look at List of Pan American Games records in swimming for example, would the reader benefit by adding Ontario to the table, repeating Toronto, Ontario, Canada, instead of Toronto, Canada? Alaney2k (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Any US editor would jump down your throat to burrow you a new butthole from the inside if you ever wrote "Detroit, United States" or "Cleveland, United States" without Michigan or Ohio in between. Why on earth would or should the rule be different about "Toronto, Canada"? And what of cases like "Windsor, Canada", where there are three possibilities to choose from if the province isn't specified? (And even for Toronto, simple law of numbers says that a person from "Toronto, Canada" is overwhelmingly more likely to be from Toronto, Ontario, but the possibility that they're actually from Toronto, Prince Edward Island instead is not zero — and if you think I'm making stuff up, I'm not. It really does exist.) Inconsistency is also a reflection on the quality of Wikipedia, so the rule cannot be that you're allowed to get away with "City, Canada" except in the cases where that's still ambiguous and only then would you actually have to specify the province — the rule is, always has been, and correctly should be that the acceptable forms are "City", "City, Province" and/or "City, Province, Canada", with "City, Canada" consigned to the "never" column. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope not. That would certainly break some wiki rule AND be rude. Alaney2k (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am usually of the opinion, unless its an infobox for a place of birth for example, or is a situation where the province is necessary, then leave it as you found it as neither is incorrect. Just like most other "cultural" issues like ENGVAR and diacritics. We write for a global audience, not just Canadians or Americans etc and most of the world would be leaving out the province. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If it were up to me, Srwatkins13, I'd use "city, sovereign state" for all biography articles. However, this would be next to impossible to implement on the British bios. In fact there's often big resistance to using "United Kingdom" in the British bios, period. Thankfully, we don't have that problem on Canadian bios, with using "Canada". GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of articles that use the notation "Los Angeles, USA", "Rome, Italy", "Miami, USA", "Toronto, Canada", etc.. If the article is set up that way it should be left that way. We don't need even more detail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

My basic feeling is that if, in the same article, US states are used, then it is consistent to use Can provinces as well. And the opposite. Certainly, I've noticed that articles like international sports tours articles such as tennis don't use either and the wp:Canadian Mos policy should reflect that. But articles about Canadians, Canadian topics, events in Canada, etc. should use the province. Alaney2k (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Whenever I see "City, Canada" I make an effort to add the province in. I've also seen some articles use "Toronto, Canada" throughout the page. Once is enough (with the province included, I might add), then the city alone will suffice. I've rarely come across US states left out in the "City, State, US" ladder. With regards to the infobox, we still shouldn't write "Toronto, Canada" if we're worried (doesn't matter to me) about clogging up the parameter, we can simply use the "City, Province" notation (usually how they do it for American cities as well, but I've also seen "City, state, U.S." shortform in infoboxes). However, I only usually see this done for American cities, usually Canadian cities as well. With European cities and other continents, I rarely ever see the province included. For example, most editors usually would write "Milan, Italy", "Lisbon, Portugal", "Madrid, Spain" in my experience. I would probably attribute that to this being the English wiki so it is often left out. If we were to go to the Italian wiki we would probably see "Milano, Lombardia, Italia" (probably even omit the country). Should we, by North American practice, also be inserting the province for European countries etc also (obviously in English ex Lombardia-->Lombardy)? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been adding the provinces to articles using AWB, but I have started to receive objections to its use. These editors: @Ground Zero:, @Floydian:, @Air.light: and @Walter Görlitz:. Rather than discussing this on my talk page, I think the discussion should be here. I believe that this is non-controversial and the accepted way, per the wp:canstyle MOS, but there seem to be issues. Alaney2k (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to linking provinces. I don't think it is necessary in many cases - Canadians know that Toronto is in Ontario, and non-Canadians don't care because they generally haven't heard of Ontario. But I don't object to it. I was just pointing out that your style of linking -- [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]] -- violates WP:NOPIPE. Keep links simple, and either link like this: [[Toronto]], Ontario, or like this: [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]]. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Who's to say they don't care? Where is Toronto in the large country of Canada? That could be information of interest to a reader, or at least trigger their senses so to speak to possibly click the link to go to the province to find out more. I agree though that the [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]] link wouldn't do this since the province technically isn't linked; I would support linking separate. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the attitudes of Canadian in general apply to editing standards. I think we are building an encyclopedia, so we should be more precise. (or wordy, I guess you might say) Alaney2k (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw this on Alaney2k's talk page which might refute this ideology though. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But maybe that paragraph of the MOS should be discussed. I think we could improve it. If it is in conflict with the piping policy, maybe it should link both. Alaney2k (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Province is not needed. It's not the same situation as the U.S. I have been reverting Alaney2k's edits when I come across them. I have not been following Alaney2k nor have I been using AWB to revert it. There's no consensus and no MoS. But, if we decide that the province is needed, do not include it in the link, piped into the city name.

And to answer Vaselineeeeeeee's question if where is Toronto is depends on who you ask. If you ask most Torontonians, it's at the centre of the universe. Most people outside of Toronto think that's what they think. However, if a reader of Wikipedia reads about Toronto in a music- or sports-related article—the places I've reverted Alaney2k in recently—and they ask themselves, "where is Toronto inside of Canada?" they can easily click on the link to Toronto and read that "Toronto is the most populous city in Canada, the provincial capital of Ontario, and the centre of the Greater Toronto Area, the most populous metropolitan area in Canada." That should answer their question. The fact is, WP:OVERLINK is in-place to avoid linking large geographic areas, which is why country is not linked. And province is the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I only show the province, I don't add the link too. So it is not adding links. As Canadians, we use the province. We don't have to endorse it, but we should not be using our personal style here on Wikipedia. Alaney2k (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So don't pipe the link. Just show [[Toronto]], Ontario, so that you don't vioate WP:NOPIPE. Problem solved, unless you continue to edit as you have been doing. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with Alaney2k that WP:Canada endorses the way he is linking Toronto, Ontario. It seems to endorse always including the province with the city name, but it does not say that you should pipe the city link to include the province where the province is not part of the article title. He is extrapolating something that isn't there, and above all, he should stop his mass edits until the issue is resolved. Ground Zero | t 17:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You would rather that they were all redirects? Alaney2k (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[[Toronto]], Ontario is not a redirect. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But Toronto, Ontario is. Alaney2k (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So don't link that way either. No-one has suggested that you do that. Ground Zero | t 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind WP:OLINK, which tells us not to look major geographical features. Are "Ontario" and "Canada" directly relevant to the subject of the article? Or are we just linking out of habit? Ground Zero | t 17:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not adding links. If the links were there, I converted them to wp:canstyle, which links to the city/town, but shows the province in the piped part. Alaney2k (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And for what reason are you piping to include the province in the link? There is no Wikipedia reason for doing it, in fact, it violates Wikipedia style. Ground Zero | t 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware of that. I was including the province to avoid redirects as I have been working on the main cities - Montreal, Toronto, etc. where there is an article without the province in the title. Alaney2k (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So we're agreed, then, that where the city article does not include the province, there is no need to pipe in the province's name - just link to the city name and leave it there? Ground Zero | t 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Why is it different than with the U.S. states? You have a city, a province/state, country. And why should we hope the user click on Toronto to see it is in Ontario? Why not just tell them where they are exactly reading? By that logic, why even write Canada? They can just click Toronto and see it's in Canada. Even if there is no link, it is still there to represent that there is another geographical location in between the city and the country. It's less common with European cities, but I attribute that to this being the English Wiki; it doesn't make it right. Toronto, Canada looks as incomplete to me as does Los Angeles, United States. Whether the province be linked or not, I don't have a preference, but it should be there. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no need to adopt the American style. I find that their obsession with the "City, State" format is tedious. How does "New York City, New York" benefit anyone? "Springfield, Anystate" makes sense, but where else would "Chicago" be? Or "Seattle"? I get that "Toronto" doesn't look right without "Ontario" to you, but adding "Ontario" to every instance of "Toronto" just looks American to me. And that ain't right. Ground Zero | t 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah New York City, New York or Quebec City, Quebec would seem needless. And yes, a lot of times for more known cities like Chicago, editors would usually just leave it at the city and not say the state or country at all. I would even say that Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (although there is a Vancouver in Washington State) could stand alone without the need of a province or country following it. But after stating "Montreal, Quebec, Canada" in the article for the first time, just writing "Montreal" as a standalone seems appropriate since it was already introduced in full earlier on. Montreal, Canada or Vancouver, Canada looks incomplete and should either stand alone or have all three. Even Moose Jaw, Canada as a random, less known city to non-Canadians, doesn't seem appropriate because since it's less known, it makes even more sense to add the province in to reinforce its location. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A revision of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles would probably be beneficial as there could be discrepancies between policies like this in the future. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Let me see if I can summarize this so far. The linking in this form [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]], Canada is not okay. I have been wrong to do that. There appears to be more support for having the province in the location text than not. But, that's lukewarm. Not a consensus. Therefore, this is in conflict with the WP:CANSTYLE text, which I would suggest mandates it. Is there any support for revising that? I think we need to improve that.

I would like to see more mention of the province. To me, it is the Canadian official way, as in the Canadian govt would not leave it out. I would propose to always have it in infoboxes and lead paragraphs. Or first mentions? These indicate a higher level of the article's relevance to Canada? Optional in following paragraphs? (But be consistent?) And in tables, use it or not, but be consistent. As in if US states are used, then use the Canadian provinces too. Just my first thoughts on the topic. Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Changing CANSTYLE for the sake of clarity. Within Canada the Canadian government would not leave it out. Internationally province is almost never listed. For instance, when my brother's work is presented, it is noted as being from "Toronto, Canada" (even though he's from outside of the GTA). This is when his work is presented in Europe and South America. At soccer games held in the United States, (other than the Cascadia Cup), the Whitecaps are generally introduced as being from Vancouver, Canada. I can give other examples but those are two prominent ones. For that matter, I have seen sandwich boards in Europe listing bands and they will often not list the US state (i.e. "Some Band, Denver, USA"). I think we have to know the audience when presenting location like this. The MoS seems to make it clear that province should be defined when speaking of a Canadian subject in a Canadian article. (Wayne Gretzky, The Group of Seven, The Band, Metis, etc.). However in an article that mentions them that is not specifically Canadian, province is not needed. So if Gretzky is mentioned in the article on ice hockey, his birthplace could be listed as Brampton, Canada; in an art history article, the location of the Group of Seven's work could be Georgian Bay, Canada; in country rock, Toronto, Canada would be a good location for the Band; in an article on native struggles in North America, the first Metis conflict could be described as originating in Winnipeg, Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think the govt would include it in media releases, etc. intended for an international audience. I do think that there is the issue of presenting Canadian locations in the Canadian way to the world. I definitely agree that the common usage outside of Canada is to omit provinces. (Although the US states are often mentioned, it does not appear to be MoS policy, more that Americans edit that way) Are you amenable to increasing the mention of provinces as I have suggested (infoboxes, leads) even in articles that are international in scope? E.g., someone born in Canada but became notable elsewhere? Alaney2k (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments - we don't have the luxury of tailoring content based on the user who happens to be reading our articles. Secondly, what about Windsor, or Kingston, or Chatham, or any other municipality name that's used in multiple provinces? I firmly believe in identifying provinces wherever a municipality is named, and to link the province more often than not. Whether people outside our fair country care about the provinces is irrelevant to me - give them more than they need, not less. PKT(alk) 18:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Revising the MoS and for including Canadian provinces with mention of a city for the reasons stated by PKT. I believe they should be included in the infobox and the lead as Alan and I have said, then just leave the city standalone after introduced. And to reiterate what PKT said about if people internationally care or not is irrelevant. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lots of people assert that "City, Province" is "official" or how the government would do it, but no-one ever provides evidence. Here are recent official Government of Canada™ news releases that refer to Halifax, Montreal, and Sudbury without the provinces.: [10], [11], [12]. I suspect that the federal government style guide does not mandate the use of the "City, Province" format, but leaves it to the judgement of the writer to determine whether adding the province would provide disambiguation or clarity, or if it is not needed and would just interrupt the flow of the sentence. Issuing a global diktat that you must use "City, Province" gets in the way of good writing. If it is clear and there is no need for disambiguation, then there is no reason to tie the hands of the writer. No-one has ever opposed the use of "City, Province" where clarity or disambiguation calls for it. And I have no problem having it in an infobox where it does not interrupt the flow of a sentence. It certainly isn't "official" or "Government of Canada style". That's only in the minds of people who are accustomed to the US norm. Ground Zero | t 19:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the federal government style guide is quite reasonable about it: "It is not necessary to use the provincial abbreviation after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Fredericton. However, since the same name is often shared by several places in Canada and other parts of the English-speaking world (e.g. Perth, Windsor, Hamilton), add the appropriate abbreviation in cases where doubt could arise." [13] Why would Wikipedia be more prescriptive than the Government of Canada? Ground Zero | t 19:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is international. So, to be informative about Canada, we would include it. As a Canadian, I don't write Toronto, Ontario, Canada, (etc.) unless I was writing for people outside of Canada. Would that conflict with any wikipedia policy? I think your link is for Canadians who are writing, not exactly a match for Wikipedia. Alaney2k (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to the people who were incorrectly claiming that "City, Province" is "official", "correct", or the way the federal government does it. It isn't. It is just misguided importation of the American style. I think that the province should be added where appropriate for the context, or the country should be added where appropriate for the context, or both should be added where appropriate for the context. But the style guide is going too far in saying that "City, Province" is necessary in all contexts. Let the writer decide. Ground Zero | t 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is getting quite long. I think we have two different factions here. The first is those who are discussing how the information should be formatted in an infobox. I assume most of those editors are assuming an infobox for a person. I'm in favour of that. But if it's an infobox for an album, particularly for a non-Canadian band, there is a parameter for the studio or venue location. In that case, I don't think listing the province is appropriate.

The second is those discussing tables and prose. I, for instance, was alerted to this issue when Major League Soccer articles started being touched. Most of those articles list "City, State", but the three Canadian teams are generally listed, "City, Country". A bit incongruous to say the least, but they are primarily edited by Americans. I have been editing the Whitecaps articles to not even list state or province wherever possible in attempt to avoid the issue. I have had some success. However, I'm not sure how the MoS we are discussing would apply to subjects such as this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change Canadian articles Manual of Style

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#.22City.2C_Province_.28Territory.29.22_format relatd to this discussion, based on the federal government's style guide referenced above. Ground Zero | t 21:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Canadian values

This is a recently created article that I feel could use more eyes - very topical right now (especially in the context of the Conservative leadership race), but the article is new and still feels a bit disjointed. Please help watch and improve if you can. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an article about this is really warranted. It seems to be WP:SYNTHing sources to advance an WP:ESSAY about the topic, rather than an encyclopedia article about an objectively defined topic — and, for that matter, one could compile a similar article about absolutely any political entity (continent, country, province/state, city, etc.) and its "cultural values". To the extent that "Canadian values" is really an article topic at all, it's as a topic of debate about the appropriateness of Kellie Leitch's leadership campaign plank — just as an example, while obviously some people would identify acceptance of same-sex marriage as a "Canadian value", there are still people in Canada who would identify opposition to SSM as a "Canadian value" on the grounds of religious traditions (and as much as I may obviously be on the acceptance side of that question, simply stating that it's universally accepted as a "Canadian value" would be an WP:NPOV violation.) Ultimately, "Canadian values" are a topic of debate rather than an objectively definable thing, so I simply don't see it as a viable or appropriate standalone article topic in its own right — it makes about as much sense, and is about as neutral, as creating an article that tries to objectively define "barbaric cultural practices" just because the Conservatives proposed a hotline in the 2015 election to report them. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm of a similar mind with Bearcat. When I first saw this article title, my first reaction was that it's a quagmire. Too many opinions, and not enough facts to build a proper article. I note that American values is a redirect to Culture of the United States. It seems to me that's a good basis to deal with the Canadian values article - make it redirect to Culture of Canada. PKT(alk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Another example of the weirdness on display here: "it is uncommon for Canadian women to wear a burqa, abaya, or niqāb." Sure, for the non-Muslims. But the creator obviously doesn't live in one of Canada's big cities if they think it's rare enough to be worth calling it rare — after all, what was the point of all the niqab alarmism of the past few years if there were so few niqabs for anyone to have a shitfit about? Same section: "See also UAE Dress Code." Relevant to Canadian values...er, how? Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a weird synthesis of sources that looks like POV-pushing, even if well-intentioned. I would support deletion or retargeting per PKT above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the basic idea--perhaps because I have been heavily influenced by S M Lipset's many scholarly efforts along the same lines. [eg Continental divide: The values and institutions of the United States and Canada 1991 which has been cites over 1400 times in the scholarly literature. also Baer, et al "The values of Canadians and Americans: A critical analysis and reassessment." Social Forces 68.3 (1990): 693-713 etc etc] What we have here are separate statement A,B,C, D etc. all are sourced and disconnected like a checklist. There in no synthesis XYZ that makes something NEW out of them so synthesis is not an objection in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's still SYNTH if the overall topic is a disconnected checklist of things that the sources aren't linking into a common entity that they're objectively identifying as "Canadian values". Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian values. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

the synthesis was made by Lipset decades ago and not by Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You might want to give some thought to the difference between "the theoretical concept" (to which Lipset applies and WP:SYNTH doesn't) and "this actual article as actually written" (to which Lipset doesn't apply and SYNTH does). And there's also the principle of WP:TNT: even for a topic that could qualify for an article, it is still possible to create an article about it that's so woefully wrongheaded and wrongsourced that the correct approach would be to delete that article and start over from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

take a fresh look -- the article hase been heavily revised in last couple days & perhaps it now meets the complaints. Rjensen (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably have Canadian Values as opposed to American Values but I wonder what sources we would use to pin down exactly what they are. This is such a nebulous concept. I really doubt that it is suitable for an encyclopedia article. There are two useful articles that are less nebulous: Canadian identity and Culture of Canada. Perhaps a Canadian Values section might be suitable in Canadian identity. e.g. we tend to save a lot more money, per capita, than Americans. But more than people in the UK? China? Mexico? etc. etc. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find any other encyclopedia that covers Canadian Values. And those values might be quite different in Quebec vs. Nfld vs. Southern Ontario. The closest article I was able to find is this one: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ethnic-identity/ That one is about Ethnic Values among Canadians and is somewhat complicated. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I need some input on a Canadian article

This issue has been all over the major news media for years, and particularly in November 2016 and today. The charges of cruelty to animals at the Marineland (Ontario) park in Niagara Falls. I believe the name of the article should be changed to Marineland Canada. I would like to get consensus but very few Users are editing that article so I won't get much response to my proposal on the Talk page. So, I would appreciate some Third Opinions from other Canadian editors. Thanks. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian:, what you're proposing seems to be an uncontroversial page move, IMO. PKT(alk) 12:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@PKT:, you would think so but now the debate is as to the exact name of the new article. The talk page for [[Marineland (Ontario) could still use additional input. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've since summarized the options at that discussion and provided a position so that we can start getting some direction and hopefully achieve a consensus. Hwy43 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes; thank you Hwy43. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Help cleaning up and improving Cannabis in Canada?

We recently agreed to move Legal history of cannabis in Canada to just Cannabis in Canada, and several editors have been interested in getting it polished up now that this issue is front-page news in Canada.

For reference, the article (under its previous and now current title) averaged over 320,000 views in the last twelve months, exceeding the 250,000 for Cannabis in the United Kingdom and just barely behind the 340 k views at Cannabis in the United States, so this is a reasonably high-profile article.

If anyone else is interested in helping make it NPOV and up-to-date, and help either agree on which photos to use and/or take more photos to add, we can prepare this article for an expected increase in readership as the government moves towards legalization. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on the Legalization and Commodity sections; these are fine now, I believe. But the article probably needs other work since it was originally written long before legalization was planned. Very heavy emphasis on Court Decisions that should probably just be summarized, for example. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Canada participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in Canada (Category:Cannabis in Canada). For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Humidex record in Canada

For a long on Wikipedia, there was a claim that Castlegar, British Columbia (see this version) had the highest humidex record since the raw climate data indicated that it recorded a humidex value of 53.4 on 14 July 1961 which was added back in 2013 with this edit and subsequently added to other articles such as Humidex (in 2013) and Weather extremes in Canada. The claim is inaccurate and the Carman, Manitoba value of 53.0 is the correct one. I recently edited these articles since the claim is inaccurate and problematic for important reasons and I would like to discuss this with other users to explain why I changed it in detail.

1. First of all, in those article, the source being used to cite the claim that Castlegar has the highest is based on this link to the climate data (in various forms such as [14],[15], main page for the climate archive, and [16]). In all cases, it is just the raw climate data/primary source for that station and does not tell whether the humidex value of 53.4 is valid nor if it is the highest in Canada. To claim that it is the highest in Canada just because it has the highest value compared to Carman and Windsor using on raw data as the main source is original research. A secondary source is required for a claim like that.
2. Secondly, This is verified by reliable secondary sources mentioning that Carman has the highest based on these source [17], and [18]. As well, Castlegar is never mentioned in the old Windsor record nor the top weather stories of the 20th century which makes it suspicious.

Please free to discuss about this. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian climate data links all went dead in the last year or two. Most have been updated but the Castlegar link here seems to have been missed. Here is the updated link with the 53.4 humidex in it. So now we have two conflicting EC sources. One is saying that Carman is the highest at 53.0 and there's also the EC source which has Castlegar at 53.4. I think we should use the 53.4 for Castlegar as the highest because the number is sourced and it seems to fit with WP:OR with the section on "routine calculations". Air.light (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the number of 53.4 is sourced and this is verified by the hourly data. There is no issue with verifiability but the main issue is that secondary sources are usually better than primary sources for record temperatures. Normally, secondary sources are better for record temperatures since the analysis is done by a reputable person/publisher that enable fact checking. Here, when any person/editor is claiming that the 53.4 reading based on the climate data source is the highest, it is problematic as one is making an interpretation of the source, which is a primary source and that is original research according to the policy on it. I think for routine calculations, it does not fit and meet the requirements for WP:CALC since no discussion on this has been made yet (though it was not reverted which implies a silent consensus, it is not strong enough for routine calculations to apply that well), is not obvious to editors not familiar with the climate and weather in Canada (unless the person manages to look at the all of the climate data in the archives), and not a meaningful reflection of the sources (sources conflict with secondary source saying Carman holds the record, beating Windsor). Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Television series by production company

Once again, an anonymous IP has been going around adding either Category:Television series by Bell Media or Category:Television series by Corus Entertainment to any TV show that ever aired on any channel owned by either of those companies, even if Bell or Corus (a) had zero role in the actual production of the series, and/or (b) didn't own the channel in question at the time the show was airing, but acquired that channel as much as 15 years later. "Television series by [Company]" categories, however, are applied based on "production company that made the series", not based on "(later) owner of the channel that happened to buy the broadcast rights", so most of the shows in question are not appropriately catted as being "by" Bell or Corus. This is not the first time we've seen somebody try to do this, for the record — it's quite likely the same user as the prior times, because they've been quite persistent and uncommunicative about it in the past, although the IP number isn't the same and thus we can't verify that.

So just a heads up to everybody to be on the lookout for edits of this type — if you see these categories being added to television series, remove or revert them if the article doesn't name Bell or Corus as actually directly involved in the day-to-day production of the series. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Quebec City shooting

So I have a draft up at DRAFT: 2017 islamic cultural center of quebec shooting -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Somebody has moved it - it's now in article space as Quebec City mosque shooting .... PKT(alk) 13:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edgar Leduc

I've run across Edgar Leduc (ice hockey) and Edgar Leduc (politician), and I'm trying to figure out if they are the same person or not.

On the one hand, both were born on the same day in the same small town in Quebec, and died on the same day. Their biographies don't overlap - the hockey player's records stop in 1915 and the politician's start in 1917 - so there are no direct inconsistencies. On the other, it seems very unlikely that this wouldn't be mentioned in either article.

Any idea how I can work this out one way or the other? (& @Dl2000 and Alaney2k:, who originally wrote these...) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I went to the SIHR website and looked up Edgar Leduc. It is the same person. I guess you can go ahead and merge the content into one article at Edgar Leduc (the current disambiguation page) and leave the current articles as redirects. Alaney2k (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - I was sure there'd be a source out there somewhere that I was missing! Now merged. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Grand Falls-Windsor – photo of Grand Falls-Windsor Arts and Culture Centre

Hello, please, can you make photo of Grand Falls-Windsor Arts and Culture Centre? Thank you. --Jan Polák (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of reference, this Expo 67 pavilion was built to be sold and moved at the end, and NFLD expressed interest. They were low on the food chain, until a deadly plane crash in Gander that killed 37 Czechs. As a gesture of gratitude for saving the 32 others on board, NFLD was moved to the front of the line to get the building.

I'm now considering writing about the Czechoslovakian Pavilion, so if there are Grand Falls-Windsor, NFLD residents, please and thank you!

At the same time, I will note that I've removed this request from the talk pages of an anon, of a user that hasn't contributed since 2007, and a few active registered users in Montreal or further west. Please, @Jan Polák:, don't spam people indiscriminately. The closest user was from Montreal. Prague to either Moscow or Madrid is 2000 km, Montreal to Grand Falls is 2300 km. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Thank you for the information about the accident Czechoslovak aircraft. I also plan to write about the Czechoslovak pavilion.

On Wikipedia I have only addressed the people of Montreal and the relative proximity to Grand Falls-Windsor. From Montreal, because they might have in the archive photos directly from the Expo (do not know the age of individual users). --Jan Polák (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

150th anniversary of Canada

Hi friends. Just to let you know that I've started a stub on the 150th anniversary of Canada. It's real motley and I'll be adding to it gradually, so please join in, if you like. I do also think we should merge the outdated (and arguably, non-notable) 150!Canada preparatory discussions at the Institute of Public Administration of Canada into this, but that's a side issue. Thanks and happy anniversary, I guess! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I have managed to turn it into a start class article. By the way, if people feel strong that the article title should be Canada 150, please move it. It is pretty widely used, but then so are other forms like the article title, or the 150th anniversary of Confederation. So I just listed all three in the lead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 census data and Wikidata

In a few weeks (Feb. 8), the first data will be released from the Canada 2016 Census. It would be great to use this opportunity to really take advantage of Wikidata by updating the Wikidata entries for the Canadian cities, towns, and municipalities. When you look at how extensive Wikidata is used for example by Philippine cities and municipalities (take as example Alitagtag, Batangas), it is clear that it can greatly minimize repetitive work and future updates. The advantage of Wikidata is even more obvious when you look at the French WP. Looking at the French version of Alitagtag, Batangas, you notice that the infobox is almost entirely populated, but the source page has next to nothing; all data is taken from Wikidata.

Let's create templates similar to what's in use by Philippine cities and municipalities and populate Wikidata as soon as the info is released. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Note for those unfamiliar with Wikidata, the information for Alitagtag, Batangas linked above is obtained from entry Q59251 at Wikidata using {{PH wikidata}}, which pulls specific properties associated with a parameter in the infobox. (Gory details: if you hover over the Wikidata properties, you'll see a property number. these are global for Wikidata, such as Property:P1082 for population. This property is referenced in the {{PH wikidata}} template as {{safesubst:#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|{{{2}}}|P1082|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}, which obtains the value from Wikidata and transcludes it to the calling infobox.) I think some users would find the template in use at French Wikipedia frustrating, as it gives no indication of how it obtains data, and more importantly how to fix it. (For the record, it's from the template "Infobox Localité", which uses template "Infobox en Lua", and modules "Infobox" and "Infobox/Localité". Assuming a new user could get this far, how would they determine where the change needs to be made? It does, however, have the added benefit of possibly deterring some of the pop. vandals we get.) Mindmatrix 20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata is just the current values, am I right? We can't specify previous censuses in the case of comparisons? What about census tracts, would that be entered? Alaney2k (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There are ways to add previous years' data as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. See again Alitagtag wikidata. There already was census data for 2015 and 2010, and I just added 2007 to show that multiple values are possible. As for census tracts, not sure what you mean here, but we can always create new properties at wikidata to suit our needs. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Census tracts are finer-grained units, often used to find populations of unincorporated communities (for example, small communities within a township or neighbourhoods in a city). You can see an example at Markham Village, Ontario, and here's a map of it, showing four dissemination areas within the tract. The list of census tracts in the Toronto CMA is quite long. For census tract maps for 2001, 2006, and 2011 CMAs and CAs, see this. Mindmatrix 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW: how does one link other pop. data. For the example above, the 2015 population can be transcluded using {{PH-wikidata|population_total}}, but its not clear from the code in {{PH wikidata}} how to pull the 2010 or 2007 values. I suspect it would involve using the "point in time" property (Property:P585), and I see qualifier=P585 in the template's code, but can't seem to pull that data. Mindmatrix 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If a census tract has WP article (like Markham Village, Ontario), then there is obviously also a corresponding wikidata entry where the census data goes.

As for historic data, that should not be linked but should be part of the WP article, because it will never change. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, keep in mind that some communities (such as Markham Village) consist of more than one census tract. (A census tract may also cover more than one community, though I'd have to verify this.) Regarding your second point, the intention of using {{PH wikidata}} for older data is, for example, in the demographics section of Alitagtag, Batangas, where | 2010 = 23649 could be replaced by | 2010 = {{PH wikidata|2010 population}} or some such (likewise for earlier census years). If the data is centrally available, we may as well use it instead of maintaining it manually on articles. Mindmatrix 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

P199, using Wikidata moving forward intrigues me, but I admittedly am having difficulty undertstanding how it all works. Could I bother you to set up a wikidata page for Whitecourt with its 2011 federal census and 2013 municipal census results and then replace the population parameters in Whitecourt's infobox with the code that calls the results from the Wikidata page? Links to the diffs for all actions would be extremely helpful. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

P199, thank you for making the edits to Whitecourt's Wikidata page and the Whitecourt article here on Wikipedia. I've captured the diffs to study. Tomorrow I will likely just hard code everything into Alberta municipality infoboxes and then when things settle and I get the hang of it I'll cycle through again using the Wikidata method. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I used direct links to Wikidata, but I would prefer to use a template like {{CA wikidata}} (similar to {{PH wikidata}}) that can format the data and make it more flexible. Not sure when I will get around to that, or maybe someone else can take up this task in the meantime. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous main articles

We are going to have to watch over our Indigenous main articles .....going to get a wave of student edits....pls see Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Windsor/Social Issues in Sport Management (Winter 2017).--Moxy (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, at some point we're going to need to start moving everything associated with Aboriginal peoples in Canada to Indigenous peoples in Canada. As many of you know, I'm sure, there is a change underway. The issue is addressed here, and here, to name but two. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Canadian definition, and entries from being removed by Pakistanis

I found that the articles Indo-Canadians in Toronto and Indo-Canadians in Vancouver are repeatedly removed from Template:Overseas Pakistani by Pakistanis who are saying that they are not Indians: See the edit history. In fact "Indo-Canadian" is synonymous with South Asian Canadian (I compiled Indo-Canadians#Terminology with research from books discussing the nuances in these terms).

In a previous discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan, Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_Pakistan-related_topics#IP_user_removing_links_to_.22Indo-Canadian.22_articles_from_Pakistani_diaspora_templates, some editors suggested renaming "Indo-Canadians in..." to "South Asian Canadians in..." - I would not oppose this naming (if editors are Canadian and South Asian topics are OK with it I could move the articles).

Also I feel that any article specifically about Canadian people from post-partition India (Rather than South Asian Canadians in general) should be at East Indian Canadian since according to Nayar's book, people from post-partition India are disambiguated as "East Indian" (although in reality often the terms "South Asian", "East Indian", and "Indo-Canadian" are used interchangeably) (Book citation showing that "East Indian" is the specific term for people coming from India)

Pinging editors @MCPak: @Mar4d: @YBG: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that discussion. As WhisperToMe says, Indo- and South Asian are probably interchangeable. However, Wikipedia conventionally has an article on Indo-Canadians which is on post-1947 Indian migrants, whereas South Asian Canadians is on migrants from the wider South Asia region. If the Toronto and Vancouver articles are on the latter group, it would make sense to rename to South Asian Canadians for consistency's sake. As far as renaming the Indo-Canadians article itself is concerned, it would need to be discussed on that article's talk page. Though I think if WP:COMMONNAME is considered, "Indo-Canadians" is preferred over "East Indian Canadians", so the article should retain its title. Mar4d (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Indo- does not mean from India the country; it means from the Indian subcontinent, which is inclusive of Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. As noted, for example, Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of India prior to independence in 1947; they became the separate country of Pakistan because unlike the rest of India they were Muslim-majority areas instead of Hindu-majority, and not until 1971 did "East Pakistan" actually become a separate country called Bangladesh. I would not at all object to the proposed renaming, however, if that's what it takes to stop the editwarring — I agree entirely that "South Asian" is by far the more common term for this now. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bearcat:@Mar4d: I went ahead and did the renaming to South Asian. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

why do you even bother asking for input when you're going ahead to do what you want anyway? Was the renaming done by RM or did you just commandeer the change because you presume you're right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.176.34 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge February 2017 is Multilingualism

FYI, take a look in commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - February - Multilingualism. I'm sure there is some nice picture regarding also Canada and its many language communities and native group that can be proposed, if you have it stored it somewhere. It's a way to think about images that we don't always collect, but can be useful.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Large increase in traffic to neglected articles

FYI the following articles have had a large increase in viewership after the American elections:

• Canadian nationality law (views) C-Class High-importance
• Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (views) Start-Class High-importance
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Views) Start-Class Low-importance
• Canada Permanent Resident Card (Views) ???  ??? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
  • Same happened in Health care in Canada (Views) C-Class High-importance Ottawahitech (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

How do you look that sort of thing up? Alaney2k (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

At the left of the page, in the sidebar, is a link called "Page information". Click that, and at the bottom of the page you are taken to is an external tool called "Pageview statistics". That will show you the pageviews of any particular page for whatever range of dates you enter. The increased interest seems to have been a blip on the day after the election, and has largely subsided back to normal background now. Pyrope 20:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrope: Yes, the blip was only for a short while, thankfully. Otherwise it would be rather embarrassing to have 3 High-importance articles of this wikiproject rated C or less. No? Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

@Ottawahitech:, what I think you might be identifying there are deficiencies in the assessments. The Canadian nationality law article is important to understanding Canada and what it means to be Canadian, and so justifies its 'High' importance, but I'd argue that the depth of detail in there places it at least into B-class, and it might be able to be shifted into A with very little work. Conversely, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is a solid Start-class article right enough, but to argue that knowledge of this one government department is 'vital' is absurd. To me, that article would struggle to justify even a Mid-importance rating. I don't think we are doing too badly given the number of contributors and this being a volunteer project, after all. Pyrope 21:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrope: Assessments are one of the mysteries of Wikipedia as far as I am concerned. One thing I know is that there are very few WikiProjects that keep their assessments up to date. I was keeping track of this for a while, and at that time wp:WikiProject Medicine was the only one that I found that regularly added ratings to articles newly added to their WikiProject. Not sure how good their members were adding articles to the wikiproject in the first place.

Who does this for wp:WikiProject Canada? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

I, for one, have a habit of visiting the Assessment table on the project's main page, and Category:Unknown-importance Canada-related articles to find articles needing assessment. I also check talk pages on Canadian articles I happen upon, and add the WPCanada banner if it's missing. Incidentally, the Assessment table currently shows a total of 132,991 pages in the scope of WPCanada, of which 1,340 are missing assessment of quality and/or importance. PKT(alk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@PKT: If only we could duplicate you we would be doing fine, just kidding. I have not seen anyone one else rating articles in this huge WikiProject, which I believe is one of the largest on Wikipedia(?). Just wondering how other such large projs do their assessments? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: With over 130,000 assessed articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment) it's fair to say there have been some editors active in assessing articles. I should point out that just because you haven't interacted with editors that do this, doesn't imply they don't exist (I've assessed a few thousand articles). Assessment is straightforward for many classes of 'articles', such as categories and redirects which simply get a blank banner, stubs which almost always get class=stub|importance=low, or short referenced articles, which get class=start or class=C. To rate an article higher than that, one should really leave a message on the talk detailing the B-class criteria being satisfied, or a full peer review for class A, GA or FA. As PKT (talk · contribs) mentioned, check the talk page of Canada-related articles you happen to visit; a red-link talk page is a sure sign an assessment is needed (and project banners in general, for that matter). Mindmatrix 20:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, there is no requirement for a peer review for A class articles. That classification is there to highlight those articles that could, with a little work only, likely go for FA review. I agree that if rating at that level (very rare) a note at the talk page highlighting deficiencies to be addressed would be a useful addition. Pyrope 00:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

All I can add to this is, if you're not sure about what rating to apply, adding {{WikiProject Canada|class=|importance=}} is helpful. By doing so, you bring the article in question into scope for further review. Ciao, PKT(alk) 21:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: Another way to get to the page views is to click View history at the top of any page, then click Page view statistics on the History revision page that opens up. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

How are articles here rated?

I am curious to find out where the criteria is defined for rating articles in this wikiproject. For example I see that Yuen Pau Woo is rated as Low-importance, just wondering why? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment#Quality scale and the "Importance scale" section further down that page. Those two sections should explain why Yuen Pau Woo has a 'low' importance rating. Mindmatrix 20:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Importance" is a bit of a misnomer for what the rating is actually meant to cover: it's not an assessment of their power or influence in the world, but of how critical they are for a novice reader who knows very little if anything at all about Canada to learn. To use the example of the theoretical American who's thinking of moving to Canada because he's so horrified by Trump, the Wikipedia articles he's going to look at are things like Canada, Justin Trudeau, the provinces, a few of the larger cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or Vancouver, and some other broad overview articles about Canadian politics and society — so we rank those as "high". Apart from premiers, prime ministers and GGs, however, most politicians are ranked either "mid" or "low", and apart from the biggest metropolitan megacities most other cities or towns are ranked either "mid" or "low" — not because we're dissing them at all, but because they're not topics our hypothetical Trump refugee needs to know that much about yet. The guiding principle is not some kind of Forbes power ranking; it's how essential the topic is or isn't for a reader who knows nothing about Canada yet to read.

Yuen Pau Woo, for example, is not a special case among politicians in any substantive way; he's not more essential for our Trump refugee to learn about than most of his other colleagues in the Senate are. The Trump refugee does not need to have extensive background knowledge about every individual MP or Senator in the entire Canadian political scene; he just needs to acquaint himself with the system, while the individual personalities who are bouncing around within it can mostly wait until he's actually here binge-watching Rosemary Barton.

Think of it sort of like a university education: "high" importance ranking is the basic introductory courses that you have to take right at the beginning; "mid" importance is the "second/third year" courses that you take once you've got the foundations in place; "low" importance is the specialized electives that you don't take until you're getting to the end of your degree, based on your own choices about what extra bits of deep knowledge you personally want to dig into. Our hypothetical Trump refugee, for example, is not going to flunk the citizenship test just because he can't name Yuen Pau Woo or North Battleford, Saskatchewan off the top of his head — but he probably is going to flunk the citizenship test if he thinks Canada's current Prime Minister is Justin Bieber and its national capital is Canada City. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide this comprehensive introduction to Canada's project assessments, @Bearcat. Is this information also available to future generations of wp:WikiProject Canada? I assume this has been discussed before on these talk-pages? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

This isn't a matter of WikiProject Canada having its own special Canada-specific way of using that feature differently than other WikiProjects do — it's how "importance" rankings work in all WikiProjects. So we don't need any special Canada-specific policy statement about it separate from the standard generic documentation that already exists for the basic importance-ranking feature. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ranking is problematic when underlying data changes happen frequently, however, the LARGEST population, area, polluter, etc. is factual and brings context to the knowledge. I agree with Bearcat that without them the public who use Wikipedia as a resource will fail to find the vital knowledge they need. TheKevlar 14:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)

Need help: sovereignty of Canada from the UK

A Canada article's infobox item is in dispute.

After weeks of debate, the title of a section was changed to Sovereignty from the United Kingdom. Previously the title of that item was simply the word Establishment. (establishment of what??)

Sure enough, a user then revised it (last night) to Establishment from the British Empire. Please see the Talk topic at Canada : Infobox... it was NOT "establishment" and not from the "British Empire" and the topic Establishment of Full Sovereignty NOT Establishment from the UK

There is an older Talk topic that goes on and on but did not resolve the issue. Perhaps the issue needs comments from fresh eyes who are familiar with the topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Results of 2016 Census - Many Pages Need Updates

So many pages need updates as a result of the census released this week. I have done some to a few articles today, but this is not a one man job.

Some Useful web sites:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170208/dq170208a-eng.htm

Grenier, Éric (February 8, 2017). "Census 2016: Canada's population surpasses 35 million". CBC News. CBC. Retrieved February 8, 2017. The four Atlantic provinces recorded the lowest growth in the country

Elizabeth Fraser (February 8, 2017). "New Brunswick is Canada's only province with a shrinking population". CBC News. CBC. Retrieved February 8, 2017. Census confirms Moncton as province's largest city, passing Saint John

Campion-Smith, Bruce (February 8, 2017). "Canada's population grew 1.7M in 5 years, latest census shows". Toronto Star. Toronto. Retrieved February 8, 2017.

"Population of Metro Vancouver outpaced national growth rate". Vancouver Sun. Vancouver. February 8, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2017.</ref>)<ref>Campion-Smith, Bruce (February 8, 2017). "Canada's population grew 1.7M in 5 years, latest census shows". Toronto Star. Toronto. Retrieved February 8, 2017.

Press, Jordan (February 8, 2017). "Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver now home to one-third of Canadians: census". CTV News. Bell Media. Retrieved February 8, 2017.

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And instead of just updating the articles, update the corresponding wikidata page and then link to it. See the discussion above. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

P 1 9 9 ..hmm, I did read that discussion but I still don't understand how to update the corresponding wikidata page and then link to it I have never seen or heard of this method. Also, articles often discuss population growth in the text, not just population of a city or province as a bit of data. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I updated the Demographics sections and infoboxes of 346 of Alberta's municipalities yesterday over the course of eight hours using an Excel-based semi-automated process that is quite efficient (accomplished one municipality every 1.4 minutes, which is inclusive of breaks over the eight hours). New to Wikidata, I would have been lucky to accomplish 20% of that in that timeframe. Good news is the articles are now up-to-date and consistent in appearance, and the better news is once all other articles on my hit list are up-to-date, I have five years to gnomishly transfer the info to Wikidata and become intimately familiar with it so that I can do 346 municipalities in eight hours again in February 2022. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's great @Hwy43 ... yeah, I have no experience at all in the process that involves transferring info to Wikidata. I'm sure the community appreciates the tons of work you did. Not sure who will do the other nine provinces. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Though not nearly as efficient as Hwy43 (he is a wizard), I've completely updated List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, List of municipalities in Nunavut, List of municipalities in Yukon, working on List of municipalities in Ontario and will then go to List of municipalities in Nova Scotia. From here I can start with specific municipality pages using exactly the template used by Hwy43 for Albertan municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The update to List of municipalities in Alberta is also 97.8% complete. Mattximus, if you want to send me an email, I can share with you my spreadsheet to show you how I built the formulae to produce the wikicode for the Demographics section and infobox updates. It also has the formulae used to update each record at the above list as well. I would say it took me four to six hours to prepare the spreadsheet and formule over the past week in prep for the big day yesterday. I may have shared with you a spreadsheet a couple years ago with formulae for a similar purpose. I can't remember. If no, maybe I recall offering. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well Mattximus I nominate you for a WIZARD badge. Your task also seems like a lot of work. And Wow, Hwy43 is almost finished with Alberta! I have never seen so much work by any editor. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. With the prep work on the Excel-based formulae done in advance of yesterday, these 12 edits here and two edits at a transcluded page replacing 346 rows took all of 29 minutes. It was all the edits to the totals and prose that took an hour and a half, painfully long in comparison. I've received an email from Mattximus and will send the spreadsheet tonight so that he can review. It will take some prep work to adapt for each province/territory, but once done, Mattximus should be able to fly through most of the records for each list in short order. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Hwy43, I sent you an email through the wikipedia system and will await your spreadsheet to work on the other municipalities. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it, Mattximus. Been busier than expected but will definitely get you something this weekend. My Alberta one is a bit messy. I have started building one for Nova Scotia that will be cleaner. I'll send you that one when done. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No hurry at all, I'm also busy this week. I had to work on the Northewest Territories one again this morning since the areas were a bit off with this new census, so had to redo all the totals. It's 99% perfect now, but the only thing missing is I can't figure out how to source the exact census 2016 page like you did for Nova Scotia. My link just goes to the province selection page. Mattximus (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Are only "scholarly" sources acceptable in Canadian history articles?

There is a debate about this on the Talk pages of two articles, most recently Patriation.

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (February 2017)

The same user says that only "scholarly" sources are acceptable. Is that correct?

What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the claim. It definitely best to use scholarly sources for complicated issues in Canadian constitutional law, because non-academic sources tend to be looser with terminology and are consequentially less precise. Uncomplicated content cited to non-academic sources is fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not hard to find good sources. I made Bibliography of Canadian history years ago...but will update it with constitutional experts over the next few days. Must remember that we add sources not just to prove a fact but to help our readers get more infomation that can be used for reaching and learning the context of things. Sources that only regurgitate the info here is not very helpful in the long run. History of Canada has been widely published. ..thus we have no need for sub par sources. --Moxy (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

It's great to see that Wikimania will be held in Canada this year! I have never been to one, but I hope to go this time.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I hope you can make it! If you need some help with travel costs, note that the deadline for scholarship applications is tomorrow! —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Arctic Gnome, I think I can swing a tank of gas each way.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Jon Vickers the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the disambiguation page on which his name appears?

A discussion regarding the above topic at Talk:John Vickers (disambiguation)#Requested move 18 February 2017 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

ABC Spark

FYI, there seems to be a concerted effort over many months [19][20][21][22][23][24] by editors in Virginia and California to put in fake "Closure" dates for this Canadian TV channel. (I suppose a solution might be a geoblock for California and Virginia on this particular article, if such a thing is currently technically possible on MediaWiki) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

I've posted an WP:RM to propose that Pride Week (Toronto) be moved to the title Pride Toronto, on the grounds that since it's now an entire month rather than just one week, the current title is confusing and inaccurate. But six days after I posted it, it has yet to attract even one comment from anybody at all either way. Anybody willing to come weigh in at Talk:Pride Week (Toronto)? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your rationale. If nobody else answers this, then you can probably assume they do not disagree with the plan. I would go ahead and do it. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

One for the roadgeeks

Wikipedia has had an article about Pinkie Road, a road in Regina which was slated to be upgraded into a four-lane controlled access link between Saskatchewan Highway 1 and Saskatchewan Highway 11 in the west end of the city, since the project was first announced in 2009. It is no longer a standalone project, however, but merely one leg of a complete Regina Bypass that includes Pinkie Road but then loops all the way around the city to reconnect at the intersection of Highway 1 with Saskatchewan Highway 46 — and as of 2017, the whole project is under construction in three concurrent phases. The project as a whole is obviously notable, but Wikipedia does not need and cannot justify having two separate articles about the bypass project as a whole and the Pinkie Road segment in isolation — we only need one article about the whole thing, not two separate articles standing independently of each other about two different parts of the same project.

Accordingly, the existing Pinkie Road article was moved to the Regina Bypass title earlier this week following an RM discussion. I've made some changes to the article accordingly, but as I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it beyond what I can glean from its project management website, I wanted to ask if any Saskabushians and/or roadgeeks are willing to assist in helping to get the article updated to reflect its new wider focus. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Review edits by Connected contributor at Jeff Rosenthal

I would be grateful if someone could review edits I have made at the page of Canadian statistician Jeff Rosenthal. Though these are almost all adding Cite templates and making improvements to references, I have a personal connection to the subject of the article and hence a WP:COI. I have added a {{Connected contributor}} template to the article talk page, the "checked" parameter of which should also be updated with the date of the verification. Many thanks. --papageno (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area

Please see Talk:Buffalo–Niagara_Falls_metropolitan_area#RfC_about_the_3_separate_regional_articles. This could use a few more responses. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

New Article: Canadian Children's Literature

Hello! We are a group of UBC students participating in a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for our Canadian Literature class, and we’re planning on writing an article on Canadian Children's Literature.

Our course page can be found here: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/UBC/ENG470D-003_Canadian_Studies_(2017) And our group sandbox (which will be continuously updated with information about our work once we get started) can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Llnguyen/sandbox

Any advice or feedback as we work on this article would be greatly appreciated. LLN (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Our working bibliography:

"Children's Literature in English." Encyclopedia of Literature in Canada. Edited by William H. New, Toronto UP, 2002, pp. 198-201.

Gail, Edwards and Judith Saltman. Picturing Canada: a history of Canadian children's illustrated books and publishing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Print.

Galway, Elizabeth. From Nursery Rhymes to Nationhood. Routledge, 2010. 7 March 2017 <http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=122941> == Vancouver Style ==

LLN (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

and thanks in advance! Hopefully there are Canadian Wikipedia eds who are knowledgeable on the topic. That's not me, but I am with you in spirit. Alaney2k (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think that's a great idea. That could serve as the main article for Category:Canadian children's literature. Note the capitalization of "children's" -- we don't capitalize common nouns, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, our group has decided to work on an article of a different topic, mostly due to time constraints. If anyone else would like to take on the task of creating a main article for Canadian children's literature, feel free to do so. LLN (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with maps

I am not sure if I should just as the graphics lab about this ,,,,but maybe a Canadian knows how to make animated maps. Canadian Museum of History has added lots of animated maps that are simply great virtual museum. Anyone here know how to make these? would love to add these to Jacques Cartier article..etc...-- Moxy (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted radio stations

I know there's currently work to excise non-notable stations from WP, particularly the tourist info stations. It looks like someone has decided to add an external link (as a link or ref) to community articles instead. For example, see this edit to Brockville, Ontario or this diff to District Municipality of Muskoka. I've reverted these, but it's something to keep an eye on. Mindmatrix 21:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct that that's not appropriate — a radio station that doesn't have its own article to link to does not get to have its own web URL inserted into Wikipedia as a substitute for a Wikipedia article, regardless of whether that's as a direct offsite link in body text or as a primary source "reference" for its own existence. Thanks for noticing. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Creation Indigenous Canadian Literature

Hello everyone.

My teammates and I are planning to create a Wikipedia article about Indigenous Literature in Canada for a class project. We have created an article titled "Aboriginal Literature in Canada". We will likely be focusing on notable authors and award wining texts. We may also focus on the literature history of Aboriginal literature. Any feedback about the article creation or suggestions to works will be much appreciated.

Our Sandbox is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayayukichi83/sandbox

Thank you very much!

Ayayukichi83 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thumbs up! 👍 Alaney2k (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a societal shift underway, from "Aboriginal" to "Indigenous," as mentioned here and here, to name but two. Unfortunately, I think we're a little behind the curve here at Wikipedia in terms of possibly shifting a massive amount of user-generated article, category and template content to "Indigenous." I'm not trying to put all that on your shoulders, heaven knows, just a head's up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur that there is a shift toward "indigenous". In Canada, we have also used "first nations", but I'm not sure on the acceptance of that term today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll just chime in before any colleagues to do to say that First Nations (title case) is indeed the correct term for one of three Indigenous peoples of Canada, the other two being Métis and Inuit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Shawn is correct on both counts. First Nations is still a standard term, but it only refers to the group that used to be called "Indians" before Canadian society started being more sensitive about the language on this — it is not inclusive of the Métis or the Inuit. And while "Aboriginal" was indeed the most common term for "First Nations Inuit Métis" until quite recently, he's also quite correct that the balance is definitely tilting much more strongly toward "indigenous" now. Even the Juno Award category for FN I M music was renamed from Aboriginal to Indigenous earlier this year, and I would hardly look to the Juno Awards as a leading indicator of social or linguistic change — if they've switched over, then les jeux sont faits. We've got a lot of work ahead of us in catching up to that, for sure. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was impacting the Junos, too. It seems to me that APTN is even focusing more on just using the acronym and less on what if anything the letters mean, a la CTV. Bearcat, I don't even know how to begin to build consensus to start moving and renaming things. Should it start on the WikiProject Canada talk page? If you had any time to fit this into your rather packed schedule, I'd pledge to work alongside you in this--it's been bothering me for some time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm also much more prepared to assist in a switchover project than to necessarily lead one per se, but I do think that initiating a formal discussion here and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America — oh, look, another data point right there in support of this! — would be the logical first step.

For additional data points, the CBC's main portal for FN/I/M news is called CBC Indigenous. The Canadian Encyclopedia appears to be a bit wobbly about it — their article is titled as "Indigenous", but its URL is still "aboriginal" and the article still uses aboriginal at some places in the text, but what this implies to me is a recent pagemove that they haven't finished cleaning up yet (probably for the same reasons we don't always get everything cleaned up in one shot after a page move, so the wobbliness wouldn't count as evidence against the shift.) And there's also an article in Maclean's which acknowledges that "aboriginal" isn't outright wrong per se, but explains some of the reasoning behind why the switchover to "indigenous" is happening. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

One thing I caution about is not getting carried away with the effort to the point that there is a mass change of "Indian reserve" to "First Nations reserve" or "Indigenous reserve" throughout the project. Despite the evolution of Indian to First Nations to Indigenous over the past few decades, federal legislation unfortunately has not evolved along side it. "Indian reserve" remains a legislated term and is part of the official legal names of nearly every established Indian reserve in Canada. Thus, it remains the WP:COMMONNAME to describe the reserve lands established for Indigenous peoples, and parts of the common names of each reserve due the term's explicit inclusion within their official legal names. It seems like this would be the last thing to ever transition, and it would take legislative changes to terminology and official legal names to get things started. I hope the feds eventually take this step as it becomes increasing awkward over time to err on the side of what is technically correct over being culturally sensitive. Hwy43 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course we wouldn't do a changeover of "First Nations" → "indigenous" or anything like that; indigenous is an umbrella term that includes, but is not purely synonymous with, First Nations and is not replacing usage of First Nations. It just pertains to situations where we're using aboriginal, not where we're specifically referring to FN or Inuit or Métis on their own. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat is correct here. First Nations is a sub-category of Indigenous. "Aboriginal" should generally be shifted to "Indigenous" except in situations when where the former is used for official reasons (which would also apply to terms like "Indian" which are dated when used in a non-legal/technical context). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello.
My team and I have created the page. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Literatures_in_Canada.
Any feedback and suggestions will be much appreciated.
Ayayukichi83 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)