Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

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

Archive 1 (2004) • Archive 2 (Jan - Jun 2005) • Archive 3 (Jul - Dec 2005) • Archive 4 (Jan - Jun 2006) • Archive 5 (Jul - Dec 2006) • Archive 6 (Jan - Jun 2007) • Archive 7 (Jul - Dec 2007) • Archive 8 (Jan - Jun 2008) • Archive 9 (Jul - Dec 2008) • Archive 10 (Jan - Jun 2009) • Archive 11 (Jul - Dec 2009) • Archive 12 (Jan - Jun 2010) • Archive 13 (Jul - Dec 2010) • Archive 14 (Jan- Jun 2011) • Archive 15 (Jul- Dec 2011) • Archive 16 (Jan - Jun 2012) • Archive 17 (Jul - Dec 2012) • Archive 18 (Jan - Jun 2013) • Archive 19 (Jul - Dec 2013) • Archive 20 (Jan - Jun 2014)

Category:Communities in Ontario and other provinces

Oh, I also wanted to seek opinions about another issue. Category:Communities in Ontario contains almost all Ontario communities, but excludes those that may be categorized elsewhere (eg - Category:Greater Sudbury, Ontario). I think this would be a good example of allowing exceptions to the rule (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories for details, fourth paragraph). Most people won't find Capreol, Ontario, for example, if they don't know it's part of Greater Sudbury. I think we should list all communities in the provincial category, including those in sub-categories. Mindmatrix 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

My first concern with this is that no other category for "Communities in X" exists on Wikipedia; we really need to find an entirely different way to structure and categorize these kinds of articles (eg. separating them into "Towns in Ontario", "Villages in Ontario", etc., but there may be other ways.) One example of why this is a problem is that the "Communities in Canada" category has been filed for months in a nonexistent (redlinked) "Communities by country" category (which is never going to exist.) Bearcat 21:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Every country seems to have its own standards; for the US, there are Locations in X categories (for example: Category:Locations in Maine). I don't object to Villages in etc, since we already have the equivalent Cities in and Towns in categories, but how do you handle the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated communities? For example, Osgoode Township, Ontario consists of a number of communities (see this) - how do you classify them? Words like communities or locations are generic enough to capture all those places. Mindmatrix 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I should have inspected more categories for US states. They've created Category:Unincorporated communities in Alaska etc. for some states. For the larger states, they also have Villages in and Hamlets in categories (see Category:New York). I wouldn't object to using similar categories for Canadian locations. Mindmatrix 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Department of Marine and Fisheries

The article Department of Marine and Fisheries (Canada) seems redundant to the article Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada). It's the same department, but under the original name. There has been some confusion with naming as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also known as Fisheries and Oceans Canada (I know the confusion first hand, as I'm currently working with the Governemnt.) I suggest merging DMF into DFO, but I'd like to hear what others have to say before I flag it for VfD. Zhatt July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

First of all, if you do merge them, you should not VfD. The correct procedure is to create a redirect at the old article pointing to the merged one. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Fisheries and Oceans Canada redirects to DFO as it should and DMF clearly states it is a former department. It may be desirable to keep an article about the former department as a history of the ministry or it might be better to keep the history with the current department article. I haven't decided yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

OK, no VfD. Didn't know that. Thanks. Does anyone else have an opinion on if DMF should be merged into and redirected to DFO? If you notice, on DMF, there is a list of departmental name changes at the bottom. What gives DMF the right to have an article but not these other variations on the name? Zhatt July 8, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Go for the merge and redirect like DoubleBlue suggested. It's interesting stuff that should be under a history section in the main DFO article. I would argue that it should be in the same article because the function of the former department are very similar to the current DFO. At a minimum, there should be a "See also" link in both articles. See Wikipedia:Merge for instructions. — Luigizanasi 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Article merged. Thanks for your help and comments. Zhatt July 8, 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Yes, you were right Zhatt. It's better merged. Well done. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Generally, my rule is that if something merely changes name but is essentially the same thing other than the name change, then the old name should just be a redirect to the new one and the history should go in the current name's article. However, if two or three or four things merged to create one new thing, or one thing got taken over by another thing that already existed, then I'd do separate articles. Bearcat 17:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've come into this discussion late and don't really have an opinion about whether the content should be merged with DFO, however it is wrong to think that the Dept. of Marine & Fisheries is the same as DFO. Most of the "Marine" portion of the portfolio lives on under Dept. of Transport/Transport Canada. I created the entry when I was rewriting the Canadian Coast Guard article - just an easier way to better explain the federal government's structure. I was also considering separate articles on the Dept. of Marine (a sucessor), but never go around to it at the time. Plasma east 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada geo stub redirects listed for deletion

Some redirects to the four canada geography stub types are up for deletion on WP:SFD. Please comment if you think these redirects are useful, or if the main stub names suffice. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

New Provincial geo-stubs names up for discussion

WP:WSS/C#Newfoundland-geo-stub, NovaScotia-geo-stub Should Newfoundland and Labrador be {{NewfoundlandandLabrador-geo-stub}} or just {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} or something else? DoubleBlue (Talk) 10:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}. I'll add comments to the proposal page. Mindmatrix 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Created as {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}, with redirect at {{Labrador-geo-stub}}. In the end, NovaScotia-geo-stub wasn't created - but {{Maritimes-geo-stub}} was in its place, to cover NS, NB and PEI. If that gets to be too big a category, it may be split further in the future. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-stubbing of the articles is complete. Mindmatrix 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. I was going to help. :-) Good work all. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ever wondered why there are so many of us?

I'm sure that I am not the only one to have felt that there are an awful lot of Canadians on Wikipedia. Jimbo just released a table ranking countries by Wikipedia page views per capita. Among English speaking nations Canada was first with 0.26 page views per person during the period studied (believed to be one day). 4.10% of Wikipedia traffic came from Canada, placing us fourth in total traffic after the United States, Germany, and Japan. Most surprising is that Canada is ahead of the larger UK by a significant margin, and has almost double the per capita page view rate of Australia. Of course this jsut raises the question of why Wikipedia is so popular in Canada. - SimonP 14:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Canada has the highest internet penetration among anglophone nations. We also have a healthy distrust of experts, and a traditional citizen participation in public life. Put the two together, and voila. For example, see Progressive Bloggers.--Simon.Pole 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

New Article Notification

I'm a new user to Wikipedia and I think it's great. A suggestion would be to have a method whereby an individual can be advised when a new article is created concerning a topic of interest. I have a watchlist, it only advises me of changes. HJKeats 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You could put a category page on your watchlist. Zhatt 17:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You can watch articles that don't yet exist. For example, visit this non-existent article and click watch. When someone creates it, it'll pop up on your watchlist. You can also do this with templates, categories etc. You can do it even more quickly by adding an action to the URL, like so (note: clicking that link will add This_non-existent_article to your watchlist). You can simply paste that URL into your browser's location bar, and change the title to the article you want to watch. I hope that helps. Mindmatrix 18:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Notice board rearrangement

Every time I come to the Canadian wikipedians' notice board I get annoyed that I have to scroll though so much page and that it sometimes takes a while to load. I'm wondering if it would be viable to take each heading and branch it off onto it's own sub-page. Maybe not all the pages, but some. We really don't need the Active Canadian Wikipedians on the main page. I'd really like to have the Canada related candidates for deletion on it's own page, so I may just watch that if I wish. What do you think?
•Zhatt• 19:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. If you were to move the "Pending tasks" and "List of active Cdn. Wikipedians" off into branches, it would make the page much more functional. Perhaps the Canadian bio and Canadian MP tempaltes could be moved to the bottom of the page as well. I'd like to see thee VfD and discussions on the same (main) page, though. Ground Zero 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, I'd much prefer if the ToC could be moved up to the top with a __TOC__ placement. --Deathphoenix 20:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the Active Canadian Wikipedians section have a different title? It seems to imply that people on the Wikipedians/Canada list that not on the Active list are inactive. Should it go on it's own branch as Canadian wikipedians' notice board/members or the like? In fact, what is the major distinction between the Active Canadian Wikipedians list and the Wikipedians/Canada list?

•Zhatt• 21:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think such lists are inherently unmaintainable. We should use Category:Canadian Wikipedians, and possibly create Category:Active Canadian Wikipedians if enough people want it (I don't think it's necessary; contribution logs offer a fair indication of this). We could also create categories for Wikipedians by province too (again, I don't think it's necessary). Let's get rid of these lists. Mindmatrix 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of redesigning this page significantly. A few concerns I've noted:

1. I'm not sure that we really need to maintain both the "New Topics" subsection and the "Pending tasks" chart. Their purposes simply overlap too much. Personally, I think the chart is out of control; it's entirely too long and unwieldy and hard to edit properly (and nobody ever seems to take an entry off when they're done). I'd frankly be in favour of merging the chart and the "New topics" lists into a single format somewhat different than the existing chart. Maybe we could break them up into subject-based subpages with sections for new articles, existing articles that need attention and a "wikipedians interested in this particular topic" section?
2. Maybe the biography and Parliament templates could be handled in the same way, too...or maybe not. What I note is that the MP template, in particular, effectively duplicates the existing subpages for Members of Parliament, so those pages are no longer strictly necessary.
3. It seems that the moment enough discussion has been added that an active discussion topic is no longer at the bottom of the discussion section, that discussion dies even when somebody actively asks for new input. We should potentially think of a way to reorganize how those discussions are managed (eg. maybe subpages for each discussion, or something.)

I may have a few more ideas later; that's just a start. Bearcat 22:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mindmatrix that we should remove these lists and put more emphasis on the Category:Canadian Wikipedians. I agree with Bearcat that the Pending tasks has become unwieldy and should be merged and simplified. I don't know much about the templates as I have not looked into them at all. I believe that it would be unnecessary to have a sub-page for each discussion. A single sub-page for Canadian related items would be enough.

One question is: who would actually do this rearrangement? Is there an official or otherwise user who maintains this page?

•Zhatt• 22:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see subpages for each discussion; it allows for focused discussions, it acts as an automatic archival system, and it keeps page length reasonable. It's essentially the way VfD works right now, which is quite effective.

Zhatt, this page is maintained by the community. You can change things at will, though discussion is always better before making changes. Mindmatrix 22:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I'll take on the task and start moving things around later today or tomorrow (PST). I'll think I may start with the discussions unless someone thinks they may do a better job. I may need help with the templates as I'm not sure what is going on there.

•Zhatt• 22:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

OK! I did some MAJOR reworking. I moved everything from the to-do list onto the main page, so we don't need it anymore. I moved the discussions onto its own page and will move each individual discussion onto its own page later. I moved the "Active Canadian users" onto its own page along with the meet-up groups. I did a bunch of rearranging and cleaning up. The page is quite long now, but easier to navigate. I'm still thinking that we need to move many of the titles now on the main page onto their own pages too. Especially the New Articles section. If you think something is missing don't yell at me, just add it back. I'm sure some people might want those templates back in there, but I wasn't sure where to put em. Hope I didn't confuse too many people. If everyone hates it, we can always revert. You may have also noticed that I changed my signature. It was creating problems.
•Zhatt• 01:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

So is everything looking good? I spend two hours stright re-working the page and no one gives thanks or even gives a comment? Is there anything else that I should do? Should I move the New Articles section to it's own page or do people like it where it is? Should I still brake up the dissussion page into its own sub-sub-pages? Should we set up the old To-Do list (and other unused subpages) for deletion? (speedy delete?)

•Zhatt• 17:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you did make the change at the beginning of a weekend :-)

Comments: my eyes don't hurt anymore. Specifically, there isn't a jumble of notices and templates cluttering things up. However, the page is still too long. I've collected some links into a simple table for quicker reference (a nice side-effect is a shorter page).

I'd like to hear ideas about handling the discussions. My own preference is for each discussion to have its own thread; if that's the case, we can use the discussion page as a listing of current and archived discussions. Issues such as how to name each discussion article need to be resolved (that should be easy though).

And finally: thank you. Mindmatrix 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a nice table there. Im just wondering if that part should read "sub-projects" as they were part of the new articles section. What do you think about turning the whole page into a big, nice table like you have there with just a bunch of links to sub pages made from each section. I really think the Articles that need to be created section needs its own page.

•Zhatt• 18:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - glad you like the table. It still needs a little work though.

I don't want the whole page to be in the table; that's what we had before, no? I've pulled out only quick links to other pages from the main text (there are a few others to do still). I also don't want to replicate the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/to do page, so we should think about how to divide information into appropriate sections. I'd also like to have, at a minimum, a listing of active discussions on this page, with a direct link to the discussion thread. Mindmatrix 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Replicate the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/to do page? As in sort everything by topic instead of task? That does make sense, buy there are a lot more topics than there are types of tasks. If you think it can be done, I say sure.

•Zhatt• 19:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed the word don't in my sentence! The gist of my statement is to figure out which components need their own page, create those pages, delete the info from the notice board, and finally link to them from the table. Mindmatrix 21:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah! OK. That's what I want to do too. We are in agreement than.

•Zhatt• 21:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

After my latest change, it seems the table is fairly complete - adding anything else may make it too complex. Are there any complaints about this table? Is there anything missing, or should anything be removed?

As far as other improvements go, I propose the following:

• remove Articles to create from the main text into its own page (as per Zhatt)
  • possibly rename it Requested articles?
  • provide links from the notice board to each section on the new page
• remove Articles to expand from the main text into its own page
  • provide links from the notice board to each section on the new page
• remove Featured articles from the main text into its own page
• make the Requests for peer review more prominent

That should make this page shorter and give one-click access to any information desired. Yes/no? Mindmatrix 14:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I also propose merging Articles to clean up with Articles to expand. onto the same sub page. It could be simply called Aricles that need work or the like. Maybe a more jazzy name, like Workicles... Or not.

•Zhatt• 16:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

How about Articles to improve? I fear workicles may be a short-term fad :-) Mindmatrix 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• How about a heading called "Feature Articles" right above/below the "Votes for Featured article candidates" heading? Put all the Cda-related articles that have reached Feature Article status in there, about 4 articles by my count. The reason? Just to show off... -maclean25 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; that was actually the reason I proposed making a separate page for it, so that we could accumulate all Canada-related featured articles onto one page. Another appropriate place to put this may be in the Canada WikiPortal. Mindmatrix 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Citadel of Quebec

User Montréalais has recently changed Citadel of Quebec to Citadelle of Quebec. I am puzzled by his claim that Citadelle is used in both English and French. If you consult many of the gc.ca sites including http://www.pc.gc.ca/voyage-travel/pv-vp/itm5-/page5_E.asp you will see that the government continues to use the correct English word "citadel". Halifax also has an impressive British-built citadel Citadel Hill. A capital letter is not really required since citadels were built all over the place and the word is in every English dictionary. Understandably in Quebec the complex known as the Fortifications of Quebec will be referred to as a citadelle, but not elsewhere in the English speaking world when a perfectly good English word exists. This complex was built by the British and it is more than ironic that it should be presented to the rest of the world outside Quebec as somehow French. By this reasoning, every powder magazine in Quebec will have to be termed a poudrière in English. French Wikipedia should correctly use Citadelle de Québec but English Wikipedia should use Citadel of Quebec. Can we have some opinon on whether it is wise to frenchify an historic English word?--BrentS 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't actually see a contradiction between saying that "Citadel of Quebec" is a common term for the thing and saying that "La Citadelle" is its actual proper name. And yes, I would take the Governor General's website as a higher authority on this matter than a government tourism site; a tourist profile isn't bound by protocol to refer to the thing by its formal and proper name, while the GG more or less is. Bearcat 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Geo-stub sorting

The new templates for {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}} and {{Maritimes-geo-stub}} have been implemented, and articles have been sorted into their respective categories. Here's the current tally:

• Canada: 265 articles
• Alberta: 156 articles
• British Columbia: 208 articles
• Newfoundland and Labrador: 95 articles
• Maritimes: 138 articles
• Ontario: 738 articles
• Quebec: 341 articles

We need to work on expanding those articles - that's nearly 2000 stubs, and the list is growing rapidly. Mindmatrix 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Fraser Institute

Hey folks. I'm in the middle of a dispute with an anonymous user at the fraser institute article. The person keeps inserting material that is found on the fraser institute website. I just reverted the text for a third time and I was hoping that someone might like to weigh in on this problem. Thanks. --PullUpYourSocks 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The user has been copying direct off of this page. The best you can do is ask the user to stop in their talk page (I can see that you did) and if the user presists, list them at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. (By the way, that page is taking a very long time to load). I'll keep an eye on the article in question too.

•Zhatt• 22:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

L. P. Fisher Public Library

Hi, I stumbled across this library. I was wondering if anyone knows what makes it notable? I'm afraid Wikipedia will now start having articles about every library in Canada.

--YUL89YYZ 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Its primary notablilty comes from being a handsome and fairly old public building. It's also linked to Lewis P. Fisher. --NormanEinstein 15:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's not encyclopedic. It should likely be merged into Woodstock, New Brunswick and Lewis P. Fisher. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a notability standard. The content of this article seems quite verifiable, which is all that is important. - SimonP 15:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

My goodness you're right. (Wikipedia:Notability) Since everyone has always used this as a reason for deletion, I always thought it was policy.

•Zhatt• 18:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's quite true that Verifiable and NPOV are all that is required but there have been guidelines developed, more or less by consensus, to try and establish what is that fuzzy term, "encyclopedic". You may wish to consult: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents, Jimbo's No vote for Fame & Importance policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NOR, WP:FICT, WP:SCH, and WP:VAIN. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Government Departments

SimonP and I have been talking about Canadian Government department names. Many of the names are formated Department of TOPIC (Canada). The discussion was prompted when SimonP removed (Canada) from Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) for the fact that disambiguation was not needed. My arguement was that it was not a disambiguation but the fact that mand departments are commonly known as TOPIC of Canada. We were wondering what the names on Wikipedia should be? The common name or the official name? I'm not even sure what the official name is anymore: Department of TOPIC or Department of TOPIC Canada? I work at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and I remember someone saying that the government made a change a while ago saying that all departpents should have Canada in the name now. INAC (as its commonly called) used to be known as DIAND. Fisheries and Oceans is still known as DFO because no one here likes saying "foc".
•Zhatt• 17:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I like the TOPIC Canada naming but I suspect the official name is still Department of TOPIC. I do not strongly favour one over the other at Wikipedia but redirects at the other should, of course, be done.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) actually wisely suggests that "pre-disambiguation" be done for instances such as Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) to leave no chance of ambiguity, even if there are currently no other articles with that name. I suggest, therefore, that if there are to be any articles named in that format that the "(Canada)" be added. Obviously, if the TOPIC Canada format is used, the disambiguity is built in nicely.

The general rule for article names is to use the most commonly used and recognisable name rather than the official name. There is a bit of a mix, as you point out, between the popularity of different names: i.e., Department of National Defence vs. Environment Canada and some with equal popularity: Department of Fisheries and Oceans vs. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I think a good argument could be raised here for using "Dept. of" for consistency with other departments within and outside of Canada. My vote, however, is to use the name given on the official website. For example, although Fisheries and Oceans Canada's website is dfo.gc.ca the name on that site is Fisheries and Oceans Canada and I would go with that. http://canada.justice.gc.ca on the other hand, is titled Department of Justice, and I would go with that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Federal Identity Programme: Titles of federal organizations page is an interesting resource for this topic but a bit out of date. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DoubleBlue. I'm going to start doing some renameing accordingly. •Zhatt• 19:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is actually the second time this issue has come up. I had all the articles at their conventional FIP location initially, and then someone insisted on putting them all to their legal Department of XXXX name, which is relatively silly considering how ubitiquous Health Canada and Environment Canada and so on are. The template still has them all linked to the appropriate place, which is XXXX Canada except for Justice, Finance, Canadian Heritage and Defence, I think. -The Tom 14:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

They wont be easy to move back. It's been telling me "the page allready exists". Does that mean copy-paste, or Requests for move? •Zhatt• 16:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Means admin move. If someone here would be inclined to do it, it would allow us to bypass WP:RM. -The Tom 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Northwest Territories Electoral History

Hi everyone, I have really been working hard, on cleaning up and detaling Northwest Territories electoral history,

My work, is going to take me away for at least a month, and I won't have time to continue with N.W.T. elections, and related.

If someone out there wants to take on the more recent elections, I am still looking for a comprehensive source of members elected from 1951 on, still looking for a source for the period of appointed members between 1905 and 1951, and looking for a source of members appointed to the temporary council prior to 1876.

My free time lately has mostly been consumed on the Northwest Territories party politics from 1898 - 1905, I have nearly completed the list of members elected in 1902, scanning through microfilm of Newspaper from the late 1890's on, but I am at a loss as to when Party politics actually began in the Northwest Territories.

According to a Calgary Herald editorial from November 17th 1898, it talks about the pro's and con's of the possible introduction of "Dominion Party Lines" into the Northwest Territories legislature. And I was quite shocked to learn that the 1898 election was not along party lines, as some on-line sources seemed to have indicated. I will update the 1898 election to reflect that.

In news paper articles close to the 1902 election it does talk about the "Government and Opposition" , but I was able to find no indications of what date in the 1898 - 1902 period party politics sprang up, but they were clearly active in the 4th North-West Legislative Assembly even though it was not elected on party lines.

I also found somthing interesting, perhaps more related to journalist neutrality more then anything, in the articles of the day that refered to Candidates affiliations as simply "Government" or "Opposition" and "Indepedent", or "Independent Opposition or Indpendent Government, It was only in a couple editorials that Liberal or Liberal-Conservative was mentioned. When an article would talk about who a candidate is running for, it would say John Smith pledges loyalty to the Governing Party etc.

Aside from the birth of party politics, the end before the period of Alberta and Saskatchewan being carved out seems intriguing and needs researching, most of the Liberal-Conservatives switched to Liberal, and some Liberals switched to the Conservatives, when the new parties were formed in Alberta and Saskatchewan, there doesn't seem to have been any loyalty, in the short time party politics formed in the territories.

--Cloveious 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Requests sub-page

I've created Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Requests, and linked to each separate section from the notice board. Comments? Mindmatrix 15:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I like what you're doing with the table and I like what you're doing on the board by condensing everything, but what I don't get is why you have both. You have Articles to create on the table and you have Requested articles and media on the board while they are essentially the same thing. Shouldn't they be in the same list? I believe the Articles to create section should be moved to either under the Requested articles and media or under the /Requests sub-page itself. Since the new /Requests is so short now, you should even merge all the Articles to create sub-pages onto the /Requests page.

•Zhatt• 18:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I created the table using links to sub-pages that already existed at that point, leaving everything else on the notice board. Now that the Requests page exists, I think we can merge information from other sub-pages. I'd like to reduce the number of sub-pages, while maintaining a distinct separation of content.

It was my intention to merge everything into Requests; having a long page isn't bad, so long as the content is consistent and well-organized (the to do list we had before suffered because it was a mix of unrelated things). The problem is that some of the sub-pages are quite long, so merging them would create an absurdly long Requests page. Perhaps we can pick a few of the shorter pages to merge (eg - Actors and Artists), and go from there. Once that's done, we can revise the table and main text of the notice board.

I've also been looking over Bearcat's suggestions: the first point has been addressed, more or less; the second is quite valid - let's delete Historical parliamentarians and Members of Parliament and be done with it; the third point can wait a while, until we're done cleaning up everything else.

BTW: is Articles to improve a good title for a sub-page (to include Articles to expand and Articles to clean up)? Mindmatrix 14:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Great ideas. I'll start working on some of them right now.

•Zhatt• 17:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the requests page to Articles to improve. I moved Articles to expand and your table over to that page for now. The main page should be as clean and clear as posible so its easy to find what sub-page you need. If posible, we should only have "sub-pages" and not "sub-sub-pages".

•Zhatt• 18:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Zhatt, I just reviewed the changes; for the most part, I like the new notice board. I'm curious why you moved Requests to Articles to improve. I thought they'd be two separate pages that would merge information from many other sub-pages. The former would contain only things to create, and the latter only things to improve or expand. I see your previous message which mentions that you'd merge the two (because Requests was short), but I replied by noting that Requests could be expanded by eliminating other sub-pages. (I do realize that I didn't phrase my position clearly.)

Anyway, the notice board certainly looks better, and it's much easier to navigate. Mindmatrix 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just though that there wasn't much of a difference in articles to create and articles to improve as the difference is only a stub away. If we brake them up we have to consider what the real difference is, for example, should a two line stub go on the requests page or the improve page?

Either way, I guess you are right that the pages should be split as to get rid of all the other sub pages. Condense everything.

•Zhatt• 19:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I recreated the Requested articles sub-page, merged other sub-pages onto it, and compleatly reorganized it. It's looking good, but some other sub-pages are quite long and I'm not sure what to do with them.

•Zhatt• 23:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes, especially because I can reduce my watchlist slightly. The remaining sub-pages are indeed quite long, but we may be able to merge some of them. I was thinking of getting rid of the information merged from the Senators, MPs etc sub-pages, plunking a copy of the three templates (see bottom of notice board) to the bottom of the Requests page, and merging in the Musicians and Writers sub-pages.

I also think we should have an Articles to categorize section in either the main notice board, or the Articles to improve page. Mindmatrix 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the Musicians and Writers sub-pages; the Requests page looks a tad busy right now, but it's not bad. Mindmatrix 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It sure looks a lot better than the mess we had before. Good work. •Zhatt• 17:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Quick suggestion

I'm thinking maybe the Members list should include some way for those of us who have admin status to note that next to our names (or a separate section on the page, if necessary), so that other users who might have a matter that requires discussion with an admin will know who they can contact. (Maybe it's a bad idea, I don't know...) Bearcat 03:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I never know who the admin are. I'd like to implement this idea, but since I don't know who the admin are, I can't. I think having their own section on the page would be good so we don't have to search the list for asterisks. Can anyone do this?

•Zhatt• 05:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that's a great quick idea but it makes me wonder if we couldn't actually make that a somewhat more useful list if we not only included admin status but also fields of interest and expertise; somewhat like the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Members page does. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've highlighted the admins after reviewing Wikipedia:List of administrators. I like DoubleBlue's suggestion; if we do implement this, we should leave a message on the talk page of every user requesting they add such info, once we've resolved formatting issues. Mindmatrix 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I created a separate Administrators section for now. It can be removed once we implement DoubleBlue's proposal. Mindmatrix 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Canada Collaboration of the Week

So what is the next CCOTW? On the page it says "The August 2005 CCOTW article will be selected on Sunday, July 24, 18:00 (UTC)."
•Zhatt• 00:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Celebration of Light

As those in Vancouver know, the Celebration of Light starts today. I'm asking those who are attending and are interested, to take pictures and gather information for the new Celebration of Light article I'm working on. I'm also looking for results before 2000 when it was sponsored by Benson & Hedges. Thanks.
•Zhatt• 21:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The more I look into Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire, the more I realize how sparse information is with the disappearance of its original sponsor. There is a Symphony of Fire in Capetown, South Africa, but I'm not sure if its related or under the same sponsor. It stopped in 2000, the same year Benson & Hedges pulled out.

•Zhatt• 23:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Federal electoral districts template

Hi, I noticed that the riding Don Valley East has an interesting table in it. This should be made into a template and added to all the ridings. However, I am not sure this is universal for every province since Ontario has the same ridings both federally and provincially. Should we have unique ones per province or a general one for the country. Also what should be the columns? The current ones are:

• MP
• Party
• MPP
• Party
• Province
• Census division(s)
• Census subdivision(s)
• Federal district created

I am not sure the value of the Census division and sub-division. Any other comments? --YUL89YYZ 18:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's done as a table with the coding copied and pasted directly into the article, rather than as a true template. Which means that you can use it for any riding, and just remove the sections (like provincial representation) that don't apply. Bearcat 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a valuable summary box of an electoral district, though some of the info (ie. census divisions, MPP) may not be relevant to other provinces. However, Don Valley East appears to be a relatively simple district (look at Regina—Qu'Appelle as an extreme example of the opposite). It also may not work for former districts (ie. Fraser Valley). But I believe it is something worth experimenting on. -maclean25 19:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Please add new requests to both bottom and top of the list.

Don't you find it a bit odd to alternate listings top-down and bottom-up? I think we should have a standard for the whole page and my preference would be Please add new requests to the top of the list. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That is how many pages like WP:FAC and WP:RFA do it. I agree, we should put new requests at the top. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd also prefer that all new entries are added to the top of the list. Mindmatrix 13:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Change it if you like. I just thought that on some topics the most recent item should be delt with while on others the oldest item should be delt with first. For example, old VfDs should be delt with before they are gone while for Requests for Comment, you want to bring attention to new ones instead of having people stuck on old issues.

Zhatt 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point Zhatt but I still find it confusing and have to look at the instructions each and every time I add something. I will begin changing to a new entries to the top standard. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Image request

Can anyone either find a photo or take a photo of the lapel pins the members of the House of Commons gives out to their constituents? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Prime Ministers of Canada timeline

I just put this together for no paticular reason. If anyone wants to use or change it, go ahead. It still needs the proper RGB party colours and to be Wikied. For more information on the timeline, check out Wikipedia:EasyTimeline. Zhatt 23:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I wikied and spaced all the names. If anyone could double check the dates, that would be nice.

Zhatt 01:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just made this one too: Template:Governors General of Canada timeline. After I made it I realized that it might not be as usefull as the Prime Minister one, but there it is. I might see if I can combine the two charts as to get a comparison.

Zhatt 04:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I started a compairison chart if anyone wants to play with it. Zhatt 06:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Excessive formality

A few users are, I think, going overboard with inserting prenomial honorifics such as "His Worship", "His Excellency" etc in articles on Ambassadors, mayors and the like that undermines the spirit of NPOV. AFAIK formal styles are not used in encylopedia articles outside of royalty. The Honourable and the Right Honourable for privy councillors is one thing (I'd prefer not to use them in artcles on Senators) but using formal style for Ambassadors and mayors seems excessive - why not use Mr. and Mrs at the biographical articles as well? Is there a wikipedia protocol on styles and titles?Homey 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think these titles are "excessively formal" isn't that your own POV? I don't think mayors are worshipful at all, but that style comes his office. You stated that 'you'd prefer not to use them in articles on Senators' well that constitutes your own POV. According to the Titles chart used by the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, Senators are titled "Honourable" just as Privy Counsellors are "Honourable". And these 'few users' that you are referring to, such as myself, I don't go around to articles and change every little thing to "His Worship does this, and that, or this or that," or "The Honourable Minister on this date did something", their titles are written in the beggining, and thereafter, its a simple "he did this, or he did that." That situation does not display any POV. Furthermore, we should be removing the titles of Lieutenant Governors, as they are Representatives of the Crown, and since the Governor General starts with "Her Excellency the Right Honourable....." then why can't the Lieutenant Governors start with "His Honour the Honourable......". If people arn't going to the bodies of the articles and typing "His Majesty/His Honour/His Excellency/His Worship did this or that" but only had that in the beginning of articles, that should be fine. A lot of people find Wikipedia to be educational, by having their formal titles in the beginning, it will be beneficial to readers, and having them only at the beginning, it would not be overly formal, and will not exhibit POV. I think this is a good option for Wikipedia to follow. User:Eddo

I think if someone has a title, it should be used on first reference. It is not only respectful to use their correct form of address, it is helpful to the reader to be aware of it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you think these titles are "excessively formal" isn't that your own POV? The key is maintaining a neutral point of view. I think excessive formality in honorifics doesn't do that, particularly when it is selective (some mayors and ambassadors and not others). And "His Honour the Honourable" sounds silly. Choose one or the other, not both.

What is the general encyclopedia form? How does Britannica's article on New York Mayor Bloomberg begin, for instance? Homey 12:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

From Britannica online:

Bloomberg, Michael

In 2001, after 20 successful years of leading the financial information firm he founded, Michael Bloomberg was ready to lead something new. For his next challenge he entered the race for mayor of New York City. The formal announcement of his candidacy in early June sparked two types of speculation: what effect Bloomberg's election as mayor might have on New York City and what…

William Rehnquist

born October 1, 1924, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.

in full William Hubbs Rehnquist 16th chief justice of the United States, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1971 and elevated to chief justice in 1986.

Rehnquist served in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. After the war, he attended Stanford University, where he was awarded bachelor's (1948), master's (1948), and law (1952) degrees, finishing first in his law-school class. He also received a master's…

Homey 13:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's some articles I found about this issue: Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing and Style (manner of address). I don't think there is a agreed consensus on this topic. I tend to like the use of The Honourable without any post-nominals. The post-nominals should just be mentionned in the article. For example, the awarding of the Order of Canada or an Honorary doctorate. I have seen people use The Honourable Senator and I am not sure if this is even correct. --YUL89YYZ 13:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

"His Honour the Honourable" might sound silly for some, but its their correct title, and like User:Doubleblue said above, it might create a better awareness. In the end, I think Wikipedia is used for education, like I'm in university right now, and whenever we have a class discussion, the first thing I do, is pop up Wikipedia. I think its our different flairs that distinguish us from Brittanica, or Encarta. Like yes, we are trying for Wikipedia to look like a professional encyclopedia, and it is, but it would also be good to set us apart from the mainstream encyclopedias, and I think that way, people will tend to use it more.

That being said, I will concede that if articles on Mayors and Ambassadors on Wikipedia do not begin with "His Worship" and "His Excellency" then so be it. However, I think that The Queen, the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governors should have their articles begin with their correct titles. It will be more informative, and by limiting their titles to the begining, we will not be pushing POV. Furthermore, GGs and LGs have been in transition, they are now seen more as equals and it would be inconsistent to have GG article begin with her titles and ignore that for LG. Unlike the USA, 'His Honour' does not equal 'Honourable', in Canada it is two seperate things. Only incumbent LGs use 'his/her honour', and we should keep it like that, and as soon as they are out of office, we would remove the 'his/her honour' and retaining 'honourable' because it is theirs for life.

In addition, we should not discriminate between Privy Counsellors and Senators, or Court Justices for that matter, if Privy Counsellors begin with "Honourable" such as User:HOTR's preference and not Senators, then we will be discriminating, especially since Privy Counsellors might no longer have any other office. So this is what I am proposing for Canadian articles. Queen, GG, LG, full titles in begining, as for PM, Privy Counsellors/Cabinet, Senators, provincial ministers, justices. But for Mayors and Ambassadors we will not use their styles of address ie. His Worship, His Excellency. I think this will help Wikipedia in the end, make us better, more informative, more unique, and by limiting titles to the very begining, we will not be pushing POV. Well, according to Vancouver, time to go to work now, look forward to reading some of your responses. User:Eddo

I think its our different flairs that distinguish us from Brittanica, or Encarta.

The issue is whether or not the flair is encyclopedic. The most important thing is consistency and the convention in Wikipedia is not to use "His Worship" or "His Honour" (depending on the country) at the top of an article on a mayor or "his Excellency" at the top of an article on an ambassador.

I can live with Senators and L-Gs being listed as "the Honourable" as they are life titles (though I think it would be hard to persuade Americans to list US Senators as "The Honorable" even though they are entitled to the address). I think Premiers and provincial executive council members should not be so listed as in their cases "The Honourable" is a term title only (unless the Premier or minister has been sworn into the Privy Council, as happens from time to time, or is a Privy Council member by virtue of having been a member of federal cabinet, as is the case with Jean Charest.)

I think using titles with mayors and ambassadors is excessive as they are term titles. As for piling on titles such as "His Honour the Honourable" while I think an LG may be addressed as either His Honour or the Honourable I suspect the custom is to choose one rather than use both simultaneiously. Can you cite some real examples of an LG being called "His Honour the Honourable" John Smith or of a Supreme Court justice being "Her Honour, the Honourable Jane Doe"? Just as people with two doctorates are not, in English anyway, styled Doctor Doctor Smith and just as Professors with doctorates are not, in English, styled Professor Doctor Smith I suspect that LGs etc are not addressed as "His Honour the Honourable" - at least I've never heard or seen it happening.Homey 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

While premiers and provincial cabinet ministers do hold "Honourable" during their term in office, they are still recognized as such. We have a lot of people editing the pages, and I think there are such keeners (myself included) who would go in and take out "Honourable" as soon as they are no longer in Office. I'm sure as soon as Michaelle Jean is sworn into office, someone will go in Adrienne Clarkson article and take out 'Her Excellency'. In BC Youth Parliament, Lieutenant Governor Iona Campagnolo greets us annually, and she is introduced as "Her Honour the Honourable", we are taught parliamentary traditions. You make a nice case with people and their double doctorates, but in the end, its the same word, where as 'His Honour' and 'Honourable' are two different things. They are not interchangeable used like in the US. I think term titles for provincial cabinets are fine, as long as people edit them once they no longer apply. However, like before, I will concede on the issue of mayors and ambassadors. As much as I know Homey and myself like to talk, I would like to hear more from other people. User:Eddo

OK, Lt-gov in office: His Honour the Honourable Lieutenant Governor but once out of office, The Honourable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the style guide linked to by double blue, supreme court justices are just "The honourable" (or the right hon in the case of the CJ) not "his honour the honourable" - interesting (to be fair, this was something I brought up, not anyone else).

I still think it looks silly for LGs and is not used in practice even if it's correct but if Eddo really wants to style sitting LGs in that manner I can live with it. Does anyone else have an opinion?Homey 12:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As for provincial cabinet ministers and premiers, if they are to be styled The Honourable along with all Senators then somone has to go through the list of Privy Council members and make sure that they have the postnomial designation "P.C." after their names in order to distinguish those who are "honourable" by virtue of being privy councillors and those who are not. Homey 12:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How much is too much? For example, Frederick Stanley's article starts thus:

The Right Honourable Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby, KG , GCB , GCVO , PC (January 15, 1841–June 14, 1908), known as Sir Frederick Stanley until 1886 and from then until 1893 as The Lord Stanley of Preston, was Colonial Secretary from 1885 to 1886 and Governor General of Canada from 1888 to 1893, most famous for presenting the Stanley Cup, which became the most famous award for professional ice hockey.

Now, that's a bad paragraph to begin with, but the recent trend has been to keep packing on as many titles as people can. Couldn't (some of) the titles be excluded on the first line and list them under their own heading?
Zhatt 16:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've already noted at Talk:Michaëlle Jean that to me, including every title and post-nominal the person ever achieved comes across to me like Deference to the Authority of Our Social Betters. It's not generally necessary, it doesn't impart useful information in a clear and unambiguous way, it's not encyclopedia format in any encyclopedia that isn't constructed by democratic debate (it's not even generally accepted as the Wikipedia standard by much of anyone outside of Canada, either), and all it really accomplishes is to (a) say "Look! Look! Look how verrrrrrrrry important this person is! Bow down before the power of the distinguished demigod!", and (b) make the introductory paragraph of the article into a confusing and unreadable mess. Bearcat 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting BA after names really does seem a bit much. Homey 18:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I think LL.D or Ph.D are already walking a fine line, but BAs definately should not be included in the opening line, I'll be getting my BA in May 2006, I don't plan on putting User:Eddo, BA. Eddo

User question

I have a question for y'all about User:Fat pig73. I've noticed that this user's edits can rarely, if ever, be allowed to stand without review. He regularly:

• creates duplicate articles at alternate titles, and not always valid ones ("Global First National"? "Beer Stores"? "Ontario riding - (riding name)"?),
• significantly overcategorizes articles (eg. in Category:GO Transit stations, Category:GO Transit, Category:Transportation in Toronto, Category:Transportation in Ontario and Category:Transportation in Canada all at once),
• adds category links like [[Category:News television series in Canada|National, The]] to articles like Sheldon Turcotte and Alison Smith (and I'd love to know what he thinks that's going to accomplish!),
• fails to format articles properly, and makes abysmal grammar and spelling errors,
• creates articles for absurdly non-encyclopedic stuff like the Shomer Transportation-Galleria Supermarket shuttle bus,
• creates one-line forks of larger articles without regard to whether they're either necessary (eg. Eatons - unit of Sears Canada from Eaton's) or given enough detail to actually be useful (eg. The National News and The Magazine from The National),
• makes unsupported assertions such as that First National and Global National are actually the same newscast with a different name (and therefore Peter Kent is Kevin Newman's predecessor as "ancohor" of GN), etc.

If you challenge him on any of it, however, he disappears for several days, but then anonymous IPs suddenly start showing up and repeating the same kinds of errors on the same articles. Topicwise, he also intersects with User:SNIyer1 (a/k/a User:SNIyer12) who also makes similar errors and has had an RfC against him.

Any input? Bearcat 10:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of User:Fat pig73's edits have merit, but (s)he makes too many contributions of questionable value. This user also has a habit of including See also sections which list any article remotely associated with the topic, most of which are already linked in the article or in one of the linked categories. Worse, one of the links may be self-referential (eg: linking Go Transit to itself). I think this user needs to differentiate between making a contribution and making a useful contribution. Beacat, everything you list is accurate. Mindmatrix 13:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is today's odd category created by Fatpig73: Category:Lying-in-state in the Canadian House of Commons. See the CfD discussion here. Ground Zero 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Um...bingo. The SNIyer1 RfC is specifically about problematic edits to state funerals of former North American leaders. Bearcat 19:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My last comment seems to have killed the discussion here. What I really wanted to discuss was (a) would it be appropriate to have several people make a point of keeping an eye on his edits (also User:206.47.220.230), and (b) what, if anything, can we do about the matter in the longer term? He doesn't respond to discussion on his talk page. Even when you thoroughly explain the rules, he doesn't alter his editing style. The SNIyer RfC is stalled because he hasn't gone there to express his side of the matter (which is a requirement of the process). And given that he already does a lot of anon editing even with more than one active login name, if he were banned he'd just keep right on making the same mess anonymously. Bearcat 17:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that trying to track the edits of an individual, especially if that user has sock puppets and anonymous edits, will be cumbersome. Several articles edited by Fat pig73 are on my watchlist; when I notice a change is made by him, I'll check it, and also check edits in his recent contribution history. I'll revert or fix as necessary from there. But I won't track all his changes - it's just too much work, even for a group of people.

Regarding the long-term, I think we need to force the issue with users that don't address RfCs about them. Much like we have {{test}} etc templates for new users, we should provide a three-warning requirement to answer the RfC, or face consequences, whatever those consequences are determined to be. (There are a number of stalled RfCs simply because the user in question doesn't respond.) I don't particularly like this solution, though. Mindmatrix 15:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Canadian school stub

G'day to all the Canadian Wikipedians here. Just to let you know that I have created a Canadian school stub: {{Canada-school-stub}} and an appropriate category: Category:Canadian school stubs to help better sort all of the schools stubs we have. Please use this stub for all Canadian schools. Thank you -- Ianblair23 11:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (from Australia)

Canadian comparison timeline since Confederation

Would anyone find this Canadian comparison timeline since Confederation usefull or is it just too much information in too small of a space? Note that it is still in the works. Not all the names and lined up and the GGs dont have exact dates.
Zhatt 16:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done, but I find it hard to imagine what we could actually use it for... Bearcat 03:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it would be used for anything, but it could be sort of its own article. For example: Template:Vocal_and_instrumental_pitch_ranges. I haven't touched it lately as it's difficult, and as you say, basically useless. T'was just an experiment.

Zhatt 03:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Blogger List

I added a place beneath the Active Wikipedeans for people to list their blogs. Look okay? --Simon.Pole 07:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd rather not have this, especially given the discussion we've had about making this page shorter (see Notice board rearrangement above). At any rate, it would be more appropriate to link to one's blog from one's user page, and include the user page in Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Mindmatrix 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point Mindmatrix. Maybe if we go to a Category:Canadian Wikipedians, we could have a subcateogry Category:Canadian Wikipedian Bloggers?--Simon.Pole 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion list

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know that there is a list of transcluded deletion debates on Canada-related articles. You can find it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada. There is currently only one sublist, of articles related to Quebec, but the list could be further subdivided.

I see that you have a list of deletion debates on this page, so presumably this new transcluded list will be of use. Please help to keep the list up to date by archiving old items and adding new ones. Thanks!

By the way, new members are needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Hope to see you there!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 17:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me that we now simply link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada and avoid needless duplication of efforts. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, but why is there a separate section for Quebec? -maclean25 05:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006

Work has begun to prepare for next year's Wikimania, and on the mailing list there has been some talk about Canada as an ideal location. Does anyone have any interest or experience in preparing large events? I think having it here would be nifty, but I have no idea how one goes about organizing such things. See also meta:Wikimania 2006/Planning for a list of criteria, and meta:Wikimania 2006/UK bid for the UK group working towards a bid. - SimonP 15:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Notice Board - Articles to Improve

I have a proposal for re-organization of the above referenced notice board article. Instead of formatting it according to problem (ie. Expansion, Clean-up, Neutral dispute), my proposal is to group it according to subject (ie. People, Places, Events, etc.). This is already done for the Expansion section of the current page but instead of repeating it for the clean-up section, how about simply listing the clean-up articles under the major headings of People, places, etc. See this example here to see what I am trying to descibe. --maclean25 03:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Either way is OK with me, though I prefer what's currently on the page. If we shift to your layout, I suggest not indenting the sub-headers; moreover, they should be made true headers, not simply bolded. The problem with that is the font size of the header - it's too big (perhaps unindenting should suffice). Mindmatrix 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yah, it's not very controversial but I thought I would list it here for comments before I did anything. When developing this layout I tried to make it attractive (at least not visually offending) & user friendly (ie. systematic). The order of (i) articles with tags, (ii) articles in need of expansion, and then (iii) articles simply in need of attention is appropriate because it reflects the order of importance (with respect to the requirement for attention). I try to be conservative with headings because I've witnessed too many articles become disjointed and muddled by too many sections and headings. The indenting can go, I only did this to separate the heading from the list...well, it made sense in my paper sketches. --maclean25 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Does anyone have access to Edward (Ted) McWhinney's recent book The Governor General and the Prime Ministers? There is a dispute at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada regarding his proposal for Canada becoming a republic by simply not proclaiming Elizabeth II's successor once the post of monarch becomes vacant and it would be good if someone who actually has access to the book (through a university library?) can read up on what McWhinney actually said. Homey 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• It isn't out yet. It is listed for release in the fall of 2005, but no library I have found even has it on order, so it is likley some time before it comes out. - SimonP 22:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The paperback version comes out in October. The hardcover version came out earlier this year, I believe. Homey 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The U of T library has no record of it, which strongly suggests it hasn't been released yet in hardcover. -The Tom 04:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

After a bit more poking around, I see no evidence of a hardcover version existing... ISBN 1553800311, Ronsdale Press, 150pp paperback seems to be the only ticket going -The Tom 04:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if editors can look at the dispute at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada. The press, earlier this year, reported that a section of McWhinney's book argues that Canada could become a republic by failing to proclaim a successor to Elizabeth II upon her death. I'm trying to include a reference to this in the Queen's Privy Council for Canada article since it is that body that has the responsibility to proclaim the new monarch and thus, a proposal not to do so would have to involved the privy council. Two monarchist editors are resisting the inclusion of any reference to McWhinney as the press account refers only to the "government" not proclaiming a new monarch, not the privy council. I'm arguing that it should be obvious that it's the privy council that would be involved given that that is its responsibility. A silly argument, I think, but it would be helpful if other editors could weigh in. Homey 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Canadian roads

I've noticed an increasing trend of new articles about roads of no cultural or historical significance to their region. Most of them simply describe various stretches of the road, and perhaps a few attractions found along it. Some may mention transport hubs et al.

Some roads are meaningful - the 400-Series Highways in Ontario, Bloor Street in Toronto, Saint Catherine Street in Montreal, but most aren't. In particular, numerous roads in the GTA have articles about them now; some of these probably should go:

• BpNichol Lane
• McCowan Road
• Leslie Street
• Bayview Avenue
• Kennedy Road (Toronto)
• Midland Avenue
• Steeles Avenue
• Weston Road
• Warden Avenue
• Victoria Park Avenue
• Brimley Road
• Woodbine Avenue

Heck, just look at Category:Toronto streets and Category:Canadian roads for a more comprehensive list. I'm not saying that all of these should be deleted, but certainly some of them should be stricken from Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 14:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a small but vocal minority who believe that any street that exists anywhere in the world should merit an article (even if it's just a one-block residential laneway with two houses on it.) I don't agree with that; I think a street needs to have some special thing about it that makes it encyclopedic. Yonge Street is fine, due to the "longest street in the world" claims. Degrassi Street is fine, due to the Degrassi shows. Allen Road is fine, because of the whole Spadina Expressway thing. Even Shades Of Death Road is fine, just because its name is so...weird. But generally, I don't think a street is notable just because it exists or even because it's a town or city's main street; it needs to have "special" historical or cultural significance. Bearcat 00:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try nominating one for VfD/AfD to see what happens. Mindmatrix 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Navy

Canada's rather rich naval history is given pretty abysmal coverage on Wikipedia at the moment, but the topic is a bit too broad (in terms of number of articles) and a bit too narrow (in terms of appeal to the editing population in general) in order to go through a formal collaboration-of-the-week/articles-for-improvement type process. Just thought I'd post a general appeal for interested persons to throw a bit of attention at this area—I don't know if we want to go the fullblown WikiProject route, but any redlink fighting prowess would be greatly appreciated. I've been plowing away at List of ships of the Canadian Navy and within Category:Canadian Navy for a few days now, and while it's a little cleaner than it used to be, there's still an appalling amount of red. Every other major nation has Wikipedia articles for all of its current warships big and small; we've got a pretty mild smattering of one-liners on the various frigates and not much else. Any thoughts? -The Tom 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As a naval/military aficionado, I can assist in editing, maintaining, and enhancing these articles. Guidance? Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006

Despite the lack of enthusiasm to my previous posting on this issue, I have been working on bringing the 2006 Wikipedia conference to Toronto. I have spoken with the director of KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. KMDI specializes in the study of collaborative content generation, and they are willing to collaborate with us and can get us access to University of Toronto facilities for free. This is a pretty major advantage to the Toronto bid, and I now feel we have a good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The one element we don't yet have is many people willing to help out. I am willing to do a lot of the work, but the support of others is needed. I have already spammed a number of user pages, but anyone else who is willing to work on this project please sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. - SimonP 18:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to help out some, but I'm not sure I have it in me right now to be a key organizer. This has been a really bad year for me. Bearcat 17:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry to here about your year. According to the people who organized last year's conference there really wasn't all that much work to be done locally. Mainly we need a handful of people in the week before the conference to set things up and run errands. Any links to local media and sponsors would also be useful. For the moment I am most interested in getting an impressive enough list at Wikimania 2006/Toronto to try and convince the bid committee that Toronto should be the host city. - SimonP 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Renfrew Station in Vancouver

Can someone from Vancouver please look at this article and clean it up, list it for VfD, or whatever needs to be done with it. I assume this refers to a SkyTrain station, but I may be wrong. If it is a SkyTrain station, then it probably merits inclusion a la GO Train station articles. Mindmatrix 14:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I poked at it a bit, added templates and whatnot, but there's not much to day about it. If it wasn't part of {{SkyTrain Stations}} I'd say it was a good VfD, despite the fact I've been using that station a lot recently. Zhatt 17:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Clarkson Village, Ontario

Is this the same thing as Clarkson, Peel Regional Municipality, Ontario? I assume it is, but wanted to make sure. Mindmatrix 15:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Air Farce

Hello...does anyone have any ideas about who was the label that put out all the Air Farce albums? Also, who produced them, and if anyone can get any reviews of them?

Oh, and will it offend people if an Australian wikipedian who's very interested in Canadian TV stations and networks and TV shows adds himself to the local list? Cheers! BigDan 10:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The CBC for many years had its own internal label, CBC Enterprises, to distribute albums and videos connected to CBC broadcasting endeavours. I believe the Air Farce albums were on that label, though I can't say that with absolute certainty. (Oh, and AFAIK the members' list is open to anyone who's knowledgeable about and interested in Canadian topics, regardless of whether they actually live in Canada or not.) Bearcat 19:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Much obliged for the info :) BigDan 00:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Comment

How would one go about cleaning up that section? I'm assuming we don't need to archive it, but I'm not sure what to delete. I know some of those RoCs are no longer an issue, but I don't know witch one's especially since some are not dated. Would it be okay to just removing anything that is (seems to be) over a month old? Zhatt 17:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I think everything nominated before the Toki Poni discussion can be removed; I've checked a few of the discussions, and they've had no new comments for at least a week. That should whittle the list down nicely. Mindmatrix 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

New WikiProjects

An anonymous user has started two new WikiProjects for Ontario and Alberta. After creating them, s/he left the following message on the WikiProject Ontario talk page:

Okay, I started this page to help focus building the information on here about Ontario, I have modelled it after some
similar projects and hopefully some of you will pick it up from here!

Apparently, the user has no interest in participating in the project - that's my interpretation. I propose we delete them, unless someone wants to put the effort required to organize either or both of these. Mindmatrix 22:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am the anonymous user and I think that these projects are good ideas but I have no idea how to proceed - is there any interest out there? (unsigned edits by User:68.148.212.220)

There's no doubt that they're good ideas. Unfortunately, you haven't specified what the projects entail, what the goals are, timelines (if any), and the scope is somewhat vague. You've simply copied a template and left it (mostly) blank. However, you are seeking input, and clearly have an interest in this, so I'll give it a bit of a kick-start. I've edited the Ontario project page with some potential targets: some may be too ambitious, and others may be missing from the list, but it's a start. I'll certainly consider participating. Mindmatrix 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

A user changed the meaning of SSM's original Ojibwe name, Bawating, from "rapid water" to "meeting place", and indicated on the talk page that he's sure that's the correct meaning even though he doesn't have a source for it. Quite apart from the fact that the vast majority of references I can find on the web cite Bawating as meaning "rapids", "water beaten to spray" (ie. rapids) or "where water flows over rocks", "meeting place" is commonly cited as a meaning for Toronto (and I think I've seen it incorrectly cited for other aboriginal place names as well). But, if you phrase the Google search just right, you can find a page or two which cites "meeting place", not "rapids", as the meaning of Bawating.

So, two questions:

1. Can anybody shed some light on the question?
2. Does it say something about the Canadian psyche that we have such a fascinating determination to believe every place name of First Nations origin means "meeting place"?

Thanks. Bearcat 17:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Only ever heard it used for Toronto myself Sherurcij 03:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorizing Canadian communities

Spurred by the nomination of Category:Villages in Canada for deletion, I wanted to discuss the categorization of Canadian locations (again, I know...)

Categories we agree on:

• Cities in XXX
• Towns in XXX

Categories I propose:

• Townships in XXX
• Parishes in XXX - not for all provinces
• Villages in XXX - do any incorporated villages exist? I thought so, but I can't find any
• Unincorporated villages in XXX - this includes hamlets et al (maybe Unincorporated communities in XXX?)

Categories to delete:

• Communities in XXX (too generic)
• Parishes of XXX (replaced by Parishes in XXX above, for consistency)
• Townships of XXX (replaced by Townships in XXX above, for consistency)

This follows the model for US locations, so there would be consistency there too. They also use other categories (eg Category:Places in New York to contain the information above - something we might wish to pursue (we have a similar category in Category:Subdivisions of Canada, but no equivalent provincial categories).

Does anyone have objections? I'll do all the work, I just want to make sure everyone agrees to this before I proceed. Mindmatrix 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a Yukoner, I would suggest keeping "Communities in X". Make towns, villages, etc.subcategories of it for the provinces where it makes sense. Plus how would you deal with MRC's in Quebec and their equivalent in Ontario. Communities is the term used in the North. Many are unincorporated, others are a combination of a village/town/unincorporated community and a reserve, but are considered one community. "Places" is too vague. "Census Subdivision" is a Stats Can term, but if one only uses "subdivision", it could be ambiguous as it also means a development/neighbourhood. Plus nothing says it has to be consistent among all provinces/territories. Luigizanasi 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

MRCs and counties and regional districts and such aren't an issue; they already have a separate categorization scheme under Category:Census divisions of Canada. They'd never be categorized under "communities" anyway. Bearcat 21:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This link can help you with British Columbia. It is current as of 2002. However, it does not have Regional Districts or rural communities. --maclean25 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I found similar links for Ontario and Manitoba. These two links answer my question about incorporated villages in Canada. Mindmatrix 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's one for Saskatchewan, Alberta (in the drop-down lists), and Nova Scotia (and counties too). Mindmatrix 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I found one for PEI, and another for NWT. Those for N&L, NB and Nunavut are difficult to find - I've found listings of locations, but not their status. Mindmatrix 02:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be wise to define what these terms mean first. There may be nomenclature differences. I saw what BC calls rural communities (ie. unincorporated farm towns which have no defined borders), Manitoba calls Rural Municipalities (which appear to have defined borders but are unincorporated). From what I saw it appears to be a people per area distinction that separates villages from towns and so forth. --maclean25 04:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd certainly want to define the terms first. There are far more terms in use than I expected, but so be it. I'll also make sure to customize sufficiently for each province/territory, while maintaining a more standard national perspective overall. I may make a separate page in my user namespace to track all this stuff... Mindmatrix 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For Ontario, I was wondering how best to handle Municipalities. A few places are officially designated Municipality, and some of these are assigned a status, usually Town or Township. I propose that they all be placed in a category Municipalities in Ontario, and those that have an assigned status additionally be categorized into the appropriate category Towns in Ontario etc. Does this seem reasonable? The other option, of course, is to simply leave them in the single category Municipalities in Ontario. Mindmatrix 14:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd consider a separate category for "municipalities" to be particularly necessary. Any incorporated community is a municipality; they just don't all use that designation in their official name. A community that uses "municipality of (name)" is still legally a town or a township; "municipality" is just an alternate designation that some communities happen to be designated with instead of "town" or "township". It's not actually a distinct legal status.Bearcat 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Determining whether some places are towns, townships or villages is downright impossible in some cases. But I agree, we don't need a separate category for this. Mindmatrix 20:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've created a page devoted to this in my user space: see my Canada geography sub-page for information, and by all means, please update it with any useful info. It's still a work-in-progress right now, and I won't start any major re-categorization work until this is mapped out fully. Mindmatrix 20:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

British North America

A request has been made to merge this article into British colonization of the Americas. Is it a distinct enough idea to warrant its own article? I think that this is a primarily Canadian issue so I asked here. Rmhermen 15:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

These unquestionably should not be merged. BNA is essentially the name of modern Canada name from 1776 to 1867 and the British North America Act is still the core of Canada's constitution. - SimonP 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur fully with SimonP; keep them separate. E Pluribus Anthony 02:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

and suddenly he took leave of his census...

Our beloved Ontario population vandal (the one who makes random unsourced changes to the population figures for Ontario cities) is back again. So far, the only changes I'm aware of have been to London and Peterborough, but it'd be best if as many people as possible keep an eye on the Ontario city articles. Known IP so far is User:24.92.224.54, but this has previously happened under other IPs as well. Bearcat 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a look earlier today, and found only those two edits; I haven't found any other anon IPs that may be causing problems (the Newmarket, Ontario article was once frequently pop-spammed, so I especially keep watch of that one). Mindmatrix 03:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That has got to be the most pathetic vandalism ever...wow Sherurcij 03:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

VOTE!! - HDI in Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template?

My fellow Canadians ...

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 03:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ballantynes Cove, Nova Scotia

Is this community named Ballantynes Cove, or Ballantyne's Cove (note the apostrophe)? Statcan is no help in this matter. Mindmatrix 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! According to the Atlas of Canada, it's Ballantynes Cove (no apostrophe). E Pluribus Anthony 20:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Biggest Canadian Cities by Metropolitan Area

An anonymous user has created this article. Aside from the poor choice of title, it:

• projects the population of 10 Candian cities to 2050
• lists metropolitan area populations, which are different from List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada
• does the same job as List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada
• does not cite sources, and the numbers look suspicious; nothing in the StatsCan database uses these numbers

I think I'll slap an AfD on this one, unless someone can give me a reason not to. Mindmatrix 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd simply redirect it to List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, mainly because that will be a lot faster than an AfD. - SimonP 00:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with SimonP. Just redirect it; doesn't need a vote. Bearcat 21:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with other users; redirect. E Pluribus Anthony 20:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

See also List of population of Canada by years, created by the same user, which at the very least needs to be retitled. Other strange edits by this user include adding British Columbia to a list of "possible future countries" appended to an article titled Former Countries. Bearcat 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Georgia Strait Bridge

This article that I just created deals with a very controversial idea here in Southwestern British Columbia, of whether or not there should be a fixed link connecting Vancouver Island to the B.C. Lower Mainland. I would like to see some in-depth, but hopefully not heated, discussion about this idea in that article.  Denelson83  20:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver municipal election

Vaguely curious if any of the election-covering gang would be up for tackling a municipal election, namely Vancouver's this November. I don't think we've ever done a Canadian municipal election before, and I suppose there could be concerns about diverting attention away from historic federal and provincial coverage that could still use work (although personally I think we're veering pretty close to a buildout threshold on those—without getting into serious text-based research, that is). Vancouver's kind of a neat special case, though, as there's a nutty party system intertwined in various manners with the provincial and federal scene as well as the typical dose of poop-suit/sex-party/drunk-premier-grade British Columbian political intrigue. I recognize we don't really have surfeit of British Columbians around here (and I barely qualify for covering Vancouver well, being from the deepest edges of the Interior and presently relocated to S. Ont.), so there would be an element of bumbling unfamiliarity. That said, there's no shortage of web coverage to draw upon. Thoughts? -The Tom 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this area needs some work. Compare what we have at Category:Toronto city councillors and at Category:Ottawa City councillors with the red links at Vancouver City Council. - SimonP 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Noted. Again, something of a side effect of not much overlap on the "Wikipedians from BC" and "Wikipedians who follow politics closely" Venn Diagram. I suppose my biggest concern is that we blow open a whole new notability wall by doing municipal election articles, rather than get a few detailed articles about municipal politics in major Canadian cities, we'll get a whole whack of stubs listing the makeup of town councils in Saskatchewan in 1975 with adorned with links that are going to stay red until said towns are overgrown by rainforest. I think we can all agree that Vancouver is notable, its just I hope that things grow out from there in a responsible manner. -The Tom 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would love to see more organization when it comes to municipal elections. We should start by having an article at municipal elections in Canada and list dates of elections there. I know Quebec and BC have elections this year, and Ontario has them next year, but I have no idea for the other provinces. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am well versed in Vancouver politics and will be willing to help. I have certain opinions about the subject of municipal politics in Wikipedia but I will think how to best express myself before presenting them here. --maclean25 07:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, if anyone cares, here is my opinion. I like the idea of Wikipedia gradually lowering the bar of notability to include more local stuff. I do not believe individual councillers should have articles unless they have proved to be influential or otherwise notable, most are neither. Let's start with the mayor first, then if that works out go down to councillers. I think it is hippocritical to have councillers and mayors but not administrators. Certainly, administrators have more influence on a municipality. Councillers are just decision-makers, administrators decide what decisions the councillers will make and advises them on those decisions. Most municipal elections are not very notable or interesting so I like the lists solution. However, some elections are, for example the 2002 Vancouver Municipal election was a big milestone in the city's history (first non-NPA government in its history?) deserve many, many articles. --maclean25 02:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is inappropriate for us not do municiple elections, as it to me, sounds like censorship. However I can see where it can get out of hand if we cover municiple elections 50 years ago. I think we should try Vancouver and possibly Montreal and if it goes well we could continue with other municipalities. As long as we are carefull, we should be able to avoid many stub pages if we simply merge them in to one page. Ex: instead of one page for evey election, have all historical elections on one page. This would be similar to the Nova Scotia election pages. MS123
  • Yes, that's basically what we do already. There exists list of Ottawa municipal elections and of course Ontario municipal elections, 2003. We could do articles for each province and major city like these examples. I plan on creating the page municipal elections in Canada as sort of a "home base" for us to begin with. I have done the research, and am now reasonably familiar with when all the elections are :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok Everyone. I created municipal elections in Canada, and it came to my realization that Newfoundland has very recently (on Tuesday) had elections, so I created a relevant page on that. (Newfoundland and Labrador municipal elections, 2005) Please add to it! -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

British Columbia municipal elections, 2005 and Vancouver municipal election, 2005 are both up and running, albeit in rather skeletal form. I recommend we move any further discussion to one of their talk pages or for broader stuff to the talk page for municipal elections in Canada. -The Tom 19:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

And I've created Quebec municipal elections, 2005 :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Just to let y'all know, it looks like they've finally hammered out a definitive policy on category naming. Looks like it's going to be (subject) in Canada (although there are certainly some categories where it would have to be of Canada) in some cases, and "Canadian (subject)" in others. They seem to have a list of which applies where, so some categories may have to be renamed. (It sounds like a pretty dubious and confusing policy to me, but whatchagonnado...) I'll certainly take some of that on, but if anybody's looking for something to do... Bearcat 02:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll do the geographical stuff: parks, lakes etc., including all the location articles - towns, villages, communities...heck, I'm already working on it :-) Mindmatrix 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Location Maps

Hi, anyone good with making maps, wish to tackle location maps for History of Northwest Territories capital cities? I am currently expanding the page, but have less then desirable cartography skills --Cloveious 02:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey; I can try this. I'll get back to you. E Pluribus Anthony 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it, --Cloveious 07:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian copyright

Well, apparently Wikipedia has taken it upon itself to deny legal Canadian copyright to be uploaded to Wikipedia. How are we (Canadians) supposed to add things to the website even if it is legitimate under Canadian copyright? SD6-Agent 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples? Bearcat 04:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[1] Notice the red background coloured message.It appeared after I uploaded the image and applied the CanadaCopyright tag. SD6-Agent 04:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly bad news. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Looking at that, and following the link that's in the red section (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html), I think it's fairly clear that the issue isn't about whether it's Canadian, but whether the specific copyright license it's released under is compatible with GFDL. Even the CanadaCopyright template clearly specifies that it "may or may not be suitable for use in Wikipedia". We're certainly going to have to discuss this, but it's not as clearcut as what you're describing.

From the GFDL article: Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited generally cannot be used in a GFDL-licensed document, e.g., a Wikipedia article, because the license does not exclude commercial re-use. However in some specific cases, commercial re-uses may be fair use and in that case such materials do not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses. One good example of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody.

In other words, there's an entirely legitimate legal issue of license compatibility here; it's not just anti-Canadian discrimination. Really, the only option we have is whether "fair use" is a suitable alternative or not. Bearcat 04:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! US copyright law trumps Canadian copyright law. I hope we can work out a way we can use anything that is legal under Canadian copyright without having it being made into a debate.SD6-Agent 04:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not about whether US law trumps Canadian law; the conflict between GFDL and non-commercial use exists equally under both laws. Bearcat 04:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So how do I prevent anything I tag with CanadaCopyright from being deleted? SD6-Agent 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, these are the only options we have:

1. Figure out how to resolve the conflict between the federal government's non-commercial-use-only copyright policy and GFDL's inability to use non-commercial-use-only content.
2. Figure out if they can be simply listed as "fair use" rather than "CanadaCopyright".
3. Learn to live with the reality that we just can't use anything that's released only under a non-commercial-use license.

But the reality is that even if this were the allcanadianpedia, governed exclusively by Canadian law, the exact same issue would still apply because the non-commercial-use clause would still be in conflict with GFDL. It simply isn't a question of national laws; it's a commercial vs. non-commercial licensing conflict. Bearcat 04:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am at a loss for a solution. SD6-Agent 05:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Tag 'em all as fairuse then -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is going to require some investigation as to whether it's legally possible to claim fair use for material quite specifically released under an NCU license. We can't just arbitrarily decide to do it on a whim. Bearcat 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Context for others who may be unclear on the dispute: under GFDL, if I wanted to do so it would be completely legal for me to copy the entire Wikipedia database, rename it "The Bearcat Encyclopedia", and even charge a fee or price for it. The only restriction would be that I couldn't subsequently stop someone else from further altering my product and reselling their version for their profit.

As a result, there's a problem with using material licensed as non-commercial-use on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia's license doesn't prevent other people from reusing Wikipedia content in a commercial context, we essentially have to act as if we were a commercial use even though we don't actually charge a fee ourselves. The issue is not one of Canadian vs. American copyright law -- GFDL licensing and restricting material to non-commercial use are both entirely legal in both nations. But unfortunately, they're in direct conflict with each other. Bearcat 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I think that from now on, rather than using the CanadaCopyright tag, I'll just the fairuse tag. Thus, bowing to American law. I'm open to any better solution. SD6-Agent 06:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with a difference between American and Canadian law. Bearcat 06:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I know that. So, from now on, rather than using CanadaCopyright tag, I'll use PromoPhoto, at least for images.SD6-Agent 09:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that not all images qualify for the promophoto tag; only "official" photographs depicting a single individual. Bearcat 15:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew and others are correct, we should simply go through and add fair use tags to most of the Canadian copyright images. For instance the one SD6-Agent uploaded clearly fell into {{logo}} category of fair use images. This is already done in many cases. I do think that it is also important to mark such images as being released under crown copyright. Fair use exists only in the United States, and any such images cannot be reused outside that country. If we were to ever have a Canadian DVD or print version, we would have to remove all these images. However, if any such project was noncommercial, we would at least be able to use those that were dual licensed under crown copyright. - SimonP 13:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"Fair use" does exist in Canadian law; it's just called "fair dealing" instead. See http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#6 . But the issue is that we can't necessarily just apply fair use to get around the problem of using an image licensed for non-commercial use in a commercial resource; there are going to be cases where we just can't use an image.

I've advised SD6-Agent to retag as {{promophoto}} anything that's an "official" photograph of a single political figure (such as an MP, a Governor-General, etc., but not photos of groups of people.) I've also confirmed that US government logos are tagged as {{logo}}, so that should be fine as well. But we can't always just change the tag to get around the issue; "fair use" does not mean "it's fair for me to use this just because I want to". Things like historical, geographical or military photographs don't necessarily constitute fair use; in those cases we may just have to try harder to find public domain images or take our own GFDL photographs when possible. Bearcat 15:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What about other images previously tagged under CanadaCopyright? Should those be retagged? For example, the picture of the current Cabinet of Canada.SD6-Agent 18:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any difference between a promo photo of a group and an individual. Musical groups all have fair use images of themselves, for instance. Unfortunately fair dealing in Canada for the most part only applies to material for private use, not for publication. I agree some images will have to be deleted. For instance, I don't think the images of military hardware can be used under fair use. We should also try to ask government agencies about whether we can use items. I recently asked Elections Canada if they could release their maps under a license that Wikipedia could use. They said no, but they did put a fair bit of thought into the matter. - SimonP 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So let's get this straight. Other than images of people, there's no legitimate use of any image under GFDL because it conflicts with CanadaCopyright. It still blows my mind that a set of rules created by one American person can trump Canadian copyright law. Copyright laws under the provinces can't even do that. SD6-Agent 19:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is Wikipedia doesn't fall under Canadian copyright law, only American because that is where it based. This is actually a good thing as things like moral rights are totally incompatible with the GFDL. There are a fair number of other things covered under fair use, which can be read at Wikipedia:Fair use. Everyone should also be aware that the National Archives has a huge collection of copyright free images relevant to Canada. - SimonP 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

SD6, it is not about American vs. Canadian rules!!! GFDL is perfectly compatible with Canadian law; it just isn't compatible with non-commercial use, regardless of what nation the image comes from. You said you got it this morning; why are you back on the notion that it has anything to do with nationality?

Secondly, it is not impossible to use any image at all under GFDL; only ones that are specifically released under a non-commercial use only license. If an image is in the public domain, we can use it. If it was personally taken by one of us with the express intention of being released under GFDL, we can use it. If it meets the conditions of "fair use", we can use it. If it's licensed for commercial use, we can use it. If the copyright holder personally posts it to Wikipedia, we can use it. We just can't use images that are licensed for non-commercial use only, because we are not a non-commercial use.

I feel the need to repeat this again, since you don't seem able to accept it: there is no conflict between American and Canadian copyright law in this matter. There is only a conflict between GFDL and non-commercial use.Bearcat 21:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not my intention to create tension due to my ignorance of these laws. I understand there conflict between non-commercial use and the GFDL.SD6-Agent 22:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But you still characterized it as It still blows my mind that a set of rules created by one American person can trump Canadian copyright law a few comments back, several hours after telling me that you understood the issue. If you understand that it's not an international law dispute, could you please stop characterizing it as an international law dispute? Bearcat 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I am simply looking for a solution. {{CanadaCopyright}} seems now to be an invalid tag as it conflicts with the GFDL. I believe that most, if not all, the data from http://www.parl.gc.ca falls under this copyright and, since it conflicts with the GFDL, I am wondering what I could take from that website and how I can apply it here without violating any rules.SD6-Agent 22:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

SimonP, the thing about group photos is that the {{promophoto}} tag specifies that the image is being used to illustrate an article about the entity depicted in the photo. In other words, we can flag a Image:Anitaneville.jpg as a promo photo, because its purpose for being here is to illustrate an article about Anita Neville. We can flag Image:Spiritofthewest.jpg as a promo photo, because it's an image that the band specifically released as a publicity shot, which is being used here to illustrate an article about Spirit of the West. However, we can't flag Image:Dallaire in Rwanda 1994 CBC.jpg as a promo photo, because it's not here to illustrate an article about a single entity that encompasses everybody depicted in the photo. (It may be usable on other grounds, such as {{screenshot}}, but it can't be flagged as {{promophoto}}.) The difference between a promo photo and a non-promo photo isn't the number of people in it; it's whether the subject of the photo is identical to the subject of the article it's meant to illustrate. Bearcat 23:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason publicity images are allowed is because they are released with the assumption that they can be freely reused. Promotional images are created in the hopes that newspapers, television shows, and websites will reuse them. Releasing a promotional image creates an implied license to reuse it. Under British, and perhaps Canadian, law releasing a publicity shot makes it implicitly public domain. In the United States it seems that these images fall under fair use.

It doesn't actually matter what the content of the image is, just that the nature of its release implies the right to distribute it. If Image:Dallaire in Rwanda 1994 CBC.jpg had been created and released by DND or the Senate to promote the General, then it would qualify. However, since it seems to be a CBC screenshot this is not the case. The image is actually not even valid under Crown Copyright, as CBC images cannot even be used for non-commercial uses. It certainly is also not valid under screenshot, screenshots are only valid fair use when the discussion is on the medium. E.g. a screenshot from The National could be used in an article on the show, but we can't use clips from it to illustrate other articles. - SimonP 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment of yours which I was replying to appeared to be challenging my distinction between photos of individuals and photos of groups, on the grounds that a promo photo of a band was also of a group of people. My apologies if I misunderstood, but your original comment addressed whether the number of people was a legitimate basis for excluding group shots currently listed under Template:CanadaCopyright from being retagged as Template:promophoto. You didn't appear to be commenting on the implied purpose of a photograph's release. Bearcat 00:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've created a template, Template:Canada-politician-photo, which I would like to propose for use on photos of federal political figures. Please review, comment, edit and/or apply as appropriate. It draws from the Template:promophoto template and cites fair use, but also explicitly names the copyright holder. Bearcat 00:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• How many people noticed when Winnipeg's flag was speedy deleted on Oct 3? --maclean25 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reupload it and tag it as {{PD-flag}}. If you come across any other Canadian flags (federal, provincial, municipal, etc.) that aren't so tagged, add that tag right away. Bearcat 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe you have to prove (ie. source) it is public domain, too. Can you tell me, my good administrator friend, if this or this had PD-flag on it before deletion? I put in an inquiry at Image copyright tags a little while ago about Canadian flags. However, I see that the PD-flag template has been significantly altered since. --maclean25 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • See Image:Winnipegflag.jpg; taken from the city website rather than FOTW. But I can't for the life of me figure out how to add it to the citybox template at Winnipeg, Manitoba. Help? Bearcat 04:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have another question. What about historical photographs? I uploaded Image:Skookum Jim Mason.png which I got from a Parks Canada website and duly tagged it with the Canada copyright template and, for good measure, copied the copyright notice from the Parks Canada web site. The picture dates back to the turn of the past century during the Klondike Gold Rush, and is seen everywhere in Whitehorse, but I don't know if it is in the public domain or not. The image on the site has a copyright notice (© NAC/C-25640), presumably the National Archives of Canada. When I was a trustee of our local museum, we did make money by selling prints of photographs in our collection. I have two questions: Is a recent image (say a JPEG) of an expired copyright photograph copyrighted by the person who did the transformation? What should I do about the Skookum Jim image? Luigizanasi 04:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the copyright has expired. Perhaps this {{PD-old-50}} is more appropriate. --maclean25 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that and included the link. But the question still remains whether a scan of an old photograph is copyrighted as a derivative work. Luigizanasi 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Under American law simply scanning an image does not give you copyright over it, as was determined in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. To my knowledge there has been no similar case in Canada, and most websites that have copies of old images claim that they are copyrighted. However, these claims are somewhat dubious, and they don't matter anyway as Wikipedia is under American copyright law. - SimonP 14:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting Canadian copyright law doesn't matter. We don't want to go back down that road again. SD6-Agent 23:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to raise a special discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright issues. Bearcat 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

RAV-FM

An anon editor keeps reverting the article RAV-FM (a high school radio station in the Toronto area) to an unwikified, uncategorized and unformatted version with significant POV assertions. He characterizes it as a factual dispute, but hasn't actually disputed any facts; the factual content of the article remains identical after his edits. He has never acknowledged the discussion page; instead, he has occasionally inserted personal notes disputing the reversion into the article itself. And I can't just ban the offending IP, because it's been a wildly different IP number each time.

Just a request for other people to keep it watchlisted so I'm not always handling this matter by myself. Thanks. Bearcat 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

First Nations question

Today, a non-Canadian user filed Matthew Coon Come in Category:Native American activists and Category:Native American leaders. Has there been any concrete discussion around whether First Nations people from Canada should or should not be classified as "Native Americans"? Bearcat 22:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Has there ever! Check out the discussion at Talk:Native Americans and the article that came out of that: Native American name controversy. Luigizanasi 22:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-structure Canada-related projects

This past summer, we cleaned up the notice board and this discussion area. However, we still have a bit of a mess when it comes to archiving these discussions, as well as info related to the CCOTW (let alone the name of it). Given several new projects that are underway, I'd like to clean up and re-structure all Canada-related projects, boards etc. so that we have a more cohesive and functional system.

My proposal starts with the following:

• rename the CCOTW, and move it out from under the notice board
  • Proposed name: Wikipedia:Canada collaboration
• rename this discussion area, moving it out from under the notice board
  • Proposed name: Wikipedia:Canada discussions
• create threaded discussions for both of those, a la Wikipedia:AfD
  • I can do this - it shouldn't be too difficult

Once we've done this, we can start integrating other Canada-related projects into the system. This gives us automatic archival capability, shorter pages, and easier maintenance. We can also create a variety of views of the data by simply transcluding discussions et al as needed.

Do I need to clarify anything? Does anyone object? Should I just be bold and make the changes? Mindmatrix 02:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. No objections, but concerned that new users may not understand the WP:AfD style of starting a new thread (or even section editing). Potential alternate wording: Wikipedia:Canada-related discussions. --maclean25 06:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this can be resolved; it doesn't need to be as complex as AfD, and will only require the use of one template. I'll create a mock-up to play with. Mindmatrix 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds wonderful to me. Zhatt 00:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I've played with it a bit. Here's a test version of the new CCOTW nomination system. Give it a try, and let me know what you think. I think the process is fairly straightforward, though I welcome feedback for improvements to make it even easier. Also, feel free to edit any of the files in the test system under my userpage. Mindmatrix 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the functionality. There are no section edit links anymore, the headers link to the sub-page and launch an edit session automatically, and the template does everything once the user has supplied the article's name and a reason for the nomination, including adding a sig. I've also simplified the instructions somewhat. Mindmatrix 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Canadian radio infovoid

Do any of you know where a media junkie might find helpful resource directories for writing radio station articles besides the CRTC, the Industry Canada database and the Canadian Communications Foundation?

I think I slammed into the ultimate speed bump today: CJSD in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Read it, and realize that with the known resources, this was actually the best I could do. I need some help fixing that mess! Bearcat 11:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've found some info for radio stations at the culture.ca website, though it seems to be mostly a collection of unrelated articles; there's no mention of CJSD. There's also the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council which may have some info, though a quick perusal led me to a member list, which links directly to external links for the radio stations. Aside: the CJSD website definitely needs work. Mindmatrix 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related stubs

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've put in a request for a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related stub articles. Comments on this proposed stub are welcomed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/canada-abp-stub. If passed the stub will be available for use in a week. Kurieeto 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

stupid.ca

After this article went through an AfD, the admin who closed the AfD moved it to Canadian Anti-Smoking Campaign. I don't think this is the right place for this article. In the AfD, I offered this suggestion:

Anti-smoking programs in Ontario? Perhaps programs is the wrong word, though, and I'd like to capture the fact this is done by the government. Anti-smoking campaigns by the Government of Ontario? Government of Ontario anti-smoking campaigns?

Does anyone have a good suggestion for the appropriate name of this article? At the very least, we should remove some of those capital letters. Mindmatrix 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

39th Canadian general election

A number of Tory candidates for the anticipated election appear to have created lengthy vanity screeds--in some cases simply copying and pasting their bios from their campaign websites. Certainly they are entitled to an article; I would like to see more candidates with articles. But the content needs to be encyclopaedic. I am fixing what I can, but with 308 ridings, its not a one-person job. Please, help! Carolynparrishfan 13:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good eye, catching these. I have posted three possible (long-term) solutions for this here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Neutrality. --maclean25 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Nobody is entitled to a Wikipedia article. Bearcat 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on photographs in Canada

See {{PD-Canada}}. Also see the template's talk page: use with care. What do people think about my use of this (see Image:M O Hammond 1910.jpg)? Lupo 09:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Updating the CCOTW page

I think I'll be updating the CCOTW page with my new template and transcluded discussion system soon (within a few days). If anybody has objections, please state them. Don't worry about offending me - I'd rather get this right, than implement a system everyone dislikes. Mindmatrix 18:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Done, after a bit of a delay. I still have to update the history and removed nominations, which I'll probably format using the new system for consistency. Mindmatrix 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mass-move of Ontario Regional Municipality pages

(Forgive me if this is Ontario-centric; I couldn't find an equivalent Ontario page)

I saw a comment on this on DoubleBlue's todo list, and commented on it on his talk page, but he doesn't have time recently.

Basically, it would go as follows: Name Regional Municipality, Ontario —> Regional Municipality of Name, Ontario.

Some proofs of this, shamelessly copied from DoubleBlue's page: [2], [3], [4]

I am rather new here and have no idea what would the procedures be to have this accepted by a wider community. I imagine there'd be some opposition if I went and moved the pages by myself right now, not to mention that some Regional Municipality of Name, Ontario pages exist as redirects and would have to get deleted first.

I have now found Wikipedia:Requested moves, and am just gathering support (or lack or criticism) prior to listing these moves there. --Qviri 06:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If this gets approved, and someone moves these pages, I'd be more than happy to help out with redirections and fixing of old links. --Qviri 04:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I suppose a unification at Category:Census divisions of Ontario might be useful too. Right now we have both Category:Peel Regional Municipality, Ontario and Category:Region of Waterloo, Ontario. --Qviri 04:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now left messages on talk pages of respective articles. These are the pages listed at List of Ontario Census Divisions#Regional municipalities (Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York) with exception of Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario (which I don't really know how to move... District Municipality of Muskoka or District of Muskoka? The latter seems to be used more commonly) and Oxford County, Ontario (which is named correctly).

Some stats: of the six pages in question, five already list the name Regional Municipality of <name> as the first name in the article. For the one that doesn't, Halton, the official website is titled (both in <title> tag and in the title bar) as Regional Municipality of Halton. All three that have infoboxes also list the Regional Municipality of <name>. --Qviri 06:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am completely against this. Statistics Canada uses "XXX Regional Municipality" for every last one of them. Plus, this is just how things should be named. Look at the county articles. They're not at "County of xxx" -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand, it's the City of Toronto and the City of Hamilton and the City of Ottawa... Not Toronto City, Hamilton City and Ottawa City. --Qviri 18:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Statistics Canada uses Placename Municipalityclass as a convention for its lists for convenience sake only. Regional districts in BC are a similar case, with them actually using both XXX of YYY and YYY XXX formats, but StatsCan uses YYY XXX exclusively. The Tom 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree to move. 'Regional Municipality of' is the proper legal form used by the governments themselves in most cases (ie. Regional Municipality of Waterloo vs Wellington County). David Arthur 18:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also support the move... Stats Canada may use that formatting, but to be honest the only place I've ever seen it is here, on Wikipedia. I side with the point above. Also I'm not sure if this counts for anything, but dmoz also uses the proposed type of formatting. Mrtea 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of moving the articles. It is far more appropriate, and correct, to use the legal entity names. We should not use idiosyncratic forms used within one government department, especially one which does not have the authority to define the names. Mindmatrix 16:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Either "Regional Municipality of X" or "X Region" would technically be fine as a naming convention, as long as we were consistent about it, but "X Regional Municipality" is a weird hybrid that results from conflating the legal designation "RM of X" with the informal term "X Region". It is never the proper form. Statistics Canada's job is to compile census data — their usage does not dictate the official forms of municipal names...especially when both legal and common usage differ. (And that "Region of Waterloo" thingy just makes me wince; nobody uses that form for any purpose, ever.)

That said, my personal inclination would be that the articles should be titled with the legal "Regional Municipality of X, Ontario" form, but the categories should use the informal "X Region, Ontario" format. Bearcat 17:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with moving the categories to "X Region, Ontario". Any other opinions on this? --Qviri 05:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I've now listed the article pages on WP:RM. I'll wait a bit more before listing the categories on WP:CfD. --Qviri 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The pages are now moved, I've listed the categories for renaming. --Qviri 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Editors in high places

The edit history of the 192.197.82.201, 203, and 205 IP addresses are of some interest, as they are apparently the IP addresses for Parliament Hill. Conservatives seem to have been especially busy. - SimonP 05:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Help: book throwing in the commons

Not sure if anybody can help. I'm looking for the name of the MP that threw a lawbook (you know these things named by color?) on the floor of the commons while in session. Can anybody help? Circeus 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

References Section

Does anyone ever use the References section of the noticeboard, or should it just be removed? There does not seem to be much usefull information in there. Zhatt 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The original idea behind it was that people could add stuff to it if they knew of anything appropriate. Granted, it's almost never been used that way. Bearcat 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006#Campaign

Is it just me, or has nobody been updating this part of the timeline recently? Either that or it's been a pretty uneventful campaign as of late, but there are no events listed on this timeline between December 1 and December 15. Anyone wish to fill in the gap?  Denelson83  05:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

William "Duke" Procter

My attempt to start an article on this subject was the victim of speedy deletion. I may not have made a strong enough case for notability; I can't tell any more. Since it is linked from Deaths in 2005, I think that it might have been more appropriate to flag it for attention if it was somewhat skimpy. I was a bit peeved to find it gone. Mr. Procter, of course, was one of the last remaining Canadian World War I veterans. I thought that I had referenced material from the CBC on his life. --Big_Iron 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored it, it should never have been speedied. - SimonP 19:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

fr:Wikipédia:Projet/Canada

A new Canada project has been created on the French language Wikipedia. Bilingual contributors and translators may be of great help. Thanks ADM

Candidate Bios

There was a Ottawa Citizen article a few weeks ago criticizing the bios of federal candidates. [5] Many of the offending sections are still there. Perhaps they could use some fix-up. 142.68.196.175 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Government of Toronto > Politics of Toronto

I noticed that a user named User:Tarret has created a new page called Government_of_Toronto. The new page is almost exactly the same as the government section on the Toronto page, except for one new paragraph. There might be a need to expand this section, especially for early Toronto history but does the text need to be duplicated? What's the policy? Atrian 04:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a fair bit to write about this subject, so I say let it grow. - SimonP 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, expand. However, I wonder if the title should be changed: Government of Toronto, to me, sounds odd – qv Government of Canada, Government of Ontario, et al. Perhaps Politics of Toronto, Municipal governance in Toronto (or of), Toronto municipal governance, or similar would be better?

Moreover, this summary/overview article can't be everything to everyone: the article is unnecessarily excessive and, given the abundance of information in it and redundancy with (underused, methinks) subarticles (new and not), the Toronto article needs a thorough pruning. I'll get around to this (again) at some point. E Pluribus Anthony 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the title form for other political/government articles (e.g., Politics of Canada, Politics of Ontario, et al.), I've moved this article to Politics of Toronto. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Canada-related topics

The above referenced page might make a good visit for anyone reading this message board. No one seems to be using this page. It could be a useful resouce if people providing Canada-related topics were to note them oo this page...maybe not. I will watch it for a few days and see if this note provokes/ stirs any interest. Thanks for reading this! (Stormbay 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC))