Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 31

Edit war at 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

Can someone help me at 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election? Some guy is trying to delete almost every candidate from the infobox based on his personal opinion. Pinging User:Ahunt, I know you had the same issues with that editor on that article as well. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Should just block them.Moxy- 02:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like one of them needs a timeout. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I also would like to add "based on his personal opinion" is a ludicrous, untrue strawman; I have always held the belief election infoboxes should give a summary of a given election, not a total overview of every candidate even if they're clearly irrelevant (1 % or less). Based on the margin of victory, media coverage and >10 % result for the other candidates it seems logical not to include them in the SUMMARY. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

At least don't have the audacity to not name me the next time around Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone care to tap into this discussion at Conservative Party of Canada?

Interesting discussion at Talk:Conservative Party of Canada, Removing "Internal Factions" from infobox. The user proposing to remove internal factions has brought up some good but debateable points. I'd like a few more editors to voice their opinion before reaching a decision. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution of Canada

There's a disagreement at Amendments to the Constitution of Canada over whether or not the legislatures of Quebec and Saskatchewan have unilaterally amended the Constitution Act 1867. There was a bit of back and forth over this last year. Then it seemed to die down until an editor revived it a couple of months ago and it's been on a low boil ever since. If anyone'd like to help settle on a resolution, it'd be appreciated. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Conservatives seat count

A little while ago, I sorta got confused with the numbering of Conservative seats in the House of Commons, since the August 1, 2023 resignation of O'Toole. Is the current count 117 or 116. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

When I check the House of Commons site it listed 117; that was last week, I think. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make the corrections. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Local pronunciation of Toronto

At Talk:Toronto#"Local" pronunciation is archaic I brought up how the "local" pronunciation provided in the lead is archaic and doesn't reflect contemporary pronunciation. I provided sources, and even showed how the sources already in the article contradict the claims in the lead. Nobody's fixed it, and the article is locked so IPs can't edit it, so could someone please handle it? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:3409:BCEE:6CAB:A50B (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bump. I've provided additional sources, including an academic PDF, but nobody has stepped up to fix the article. Could someone please do it, or unlock the page so I can? It surprises me that such a prominent problem with such an important article can just be ignored like this. 115.36.200.66 (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe other Canadians don’t think that the pronunciation of the name of a city in Ontario is an important or prominent problem. 😉 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: They thought it was important enough to add a counterfactual "local" pronunciation with three (count 'em three) inline citations in the opening sentence of the article.

But this speaks poorly of the project as a whole when the response is not to fix demonstrated misinformation in an article, but to respond to concerns with snark. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:953D:466F:C6EB:B765 (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The emoticon indicates it wasn't meant snarkily. Anyway, this isn't just a Toronto issue; I tried repeatedly to fix the Fredericton pronunciation and kept having it changed back to something decades out of date; I've given up on that. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

So misinformation wins? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:CAE8:7DB2:1246:B9B8 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Without really good up-to-date citations, yes. Even audio clips from local CBC announcers isn't good enough for some people. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but that's not what's going on at Talk:Toronto. There, I've provided good, up-to-date citations, such as this paper from Carleton University. 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:AE4C:7DF0:1BA5:297E (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the value in including a "local pronunciation" that is just the typical slurring of a dialect, for any city. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Kawnhr here... how is this notable or useful? I don't see a "locally New YAWK" mention in the lead of New York City. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I said the same thing on the talk page. Why not express your thoughts there instead of here? 2402:6B00:8E60:E300:14DC:F249:33F:BDD4 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I expressed it here because "we shouldn't include local pronunciations in the lead" applies to other pages as well, such as Calgary (although now that I link it, I see its "local pronunciation" has been removed). But sure, if you'd like, I can chime in on Talk:Toronto. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Temporaries#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)#Requested move 21 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Invasion of Quebec (1775)#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Trudeau sidebar

pls see Template talk:Trudeau sidebar#Do we need this? Moxy- 04:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

List of public art in Toronto

I'm working on List of public art in Toronto, if any project members are interested in collaborating! Thanks, --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tourism in Nunavut

Tourism in Nunavut has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Year in Canada pages, needing citations/verifications

Just noticed that many Year in Canada pages, have been tagged by an editor (@JoeNMLC:) with citation required tags, recently, at the top of pages & top of sections, etc. Anybody have sources for all these pages? GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, a few of them, have had such tags for over a decade. Either the sources haven't been provided yet, or they were & the tags just weren't removed. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

MEVC peer review

Still looking for feedback on this peer review. Volcanoguy 17:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Some additional eyes at Hardeep Singh Nijjar and the talk page would be helpful. This is the article about the Canadian Sikh separatist leader who was murdered in Surrey in June, and whose murder has created the current diplomatic tensions between Canada and India.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Redirect for "Dominion of Canada"

"Dominion of Canada" is currently a redirect to the article on the Name of Canada. There is a proposal to change the redirect to the Canada article:Redirect: Dominion of Canada Anyone who is interested in the issue is invited to participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 20#Dominion of canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Centre Ice party

Since the announcement yesterday about New Brunswick independent MLA Dominic Cardy launching a new federal political party, there has been some material added to his biography. I've commented out a part of the infobox in that article which indicated Cardy is interim leader of that party, on the basis that the party was just announced and has only begun seeking the necessary signatures for Elections Canada certification, and he cannot be leader of a party that does not exist yet. My edit hasn't been contested (I only just did it) but I'm posting here for different opinions on this.

I've also created a few redirects to that section, from Canadian Future Party, Centre Ice Conservatives, and Centre Ice Canadians. The party seems to have support from a number of well-known Conservatives so I presume an article will be written at some point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello Canadian Wikipedians' notice board:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Dominion of Canada at Talk:MV Missourian (1921)

There is now a discussion of the use of "Dominion of Canada" at Talk:MV Missourian (1921). Anyone who is interested is invited to join the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with an article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites

There seem to be a group of users who are editing articles to insinuate that churches in Canada were/are being burned by indigenous or indigenous-aligned activists. To my knowledge, no such information exists, because the only connections between the arsons and the people in question are speculative at this point (and the few charges laid pursuant to the arsons appear to have specifically excluded ideology or politics as the motivating factor). What's going on with Wikipedia? First the Polish WWII thing, now this? How much of Wiki is being used to push false narratives? Has the project grown too large (read:unwieldy) to be useful? In academia we basically forbid students from using this website due to this and myriad other reasons. 2605:B100:1108:7B82:A1D8:D608:BAFA:A1E9 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

IP is apparently evading a block on 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Reported to blocking admin. Meters (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Meters: According to WHOIS queries, 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2605:b100:1108:7b82:a1d8:d608:bafa:a1e9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in different locations (Ottawa and Montreal respectively) but the same provider (Bell). It would not make sense to take action on an anonymous user in Ottawa to use a Montreal IP address to evade a block, so the "block evasion" reasoning for the block of the Montreal IP may not be correct. Eyesnore 03:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not all about the reported location. The 2605: IP is blocked 6 months for block evasion, and the page is semi protected for 1 year. Meters (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Climate Normals 1991 to 2020

It looks like today, when I viewed the Canadian Climate Normals page, Environment and Climate Change Canada has released the first phase of the new 1991-2020 normals! The data is quite limited to a few stations right now and as such, I think we should start updating the climate boxes in Canadian cities. Use the Template:Toronto weatherbox as an example since rain/snow/humidex/wind chill/sunshine (no longer measured) is from older 1981-2010 data and we should keep it for now. One big thing is that they use thredded station data for extremes (similar to extremes info in the States) so we do not need to cite individual montly data for recent extremes between 2012-2022. For sources that used the ftp url for the older 1981-2010 data, I am in the process of replacing them with web archive since this allows you to download the excel files as the ftp sources had extra data not published on their websites. Good luck editing and updating the climate data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yaroslav Hunka#Requested move 3 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yaroslav Hunka#Requested move 3 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 19:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous history and treaty governance reference in geographic articles

New editor so apologies if this note is in the wrong place or asks an overly obvious question. I started to edit a page for a lake in Ontario (Lake Joseph) that mentions the current uses and users, and the associations organized to represent the interests of the shoreline residents. It seems to me that there should also be some recognition that the land and waters have an indigenous history and traditional indigenous uses, and that the lands and waters are still governed today by multiple treaties with First Nations. I think that could be accomplished in a couple of sentences, and would provide more context for a reader regarding the lake in question. Is there a standard approach to this question or guidance for editors for how to reflect the indigenous information overlay to benefit the reader? WalkingUp (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

So far as I know, there's no standard format. You could take a look at the articles on other lakes to see how the issue has been handled. For instance, check out the "Human history" section of Lake Ontario. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• That's a very helpful model - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingUp (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Future-class

See also: Template talk:WikiProject Canada/Archive 2 § class=Future, and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30 § Project-independent quality assessments

Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we would need to remove any non-standard classes like Future-class from your project banner. Would you like to keep track of future events in a different way, perhaps by using a parameter |future=yes which would then populate a category. Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:Future-Class Canada-related articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Future-class has now been removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada is hiring a Program Officer

Hello Canadian Wikipedians! Wikimedia Canada is hiring a Program Officer. The person will be responsible for implementing various programs identified by the organization: WikiClubs, Francophonie, Indigenous Culture and Knowledge, High-Impact Topics, Collective for Free Knowledge, and Research and Development. If you are interest, please find more info on our website. Deadline to apply: Oct. 29 - 5pm EST

Bonjour les Wikipédiens canadiens ! Wikimédia Canada recrute une Chargée / un Chargé de programmes. La personne travaillera à la mise en œuvre de divers programmes identifiés par l'organisation : WikiClubs, Francophonie, Culture et savoirs autochtones, Sujets à fort impact, Collectif pour la connaissance libre, et Recherche et développement. Vous pouvez trouver plus d'informations sur notre site web. Date limite de candidature : 29 octobre - 17h EST SophieWMCA (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Finish the series {{Canadian premiers, 1850s}} through {{Canadian premiers, 2020s}}

Hello,

I began the timeline series of all Canadian federal/provincial premiers, and all the top-level viceroys, starting with {{Canadian premiers, 1850s}} and continuing onwards sporadically. Anyone who finishes the series (which currently also has entries for the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 2000s) within a timely manner will receive a barnstar. (Also ideal would be the extension of the series with {{Canadian viceroys, 1920s}}.)

Thanks,

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CanLawCase

Template:CanLawCase has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wabasca, Alberta#Requested move 19 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wabasca, Alberta#Requested move 19 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

About adding additional place name units/areas

Greetings. I have a curious question. Is it somehow possible to add certain populated places or place name units/areas (depending on an article active on a current or former local level municipality within Ontario? For instance, the only source by far I could find is this: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1346772&CVD=1346785&CPV=35&CST=01012021&CLV=2&MLV=4 It's from Statistics Canada. On there, the viewer can click on the 'SGC Code' link to take him/her to the assigned province(s), then to click on either of their assigned 'census divisions' (i.e.: counties or regional municipalities, etc.) and then to click on either of their assigned 'census subdivisions' (i.e.: municipalities, present-day townships, etc.). And once he/she clicks on a census subdivision's code, that could share some place names of the populated places associated with that census subdivision. Any thoughts or advice or feedback, etc.? Please lemme know when you can. jlog3000 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused, and not at all clear on what you mean. Could you please be more specific about what you want to add to what, in what context? Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 PEI general election

Hello. Are the results of the 2023 Prince Edward Island general election, now official? Just curious, as I'm planning on removing the 'preliminary' bits from the current MLAs' bios. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Elections Prince Edward Island site lists Official Results; I haven't checked whether they match the Wiki article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Somebody should certainly double-check the results listed in our articles against the official certified results to ensure that they match, but obviously an election that took place six months ago has had its results certified and officialized by now — that virtually always takes place within a couple of weeks, and the preliminary tag is because we tend to fill in the tables based on the unofficial media reportage on election day and aren't always prompt about checking them against the final numbers. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've written down the official numbers from the Elections PEI website. Will begin implementing them, later today. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Implementation on templates-in-question, have been completed. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Harold Innis

I have nominated Harold Innis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming meetup

Further information will be available at Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/Wikipedia Day 2024. Hopefully I'll get to meet more of my fellow Canadians :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

PEI legislative assembly page, needs updating

Howdy. Does anyone know how to update the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island page's - Members of the Legislative Assembly, Seating plan & Party standings sections? Jamie Fox resigned as a Progressive Conservative MLA, effective 11 November 2023 & so updates are required. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I've updated them successfully, accept for the Seating plan map. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Meetup/edit-athon in Ottawa

Hello folks, the Rideau Rockcliffe Community Resource Centre in Ottawa has reached out to me to run an edit-athon/ Wiki tutorial on December 2. If anyone is interested in attending or would like to help me out, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Ottawa/Edit-athon 2023 or on their eventbrite page. Cheers! -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Source for old election data

A while ago, I had moved a lot of election date into templates. Such as moving this to templates such as this. I was asked for sources of data. Where do I find them? </nowiki>Ebbedlila (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, how does one add references to a template? to avoid this type of edit? Ebbedlila (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, there are a few sources for historical election results depending on the jurisdiction. A general source for provincial governments is the Canadian Election Database (https://canadianelectionsdatabase.ca/PHASE5/) created by Anthony Sayers of the University of Calgary. For federal elections, the Library of Parliament has a database with the results of each election by electoral district (https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/ElectionsRidings/Elections?permalink=1243). For more recent elections (generally post 1980s) there will be official reports of the federal or provincial chief electoral officer (federal, BC) and some provinces have published historical materials (Nova Scotia, Electoral history of British Columbia, 1871-1986, Centennial series (Legislative Assembly of Alberta), 1869-2005: A century of democracy). For how to incorporate the source in the template, there is a source element for Template:Canadian election result (e.g., template:canelec) with "CANelec/source|hide=". An example you may look at is Template:2019 Alberta general election/Calgary-Buffalo which has a Elections Alberta source for results both digital and PDF report, and a source for expenditures. Hope this helps. Caddyshack01 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Elections Canada has everything after 1996; that should be a good enough source for vote totals and names. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking to replace promotional content in Canada Goose article

Hello! I'm a Canada Goose employee working as a COI editor to improve the company's article. This WikiProject being the go-to place for all things Canada, I figured I would stop by and ask for help.

On the Goose Talk page, I've asked editors to review a new Products section that I have drafted. The purpose of this new section is to strengthen the article by providing concrete details about the goods that Canada Goose manufactures and sells. I'm thinking this section should replace the existing Marketing one, which has a lot of fluff about the company's branding that probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. The Goose article has a "written like an advertisement" tag at the top, and I believe that cutting the Marketing section will at least begin to fix that problem.

If anyone here would like to take a look at my Products draft, please use this link to view my Talk page post. If anyone has feedback, you can contact me below this post or take the discussion to the Goose Talk page. Thank you Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

So you're getting paid to edit here, and you want us to help you do your job for free? Have I got that right? Hey, I get paid at my job, but I never expect people to come help me do my job for free. No thanks. I will, however, now start monitoring that article to make sure it remains NPOV and no trade puffery on behalf of your employer's marketing plans. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, thanks for replying. To be clear, I'm following the site's conflict of interest guidelines, which forbid me from directly editing the Canada Goose article. Those guidelines also stipulate that I'm supposed to suggest changes on the Goose Talk page and then let independent editors decide whether my suggestions are worthy of being implemented. So in short, yes, I do need help from volunteers. I completely understand if you don't want to provide that help. Please don't feel like I'm putting you or anyone else at this WP under obligation. My post above is simply a flare for editors who may be interested in working on the Goose article, which has been designated as in need of improvement.

Again, I appreciate your concern. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and that I'm trying to go about this whole thing the right way. Cheers! Canada Goose Isabella (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Requested move 21 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Requested move 21 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Government of Canada

I see now that New Zealand Government, Australian Government & Government of the United Kingdom have updated infoboxes. Perhaps it's time for the infobox at Government of Canada to likewise be updated. Note, the 11 other Commonwealth realms don't have governemt pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated how? It would help if you would specify what needs updating. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The newer infoboxes are more stream-lined, smaller. New Zealand, Australia & the United Kingdom are using the "Template:Infobox executive government" style, while Canada is using the "Template:Infobox government" style. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley City Centre station

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley City Centre station. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Rene Levesque's nationality

There's a dispute at the Rene Levesque page, as to whether he was a Canadian politician. GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that this is a mis-characterization of the dispute. But more input is certainly required. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned there. I'll be opening an RFC 'here', if the content dispute is still ongoing, in about a week's time. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We really do need more input. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The topographic map on Nova Scotia shows Pictou Island as a separate province

That little island between PEI and NS. I first noted this issue on the talk page for NS on the day I created my account (feb 2). Can anyone fix this? JM (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Rene Lévesque RfC

There is now an RfC the article talk page here, concerning how Lévesque should be described in the lead sentence. Additional input would be welcomed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Currency

There is a discussion at Template talk:Currency#Canadian dollar doesn't match 4217 style about whether the Canadian currency should be displayed as CA$, Can$, CAD or something else when used in an international context (ie, when it could be confused with the US dollar, Australian dollar, etc). Please comment there, not here.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was "CA$" and the {{currency}} template has been updated accordingly.  Stepho  talk  23:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Royal Canadian Air Cadets has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the Ottawa Senators (1992–)

History of the Ottawa Senators (1992–) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hudson's Bay Centre#Requested move 26 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hudson's Bay Centre#Requested move 26 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

René Lévesque and nationality in the lede

Following the RfC mentioned above, this is being discussed again in the section here. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there is a second Talk section to discuss this proposes change to version proposed by the RfC closer]; the section to which Darryl Kerrigan discusses the issue for which this was Darryl's proposed solution. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - both discussions should be merged into one, at the talkpage-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

One is a proposal to change substantially the RfC close because certain editors disagree with it; the other is a proposed change to the word order enacted by the closer. I don't really see a valid reason why they should be merged or treated as "the same discussion". Newimpartial (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't an attempt to change the outcome of the close, but an attempt to continue the discussion as the closer invited us to have. In his closing comments S Marshall wrote Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided. Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. Characterizing attempts to do what the closer invited us to do, to continue to discuss whether Québécois should be in the first sentence, is particularly unhelpful. I encourage everyone review the closing comments and the continued discussion on the talk page, and attempt to continue the discussion in a respectful manner there. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that editors can debate any topic related to article content, on Talk pages, but revert-warring against the version the closer produced to implement their close is not an appropriate form of debate. The closer also said, However, in this discussion I can't find a consensus that would let me choose between "Canadian" and "Canadian Québécois". In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. That decision denotes the current, formal, consensus, and if an editor disagrees with the formal result then a formal process is required to overturn it. Regular, discussion-based consensus can identify improvements to the RfC closer's version, but BOLD edits that dismiss the closer's rationale out of hand aren't really something to revert-war into place IMO.

Anyway, the page certainly needs more eyes, so I hope some of you will come. Newimpartial (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Friend, you continue to misunderstand and characterize the close. I suggest you read it again. Among other things, S Marshall wrote Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided. Editors are at liberty to continue to debate this point. I hope it isn't necessary to have another RfC about it, though. Your claim that a further RfC is required is directly contrary to the closing comments. Your lone opposition, does not trigger a requirement for an RfC. I strongly suggest you reconsider, continue to discuss, and make room for others to do the same.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the Lesveque page off my watchlist. IMHO, the content dispute is on the verge of morphing into an editorial dispute, with WP:EW reports on the horizon. PS - 'Tis a shame, how messed up the intro is getting. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

New Democrats

FYI, the scope and name of New Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion at talk:New Democrats -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Municipal elections "by riding"

Wanted to raise this for discussion here, because I'm not sure how to fix it. There's been a gradual push in recent years of migrating Quebec municipal election results templates to use the standardized "Canadian election result" template framework instead of their own distinct format — but because the "Canadian election result" framework is designed for federal and provincial elections, it autogenerates "YYYY [Specific Polity] election results by riding" categories and leaves no way for those to be corrected or wiped out, with the result that Category:Quebec municipal election results templates has 12 subcategories for "YYYY Montreal municipal election results by riding".

There are, further, three one-entry Ottawa municipal election results "by riding" categories sitting in the Category:Canada municipal election results by riding templates parent, which are even more ridiculous than the Montreal ones since they each only contain a citywide mayoral template rather than any ward race templates, while the relatively few ward race templates present in Category:Ottawa election results templates are still manually coded rather than transcluding the national framework, and thus aren't autogenerating any "by riding" categories at all.

Now, obviously I don't need to explain to Canadians that "ridings" in municipal elections aren't a thing at all — those are only provincial or federal, while municipal elections are organized by wards or boroughs, not ridings. But since the categories are autogenerated by the template framework, they're impossible to fix or remove without massive template edits that may fuck up other things in the process.

Montreal, to be fair, has enough templates that subcatting them by year instead of just leaving them all in one massive citywide or provincewide category is probably reasonable, although they absolutely shouldn't have "by riding" in their names — but if there are only a handful of templates involved in Ottawa, then that city only needs one category for them instead of a separate single-entry category for each individual year. But as this is all autogenerated crap, it can't be fixed just by renaming or moving things without making changes to the template coding to abort "by riding" in municipal elections, so it needs some discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Anybody? Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

One river, two articles

At Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) and Wolastoq, both articles are about exactly the same river. There has been discussion about this on both articles. Should they be merged? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

They should, but I expect no consensus will be reached until the name is officially changed by government. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Both Canada and the United State call it the same name. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

And until the New Brunswick government changes the name to Wolastoq, some people will keep resurrecting a page with that name, no matter how many times the articles are merged. Even a redirect page won't satisfy some people.

That could just be my cynicism talking, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They should be merged, and we should probably go with the name that is better recognized internationally as the article title. I imagine both the US and Canada would need to recognize a new name as portions of the river pass through both Maine and New Brunswick. If they don’t both recognize the new name, the old name is likely to still be the WP:COMMONNAME.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, without a doubt they should be merged with the common name kept as the article's title. Masterhatch (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely need to be merged. As you say, it's two articles for the exact same subject under different names. It's like if there was an Engwiki article on Poland called "Poland" and another Engwiki article on Poland called "Lechia". That second article also has a weird first sentence: Wolastoq (Maliseet-Passamaquoddy: “The River of the Good Wave”), changed in 1604 by Samuel de Champlain to Fleuve Saint-Jean (English: Saint John River), is a river flowing within the Dawnland region for approximately 418 miles (673 km). It identifies the river in purely First Nations terms and not in conventional geographic terms. Overall it gives the impression of just being the Saint John River article rewritten from a First Nations POV, making it a WP:POVFORK. JM (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton - Perhaps folks will continue to recreate it, but it will likely continue even if New Brunswick calls for the name change because ultimately it is the Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC) who has the final say in Canada at least. Activists hoping for the change have admitted as much, saying they think the province would nonetheless have "great say in the naming". Even then, the Americans don't need to recognize the decisions of New Brunswick or GNBC. So Wikipedia naming disputes are likely to continue until all three (or four if Maine has an opinion) are in agreement. I agree with JM2023 that Wolastoq is a WP:POVFORK. None of the governments currently recognize Wolastoq as the name of the river. In fact, the provincial racism commissioner just recommended some sort of compromise of "Wolastoq Saint John" for the name, which seems to have been immediately rejected as "tone deaf" by indigenous activists. If the article, keeps being created contrary to consensus protection might be needed for the redirect. Though I guess then we could start getting variations like Wolastoq River, Wolastoq river or perhaps even Wolastoq Saint John, and then might find ourselves in a game of WP:WHACKAMOLE.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Obvious merge. And WP:SALT the redirect to prevent new articles from being created. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Obvious merge, and protect the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion (or presumably merger). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolastoq.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed gov't infoboxes to the 'government executive' format

Howdy. I've went ahead (since nobody objected weeks ago, when I proposed it) & changed the infoboxes in the Canadian government & provincial governments to the "government executive" format. This lines up with the infoboxes at the New Zealand Government, Australian Government & Government of the United Kingdom pages. Feel free to add further information into them. PS - I don't know how to change the 'state' to 'province', in the infoboxes. So would appreciate it, if somebody can figure it out & do the task. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: That article is bizzare. It starts out by saying The term Government of Canada (French: Gouvernement du Canada) refers specifically to the executive, which includes ministers of the Crown (together in the Cabinet) and the federal civil service (whom the Cabinet direct); it is alternatively known as His Majesty's Government (French: Gouvernement de Sa Majesté) and is corporately branded as the Government of Canada. But then the article goes on to describe the entire federal level of the Canadian state apparatus, not just the executive/administrative Government. So when I saw your proposal I wasn't sure whether to support or oppose because on the one hand the "Government of Canada" is a government in the executive sense, like in other Commonwealth realms, but on the other hand its article also covers the entire federal apparatus, including the legislature, which is not a part of "HM Government". I would say that either the old infobox has to stay and all references to the government as solely the executive be removed, or the new infobox stays with the article drastically overhauled to only cover the actual administrative/executive Government. I prefer the latter option, since it's the correct definition of the subject "Government of Canada". JM (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023: I made the changes to bring them in line with the British, Australian (I just finished the Australian state gov'ts, too) & New Zealand government pages. I find the 'new' infoboxes are more compact & 'maybe' less archaic in appearance. If one wants to make additions to the 'new infoboxes'? I believe there's room. As for the article body of the federal government & the provincial governments? I wouldn't oppose cutting them down to being just about the 'executive'. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored "Infobox government" to the federal gov't page & all ten provincial gov't pages. Had to do the same, for the six Australian gov't pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: To be clear, I think the ultimate result should be reducing those pages to the topic of the executive "HM Governments". If we do end up reducing those articles into being solely about the actual "HM Governments", then presumably the new infoboxes you had put there would be the better ones for the reduced articles. But right now, as the articles cover the entire institutional apparatus, the old infoboxes which you have restored is the best for those articles, and I think that those infoboxes should remain unless we get those articles sorted out into being about the actual executive governments.

I first noticed the problem with the Canadian government article years ago before I had an account and started editing, but I sort of forgot about it. The problem is basically that any article on an HM government that states the government is synonymous with the executive/administrative apparatus (which it is), but then describes all aspects of the state apparatus, is an article that is contradicting itself.

Now I would attempt reducing the articles to the executive government subjects myself, but it's probably the case that people don't want someone going in and just removing tons of article content, especially without much of a discussion; but I don't know, I don't have a lot of experience here. Maybe people would rather the non-executive parts of the articles to be split off and merged with other articles, but at the same time, we already have giant articles on the respective parliaments and legislatures and court systems, so I don't know if it would be a negligible loss to just get rid of the content from the HM government articles instead of splitting and merging.

Anyway, see the difference between Government of Canada and Government of the United Kingdom for a good example of what I mean; ideally, to get the new infoboxes in there, we would need the Canada article to look much more like the UK article. JM (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

May not have to change the content, after all. See my suggestion below. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@JM2023: would it be alright if we keep "Infobox government" & change the parameters 'Head of state', 'Vice-regal representative', 'Head of government' over to 'Monarch', 'Governor-General', 'Prime Minister' & for the provincials, change over to 'Monarch', 'Lieutenant Governor' & 'Premier', then list the current office holders? GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure... it's a matter of whether we want generic office - office name or office name - current office holder; i.e., do we want head of state - monarch or monarch - Charles III. Right now, looking at the Gov of Canada and Gov of NS articles, it's in the format of generic office - office name. To be honest, I prefer the current format of generic office - office name because of its ability to show the generalized office type: it tells us the monarch is head of state, the governor-general or lieutenant governor is vicegerent, and the premier is head of government. If you wanted, and if people are fine with it, could you possibly do what the Government of the United Kingdom article does and just put the current office holder in brackets? Although I don't necessarily agree that we need to put the current office holders, I think a solution that still shows the generic offices is better than one that doesn't show them.

In any case, we still have articles that contradict themselves by telling us that the government is the executive and then going on to describe the entire system, so I still think that we have that problem, no matter what infobox situation we settle for. JM (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@5225C: & @Mitch Ames: this discussion is kinda tied in with the Australian states. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Revising the scope and topic of the Government of Canada article

I've started a new discussion here on revising the scope and topic of the Government of Canada article based on the discussion above and at WP:AWNB. It's about reducing that article to be about the executive/administrative "Government" itself and not the entire federal level already covered at Politics of Canada, in order to get an article that's actually about the executive "Government". JM (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Nicolet, Quebec

Greetings. I wanted to seek this group's assistance in referencing a statement that has been in the Nicolet, Quebec article. Specifically, there is a statement The residents of the town pronounce the final "t" in Nicolet, however people outside of the region do not. Please can someone here, help me reference that statement? The closest I got was this reference. [1] If any of you have a few spare cycles, please can you help with this one? Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:French Quebecers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:French Quebecers has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Category:French_Quebecers ......PKT(alk) 12:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heritage Regional High School

The article Heritage Regional High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cited to naught but a single primary (404) source for 16.86 years, 99.54% unverified, and exhibiting no evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yves Francois Blanchet

There is an ongoing Talk Page discussion in regards to the Infobox being used at Yves-François Blanchet. Further discussion is welcome for consensus. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yves-Fran%C3%A7ois_Blanchet#Infobox_photo PascalHD (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Before confederation" and "Confederation" parameters in prov/territorial infobox

I was going to raise this at Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada's talk page, but figured it would get more eyes on the issue here.

Basically, I noticed the usage of the "Before confederation" and "Confederation" parameters within the province/territories infobox is rather problematic and confusing in how they're used for some provinces/territories, specifically Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nunavut, and Yukon.

While I can see that the "Confederation" parameter in these articles is being used to show the date when these administrative units were created, the infobox's current wording of just "Confederation", is something I can see uninitiated readers easily misconstruing as the date these areas were actually incorporated into Canada, rather than when these administrative unit were created.

The "Before confederation" parameter and its use is also rather confusing in these articles (and some respects, just wrong). While I assume its current usage is intending to just show the preceding administrative unit, the wording "Before confederation" implies that the listed items there existed prior to Confederation/1867 (and if read in the way the wording implies, is just wrong, as these preceding administrative units were created well after Confederation).

Basically wondering if these parameters should be retitled to better reflect their usage in these articles, or if a separate paramter should be created for these cases. Leventio (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for alternate wording? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Changing the attribute to Previously seems the simplest solution. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion that the usage is incorrect. Confederation was a process; it did not end on July 1, 1867. It continued as new provinces joined. That's why Louis Riel, Amor de Cosmos, and Joey Smallwood are referred to as Fathers of Confederation. For Saskatchewan and Alberta, Confederation occurred on September 1, 1905. Also, provinces are not "administrative units". They are created by the Constitution Act, 1867, exactly the same as the federal government, and within the powers assigned to them by the Constitution, they are sovereign. They do not receive their powers by delegation, which is the usual definition of administrative units. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Most provinces were colonies in their own right before joining the country; territories and the provinces created from them were not. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how that’s relevant. The Manitoba Act, the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act all state that those provinces have equal status with the other provinces. Or are you suggesting that the Prairie provinces are second-class? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus, Ontario and Quebec didn’t exist until the Constitution Act was passed in 1867. If there’s some special rule for the Prairie provinces because they didn’t exist before 1870 or 1905, that same rule should apply to Ontario and Quebec, which didn’t exist before 1867. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that Alberta and Saskatchewan didn't join confederation, they were already part of confederation when they were Districts within the Northwest Territories. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it can be interpreted as such, others can easily read it to mean before the entire process had begun. Simply put, I'm pointing out that the wording as is is something that can be easily misconstrued to mean something else entirely (especially for an uninitiated reader who doesn't even know what Confederation is or its process). The fact we're even arguing what constitutes being "in/joining Confederation" above would indicate to me that the wording in itself needs adjustment for clarity's sake. Surely we can word this better to better reflect/convey the intended meaning, something along the lines of "Date formed" and "Previously" (I'm not tied to this wording, just giving out a suggestion as Nikki asked for one).

PS. Also, just feel the need to point out, that I wasn't saying the use of Confederation was wrong (as I said in my initial post, I can clearly see what the parameter is going for), the only issue I raised for that is it can easily be misconstrued. What I did say was wrong is how the "Before confederation" is used (and is why I only said that in said paragraph...), as it's listing out units that would not be constituted as "before Confederation" (ie. District of Yukon, District of Saskatchewan, etc., none of which would be units considered separate/before Confederation). The only way that its usage somewhat makes sense is if we interpret "before Confederation" to mean before these provinces/terrritories "joined/formed", to which I would point back to my earlier point that the parameter needs to be worded better to make this clearer. Leventio (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Presuming there aren't any ongoing issues concerning the above discussion, I would propose changing "Confederation" to "Date formed" and "Before Confederation" to "Previously" (the latter being a suggestion I took from G. Timothy Walton) as the proposed wording would (imo) more clearly convey the intended meaning. Leventio (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Date province" or simply "Province" might be better. It might be better to emulate Infobox settlement, which uses established_title and established_date attributes, allowing for more flexibility. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

If this change is accepted, it should be the same for all provinces and territories. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, looking over the infobox settlement arrangement, I think using the established_title and established_date arrangement might be the best, as it would allow for flexibility between the provs/territories.

Good article reassessment for Scarborough, Ontario

Scarborough, Ontario has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Saskatchewan Highway 16

Saskatchewan Highway 16 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Demographics of Toronto neighbourhoods

The article Demographics of Toronto neighbourhoods has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced and appears to be original research

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Merging of Canada Health and Social Transfer, Canada Health Transfer, and Canada Social Transfer

These programs are all related through a common history (CHST was split into CST and CHT), but the pages are all a little stump-y. I feel like they would benefit from merger into a single article with a History section.

Any thoughts? Kwkintegrator (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would prefer keeping them seperate, as the latter two are separate programs. I'm thinking of how we have separate articles for split and combined ministries etc. Really the only page that's short is the CST one and I don't see it as a huge problem. JM (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad climate chart data edits

It should be known that a user (Special:Contributions/Donkeybread) has gone through and "updated" a number of climate charts with new 1991-2020 data but only updated certain sections of the charts with new data leaving the old 1981-2010 data mixed in with it in the same charts and then changed the header of the charts to say that all the old data and new is now all new "1991-2020" data. This here[2] is an example. For some reason ECCC (Environment Canada) has not released complete 1991-2020 data for certain locations so that's part of the problem here.

This new added data at the very least should be reverted, but that would need to be done manually unfortunately. At best it could be added as a separate but incomplete climate chart, but that's a lot of work too and I don't know if ECCC has said if they even have and are going to release more data for these incomplete locations. Air.light (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

They are not the only person to have mixed together different periods. See this by Fumikas Sagisavas (talk · contribs) does the same thing. However, it is defined as to which is which. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the contributions it seems that the user has done some self-reversions. Is this resolved? JM (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

PR for John Rolph: feedback requested

I am looking for editors to provide feedback on John Rolph, a Toronto-area politician, lawyer and doctor from the 19th century. I am hoping to nominate the article to FAC later this year. The PR can be found here. Thanks for your help! Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge Proposal: "Provincial and territorial courts in Canada" into "Court system of Canada"

I've just created a merge proposal to merge Provincial and territorial courts in Canada into Court system of Canada. Discussion is on Talk:Court system of Canada. Anyone who is interested, please drop by. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing Requested Move Discussion

There is a proposed and ongoing requested move discussion to move 2023–24 US winter to 2023–24 North American winter. You can participate in the discussion here: Talk:2023–24 US winter#Requested move 7 March 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Blaze Island

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blaze Island.
There is an additional Blaze island near the US-Canada border, on Canada's side. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Elisa (restaurant) at AfD + photo request

Elisa (restaurant) has been nominated for deletion, if any notice board members are interested in weighing in. Also, this article could use a picture or two if anyone is in the neighborhood and able to upload. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)