Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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)

Political party infobox

Can we add a line to the infobox to indicate whether a party is actually registered or not? It's a bit silly that the Freedom Party of Canada infobox has nothing to indicate that the party has never run a candidate and is not even a registered political party. fullsome prison 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Freedom Party is the only outlier, surely it might make more sense to just strip it of its infobox? If there are others, I can look in playing with some of the conditional fields... the active/defunct stuff might be the logical place to do it. The Tom 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment/help

Could somebody please help keep an eye on the Warren Kinsella and Mark Bourrie articles. The articles are currently being watched by an army of IPs (and in the past several troublesome users -- including sockpuppets and one which claimed to be Bourrie, another named MarkBourrie). The articles are basically uneditable right now -- everything is quickly reverted. Some of the users have been very troublesome on the talk pages as well. The troubles, especially at the Kinsella page, already were too much for one good admin, Crzrussian, to deal with. The problems are apparent with the Pierre Bourque (journalist) article also, although I haven't even begun to deal with that one myself yet. I don't think the problem needs an admin so much as a few vigilant eyes to watch it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: another editor requested an IP be blocked and it resulted in semi-protection of the Bourrie article. So this isn't quite so critical for the moment. --JGGardiner 15:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in Canada

The above article has proven to be controversial. We've done a significant re-write to remove the more controversial parts, although this article will never please everyone. Please take a look and leave comments on the talk page, if any. Deet 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

City naming convention poll

The following discussion is an archived debate of the Canadian city naming convention. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Please see new poll at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#City naming convention poll 2. --Usgnus 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Draft

Canadian cities, in general, should follow the following naming convention:

• World-recognized cities should be named "Placename" when possible: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver.
• Unique major (population > 100,000 CMA) centres should also be named "Placename" when possible: e.g., Calgary, Winnipeg.
• All other cities should be named "Placename, Province": e.g., London, Ontario, or Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Notes: "Placename" cities should have redirect pages at "Placename, Province" and "Placename, Canada". Moving pages requires discussion and consensus on the city's talk page.

If this poll reaches consensus, I will update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). --Usgnus 15:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --Usgnus 15:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the "Unique major" class change. I see no problem with Calgary, Alberta and Winnipeg, Manitoba; and want to leave them as "City, Province". --Rob 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you support if that point were removed? --Usgnus 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Ardenn 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. But I agree/disagree with Rob. I agree that I don't quite like the whole "unique major" notion. But in my view, Calgary and Winnipeg are internationally recognized (Calgary much more so). There is absolutely no need for either of them to be in the City, Province format. Are we worried people might be confused with Winnipeg, Spain? --Skeezix1000 00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I misread the proposal. Looking at it again, not being in such a rush, I see what was intended with the "unique major". I agree with the whole proposal then. Sorry for the confusion. --Skeezix1000 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Sound resonable. The unique major AFAIK matches general convention (WP:Naming)-- give simple names that are recognizable. Most people searching for info on Calgary I think would use the search term Calgary. Nephron  T|C 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Notice board for Canada-related topics or similar

The page's title and the page itself makes it clear that "This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Canadian Wikipedians". This however, is not how things should be done on Wikipedia. Wikiprojects and other community pages are meant for project use, not for congregating based on country of origin, political persuasion, eyecolour or whatever. A proper focus for this page would be articles related to Canada and people who are interested in them, regardless of where they come from. Zocky | picture popups 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I reworded the intro. As for the page, how about Wikipedians' Canadian notice board? --Usgnus 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose there are many notice boards similarly worded as this one is. Ardenn 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, this is not a vote, so I'm not sure why the bolding. Anyway, those should obviously be changed too. Zocky | picture popups 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, that seems to be the consensus if they're all named like that. Ardenn 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly all are named that. Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities with more than 1MM residents?

I question some of the cities included on the list. Vancouver City does NOT have over 1MM, it has more like 600,000 (2001 stats have it as 545,671 people). I doubt that Edmonton is over 1MM, since the 2005 population of Edmonton was 712,391. If it's actually metropolitan or regional districts being counted, I think that should be made more clear; because in fact individual mayors (like those of Edmonton and Vancouver) are not mayors of cities over 1MM, they are mayors in districts over 1MM.--Anchoress 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Presently, there are only two Canadian cities with populations over 1 million: Toronto and Montreal. Calgary will join that group, likely at the next civic census, but after that, it will be a while before a fourth city is added. Resolute 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Canada

I was wondering if it would be alright I make SVG images of the various flag proposials that are listed in the book "I Stand For Canada" that were trying to change the Canadian flag in the 1940's and 1960's? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Signed Edits

I've been helping out at Special:Cross-namespace links by deleting signatures from articles. I'm just wondering: Is there a policy/guideling/anything about this? Some users seem to sign every article they create, usually at the bottom of the page. -Royalguard11^Talk 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG says that articles are not supposed to contain signatures: "Edits to articles should not be signed, as signatures on Wikipedia are not intended to indicate ownership or authorship of any Wikipedia article." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• "<!-- You're done! Do not edit anything below this line. The "~~~~" below this line will become your signature. -->"

I've been seeing a lot of this on pages. Where does it come from, because if it is a wikipedia thing it's going against WP:SIG policy. -Royalguard11^Talk 23:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

City naming convention poll 2

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. --Usgnus 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get more of a consensus than 3 to 1...

Final Draft 2

Canadian cities, in general, should follow the following naming convention:

• World-recognized cities should be named "Placename" when possible: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver.
• Unique major (population > 100,000 CMA) centres may also be named "Placename" (e.g., Calgary, Winnipeg, Saskatoon) if consensus is reached on the city's talk page.
• All other cities should be named "Placename, Province/Territory": e.g., London, Ontario, or Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Notes: "Placename" cities should have redirect pages at "Placename, Province/Territory" and "Placename, Canada". Moving pages requires discussion and consensus on the city's talk page. The province/territory name should not be abbreviated.

If this poll reaches consensus, I will update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). --Usgnus 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Usgnus 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Skeezix1000 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Oppose. I hate to throw a wrench in the works, but all this talk about setting some arbitrary population threshold (whether it be 100,000 or 250,000 or 500,000), plus Bearcat's insightful comments below, have made me realize that I prefer the existing Canada convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). It's simpler and more appropriate. It doesn't make any sense to me that article names like Saskatoon or Iqaluit need to be disambiguated. Articles on municipalities in other countries (e.g. Bamberg, Ostróda, Midhurst) demonstrate that population really has nothing to do with the proper article name. Skeezix1000 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support with the additional mention of non-abbreviated provinces and territories. --Stephane Charette 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Ground Zero | t 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Population should be > 500,000 -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Earl has a point -- 100k is pretty low. I still support the proposal, but agree that the threshold should be raised to 500k. Ground Zero | t 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That leaves 9 candidates: List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, but I can live with that. Thanks. --Usgnus 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty opposed to raising the threshold. 500k is nothing but an arbitrary number (I thought the same of 100k, but it was low enough that it didn't bother me). A 500k threshold would require the Placename, Province format where it is completely unnecessary. For example, why would we need to disambiguate a uniquely Canadian place name like Saskatoon, just because its population falls beneath some number pulled out of a hat? Raising the threshold would render this Canadian naming convention almost identical to the nonsensical American Placename, State doctrine. If the threshold is raised, I would change my vote to Oppose, because the existing Canadian guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) would then be far superior. --Skeezix1000 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not about uniqueness, it's about city size I think. 100,000 just puts too many municipalities without a province after their name, adding to much confusion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • What possible confusion could there be? --Skeezix1000 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Anyone for a happy compromise at 250,000? Ground Zero | t 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support at 100 000 - only 34 Canadian CMAs > 100 000, and the proposed policy won't affect ambiguous names such as London or Peterborough. Dl2000 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support at 100,000. I don't see what confusion either. In the opening line, it should say anyways "Placename, Provence Territory...". And some places like Saskatoon are already a redirect to the longer name, so why not just have to shorter one? -Royalguard11^Talk 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Is this not already the naming convention? And shouldn't you discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names), if you are trying to change policy? Adam Bishop 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is for Canadian cities and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) is broken down by country. There has never been a Canadian city naming convention established. Canada was lumped in with the U.S. because no one objected at the time. I am trying to establish a guideline that reflects reality, since at least 4 cities in Canada violate the current one. --Usgnus 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There appears to now be a separate Canada guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). I think that the proposed guideline here is a little better fleshed out. Perhaps a note could be left at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) advising others of this discussion. --Skeezix1000 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see something along these lines added to the proposal:

• Or "Placename, Territory". In addition, the province/territory names should be spelled out, not abbreviated. E.g., Harvey, New Brunswick, not Harvey, NB. --Stephane Charette 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, but titles with the provincial abbreviation should probably exist as redirects. Bearcat 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You might like to also add a sentence like "The unqualified [[Town]] should be either a redirect, a disambiguation page or have a dab link at the top to assist readers searching for the right page." This has worked very well for Australian places. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• What about "Lloydminster ? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Pick one (AB or SK) and redirect the other. --Stephane Charette 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Baaaaaaaaaad idea. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I take it this is a hot topic in Lloydminster? As in, whether it should be AB or SK, or whether one is better than the other? Here is a quote from the article that I'd personally use to determine where the article would sit:
        • With the bulk of the city's recent growth taking place on the Alberta side of the border, it has become known to most Canadians as Lloydminster, Alberta. In 2000, the city hall and municipal offices were re-located from Saskatchewan to Alberta.
      • --Stephane Charette 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "Lloydminster" works pretty well. No need to have a longer name and redirect. Ground Zero | t 21:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I think we should leave some room for individual case discretion; for example, Iqaluit, while not even close to any of the population figures discussed above, is a unique name where there isn't even the slightest possibility of ever having to disambiguate it from a non-Canadian topic with the same name. Saskatoon is a unique name. Lloydminster isn't entirely unique, but it's an unusual situation which was given the undisambiguated title for a different reason entirely, and nobody's ever been able to find another Lloydminster that was sufficiently notable to challenge that one for ownership of the plain title. Places like Windsor, Calgary, Halifax, London or Regina, on the other hand, are not unique names; even though they all qualify under at least one of the three numbers being discussed above, they all have to be evaluated on an individual basis. And for Sudbury, it depends on whether we prefer to use the common "Sudbury" or the official "Greater Sudbury" — with the "Greater", it's a unique name, but without it, it isn't. We should potentially discuss making uniqueness of name and/or comparative importance among similarly named topics more important criteria than an arbitrary population cutoff, I think. Bearcat 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Flag of the Royal Canadian Mint.svg

I seen this flag in a few photos, but I wish to hear your comments before putting this image into wide use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Banff National Park - peer review request

I have been working to get this article to featured status, with help from two other editors. Until recently the article's talk page was empty, so I don't think this article has had the scrutiny needed. I've posted a peer review request, and would greatly appreciate feedback, comments, or suggestions. Thanks. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should also be nominated at Canada collaboration? Dl2000 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the the article is well beyond the scope of a Canada collaboration. Peer review is probably the best place for it right now. Mindmatrix 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa, National Capital Region, and stubs

I've been sorting Ottawa-related stubs today, and came across a stub/category I didn't know about: Category:National Capital Region stubs, using {{Ottawa-area-stub}}. Previously, I've used {{Ottawa-stub}} to sort articles, which adds them to Category:Ottawa stubs.

Do we really need both? I don't think so (we should just use Ottawa-stub), but I'd like to have other input into this. Mindmatrix 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The ottawa-stub has much more pages in the category. We should just use that one. Someone should leave a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa to ask them if they need both first. -Royalguard11^Talk 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• I guess the NCR stub, given the contents of the category, captures those articles that aren't quite "Ottawa", but deal with topics that pertain to the region. Personally, I'd keep {{Ottawa-area-stub}} and get rid of {{Ottawa-stub}}, because {{Ottawa-area-stub}} works well for Ottawa artciles, and can also be used for articles pertaining to locations throughout the CMA -- places that are inextricably linked to Ottawa (like Camp Fortune, for example), but that the Ottawa-stub doesn't really fit. Skeezix1000 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think it'd be better to simply re-word the {{Ottawa-stub}} template to reflect the whole NCR region; that way, we only need to re-stub seven articles (compared to 233 if we use {{Ottawa-area-stub}}). In short, use the Ottawa-area-stub wording on the Ottawa-stub template, then delete Ottawa-area-stub and its category. I'll do the work, I just want to make sure this is acceptable to everyone. I've mentioned this on the Ottawa WikiProject, and funneled the discussion here. Mindmatrix 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Skeezix1000 23:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that makes much more sense. Keep the ottawa one, and re-word it. That will cover the whole national capital region. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• I vote keep ottawa-stub, and delete ottawa-area-stub. It's meant to be for Ottawa, like the project, not the area. Ardenn 01:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I have always thought the focus of the project should be on the capital region, and not be bound by jurisdictional/political boundaries. It seems artificial and silly to say that our focus is on articles like Canadian War Museum, but articles such as Canadian Museum of Civilization are outside the scope of the project. This is perhaps a larger discussion, pertaining to more than just the stub. Skeezix1000 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of enthusiasm for a broader discussion, and the recent nomination of {{Ottawa-area-stub}} for deletion, I have implemented the change discussed above (minus depopulating {{Ottawa-area-stub}} for the time being, so as to not be interfering with the process at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. We appear to have had consensus for the change, and Ardenn, the sole dissenter, has left Wikipedia, so is no longer around to put in his two cents. Skeezix1000 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On a related point, I have proposed a minor rewording of the OttawaProject template at Template talk:OttawaProject. Skeezix1000 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Ottawa-area-stub}} deleted. See discussion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/September/12.Skeezix1000 12:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Communities within Brampton, Ontario

I looked at this article today, and tagged it for deletion because it's very incomplete, only 1 article links to it, and frankly I think it's a level of detail that doesn't warrant its own article. If you would like to either bolster the article or support my deletion suggestion, please go ahead. PKT 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey needs your help!

I noticed there was no link for Floral, Saskatchewan and thought this was the place to come for help. Gordie Howe was born there and is mentioned several times around his bio and other ice hockey pages. I'm not sure what templates you are using and honestly don't know that much about Floral, so I thought I'd post here. Would appreciate it if someone could help create this page. Thanks! - Schmackity 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

BC parks, protected areas?

Are these and in particular, these protected areas in the sense of the article, Wikiproject, and stub type? There's a massive number of them that have been created as nano-stubs, and some discussion over at WP:WSS/P as to the best way of sorting them. Alai 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I should say, more generally, that the BC-geo-stubs are very large, so really should be split and sorted in one way or another... Alai 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Women's names

I've noticed that certain Canadian women who are married are named in articles with their first nae followed by her maiden name then her married surname. Is this some naming convention adopted by Wikipedia that I am not aware of? NorthernThunder 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a clear convention on this; I've seen "First Maiden Married", "First Married (née Maiden)", "First Married" followed only by a much later inline reference to her maiden name, and "First Married" with no maiden name reference at all. I think to an extent it depends on the individual circumstances. Bearcat 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO just says "[i]t is common to give the maiden surname of women better known under their married name..." but shows an example of how to write this rather than a hard-coded format. Therefore there could be variants such as "Firstname Marriedname (born Firstname Maidenname 31 November 1900 in Somewheresville, Pickaprovince)" , or "Firstname Marriedname (née Maidenname)". Dl2000 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of Canadian unilingual Francophone universities in English Wikipedia article titles

I noticed that Lionel GM is on a crusade[1] and has rebaptized the English Wikipedia articles on unilingual French-language Canadian universities under their English translations, citing the Wikipedia naming policy. Although I'm an anglophone Canadian, I disagree with what he's doing; Canada is a bilingual English/French country and articles about Canadian institutions should reflect Canadian English language usage; and that shouldn't be limited to spelling "color" as "colour". However, he's really overdone it with École Polytechnique, by rebaptising pages as Montreal Polytechnic School and even the name of the massacre, Montreal Polytechnic massacre, better known in the English Canadian press as the École Polytechnique massacre. Renaming those two articles is especially contrary to English Canadian language usage, in my humble opinion. The best practice would be to have the article with the French name and have an English redirect page to the French name. Any other views? --Aquarius Rising 01:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Names of universities/institutions/ that are French primarily (eg Université de Sherbrooke, a french language university) should be in French. English speakers will use the english translation (however bad) simply because they can't speak the language. I think we should use the french names for locals, and institutions in Quebec (would we call Trois-Rivières Three Rivers?) -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:EiC and WT:EiC (Education in Canada) where stuff like this has been discussed to some extent, and where we have a specific guidelines regarding French-language names of educational institutions. The rules say that even though this is an English-language wiki, the names for the schools should be the common French names. The wiki rules allow permit this, since the French names are the more common names and that French basically uses the same character set as English. --Stéphane Charette 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I should have linked directly to WP:EiC#French_names which states:

Institutions shouldn't be renamed. Use the name of the school or school board, as it is commonly known. Note that this also affects capitalization in the article title, since French dictates that articles and adjectives in a name are not capitalized.

--Stéphane Charette 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the English language media and many English speaking Canadians outside Quebec use the French name indicates that the articles should be at the French name. --Usgnus 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, someone gave him a heads up. Now we just need to move back all of the articles. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 03:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've begun moving pages back. I hadn't realized just how many pages this user moved. The ones that are struck out are done. Someone will need to go through an make sure I didn't miss any.  :(

• moved Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal to University of Montreal center for international studies and research
• moved Office québécois de la langue française to Quebec Office of the French language
• moved Faculté de médecine vétérinaire - Université de Montréal to Faculty of Veterinary Medicine - University of Montreal
• moved École Polytechnique massacre to Montreal Polytechnic massacre
• moved École Polytechnique de Montréal to Montreal Polytechnic School
• University of Quebec at Abitibi-Temiscamingue
• edits to List of universities in Quebec will need to be checked
• moved University of Quebec at Abitibi- Temiscamingue to University of Quebec at Abitibi-Temiscamingue
  • Problem here. The talk page is still in the wrong place (only made worse by myself in an attempt to fix) Royalguard11Done by admin -Royalguard11^TalkDesk 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• edits to University of Quebec at Abitibi-Temiscamingue and University of Quebec will need to be checked
• moved Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières to University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres
• moved Institut national de la recherche scientifique to National Institute of Scientific Research
• moved École nationale d'administration publique to National School of Public Administration
• moved École de technologie supérieure to Higher School of Technology
• edits to University of Quebec at Montreal and University of Quebec

These next few will be difficult to move back without wiki admin intervention as the original page was re-edited by him due to a typo on his part:

• moved Université du Québec en Outaouais to Universuity of Quebec in Outaouais
• moved Université du Québec en Outaouais to University of Quebec in Outaouais
  • The history of the article (the original article) is now in Universuity of Quebec in Outaouais, but I cannot move it back to Université du Québec en Outaouais as it has since been edited and needs an administrator to do the move. The user turned this into a poorly-executed cut-and-paste job into University of Quebec in Outaouais. Someone please help? (done - Bearcat)
    • Problem with the talk page as above. Royalguard11Done by admin 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• UQO (Redirecting to University of Quebec in Outaouais)
• Université Laval (Redirecting to Laval University)
• moved Université du Québec à Chicoutimi to University of Quebec at Chicoutimi
• moved Université du Québec à Rimouski to University of Quebec at Rimouski
• Universite du Quebec (Redirecting to University of Quebec)

Looks like these next two were cut-and-paste instead of a proper page move:

• University of Quebec at Montreal (Moved to "University of Quebec at Montreal"
• Université du Québec (Moved to University of Quebec

Generally speaking, Wikipedia's rule is that in the absence of a more specific convention, the name most commonly used when speaking English wins the title debate. That doesn't necessarily mean that the title has to be in English; it can be in French if the French name is what an English speaker would ordinarily use to refer to it. Which is why, for example, Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois are left in the original French, but we use Rhinoceros Party instead of "Parti Rhinocéros"; in all three cases, the titles are at the name a Canadian English speaker would actually use to refer to them. I'm willing to consider that maybe my social circles aren't the most typical, but my experience is that most people, when referring to one of these universities, use the French name as is even when speaking English. I don't know anybody who says "University of Quebec at Montreal"; people will either use the actual French name or just say UQAM. People do not say "Montreal Polytechnic"; they say "École Polytechnique" or even just "Polytechnique". People don't say "Laval University"; they say "Université Laval" (or just "Laval", if it's in a context where that won't be confused with the city). So I have to agree with the moves back, but let's make sure we're doing it for the right reasons: it's not because the official name rules on principle; it's because in virtually all of these cases, the official French name is what an English speaker would actually use in reference to the institution. Bearcat 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, which is what the rule quoted above states: "Use the name of the school or school board, as it is commonly known." The problem is when users take WP:UE as literally meaning "Use English", as has happened in this case. Note that the user has replied to these page moves with the following:

If you disagree with the interpretation I and others have come to for Wikipedia:Naming conventions, then probably you should do a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to clarify it. Thank you. Lionel GM 16:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

--Stéphane Charette 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What do we do if he keeps moving pages? Do we go ahead with a RFC, or do we alert an admin (for moving pages w/o establishing a consensus)? -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He's the one suggesting wholesale changes. Therefore, he should be seeking consensus for his changes, rather than leaving it to others to seek consensus to reverse his changes. Other editors have taken the view that he has misinterpreted a guideline or policy, so let him seek the clarification. In any event, unless he's an Admin, he shouldn't be able to move the articles back, and should be reported if he seeks to do so again through the cut-and-paste method. Skeezix1000 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should, for example, refer to Montreal, but at the same time refer to Université de Montréal. Skeezix1000 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

IPs

• I'm an American, using AOL Canada in a state that borders Canada, does that count?--64.12.116.69 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you interested in Canadian related content, or just frequent this board? -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Alert on Quebec

The article on Quebec has been heavily vandalized lately. Several accounts have been blocked. If you look at the history ([2]) almost every second edit is a rv. It might need some more watching for a few days. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the next month will do. The editor keeps coming back. The article is sprotected right now, but that means we'll just wait 5 days then it'll all start up again. Hopefully more people will watch the article and help out. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is fully unprotected again. Expect more vandalism to come. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Embrun, Ontario

Another kick at the can for this one; it's going to need some cleanup and review. For one thing, I've confirmed that the population claim of 11,500 (which represents a virtual doubling of the community's population in the past five years) is being sourced by an Embrun resident's personal web page; I can't find a single reputable government/statistical source which validates the claim. The article also repeatedly refers to Embrun as a city (which it isn't) and to the nearby hamlet of Forest Park as a "vassal community" (which isn't a term that even exists with the intended meaning in English; it means a community of slaves, not a satellite community.) Needs a few eyes on it to fix things up. Bearcat 07:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:ABLG , Template:AlbertaElections

Do you think these are a good idea? Should they be extended to the rest of Canada? Biruitorul 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it would be a bad idea. We'd just need to make sure that all the article actually exist (which wouldn't be to hard to make stubs) -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 01:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think many of them do exist, but I will watch out as I create them. Also, if anyone else wants to help, please do. Biruitorul 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and templates exist for Saskatchewan already. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter and Murray Corren

The Correns are editing their own article. I've tried to get them to make comments on the talk page as per Wikipedia's autobiograhy rules. They have provided useful information that should be considered by neutral editors. Deet 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

New Shortcut

I've added a shortcut at WP:CWNBD to get to this page quicker. If someone thinks we don't need it, then delete it. -Royalguard11^TalkDesk 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest something easier to remember? Like, hmmm, I don't know: WP:CANTALK? Bearcat 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That would work too. I was just following what I thought most of them did. If CANTALK works better, then lets adopt that one, or just keep them both. The other one wasn't in use before now, and neither is that one. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Use both. But I really like WP:CANTALK.Skeezix1000 11:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some do use acronyms, but some also use easy-to-remember summary phrases like WP:NOT, WP:MUSIC, WP:POINT, WP:CUTS or WP:STUPID. I have no objection to keeping them both, though; a lot of pages do have more than one shortcut. Bearcat 22:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I decided to be bold and create the shortcut. It wasn't in use, and I doubt any other project would want to use it. Maybe we should make a better shortcut to the main page then, like WP:CAN or WP:CANADA I guess not then. Why does WP:CANADA redirect to Portal:Canada?

On a side note, we should really archive this page soon (it's 100kb long), or maybe some of the old discussions. I don't think anything above the Peter and Murray Corren section is being discussed anymore. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing shortcut policy for this discussion, I've learned that Portal shortcuts should begin with P:, not WP:. Accordingly, I'm going to change WP:CANADA to redirect to the noticeboard, and create a new P:CANADA for the portal. Bearcat 00:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon adding mapleleafweb links

I don't know how disruptive others would consider this to be, but an anon at 142.66.38.44 has been adding links to Mapleleafweb to various pages' external links. Upon checking WP:EL, there doesn't seem to be a policy violation, but I'd like an external opinion... Radagast 02:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplication of requested/missing politicians lists

Is there a valid reason for maintaining duplicate lists of missing/requested Canadian politician pages? Namely these two:

1. Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Requests#Politicians
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Canadian politicians

If not, would suggest we merge #1 to #2 since that would put the massive Requests page on a diet, and people would only worry about maintaining #2. The duplicate lists are out of sync, at least in terms of links to be removed. Any problems with this merge? Dl2000 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fully support moving the politician list out of the main requested article (but leave a link) because it crowds out everything else. Deet 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'll agree; merge whatever's needed into the WikiProject page, but leave a link to it in the noticeboard area. Bearcat 23:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Given this support, and no objections, I'll start work on the merge. Might take a bit of time to compare and avoid missing links. There will be a link on the noticeboard to the missing politicians board as requested. Dl2000 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• So far, the requested/missing MPs are merged. All other politician types remain to do - Senators, Cabinet Ministers, etc. Have to stop for today. Dl2000 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the lists exactly the same? -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, although many differences result from articles being removed from one list but not the other. Will clarify by recommending a merge of #1 to #2 instead of an outright delete of #1. Dl2000 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You should probably place this on WP:CANTALK then. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, over to WP:CANTALK... Dl2000 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicians are merged - now 2 different duplications to resolve

The politicians are now fully moved over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Canadian politicians.

But there are two duplicated sections that do not involve politicians per se. These should instead be moved out of the missing Canadian politicians page:

Legislative Bodies: Propose to move the Ontario and Nova Scotia legislatures to the respective provincial request subpages (NS and ON) - pointers from the main request page and the missing politicians page can be done.

Courts: Propose that this small list can be kept only on Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Requests.

Concurrence with these proposals? Dl2000 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie's at it again

An anon editor whose IP resolves to the National Library of Canada (which pretty much eliminates any doubt as to the anon's identity) is blowtorching Rachel Marsden's article again, this time based on a blatant and/or self-serving misunderstanding of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons template as failing to permit any negative material at all, not just stuff that isn't properly sourced. We're going to have to monitor this one again, guys. Bearcat 17:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Geography question

After all this talk of Flin Flon straddling the provincial border between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, today I stumbled across Creighton, Saskatchewan, which is apparently a community in Saskatchewan located along the border immediately adjacent to Flin Flon. So I'm forced to ask: does Flin Flon qua Flin Flon actually spill over into Saskatchewan, or have we been falsely conflating Creighton with Flin Flon? Bearcat 21:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

According to google maps, the towns are about 4.4km from "downtown" Creighton, Saskatchewan to downtown Flin Flon (so about 6 minutes). They're practically the same place (It's almost like Edmonton/Sherwood Park). -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Geography question #2

Is there such a place as Franlyle, Manitoba? Can't find a reference for it on Google, in MapArt or at StatsCan's census data site. I'd have thought little of it, except for the eyebrow-raising claim that the community was founded by a Russian settler with the decidedly non-Russian name "Franklin T. Demers". (C'est Québécois, ça!) It's also noted as the birthplace of a Christian music "star" named "Motzarella", who also fails the Google test. Bearcat 05:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A newspaper database search turned up nothing. I'm thinking its a hoax. CJCurrie 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Best to delete it. Although StatsCan isnt as good as it should be. Try searching for Bountiful, British Columbia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of it in the Atlas of Canada either, nor is it listed in the Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade database. I'm going to speedy delete this as a hoax. Mindmatrix 15:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

I'm categorising currently missing Catholic Encyclopedia articles, I've created a category for Canadians which I'll be adding to over time. Take a look. JASpencer 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus & discussion needed! (politics template)

I recently merged two overlapping templates to create this:

Major national, provincial, and territorial conservative parties ():

Former PC wings forming the government:

Canada - Alberta - Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and Labrador - Nova Scotia - Yukon

Former PC wings forming the official opposition:

Manitoba - New Brunswick - Ontario

Third parties represented in legislatures:

Action démocratique du Québec - Alberta Alliance

Other major right-of-centre parties:

BC Liberals - Saskatchewan Party

Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

However, this hasn't stopped the reocurring problem with some editors very strongly opposed to considering the BC Liberals or the Sask Party to be either 'right of centre' or 'conservative'. I think it is very clear, as both of these parties solidly represent the right-wing of their respective provinces political spectrum. If you can take 10 seconds and add some insight to the situation, that would be splendid. Myciconia 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Doug Ford

An anonymous poster has written that Doug Ford, the father of Toronto city councillor Rob Ford and himself a former MPP, died of cancer two days ago. Can anyone confirm or deny this? CJCurrie 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately confirmed: (Etobicoke Guardian obit) 206.191.1.3 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governors' flags

Each one of these, except for Ontario's, has been pulled. Does anyone know why this was? More importantly, might someone be able to recreate these in properly-licensed versions? Biruitorul 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging Canada census pages into one large North america one

There is a small discussion on the matter of merging of census articles related to Canada into a main North America article. Initially the merge was made with no merge notices and with no notification to editors of those articles. See [3], [4] and [5]. --Kmsiever 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• (Apologies; I was too bold. Belatedly, David Kernow (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada?

Didn't even know that it existed. So, is it redundant to the notice-board? Or should we all go and join up? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lorne Saxberg

Anon IPs have been continually making some really weird edits to Lorne Saxberg's article for the past few months, almost since the day it was created. This has so far included unimportant trivia about the fact that his partner was a Canadian he met in Tokyo (partner unnamed and therefore unverifiable), links to blog entries detailing specific sexual encounters he's rumoured to have had (unverifiable and inappropriate), categorization as "2006 AIDS" (whatever that's supposed to mean), a trivial link to the hotel in Thailand where a memorial ceremony was reportedly held for him (and not even to a page sourcing that claim, just to the hotel itself) and now most recently a newspaper article about his body being flown to Bangkok for the autopsy (for which the anon wrote up their summary as though this just happened today.)

I've kept on top of the mess so far, but I'd like to ask for a few people to keep an eye on it with me; I'm genuinely not sure what this bullshit's all about. Bearcat 06:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

GG nominees

The Governor General's Award nominees are out later today. I've created the template in advance at 2006 Governor General's Awards so whoever gets to it first can just fill in the nominees rather than having to do it all from scratch. That said, since I'm still awake at 4 a.m. I sincerely doubt I'll be that person — but hey, just think of me as a team player or sumthin'... Bearcat 07:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

With the recent deletion of the Category:Celebrities by nationality tree (including its Category:Canadian celebrities subcat), we're going to have to find some alternate categorization for the following:

• Star Wars kid
• Walter Gretzky
• Signy Hildur Stefansson Eaton
• Robert Baldwin Ross
• Manuela Testolini
• Dick Assman
• Mike Rowe
• James D. Nicoll

The whole point of the category in the first place was so that there would be some way to properly categorize "people who aren't famous for anything easily categorizable, but are notable nevertheless", but that argument didn't prove terribly convincing to the overlords of CFD — so now we have a dilemma on our hands. Any ideas? (And no, just shoving them directly into Category:Canadian people isn't a good idea unless we really can't help it at all.) Bearcat 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Upkeep of P:CANADA

Nobody has editied this in months. Would anyone mind if I change the "selected article" or the "Selected picture" or even the "Did you know..." on that page? Or should we find some way to !vote about that? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Be bold, replace them. If anyone has a strong objection to your choices, it can always be changed. You could also perhaps canvass for ideas for future selected articles, etc. Skeezix1000 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By using the forbidden "what links here" on the Canada userboxes? Or worse, the category? It's been Ottawa for a while. I think I'll change it to Horseshoe Falls. If anyone disagrees, this is a wiki. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The ever-expanding metropolis that is Toronto

I think this can be best described using diffs, so here ya go:

• Golden Horseshoe: one, two
• Greater Toronto Area: just this one
• Places in New York: one, two, three, four, five, six, oh my, WP:OR?
• Toronto: un, deux, not really citing a source, and this

Do you see what I mean? By the way, it seems to be happening in Montreal/Ottawa, Vancouver and Winnipeg too, but not at this scale. Some of the user's edits are fine, but others are simply population and metropolis-boosting. Mindmatrix 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed an ongoing tendency on Wikipedia to inflate population figures by a personal estimate that isn't sourced to any actual census data. I'm not exactly sure what we can do about it, since every time a population gets reverted to the last legitimate census, somebody comes along and starts inflating it again. It's not just one user; this is an ongoing problem on a lot of articles. Bearcat 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, my primary concern is the definition change of Golden Horseshoe to include parts of New York, then modifying Toronto-related articles to reflect that re-definition. I agree that the inflated population numbers are nothing new to Wikipedia, of course. Anyway, it seems the user is no longer making such changes, instead saying only that the Golden Horseshoe and Western New York have close links. Mindmatrix 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Some Image Help

I want to put an image on Don Atchison (as he was just re-elected mayor). I've found an image here on the cities website, but can wikipedia use it, and what is the licensing (I'm guessing fair use, but does it fall under Canadian politicians)? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The licensing would be determined by what type of license the city released it under, so the best thing to do would be to contact them for clarification of their usage permissions. It would certainly qualify as fair use regardless, but Wikipedia discourages fair use images except as a last resort; we strongly prefer images that can be used under public domain, Creative Commons or GFDL. Bearcat 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Highway infobox

User:Canadiana was recently confused by the succession box at the bottom of Highway 12 (Ontario), misunderstanding it as a reference to the north and south termini of the entire highway rather than just the portion of it which is part of the Trans-Canada Highway system, and consequently changing one of the termini from Highway 400 to Highway 93. Although as currently formatted the box does include a link to the TCH article, I can see how it's ambiguous because it doesn't actually explain what the context is for that reference; it can easily be interpreted as meaning "this is part of the Trans-Canada Highway but that's a separate fact from the terminus points noted here".

At any rate, Canadiana has suggested an alternate arrangement for the box which makes the actual intention clearer and less prone to confusion. It's still quite clean and simple; it just moves the TCH reference up to a more prominent box title. It can be viewed at User:Canadiana/Sandbox2 — I think we should adopt it, but wanted to check if there were any objections first. Bearcat 07:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a definite improvement. One question though: does use of the Trans-Canada Highway image in that template contravene fair use of Crown Copyright material? Mindmatrix 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Mindmatrix has a good point. Wikipedia fair use policy, states in Criterion 9, "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." Even if they are legal, Fair Use images cannot appear in templates. It's true that these images are in the page code rather than in the template code, but I don't think that solves the problem.

The Tch.png page says that "the copyright holder of this image has formally refused to license it under the GFDL." The highway sign for Ontario Highway 400 shown in my example says that it is PD because it was first used more than 50 years ago. If that's true, I'm not sure why it wouldn't also apply to the TCH sign. Copyright laws are federal.

If we have to stop using the image, one alternative would be not having an image. Otherwise, a possible image is the public domain map we already have of the highway system. There is an example now shown as Proposal 2 at User:Canadiana/Sandbox2. Reactions? Canadiana 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, the TCH sign is copyrighted? Stupid government. Think Steve would allow us to use it? Second one looks good too. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to buy the notion that the TCH shield is copyrighted but the Highway 400 shield isn't. That's utterly insane. But whatever. The version with the map works, too. Though I would suggest a minor tweak or two; I don't suppose anybody would be willing to put effort into drawing a more geographically accurate map (say, one in which Vancouver Island is actually depicted as an island?) Bearcat 06:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the shield image on the template is a derivative of an image created by the BC government (see this, cited as the source for the image. It is this image that is copyright by BC, and it specifically contains modifications to the shield made by the BC government (ie - the Wikpedia image is a derivative of a BC copyrighted image, which is itself a derivative work). We need to find the original shield image created by the federal government, and determine whether that image is affected by Crown copyright or not. Mindmatrix 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Corridors (Two cities are better than one)

This is somewhat related to the discussion above at "The ever-expanding metropolis that is Toronto". I see that the leads to the Ottawa and Montreal articles now refer to a Montreal-Ottawa Corridor with a population of 5.7 million. I guess the idea is that population figures are more impressive if you combine nearby CMAs, but is the Montreal-Ottawa Corridor a recognized urban conglomeration?

I know that there is a recognized Quebec-Windsor Corridor, which is a somewhat different concept, and then there's the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor, which I have always thought was an absurd concept but at least Statscan and the media have made reference to such a thing. The same editor who gave us the Montreal-Ottawa corridor also created Lower Mainland-Vancouver Island and Windsor-Detroit.Skeezix1000 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Does the notice board need the section "Disambiguation pages" (sub-heading of "Disambiguation issues")? The Canadian content seems to be correctly represented on each of the pages listed there today. PKT 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? What are you talking about? I don't see "Disambiguation issues" on WP:CANADA. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The subheading is on the articles to improve subpage. As to the question itself, I added the section because these need to be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that people aren't making new wikilinks to the wrong pages; the fact that they're all okay at this particular time isn't really the point of the exercise. Bearcat 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in Canada

Hello, List of cities in Canada is in need of some direction. Currently it is not defined what is a city and which places have a big enough population to remain on the list. A proposal has been made at [[6]] as it is proposed that only cities above a population of 10,000 should be included. In drastic need of repair is the Quebec section which is over-populated. This list needs to be not only useful for Canadians, but for users worldwide (and to educate our neighbours to the south who don't know much about us). Please check out the talk page and post your opinion to get this list into great shape. Thank you, Bobo is soft 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Question Deux

I've been working on the article Newfoundland referendums, 1948 for quite some time now, and I was hoping to get some photographs. There are some at this site. Template:PD-Canada says that it's public domain if it's created before January 1, 1949. Most of the photos were taken in '47/'48, but some of them look like they've been published in books, and the books are of corse copyrighted. Do the photo's fall under Template:PD-Canada then? I know that they're all pre '49 because the referenda's were in late '48. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!)

Well, I've gone and uploaded a couple pictures now. Then I stumbled upon this page, which says they are in the public domain. That's luck I guess. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sick Heart River

I have started the article on Sick Heart River, by John Buchan which I think qualifies as a Canadian novel. Comments please. --MacRusgail 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Election hell

• sigh* Does anybody have any ideas how we might be able to stop the inevitable flood of people changing articles to make it appear as if newly elected municipal election candidates instantly become the incumbents? Bearcat 11:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what we really need are templates that can be viewed at editing time only, just above the edit box. We could attach them to municipal articles suggesting they not be changed until the mayor-elects are sworn to office. Since we can't do that, perhaps pre-emptively adding HTMl comments to articles wherever mayor/council information appears would be best. Mindmatrix 14:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's at least one article (Greater Sudbury) where I did that and somebody still erased it and wrote in last night's winning mayoral candidate in as the current incumbent. Bearcat 19:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We seemed to get through Saskatchewan Elections pretty well in October. I guess more people editing from Ontario. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might possibly help if the template had a "mayor-elect" parameter that could be left blank and wouldn't appear if it was blank. On the other hand, I don't think that would totally solve the problem and it might be best to just put up with the fact that the article won't be accurate for two or three weeks every few years. Canadiana 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing Canadian politicians pictures

Why is there nothing being done about these missing pictures? NorthernThunder 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you suppose can be done at this point? Even "fair use" isn't being accepted as a rationale any longer, if even the faintest outside possibility exists that a GFDL-compatible image might be possible to obtain. Never mind that unless somebody starts actively stalking people, I don't see how that possibility can be construed as realistic in most cases...at this point, if even the remotest possibility exists, the fair use photo goes. We're pretty stuck, IOW. Bearcat 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in Canada

I've added short descriptions to the list for how city status is conferred in Ontario and Quebec, the two provinces I know enough about to write that up. Could I ask someone who's knowledgeable about municipal governance in the other provinces and territories to assist in adding a brief summary to each province's subsection? Thanks. Bearcat 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Alberta's done. --Kmsiever 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Canadian editors may wish to review the situation at this page. User:SlimVirgin is arguing that references to Marsden's youthful indiscretions should be excised, through a logic that seems somewhat dubious ([7]).

Use caution: tempers are running high, and threats of de-sysoping have been made. CJCurrie 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole swim coach affair at Simon Fraser University made the national news and is certainly noteworthy for that reason alone. It's part of history and should logically be included in any article about her. I certainly wouldn't want to write about it, but it is how she came to national attention.

User:JD_Fan 15 December 2006

Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

Well, it only took us about 30 edits (and stepping on each others toes a dozen or so times), but Stéphane Dion is now fully updated (I think) thanks to the hard work of many editors. Let's just make sure that everything reads the same across the board now. Good job wikipedians! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidates

You may be intereted to know that no less than five Canada-related lists are currently Featured List candidates, and your votes would be welcome. Tompw (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tyler Kyte interview

If anyone here ever watched Popular Mechanics for Kids, I've got Tyler from the show agreeing to an interview for Wikinews. He's since appeared as the recurring drummer character in Instant Star and supporting roles in tons of TV movies. I'm trying to figure out some questions to ask, and want some ideas from the community. If you've got any ideas, give me a shout at user talk:zanimum. -- Zanimum 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship by Descent

Hello: I think that Canada needs to change their citizenship by descent policy. I am a 31 year old male who was born before Canada allowed dual citizenship. I am actually for dual citizenship. However Canada has a policy that I think is guilty of discrimination by both age and date of birth.

My father before he died was eligible for citizenship by Canada's newest citizenship law. He was born in Massachusetts like me, however his father was born in Canada. Now comes what I think is discrimiatory. For 2nd generation descendants, they have to be born after Feb 15th, 1977 and be under 28 years of age.

My brother and sister are younger than me and are both under 28. They are therefore of both date of birth and age, where if my father applied for citizenship, then both my brother and sister could have also applied for citizenship the same way as my father, by heritage. But at my age and date of birth I don't qualify. I myself was born before Feb 15th, 1977 and am 31. My parents split up when I was a child, and did not find out about my heritage until I was 29. Therefore it is possible that people might not find out about their heritage until it is too late.

It is one thing if only first generation descendants were allowed to apply for citizenship, and if all second generation descandants were not able to apply. However it needs to be where everyone of a generation should be able to apply or not at all. Chris M McLeod 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You should probably find an immigration forum website to discuss issues like this. There are many U.S. laws that don't make sense also (try rebalancing your RRSP while living in the U.S. -- the SEC won't let you because it's not managed by a U.S. broker). But non-citizens don't get a vote and so don't get much of a say. That's life. Deet 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Trans-Canada Highway

Need a quick clarification from somebody who's knowledgeable on the subject, because I'm running into a bit of an issue with conflicting sources: is the Highway 11/Highway 71 route from Shabaqua to Kenora designated as part of the TCH? Most sources say yes, but I've also seen sources that don't have it designated that way, so I thought I should double-check before asking Qyd to update it on his TCH map graphic. Thanks. Bearcat 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One could consider the current edition of the Official Road Map of Ontario to be sufficiently authoritative [8]. The map labels separate branches of the TCH between Kenora and Thunder Bay: 17 and 11/71. See also a Transport Canada (federal government) backgrounder, which indicates 11/71 were designated by Ontario outside the original Trans-Canada Highway Act. Dl2000 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To help with Canadian Deletion sorting..

I created a JS a while ago that is similar to {{deltab}} at User:Royalguard11/canadadel.js. The difference is that it points to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Candidates for deletion instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada. If anyone would like to use it, just add to your monobook.js {{subst:js|User:Royalguard11/canadadel.js}}, which adds a tab at the top. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Recognizing Quebec as Bilingual

In the section "language" in the Canada article it states:

"No provinces other than Quebec and New Brunswick have constitutionally official language(s) as such, but French is used as a language of instruction, in courts, and other government services in all of the majority English or Inuktitut speaking provinces and territories"

Since Quebec never officially signed the constituition it does not officially recognize english as a language. So is it correct to state this of both Quebec and New Brunswick when it is in-fact only true of Quebec?

Note that the Charter doesn't actuallly say anything about Quebec. There are no constitutional protections for language in Quebec. But, Quebec is still bound by the Constitution and the Charter. The only "official" language per Bill 101 is the French language. That being said, Qubec is de facto bilingual, especially the Montreal area. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province, at least it claims to be so[9]. 6th estate 04:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving, again

This is more about the page itself, but would anyone object to EssjayBot II archiving this page for us? Lots of it is several months old. If we do, then the only thing I believe we need to decide is how long before archiving (like a week or two is probably good). Anyone object? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since nobody's objected, then I assume that we can continue (or that nobody cares). Does anyone object to a timeline of 2 weeks for archiving? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a little bit longer than two weeks; say, a month. I can easily see — in fact, have seen — situations where a discussion may have concluded but would still need to be left "on the front page", so to speak, for longer than two weeks so people can review and consult it if needed. Bearcat 06:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object to a month then? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to ask Essjay to set up EssjayBot II to archive this page. The time frame I'll ask for will be a month after the last date stamp. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot is now active; for some reason, it hiccupped trying to archive to archive 7 (which was almost at it's limit anyway) so I had it create archive 8. Everything else should be fine, if you notice any errors, please report them on my talk page. Essjay (Talk) 11:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's currently set to 30 days, and the archives will be a max of 80kb. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves & mergers

Just a general comment - I have noticed that from time to time the AfDs listed under the "Requested moves & mergers" go a little bit beyond listing the Canada-related AfDs and stray a little too far into editorializing. I appreciate we're all trying to be fair in summarizing the point of the discussion in a sentence, but we should avoid any indication as to whether or not there is a reason to keep or delete an article. Agent 86 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. People should make their own decisions not based on whether it's Canadian-related or not. Just a small discription is good sometimes. The mergers and moves are often just the copy & paste from whatever reason was given on WP:RM. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

City infoboxes

Can somebody help me figure out why the city infobox on Timmins, Ontario won't display the location map, even though it's got the correct filename in the correct template field? Bearcat 07:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the 250px thumb 250px-Ontario-timmins.PNG is broken. Other thumb sizes seem to work 260px-Ontario-timmins.PNG. Re-uploading the image might fix this. Another solution is to substitute the template, then change the thumb size. On a sidenote, {{Infobox City Canada}} has grown so complex, it's hard to use, and documentation did not keep up with the template evolution. {{Infobox City}} is a good alternative. --Qyd 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Provincial templates update

Should the provincial templates be updated with the standard {{Navbox generic}} layout? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada#Province templates. --Qyd 23:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I really dislike the layout of the generic navbox. Just because someone created a template and wikicode for it does not automatically make it better than the current layout. Resolute 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag icons

I'm not happy about flags appearing in infoboxes on biographies but I'm willing to put up with them. However, I think we need to be consistent. So should Canadians have the flag in use at the time of their birth or the current flag? I think the one in use at the time but I think some people are not going to like seeing the older flags. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why they are necessary at all. The place of birth is identified using words. Why are flag icons needed? If someone as born in Toronto, would we have the Toronto, Ontario and and Canadian flags all lined up? And why not coats of arms or floral or animal symbols? I vote to delete the flag icons. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but there seems to be no clear consensus on the matter. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. My understanding is that throughout the English Wikipedia flag icons used in this way are the current flag, not the flag at the time of birth of the individual in question. I can see arguments for both sides in the case of Canada, but what about the States, where the flag changed each time a new state was added, or the case of people born in the USSR, but of various nationalities? Also, my sense is that the flags represent nationality rather more than nation of birth, but I don't see that there is any hard and fast rule on the matter. Coffeehood 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But how do you decide nationality. The one at the time of birth or the one at the time of death. Also, why would someone who was born and died before the current flag was in use have that flag, see Charles Tupper or John Abbott. I think it's a matter of historical accuracy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)