Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mindmatrix (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 23 May 2006 (Ontario Plaques). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Notice: This page is for discussion about Canadian-related topics and articles. For discussion about the notice board, such as formatting discussions, see Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board.



Vancouver municipal election

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

I think this area needs some work. Compare what we have at Category:Toronto city councillors and at Category:Ottawa City councillors with the red links at Vancouver City Council. - SimonP 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Again, something of a side effect of not much overlap on the "Wikipedians from BC" and "Wikipedians who follow politics closely" Venn Diagram. I suppose my biggest concern is that we blow open a whole new notability wall by doing municipal election articles, rather than get a few detailed articles about municipal politics in major Canadian cities, we'll get a whole whack of stubs listing the makeup of town councils in Saskatchewan in 1975 with adorned with links that are going to stay red until said towns are overgrown by rainforest. I think we can all agree that Vancouver is notable, its just I hope that things grow out from there in a responsible manner. -The Tom 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see more organization when it comes to municipal elections. We should start by having an article at municipal elections in Canada and list dates of elections there. I know Quebec and BC have elections this year, and Ontario has them next year, but I have no idea for the other provinces. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well versed in Vancouver politics and will be willing to help. I have certain opinions about the subject of municipal politics in Wikipedia but I will think how to best express myself before presenting them here. --maclean25 07:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if anyone cares, here is my opinion. I like the idea of Wikipedia gradually lowering the bar of notability to include more local stuff. I do not believe individual councillers should have articles unless they have proved to be influential or otherwise notable, most are neither. Let's start with the mayor first, then if that works out go down to councillers. I think it is hippocritical to have councillers and mayors but not administrators. Certainly, administrators have more influence on a municipality. Councillers are just decision-makers, administrators decide what decisions the councillers will make and advises them on those decisions. Most municipal elections are not very notable or interesting so I like the lists solution. However, some elections are, for example the 2002 Vancouver Municipal election was a big milestone in the city's history (first non-NPA government in its history?) deserve many, many articles. --maclean25 02:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is inappropriate for us not do municiple elections, as it to me, sounds like censorship. However I can see where it can get out of hand if we cover municiple elections 50 years ago. I think we should try Vancouver and possibly Montreal and if it goes well we could continue with other municipalities. As long as we are carefull, we should be able to avoid many stub pages if we simply merge them in to one page. Ex: instead of one page for evey election, have all historical elections on one page. This would be similar to the Nova Scotia election pages. MS123

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

Location Maps

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

Hey; I can try this. I'll get back to you. E Pluribus Anthony 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate it, --Cloveious 07:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you cite some examples? Bearcat 04:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Notice the red background coloured message.It appeared after I uploaded the image and applied the CanadaCopyright tag. SD6-Agent 04:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly bad news. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looking at that, and following the link that's in the red section (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html), I think it's fairly clear that the issue isn't about whether it's Canadian, but whether the specific copyright license it's released under is compatible with GFDL. Even the CanadaCopyright template clearly specifies that it "may or may not be suitable for use in Wikipedia". We're certainly going to have to discuss this, but it's not as clearcut as what you're describing.
From the GFDL article: Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited generally cannot be used in a GFDL-licensed document, e.g., a Wikipedia article, because the license does not exclude commercial re-use. However in some specific cases, commercial re-uses may be fair use and in that case such materials do not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses. One good example of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody.
In other words, there's an entirely legitimate legal issue of license compatibility here; it's not just anti-Canadian discrimination. Really, the only option we have is whether "fair use" is a suitable alternative or not. Bearcat 04:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! US copyright law trumps Canadian copyright law. I hope we can work out a way we can use anything that is legal under Canadian copyright without having it being made into a debate.SD6-Agent 04:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not about whether US law trumps Canadian law; the conflict between GFDL and non-commercial use exists equally under both laws. Bearcat 04:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So how do I prevent anything I tag with CanadaCopyright from being deleted? SD6-Agent 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can see, these are the only options we have:
  1. Figure out how to resolve the conflict between the federal government's non-commercial-use-only copyright policy and GFDL's inability to use non-commercial-use-only content.
  2. Figure out if they can be simply listed as "fair use" rather than "CanadaCopyright".
  3. Learn to live with the reality that we just can't use anything that's released only under a non-commercial-use license.
But the reality is that even if this were the allcanadianpedia, governed exclusively by Canadian law, the exact same issue would still apply because the non-commercial-use clause would still be in conflict with GFDL. It simply isn't a question of national laws; it's a commercial vs. non-commercial licensing conflict. Bearcat 04:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am at a loss for a solution. SD6-Agent 05:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tag 'em all as fairuse then --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 05:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to require some investigation as to whether it's legally possible to claim fair use for material quite specifically released under an NCU license. We can't just arbitrarily decide to do it on a whim. Bearcat 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well I think that from now on, rather than using the CanadaCopyright tag, I'll just the fairuse tag. Thus, bowing to American law. I'm open to any better solution. SD6-Agent 06:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has nothing to do with a difference between American and Canadian law. Bearcat 06:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I know that. So, from now on, rather than using CanadaCopyright tag, I'll use PromoPhoto, at least for images.SD6-Agent 09:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that not all images qualify for the promophoto tag; only "official" photographs depicting a single individual. Bearcat 15:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Fair use" does exist in Canadian law; it's just called "fair dealing" instead. See http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#6 . But the issue is that we can't necessarily just apply fair use to get around the problem of using an image licensed for non-commercial use in a commercial resource; there are going to be cases where we just can't use an image.
I've advised SD6-Agent to retag as {{promophoto}} anything that's an "official" photograph of a single political figure (such as an MP, a Governor-General, etc., but not photos of groups of people.) I've also confirmed that US government logos are tagged as {{logo}}, so that should be fine as well. But we can't always just change the tag to get around the issue; "fair use" does not mean "it's fair for me to use this just because I want to". Things like historical, geographical or military photographs don't necessarily constitute fair use; in those cases we may just have to try harder to find public domain images or take our own GFDL photographs when possible. Bearcat 15:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about other images previously tagged under CanadaCopyright? Should those be retagged? For example, the picture of the current Cabinet of Canada.SD6-Agent 18:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any difference between a promo photo of a group and an individual. Musical groups all have fair use images of themselves, for instance. Unfortunately fair dealing in Canada for the most part only applies to material for private use, not for publication. I agree some images will have to be deleted. For instance, I don't think the images of military hardware can be used under fair use. We should also try to ask government agencies about whether we can use items. I recently asked Elections Canada if they could release their maps under a license that Wikipedia could use. They said no, but they did put a fair bit of thought into the matter. - SimonP 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So let's get this straight. Other than images of people, there's no legitimate use of any image under GFDL because it conflicts with CanadaCopyright. It still blows my mind that a set of rules created by one American person can trump Canadian copyright law. Copyright laws under the provinces can't even do that. SD6-Agent 19:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is Wikipedia doesn't fall under Canadian copyright law, only American because that is where it based. This is actually a good thing as things like moral rights are totally incompatible with the GFDL. There are a fair number of other things covered under fair use, which can be read at Wikipedia:Fair use. Everyone should also be aware that the National Archives has a huge collection of copyright free images relevant to Canada. - SimonP 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SD6, it is not about American vs. Canadian rules!!! GFDL is perfectly compatible with Canadian law; it just isn't compatible with non-commercial use, regardless of what nation the image comes from. You said you got it this morning; why are you back on the notion that it has anything to do with nationality?
Secondly, it is not impossible to use any image at all under GFDL; only ones that are specifically released under a non-commercial use only license. If an image is in the public domain, we can use it. If it was personally taken by one of us with the express intention of being released under GFDL, we can use it. If it meets the conditions of "fair use", we can use it. If it's licensed for commercial use, we can use it. If the copyright holder personally posts it to Wikipedia, we can use it. We just can't use images that are licensed for non-commercial use only, because we are not a non-commercial use.
I feel the need to repeat this again, since you don't seem able to accept it: there is no conflict between American and Canadian copyright law in this matter. There is only a conflict between GFDL and non-commercial use.Bearcat 21:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention to create tension due to my ignorance of these laws. I understand there conflict between non-commercial use and the GFDL.SD6-Agent 22:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But you still characterized it as It still blows my mind that a set of rules created by one American person can trump Canadian copyright law a few comments back, several hours after telling me that you understood the issue. If you understand that it's not an international law dispute, could you please stop characterizing it as an international law dispute? Bearcat 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply looking for a solution. {{CanadaCopyright}} seems now to be an invalid tag as it conflicts with the GFDL. I believe that most, if not all, the data from http://www.parl.gc.ca falls under this copyright and, since it conflicts with the GFDL, I am wondering what I could take from that website and how I can apply it here without violating any rules.SD6-Agent 22:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP, the thing about group photos is that the {{promophoto}} tag specifies that the image is being used to illustrate an article about the entity depicted in the photo. In other words, we can flag a Image:Anitaneville.jpg as a promo photo, because its purpose for being here is to illustrate an article about Anita Neville. We can flag Image:Spiritofthewest.jpg as a promo photo, because it's an image that the band specifically released as a publicity shot, which is being used here to illustrate an article about Spirit of the West. However, we can't flag Image:Dallaire in Rwanda 1994 CBC.jpg as a promo photo, because it's not here to illustrate an article about a single entity that encompasses everybody depicted in the photo. (It may be usable on other grounds, such as {{screenshot}}, but it can't be flagged as {{promophoto}}.) The difference between a promo photo and a non-promo photo isn't the number of people in it; it's whether the subject of the photo is identical to the subject of the article it's meant to illustrate. Bearcat 23:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason publicity images are allowed is because they are released with the assumption that they can be freely reused. Promotional images are created in the hopes that newspapers, television shows, and websites will reuse them. Releasing a promotional image creates an implied license to reuse it. Under British, and perhaps Canadian, law releasing a publicity shot makes it implicitly public domain. In the United States it seems that these images fall under fair use.
It doesn't actually matter what the content of the image is, just that the nature of its release implies the right to distribute it. If Image:Dallaire in Rwanda 1994 CBC.jpg had been created and released by DND or the Senate to promote the General, then it would qualify. However, since it seems to be a CBC screenshot this is not the case. The image is actually not even valid under Crown Copyright, as CBC images cannot even be used for non-commercial uses. It certainly is also not valid under screenshot, screenshots are only valid fair use when the discussion is on the medium. E.g. a screenshot from The National could be used in an article on the show, but we can't use clips from it to illustrate other articles. - SimonP 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The comment of yours which I was replying to appeared to be challenging my distinction between photos of individuals and photos of groups, on the grounds that a promo photo of a band was also of a group of people. My apologies if I misunderstood, but your original comment addressed whether the number of people was a legitimate basis for excluding group shots currently listed under Template:CanadaCopyright from being retagged as Template:promophoto. You didn't appear to be commenting on the implied purpose of a photograph's release. Bearcat 00:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Indeed, the copyright has expired. Perhaps this {{PD-old-50}} is more appropriate. --maclean25 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done that and included the link. But the question still remains whether a scan of an old photograph is copyrighted as a derivative work. Luigizanasi 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Under American law simply scanning an image does not give you copyright over it, as was determined in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. To my knowledge there has been no similar case in Canada, and most websites that have copies of old images claim that they are copyrighted. However, these claims are somewhat dubious, and they don't matter anyway as Wikipedia is under American copyright law. - SimonP 14:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not suggesting Canadian copyright law doesn't matter. We don't want to go back down that road again. SD6-Agent 23:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

RAV-FM

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

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

First Nations question

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

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

My proposal starts with the following:

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

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

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

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

The Canadian radio infovoid

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

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

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

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

stupid.ca

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

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

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

39th Canadian general election

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

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

Updating the CCOTW page

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

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

Mass-move of Ontario Regional Municipality pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and I suppose a unification at Category:Census divisions of Ontario might be useful too. Right now we have both Category:Peel Regional Municipality, Ontario and Category:Region of Waterloo, Ontario. --Qviri 04:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now left messages on talk pages of respective articles. These are the pages listed at List of Ontario Census Divisions#Regional municipalities (Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York) with exception of Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario (which I don't really know how to move... District Municipality of Muskoka or District of Muskoka? The latter seems to be used more commonly) and Oxford County, Ontario (which is named correctly).
Some stats: of the six pages in question, five already list the name Regional Municipality of <name> as the first name in the article. For the one that doesn't, Halton, the official website is titled (both in <title> tag and in the title bar) as Regional Municipality of Halton. All three that have infoboxes also list the Regional Municipality of <name>. --Qviri 06:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely against this. Statistics Canada uses "XXX Regional Municipality" for every last one of them. Plus, this is just how things should be named. Look at the county articles. They're not at "County of xxx" --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 07:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but on the other hand, it's the City of Toronto and the City of Hamilton and the City of Ottawa... Not Toronto City, Hamilton City and Ottawa City. --Qviri 18:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics Canada uses Placename Municipalityclass as a convention for its lists for convenience sake only. Regional districts in BC are a similar case, with them actually using both XXX of YYY and YYY XXX formats, but StatsCan uses YYY XXX exclusively. The Tom 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors in high places

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

Help: book throwing in the commons

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

Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006#Campaign

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

William "Duke" Procter

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

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

Government of Toronto > Politics of Toronto

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

There is a fair bit to write about this subject, so I say let it grow. - SimonP 14:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, expand. However, I wonder if the title should be changed: Government of Toronto, to me, sounds odd – qv Government of Canada, Government of Ontario, et al. Perhaps Politics of Toronto, Municipal governance in Toronto (or of), Toronto municipal governance, or similar would be better?
Moreover, this summary/overview article can't be everything to everyone: the article is unnecessarily excessive and, given the abundance of information in it and redundancy with (underused, methinks) subarticles (new and not), the Toronto article needs a thorough pruning. I'll get around to this (again) at some point. E Pluribus Anthony 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the title form for other political/government articles (e.g., Politics of Canada, Politics of Ontario, et al.), I've moved this article to Politics of Toronto. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Featured article on main page

Delrina, an article on a Canadian software company, will be featured on the main page on 4 January 2006. The page will be subject to a high degree of vandalism on that day. Please monitor the page to help revert vandalism on that day. --24.83.90.98 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the Canadian news media

This is too good not to share.

Please see my comments on Talk:Stuart Smith. I tried not to gloat too much ... CJCurrie 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film directors

I just came across a cache of three film directors who are of uncertain notability; two seem to be young video artists still working on their first projects, and the last seems to have been around for longer but still marginally notable at best. But I'm not prepared to AFD them without some input:

Any comments? Bearcat 05:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are clearly a trio of hoaxs. They are up for deletion now. Bucketsofg 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

District of Franklin

Hi! I'm not Canadian, but in disambiguation cleanup I came across information on a dab page about the District of Franklin that's not identical to that on the actual article page itself. I hoped this would be a good place to bring attention to it? Details are on Talk:District of Franklin. I'm not going back to check on that page, so if a Canadian could sort that out, that'd be great. (To draw my attention to that page again, if necessary, please use my user talk page.) Thanks. Neonumbers 11:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Warman

Could someone please revert this page; I've already done so three times. CJCurrie 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help, going crazy...

Some anon user recently wrote up almost every TV series linked from the MuchMusic article, with the following problems:

  1. The writing is appallingly bad. (From French Kiss: "In addition to Canada's francophone population, MuchMusic of CHUM Limited operates a francophone music television station, Québécois MusiquePlus." And from The Punk Show, the redundantly redundant "the program exclusively features music videos of indie underground punk bands that are not mainstream." As opposed to what, indie underground punk bands that are mainstream?)
  2. None of them have either {{tvseries-stub}} or Category:MuchMusic television series applied to them.
  3. For programs that are a half-hour long, the person consistently just wikified the word half rather than the compound half-hour.
  4. When links to MusiquePlus are warranted, the person insists on referring to it as "Québécois MusiquePlus"; they even edited MuchMusic itself to call it that.

Could some generous soul kindly help me fix this mess up? Thanks muchly, no pun intended. Bearcat 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonizing province templates

I think it would be pertinent to try and harmonize the various recently created {{province}} templates. I think that, as large footers, the fontsizr should be reduced to 90%. Also, we should decide on the presentation, order and content so that they are consistent with each others.

the templates are:

Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland and Labrador will need one, and possibly the territories, while we're at it. {{BritishColumbia}} and {{Quebec}} follow a format similar to Country footers and list mostly subdivisions, however, the other templates follow a convention closer to that of the various US states footers.

I thought about it and have to conclude that the Us State style soundsmoreappropriate. However,it remains pertinent to condense the template and keep them as harmonized as possible. Any thoughts? Circeus 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good discussion. The important thing is to determine what sorts of things belong: electoral districts? counties/municipal districts? cities? etc. And should they be all listed or should there be a simple link to them. Saskatchewan, for instance, has so many counties that it was recommended that a link to the list of counties be included on the template. In looking over the US state templates, I see that they vary greatly. Some list just the major cities -- it would be too full to list all the cities, I suppose. Although I am only guessing, but I think the purpose of the template is to feature a link page so that when someone lands on Podunk town, he can quickly check some particular info on the county, electoral district, nearby important/influential centers, and the province itself in which Podunk is located.

As far as formatting goes, I do like the consistency of the provincial flag and color provincial title as Alberta and Sask have done. Is it possible to make a {{Canada Province}} template and then build a province template using the "Canada Province" template? I haven't see a nesting of templates, but I haven't looked for them either. In that way, the "Canada Province" template would maintain consistency. Cadillac 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if a template would be ideal. If you look at the NS template we have counties, like everyone. But because we have three Canadian Regional Municipalities in the province we have a dozen town size communities and three city size communities that are not towns or cities anymore. So we have carefully crafted language to get around that. I think that what is important and how communities are referenced for each province will be sufficiently different that it would be hard to have common headers. I think some design principles are all we need here, because once the templates are done they are likely to be left unmodified for a long long time.WayeMason 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Waye explained very well why such a template would probably be a bad idea. Also, see WP:AUM
I was thinking: geographic regions (where appliable), most meaningful division (e.g. main division below provincial level), main cities+any apropriate lists. However, I do not believe that topic links are appropriate (they belong in a article series box, which goes at the top of articles).
As for formatting, the colors should be rather unobstrusive (in the same range of lightness and saturation as the country footers), though I don't much problem wih the hues. Text should be at 90% size for consistency with nearly all the footesin wikipedia. Circeus 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also for the record, because I am a contrarian, I really like the centered, European style look rather than the US state look. I think its all great that Alberta's already looks like a US state but thats just not me. I would rather see the Canadian provinces be centered and less rigid than US states. (gotta go, What Not To Wear is back on... )WayeMason 01:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "centered european"? Examples please? Circeus 02:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Germany, France, Spain, and England. Madrid Spain has nothing. But the others have large template listings of districts and cities. The difference from US states is that the European separate the districts from the listing of cities with two (or more) templates. Cadillac 02:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I missspoke, I meant the templates you linked to here Country footers. WayeMason 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, you're in favor of centered footers copying the style of the country footers. the reason i switched position is that I though it much harder to present the content well with such a format, since there aremany different entities group, as well as lists to link. I will try to drafta proposal at my userpage Circeus 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed a draft for the current existing templates at User:Circeus/oddities. Circeus 21:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so unless there is extra input, I will start implementing this at the end of the week. Circeus 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the provinces and territories template and the Canadian legislatures templates are both centered I am still not sold on the idea of moving to a US state style model. Your changes as proposed are not in fact in keeping with many other Canadian templates. I am not saying I have a definitive list, but it does seem like we might not be going with the current trends if this change is implemented. WayeMason 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the provinces and territories template and the Canadian legislatures templates are both centered The canadian template is centered because it's a country footer. I consider the only reason for the majority (because three were not) of them to be centered is that it's easier to code.
not in fact in keeping with many other Canadian templates Mind presenting other footer examples? The only I can think of off-hand are the Quebec subdivisions, which do better as a copy of the country-stylefooters,if only because they present only one type of information.Circeus 23:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also {{Canada}}. WayeMason 11:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider {{Canada}} a quite valid example, as it is specifically bound by the country subdivision footers convention. {{canleg}} is a way to go about it, although I think it is too tall. I generally prefer the two columns, left-right system, and you seem the only one formally opposed to it. Still, feel free to alter the final version. Justmake sure the templates don't end up too big or inconsistent. Circeus 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the? School list templates

Would somebody be sokind as to investigate {{BbySchools}} and {{RichmondBCSchools}}. I stumbled on these while implementing the new canadian footers, and don't have time to dig in right now, but they look like straight TFD fodder. Circeus

Add {{WVSchools}} to that list

City of Toronto budget, 2004

I've been working on a Wikipedia article for the City of Toronto's 2004 budget in my sandbox here, however when I sum everything the "total expense" figures don't match the numbers provided in the City's news release PDF. I've double-checked things and I can't identify what may be throwing off the numbers. I wanted to ask if someone could please look the pages over to try and determine what I'm doing wrong - A user more familar with such financial data may be able to quickly spot an error I've made. Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you. Kurieeto 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help no longer needed, I think I've got things fixed now. Kurieeto 22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CanadaCopyright (along with Template:AlbertaCopyright, Template:OntarioCopyright, Template:NovaScotiaCopyright) lost its TFD here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:CanadaCopyright. So, the roughly 50 images that used the template will be tagged Template:nolicense and be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. --maclean25 07:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political spouses

Quick question: Stephen Harper's wife has an article at the current title Laureen Harper. Every media reference I've seen to her today has called her Laureen Teskey, yet I can also personally vouch for having previously seen journalists refer to her as Laureen Harper. If she's normally known as Teskey, the article needs to be moved to Teskey. Is anybody able to clarify? Bearcat 23:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since there was no discussion here and somebody subsequently edited her article to reflect her proper surname as Teskey, I've gone ahead and moved the article to Teskey. "Laureen Harper" will stand as a redirect, though. Bearcat 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then, the day after I did that, she went and asked the media to call her Harper ([5]). Hmmmmm, maybe that's their strategy — keep us all confused. Bearcat 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Newman

Hello everyone. I'm not a Canadian myself — went there once years ago, though, lovely place — but I have recently been working on this article about a prominent Canadian, who had a huge influence on British television, particularly BBC television drama, which are two of my main Wikipedia interests. I'm trying to drive this article up to featured level — I rebuilt it from the ground-up a couple of months back, and have been making various tweaks to it since then. I'll be placing it on peer review soon — it doesn't have a picture at the moment, but will hopefully do so sometime tomorrow, after which I'll add it. If all goes well there it should be on FAC within the next week or two, but I thought I'd put a note about it here as, being a Canadian-related article, I thought some of you might be interested in taking a look and seeing what improvements might need to be made from your perspectives. Particularly, being a biography of a Canadian, there are some spellings which might need changing from the British English I wrote the piece in to Canadian English, I'm not sure. Anyway, I hope the piece is of interest. Angmering 19:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Honourable, the Dishonourable, the Right Honourable and you

  • After all our back-and-forthing over the years...it turns out that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) explicitly states that honorifics such as "The Honourable" and "The Right Honourable" are not to precede the person's name in inline text on Wikipedia. We can say in the article that "as a former Prime Minister, Paul Martin is entitled to the style 'The Right Honourable'" — but we can't have the first line of the article begin "The Right Honourable Paul Martin". So I'd advise y'all to start cleaning. Bearcat 04:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a sort of agreement between various users that Canadian politicians and statesmen would retain their honourifics, as long as they do not become too excessive (ie. using His/Her Worship for mayors or His/Her Excellency for ambassadors). Please refer to administrators such as Homey or Proteus. Eddo 05:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Next thing you know it will be Elizabeth Windsor (nee Saxe Coberg Gotha), entitled to the style 'Your Majesty.' Legally the Mayor of Halifax is "Your Worship" and that is how he is addressed in council and official communication... this makes me laugh. WayeMason 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think reached a bit of a compromise with Eddo before that as long as the honorifics were not excessive I could tolerate it - but as I recall none of us could find a reference in the style manual at the time so if the three of four or us had a "consensus" previously, it was reached without knowledge of what official wikipedia style was. IE there was no consesus to ignore the style manual - there was a consensus that in lieu of anything in the style manual honorifics would be tolerated as long as they were restrained and kept to relatively senior positions (eg Governors-General, Cabinet ministers etc but not mayors). I thought "His Honour the Honourable" in regards to lieutenant-governors was silly but i wasn't prepared to make it a huge issue as the number of articles at question was minimal.Homey 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there are two questions we need to answer here:
  1. ) Given that Wikipedia has a "concensus" on the honorifics (in the manual of styles), should we abide by it?
  2. ) If not, what are the reasons?

For me, I don't care either one way or the other - as long as we can justify our answers and documents the answers as part of style manual (such as how China and Japan articles have their specialized standards, Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)) . This will allow other Canadian authors to have some consistencies in their articles. --Hurricane111 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that, Wikipedia is here to educate. I am a fouth year university student, and I find that many students look at Wikipedia to help explain tough readings or look up simple but trivial facts. Official titles such as His Honour the Honourable ___, Lieutenant Governor may sound formal, but it is fact. They represent the Head of State, and people might learn something from seeing it. I too agree that too excessive is bad, ie. His Worship the Mayor, or His Excellency the Ambassador. I think that the titles should be kept for the most senior, ie. Monarch, Governor General, Lieutenant Governor, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Supreme Court Justices, Premiers. Eddo 04:09, 4 February, 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the educational value in adding honorifics unless our purpose is to educate people in the art of obsequiousness and sycophantry. It's important to be consistent and if Tony Blair's article doesn't open with Right Honourable I don't see why Paul Martin's should. Homey 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy you went way to far! Obsequiousness? It's called respect. You wouldn't go up to a Lieutenant Governor and say "Hi Iona, how are you?" In Canada we actually show respect towards people who hold office because they worked hard to get there. How is it an inferiority complex? Isn't it your own point of view that calling someone Your Honour is obsequious? Exactly how will people learn? A lot of young people visit wikipedia, and they marvel at all the little knowledge they learn. Why would you like to deny people that. I know a while back we removed all the His/Her Royal Highnesses and inserted an infobox like the guy below suggested. Instead of just going through the entire list of people that you edited and taking everything out, you could have but in the infoboxes. I don't have that great an editing skill, and I'm a busy university student, you're an admin, don't you feel you have some responsibility?

Eddo 19:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Frankly, the educational value of Wikipedia is not particularly enhanced by referring to politicians by their full title at all times rather than simply acknowledging the title under an "honours" section. What you propose doesn't come across like an honest attempt to educate or to accord such figures their due respect — it really, truly just comes across like brownnosing to power. And it's not remotely comparable to a complete stranger walking up to Iona Campagnolo and calling her by her first name, either. You're conflating two issues which have no connection with each other. Bearcat 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree. Would it not be prudent to include only names in the leads for articles with an info/biobox, while listing honorifics (even ad nauseum) and wikifying them atop the infobox only? (The usual can still happen in article leads without a biobox.) This will also ensure clarity and reduce possible duplication. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that there should be consistency across different articles. E Pluribus Anthony's suggestion of keeping the honorifics in the infobox sounds like a fair compromise - it satisfies the manual of styles while address Eddo's concern. --Hurricane111 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics in the infobox are fine (or in the photo caption) but if there is no infobox or photo - no honorific. Homey 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think we've reached a compromise! I share H111's and other concerns regarding consistency; however, current guidelines may trump that. My proposal (with Homey's suggestion regarding expanded captions for mere pics) seems apt. Of course, articles with neither are a grey area that will grudgingly have to be dealt with. Now, if every article for a personality (biography) had a biobox – which I believe endured a vote for deletion recently – that would kill two birds with one stone, no? :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To that end, I've edited the article for Paul Martin to dually address concerns noted above. I've simplified Mr. Martin's name in the intro/lead and (as above) have moved all honorific details/initials to the infobox. All titles are of reduced font size. This is by no means definitive, but is a start and reasonable compromise. I this is acceptable, perhaps I'll head on over to the template to update? Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You wouldn't go up to a Lieutenant Governor and say "Hi Iona, how are you?"
Well, I can think of one former politician who'd walk up to her and pat her on the bum:) I can't imagine many people walk up to her and say "Your honour, the honourable" unless they were trying to be obsequious.
On a similar note, there was an item by Jane Taber in the Globe & Mail during the election campaign which noted how horrified Jim Peterson was when his election signs came back from the printer with his name styled as "Hon. Jim Peterson". Peterson immiediately ordered thousands of stickers, the same colour as the sign, so they could be placed over the offending "Hon." lest any voters think he was full of himself. I don't know if the same thing would have happened in Britain which tells you a bit about the attitude Canadians have in general towards excessive deference through honorifics and the like. References to politicians as "the honourable" are relatively rare outside of official documents (and the floor of the House of Commons) - the only time I hear them used on the radio, in the press or in conversation is when someone is being sarcastic. Homey 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buttock patting aside, agreed. Apropos, the current rendition at Paul Martin seems to be a fair compromise that enables us to have our cake and eat it too. If there are no (a even with just few) objections, I propose a similar arrangement (utlimately by adding appropriate fields in the actual template) for all such Canadian official biographies, i.e., those with bioboxes currently ... and perhaps beyond in time. Thoughts? Feedback is encouraged. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo is better-suited?

The image on the left
The image on the right

The Henry Albert Harper article has two potential GFDL images of the statue at the base of Parliament Hill, just wanted to grab some impartial votes on which was a better image to use in the article, since the only two people discussing it on the talk page are us two photographers ;) We're all grownups though, nobody's feelings are going to be hurt, just want to know which better serves our encyclopaedia. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer the image on the left because it is easier to see the detail of the statue. The image on the right has the advantage of clearly placing the statue on Parliament Hill, but has the statue in shadow, so what you see is the parliament buildings, not the shadow. Ground Zero | t 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per GZ, I also prefer the left photo for that article. If only you could 'unperson' the poser at its base. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image on the left could be improved by cropping the statue's "rock." When I first looked at the picture, my eyes were drawn to the statue then to the rock; but I think you want the viewer to see first the statue then the building.Cadillac 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the statue is not of Henry Albert Harper, I prefer the photo on the right. It's almost irrelevant what the statue looks like; what makes it extra special is that it's in front of the parliament buildings. Usgnus 19:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left -- for same reason as GroundZero. I should add that both pictures show the "parliament buildings," so that need not be a consideration. HistoryBA 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Canadian Biography

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive24#Should_this_be_in_the_main_namespace - Would someone mind actually addressing this issue rather than shuffling things around and ignoring it? Dragons flight 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ranges in Canada

A quick note to ask for inputs for a new article branching off Shooting range. Specific countries are now addressed in this top level article, with inputs still needed for several countries, including Canada. Thanks! Yaf 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Premiers of British Columbia

I've initiated my own project of expanding and improving the biographies of British Columbia premiers (so far I've done John Foster McCreight and Amor De Cosmos), some of which are woefully inadequate. A cursory sampling of the articles for other Canadian premiers reveal similar deficiencies of detail. I just want to issue a shout-out to anyone who'd like to help. Especially British Columbians. B.C.'s had 32 premiers, and I'm feeling a little daunted. Thanks! Fishhead64, 08:27, 08 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Canadian figures

With the Seigenthaler incident and the furor over politicians editing south of your border, some of the U.S. mess no doubt will spill over to you. As a result, we need help to make sure that various Canadian public figures are fairly and accurately represented. In particular, at the moment I have in mind Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden, although certainly more could come up. If people on this board could give the articles a thorough going-over, making sure that there is nothing libelous and that sources are documented for everything that might be remotely controversial, it would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthand Titles

Can I suggest that we remove the “Shorthand Titles” section that now appears on some Governors General articles. It seems that somebody imported this from the British pages, where it is used rather occasionally . On those pages it was arguably needed because Arthur Wellesley becomes known the Duke of Wellington for example. So on the Ed Schreyer article right now it has this:

  • Mr Edward Schreyer (1935-1958)
  • Mr Edward Schreyer, MLA (1958-1959)
  • Mr Edward Schreyer, MLA, B.A., B.Pd. (1959-1962)
  • Professor Edward Schreyer, MLA B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed. (1962-1963)
  • Professor Edward Schreyer, MLA, B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed., M.A (1963-1965)
  • Mr. Edward Schreyer, M.P., B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed., M.A, (1965-1969)
  • Premier Edward Schreyer, MLA, B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed., M.A, (1969-1977)
  • His Excellency The Right Honourable Edward Schreyer, C.C., C.M.M., C.D., B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed., M.A, (1979-1984)
  • The Right Honourable Edward Schreyer, P.C., C.C., C.M.M., C.D., B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed., M.A, LL.D, D.Sc.Soc. (1984-July 13, 2000)
  • The Right Honourable Edward Schreyer, P.C., C.C., C.M.M., O.M., C.D., B.A., B.Pd., B.Ed., M.A, LL.D, D.Sc.Soc. (July 13, 2000-Present)

I don’t think that it helps much. Would it help on the Harper page to know when he became Stephen Harper, BA, Stephen Harper, MA, MP, PC, and so on. I think that this is just a pretentious waste of space. Sorry. --JGGardiner 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this example goes overboard. I don't think academic and honorary degrees need to be mentioned in such detail, but I like to include dates for prenomial styles ("Hon." and up) and state-granted postnomials (but not MP, MLA). I have been doing some work in this regard on selected articles, but I haven't looked at Schreyer's. My suggestion for Schreyer:
  • Styled "the Honourable" for term as an executive councillor in Manitoba, 1969 to 1977.
  • Styled "His Excellency the Right Honourable" during term as governor general, January 22, 1979 to May 14, 1984; styled "the Right Honourable" for life after leaving office
  • Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada for term as governor general; Companion of the order after leaving office.
  • Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit for term as governor general; Commander of the order after leaving office.
  • Canadian Forces Decoration, mmmm dd, 1979
  • Made a privy councillor (postnomial: PC), June 3, 1984
Indefatigable 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be better. Right now it doesn't provide the real context like you have included. For the obvious things, like MP, the dates are already listed in the article and some of the others don't have explanations. Plus I like the use of sentences. Quite a few of the GGs are like this. I just happened to notice Schreyer during the election. --JGGardiner 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scarborough, Ontario Location.png

This image is likely to be deleted soon. Can someone replace it with something like Image:Toronto Location.png?  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few days ago ... take a peek! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the creation of an article on Canada-Caribbean relations

I'm considering finally-- going for the plunge and starting an article on Canada-Caribbean relations. I just wanted to drop a note here and ask if there's any objections to the naming- etc. or other things I should consider before doing so? In thinking to myself I would rather find out now, rather then see 1 month from now a 'vote for deletion.' *smirks* Don't laugh, I've seen it happen to others. ,-)

P.S. on the talk('discussion') page of Canada-Caribbean relations I also have a series of topics which I thought of off the top of my head, ofcourse all are underpinned within the Canada-Caribbean relations. BTW: I used the wording of 'Caribbean/West Indies' because the Bahamas aren't officially in the "Caribbean" but are in the "West Indies". However the term West Indies is considered somewhat archaic. CaribDigita 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. There is a long and important history there, as well as notable current ties. I also find that this is a subject that Canadians too often overlook. - SimonP 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its true, there's lots of things that go on. I'm not sure if you remember former Canadian MP David Kilgour he made a speech [6] in December about Canadian-Caribbean relations as well just before he took his bow- out of politics. One of the things mentioned is the bid for Calgary 2005, he said 11 of the 25 votes were from Caribbean nations. The other thing is you can't really escape that whole relationship between the two regions I mean you can take it back to Paul Martin on the Canadian side, he was chided over his business ties in Barbados. And likewise the Barbados PM 1-2 years ago was chided over quietly appointing someone from Canada to be fully incharge of the Government owned Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation television station. Appearently someone got word of it and a dispute quickly loomed with one director claiming they had seniority- and should have been appointed as the next in line. etc. The government continued to state the lady from Canada had better credentials. [7], [8] It was a mess. Nearly brought down the government there too. ,-) CaribDigita 01:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria

Right now, there are three articles on the city and the surrounding area with incredible overlap - Victoria, British Columbia, Greater Victoria, British Columbia, and Capital Regional District, British Columbia. The Victoria article contains lists of schools, neighbourhoods, recreational facilities and other things that are outside the municipal boundaries of the City of Victoria. And since Greater Victoria is more or less coterminous with the CRD, I'm wondering why these articles cannot be merged. Is there any protocol about this, or can I simply go in and fix things up accordingly? What do others think? Fishhead64

I think Greater Victoria should be merged into CRD, but the Victoria article can remain separate. Usgnus 19:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it'll be controversial, put Template:mergeto and template:mergefrom in the appropriate articles to set up discussion on one of the talk pages. Personally, I agree with Usgnus's assessment. Indefatigable 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article on main page

Paul Kane, an article on a Canadian artist, will be featured on the main page on 1 March 2006. The page will be subject to a high degree of vandalism on that day. Please monitor the page to help revert vandalism on that day. --64.114.106.132 22:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making the Canada article featured

To work towards making the Canada article better, some work has been started to find references for the information in various sections, and to comment on the images and find new ones. If anyone has some time, can you take a look at Talk:Canada and see if you can sign up for finding some of the references for some sections. Thanks -- Jeff3000 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on image needed

Image:AlanBeddoe.png faces deletion unless we can show that it is indeed in the public domain. It was taken by Jules Alexandre Castonguay of Ottawa, who worked until 1949. If we can show that it was not taken in 1949 (i.e., 1948 or earlier), it would be at least {{PD-Canada}}. If we can show that it was taken before 1946 (i.e., 1945 or earlier), it would even be {{PD-US}}. Can anybody help trying to prove either? Lupo 08:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ice Hockey Defenceman

Please note that User:Jeffness has said that he will change all spelling of defenceman to defenseman in NHL related articles, because it is the *North American spelling* (see talk:defenceman (ice hockey). Since most NHL players have come from Canada, this is seriously prejudicial. 132.205.45.148 19:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey: the issue resolved itself. You're a day late, nothing to see, move along. No need to make a political issue over it. ccwaters 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue of the page move has been resolved. The issue of the spelling in articles is not. Jeff stated he'd change the spelling in NHL related articles to defenseman. 132.205.46.157 02:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces template

This is frustrating. The template includes a box for official languages, leading to fruitless debates over what languages apply. The Ontario site has "English and French (in some areas)," Manitoba has "English" (its French as well), and provinces like BC and Alberta, which have no language legislation, have "English." I think the template needs to be changed to remove this box. Until then, I'm removing the language from the boxes in provs which have no offcial language(s) Fishhead64 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • French does not have official language status in either Ontario or Manitoba. The fact that there are francophones in those provinces is not relevant to whether or not they have legal status as official languages of the province — the only provinces where French has that status are Quebec and New Brunswick. Both Ontario and Manitoba make some effort to provide services to their francophone communities, but the language does not have official status in either province. I'd be willing to discuss removing the section from the template altogether, but I'm not willing to support adding inaccurate information to the box. Bearcat 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulties with the whole notion of "official language" being applied to provinces that have no specific legislation denoting an official language. This in itself is inaccurate and misleading. Lets look at the fact that French services are mandated in certain provinces: Does this mean that French is therefore an official language? A "quasi-official" language? Or does it simply mean exactly what the legislation says - that certain services shall be provided in French and English under certain circumstances? I'm for removing it from the template altogether. Who gets to make the decision? Fishhead64 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Alberta, there are more people who speak Ukranian than those who speak French. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more people who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese in BC and a few other provinces than those who speak French. I think this feature needs to be removed altogether from the template. It could be used in the text for specific provinces. Cadillac 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is not true. French is by far Alberta's 2nd language, with over 200,000 people who speak it. Ukrainian is in fifth place after German and Chinese. See the 2001 Census numbers. However, I do agree that official should be removed from the template and dealt with in the text, as it has too many different meanings and interpretations. Luigizanasi 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The language in which the government actually operates is a de facto official language even if none is specifically spelled out in law. (That's all "official language" means anyway: the language in which the government operates.) Thus, it's in no way inaccurate to say that English is the official language of British Columbia, even in the absence of a law mandating this. But it would be entirely inaccurate to say that French is, because the government of BC does not operate in French to any notable degree. Bearcat 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Canada

new article, help appreciated. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll contribute Fishhead64 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the article. It's just a list now. Will it include history, etc.? --JGGardiner 06:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The" and the territories – discussion and poll on usage

E Pluribus Anthony has removed the "the"s before "Northwest Territories" in the Provinces and territories of Canada. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I thought of bringing it up here for discussion and possible resolution. For some background, you might want to check out the discussions Anthony and I had at Talk:Premier of the Northwest Territories, Talk:List of communities in the Northwest Territories, and Talk:Northwest_Territories#.22The.22. There are four options:

  1. Use "The" with both the NWT and the Yukon in accordance with a style guide published in the North (PDF file from the Northern Review), which states: "The Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be referred to with the definite article where appropriate: the Yukon or the Northwest Territories."
  2. Do not use the "the" for either territory in accordance with the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (ISBN 0-19-541619-8):
    • "Residents prefer Northwest Territories to ‘the’ Northwest Territories'. The preferred usage parallels usage for the names of provinces; that is, one doesn't say 'the Alberta'" (p. 342), and
    • "Though other Canadians often say ‘the’ Yukon', residents of this territory prefer that the definite article be dropped, indicating that Yukon is not just a geographic area like ’the North’, but a political entity like Alberta or Canada." (p. 532).
  3. Use the Northwest Territories and no "the" for Yukon as these seem to be the official names, as evidenced by their respective governments' web sites.
  4. As with other local differences in English usage, continue to use the style used by the first major contributor to the article.

Luigizanasi 07:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I favour #1, along with the majority of northerners. I believe the Oxford guide is simply wrong in this case. I do not recall any debate in the NWT about the use of the article. On the other hand, there has been a debate in the Yukon, which is not settled yet. Luigizanasi 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have used the third myself but the first seems fine also. I could see dropping the "the"s on a list but to do so in the text sounds awkward, such as in "land that had been part of Northwest Territories". --JGGardiner 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original proponent, I support #2: there's little reason to not equilibrate how Wp consistently refers to Canadian subdivisional entities – i.e., consistently treat Yukon and Northwest Territories as we do any other province or territory. If a common usage guide prescribes removing the definite article, which also has support in common usage (see discussions), that should be sufficient. Moreover, to clarify: option #3 above is not entirely accurate since (as of 2002) "Premier of Yukon" is arguably the correct rendition and a perusal of their website indicates a melange (e.g., Government of Yukon). Even the instigator of this discussion conceded previously that both are "acceptable". Apropos, I'd also support #4 to accommodate for these differences in dialectic. It perhaps is more appropriate for Wikipedians to get over their admitted "dislike" for one or the other option (and I could be as guilty of that as anyone) and to have a cup of thé instead. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather have a glass of this instead. :-) While I have a visceral dislike of referring to the Yukon without the article, I have to recognize that there is no unanimity in the Yukon about the use of the article, and neither usage is absolutely "correct" or "incorrect". But please don't tell anyone I admitted to this. I would also support #4 if that is the consensus. Luigizanasi 03:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of something substantial being written up and added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and then reflected in a lot of areas like Category names. My initial thoughts are:
    • "of/in/from the Northwest Territories"
    • "of/in/from Nunavut"
    • undecided about the, er, westernmost territory, the one that includes Whitehorse.
My preference is for treating each territory separately, and in particular having a broader debate about the/the Yukon. I'm open to either of those Yukon options, just so long as we come to a standard and stick to it. It's worth noting by way of comparison that Wikipedia tends to stick with "the Netherlands" and "the Gambia" elsewhere, but not "the Sudan." I quite severely dislike using "the Yukon Territory" as if it were a valid name (and, as an aside, using the YT rather than YK abbreviation, but that's another issue), particularly because "Nunavut Territory" never entered popular parlance, and "territory" is merely a descriptor of its constitutional status rather than an inherent part of its name in the same way as "Northwest Territories"–you wouldn't say "Saskatchewan Province."
Oxford strikes me here as being just plain wrong on the NWT. Both Northerners and Southerners, in my experience, use the "the." The Globe & Mail, National Post, Ottawa Citizen and Edmonton Sun are "the" users. And there's no particular reason "the" should be associated with abstract geographicness and the be associated with a political identity: witness Prime Minister of the United Kingdom–fine, the state in question is named "United Kingdom", not "The United Kingdom," but the "the" is always there for grammatical purposes. The Tom 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of #1 as well, but agree with Tom that the popular convention seems to be to refer to "Yukon Territory," (more usually without the definite article) but "the Yukon." "Northwest Territories" when used with a preposition sounds strained - although I'm sure it is used on occasion. Given that it is a plural reference (to the districts?), the definite article seems grammatically appropriate. Perhaps the main NWT article could begin in the same way as the Yukon one (i.e., "Northwest Territories or (usually) The Northwest Territories") if we want to represent the legal name. Fishhead64 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sense is the word "Territories" in the NWT's name originated as a generic synomym for "lands" (ie, the "North West Lands"). "Territory" (singular) only came to be adopted as a generic term for a geographical subdivision lacking full federal status after then, presumably borrowing the similar terminology in use in the western US at that time (and later picked up by Australia as well). There's no particularly strong linguistic reason that we couldn't have a "Province of the Northwest Territories" at some point down the road, unlike "Province of the Nunavut Territory", which would have an internal contradiction.
As for the NWT's article lead, I see no reason for deviating from the way we treat the UK or the Netherlands, (ie, "The Northwest Territories is..."). Nobody's saying that the The is a part of its formal name (unlike, say, The Pas), only that it's a grammatical convention to include the "the" in written and spoken English, but omit it from things like maps or statistical lists. The Tom 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm sensitive to local usage concerns, I find that constructions like "People from Yukon" or "Premiers of Northwest Territories" land extremely oddly on the ear. They actually sound wrong to me. And while it's true that we don't say "the Alberta", Alberta's legal name isn't "Alberta Province", either. No opinion, just some food for thought. Bearcat 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you have most Northwest Territories residents on your side as well as a large proportion, if not the majority, of Yukoners. Including this Yukoner, the two local papers, as well as most people he knows. On the other hand, Eric Nielsen and a number of bureaucrats have done their best to change the Yukon to just Yukon. It should comfort you that you are on the side of angels on this one. :-) Luigizanasi 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support number 1 or 3. Northwest Territories with the "the" in a sentence sounds very odd, and people will think that we've made a mistake. -- Jeff3000 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for number 1.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  18:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ardeth Wood

I made a new article on Ardeth Wood, would appreciate comments and changes. -- Samir ∙ T C 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Gibson

Somebody edited writer Margaret Gibson's article on March 1 to indicate that she died in 2006, but they didn't provide a specific date. I hadn't heard this and haven't been able to find a media reference to confirm it. Is anybody able to confirm? Thanks. Bearcat 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, confirmation no longer needed. The Globe published an obit on March 15. Bearcat 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Military History Taskforce

Template:WPMILHIST Canadian military history task force

Brad Salyn

Looks like WP:VANITY to me. Can somebody closer to the area have a look into it? Circeus 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand total of 55 Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors or discussion forums where he was a participant. A few references to him as press secretary to the mayor of Winnipeg, but city bureaucrats hardly qualify as notable unless they make major news. Accordingly, I've speedied. If this comes back a second time, however, AFD or {{prod}} it rather than speedying it again. Bearcat 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics Canada - more free stats

For those that don't know, some time ago Statistics Canada announced that its internet publications would be available for free. Today, they made that official (announcement). Keep in mind that the data is still covered by Crown Copyright. Mindmatrix 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a list of currently available publications. Mindmatrix 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! This is going to save me a ton of money in my professional work. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Luigizanasi 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Leadership Articles

I'm concerned with the leadership race spawning needless articles. There have already been several, perhaps created to justify their inclusion on the race's endorsement article. A good example are Sheryne Morcos and her husband Emmanuel Morin. Some, such as Milton Chan seem to offer a little more notability. I'd honestly considered an AfD nomination for most, particularily considering the heavy deletion votes for some similar articles but I'm newish and perhaps too polite so I'll just be bold enough to add "importance" tags to these articles. Does anybody have any thoughts on these types of articles? Is this too little? Too much? Thanks. --JGGardiner 05:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there many of these articles should be deleted. HistoryBA 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke, Ontario

Could a few people keep an eye on this article. Someone keeps adding spamlinks to it, and I've recently had my userpage (and a few articles I created) vandalized as a result of reverting that spamlinking. This one's not too annoying, since the edits are typically a few days apart, but if there are accompanying vandal edits to other articles, then we should try to revert them all as soon as possible. Thanks! Mindmatrix 13:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion about the links on the talk page. Mindmatrix 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Worship

Kuzaar recently nominated a synagogue article for deletion which is listed on the main page. The article in question offers very little information. I noted in the AfD (with some examples) that there are many such articles, about places of worship, that are as thin as the one in question. Many, if not most, of the Canadian articles about places of worship only offer slightly more information than that. I'd like to know if anyone has any thoughts on what our criteria should be for inclusion of these articles. Thanks. --JGGardiner 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can try to get this started. I think any place of worship is notable if it meets some criteria:
  1. The building is notable.
  2. The place of worship has notable members.
  3. Something notable happened there.

--YUL89YYZ 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good set of criteria but it would also eliminate many of the churches that currently have articles. But perhaps we have had too much reluctance to delete these types of articles. --JGGardiner 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested article

I didn't know which section to add this request to but I would like to recommend we created a List of Canadian Prime Ministers by height. NorthernThunder 14:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, let's not; there's little relevance to it, and I don't believe this has encyclopedic value. Of course, that's just my opinion. Mindmatrix 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Mindmatrix on this. HistoryBA 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about List of Canadian Prime Ministers by golf handicap? ;-) Ground Zero | t 15:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the lists under the template:Prime Minister of Canada see also are just as irrelevant. I would then suggest we delete that template. The List of United States Presidents by height order article then should also be deleted. NorthernThunder. 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the template itself should be deleted: That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By all means make a case on AfD for deleting what you feel is prime ministerial listcruft, but most of the lists do have encyclopedic value. Fishhead64 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NT, please accept my apology for my facetious remark above. It was unnecessary, and an inappropriate way to respond to your genuine interest in creating this list. I don't think it should be created, but making a facetious remark was the wrong way of expressing that. Ground Zero | t 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the list of presidents by height should be deleted. HistoryBA 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add my support for the removal of the presidents by height article. Mindmatrix 14:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T dot

Can someone keep an eye on the T.dot group of articles? (see Special:Contributions/Independent Journalist). I've been redirecting them to Toronto's name, but the original author suggests that these articles are more about culture, than simply a name. I've only ever heard T.dot as a reference to the name Toronto, never a cultural scene. Am I wrong? Mindmatrix 14:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Template

I was wondering why there is no template on Aboriginal Canadians, such as one for the Numbered Treaties. I'd be willing to make one, but I don't know how. Royalguard11 06:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Plaques

Have a look at this user's contributions. This seems to be borderline spamming. Although the links are tangentially related to the articles, I don't think they belong. Perhaps a separate article about Ontario Plaques could be written, if one doesn't already exist, with one link to that website. (Note that the site linked to contains no advertising etc, and seems to be genuinely created for informational purposes by an historian.) Mindmatrix 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=54717381"