Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Option 2
Option 2
Leader of the Opposition
	In office; August 22, 2011 – March 24, 2012
Monarch	Elizabeth II
Prime Minister	Stephen Harper
Preceded by	Jack Layton
Succeeded by	Tom Mulcair
Interim leader of the New Democratic Party
	In office; August 22, 2011 – March 24, 2012
Deputy	Libby Davies; Tom Mulcair
Preceded by	Jack Layton
Succeeded by	Tom Mulcair
Acting leader of the New Democratic Party
	In office; July 28, 2011 – August 22, 2011
Leader	Jack Layton
Preceded by	Jack Layton (as leader)
Succeeded by	herself (as interim leader)

Option 1
Option 1
Leader of the Opposition
	In office; August 22, 2011 – March 24, 2012
Monarch	Elizabeth II
Prime Minister	Stephen Harper
Preceded by	Jack Layton
Succeeded by	Tom Mulcair
New Democratic Party leadership positions
	In office; August 22, 2011 – March 24, 2012
Role	Interim leader
Deputies	Libby Davies; Tom Mulcair
Preceded by	Jack Layton
Succeeded by	Tom Mulcair
	In office; July 28, 2011 – August 22, 2011
Role	Acting leader
Acting for	Jack Layton
Preceded by	Jack Layton (as leader)
Succeeded by	herself (as interim leader)

Main
page

Talk
page

List of Canadian project articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Currently, this project has about ~66 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, please check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined for doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These articles could use some attention

If someone could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list, down to 44. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown article: assassination?

The infobox for George Brown states that his cause of death was assassination. I question that. He died as the result of a shooting, but there is nothing in the article to suggest it was politically motivated, but rather a dispute with a disgruntled employee. It has never been clear if he intended to kill Brown, or rather was threatening him with a pistol, which escalated into a shooting. There is nothing in the body of the article which refers to it as an assassination; only the headline for one cite, which is now a dead link. I realise that "assassination" can be a subjective term, but I generally associate it with killings for political or social motives. I would suggest changing the cause of death line in the infobox to a more neutral term like "death resulting from a firearm wound" (Brown didn't die from the bullet, but rather from infection in the wound). Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal of the designation as assassination. Everything I know of the instance would point away from it being assassination, and you likewise make a good case. Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request: Menu with Canadiano

Hi,

I'd like to request a photo of a menu listing a Canadiano for the article Politically motivated food name changes.

Thank you! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Canadiano? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_motivated_food_name_changes#Canadiano i know you're a dog (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Paperboys

The Paperboys has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animation fails MOS accessibility standard

Resolved

- let's end this time sick it has been removed. If you wish to remove the other thousands of banners I suggest you do it at the village pump.Moxy🍁 03:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The animated banner is a problem. Since the information could be in text form, animation isn't needed.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Animations which says: "To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either: Not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element)[12] or Be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play)[13]"

I have flagged it because I don't want to meddle with a project page. However, I ask someone familiar with the page to change it promptly.

Humpster (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need the page has just been upgraded to be accessible in every aspect. As an accessibility score of 100%. But I'll look into these odd claims. Moxy🍁 00:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem was no alt text -WP:NOTPART] - Wikipedia:Project namespace#Content Moxy🍁 13:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again. Animations present problems for many people with visual/brain disturbances, me included. Such difficulties often result from head injuries. Imagine you've taken a hit to the head and you are temporarily "seeing stars", but it doesn't get better. Consequently, people with visual disturbances find looking at moving images on a screen unpleasant. In many situations, this means that the activity is impossible. I haven't been able to watch a movie in years. Some pages on Wikipedia are so bad that I must exit immediately.

While a project page might be exempt from many standards, I think they should be considerate of all users. Specifically, the guidelines for [[WP:Project namespace|project pages]] state "Nevertheless, these pages, as with all pages, should be accessible and must comply with Wikipedia's conduct and legal policies."

"Everyone does it" is a convenient excuse for anything from littering to slavery to invading your neighbour. "It only bothers a few people" is another convenience, unless one happens to be one of those few people.

My request isn't frivolous. Animations are a problem for me and many other people. I tagged the article for accessibility and posted to the talk page. See the information page "Tagging pages for problems#Removing" tags for guidance. Granted, you didn't recognize a problem and my description may not have been explained it sufficiently for someone whose brain is fully functional. But since you think it an odd claim, perhaps your enjoyment of animation also presents a conflict of interest.

I have restored the tag, in good faith, and seek some discussion and resolution of the problem. Since the banner does nothing more than rotate a few words of text, would it be easy to make the page fully accessible with a static banner?

Humpster (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Humphrey Tribble I believe you can adjust your settings so such images won't show up. Help:Options to hide an image. MediaKyle (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can also disable animations by going to Preferences -> Appearance -> Disable animations in the interface MediaKyle (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to see these ads, you may hide them by adding the following code to your common.css file:

qxz-ads { display: none !important; }

Moxy🍁 02:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands and thousands of these on the backside of Wikipedia. I don't really see this as an accessibility problem..... as it's accessible to everyone just maybe an annoyance for a few. It might be best if you bring this up at the village pump or Template talk:Wikipedia ads or similar. Many of these are official project logos that are trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation used throughout the project. As for the article namespace tag to this page the purpose of the article namespace tag is to initiate a conversation which has been done it will be removed again on this administration page. Moxy🍁 02:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, Moxy... Apparently your enjoyment of animation presents a conflict of interest. You're not related to Steve Wilhite, are you? (joking) MediaKyle (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My enjoyment of animation?..... in my 20 plus years I've only ever dealt with two of them. Both related to this project that we're not created by me or implemented by me originally. Moxy🍁 03:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the above comment But since you think it an odd claim, perhaps your enjoyment of animation also presents a conflict of interest. ... luckily a quick skim of "What is conflict of interest?" says we're probably in the clear. MediaKyle (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done..... not worth anyone's time. Moxy🍁 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have left it, honestly. We've already determined there's a method for users who don't want to see ads to disable them. There's clearly no consensus for removing it, and if an editor wants to try to drag out a discussion about it, they can go right ahead. Not disputing your decision though, doesn't make much of a difference either way. MediaKyle (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have banners all over the Canada project and portal pages..... we can simply make this talk as plain as possible. They are free to pursue removing these from thousands of Wikiproject and Wikimedia Foundation pages if they wish. It's a pointless debate that I don't want to be involved in...... But I've been doing the project updating for a couple of decades now and I feel obligated to be involved.Moxy🍁 03:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Canada have a prime minister or an interim prime minister?

Please see discussion at Talk:2025 Vancouver car attack#Interim. Can we get more input over there please? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a clear consensus by now so I don't think more input is needed. Unless of course it would bring you joy to answer a really easy question. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Saskatchewan Highway 5

Saskatchewan Highway 5 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election "swing"

I have a question about the swing statistic that we report in election results. I have a general idea of what it is, but for multi-party races, do we always calculate the change in the winning party's vote versus the second-place-finishing party? Or is it change in the second-place result from whichever party was second place in the previous election?

As an example, take the Northwest Territories (Northwest Territories (electoral district)). Results from the last three elections:

Party	2019	2021	19-21 +/-	2025	21-25 +/-
Liberal	40.0	38.2	-1.8	53.8	+15.58
Conservative	25.8	14.4	-11.39	33.2	+18.79
NDP	21.8	32.3	+10.54	12.0	-20.34

For 2021 the NDP placed second, and we have swing of -4.16. I calculate the swing between the Liberals and NDP as [(-1.78 - 10.54) / 2] = -6.16. The swing between the Liberals and Conservatives (who placed second in 2019) I get as [(-1.78 - -11.39) / 2] = 4.81, but I don't think that's right. If I do "winner" vs. "second place" and ignore which parties those are, then I get [(38.2 - 40) - (32.3 - 25.8)] / 2 = 4.15, and that's a precision error to what's in the article, but is that the right way to do it?

For 2025 we're currently reporting a swing of +14.01, which doesn't make sense to me at all. I think Lib vs Con would be -1.61, or Lib vs NDP would be 17.96. "Winner" vs. "second place" I think works out to [(53.8 - 38.2) - (33.2 - 32.3) / 2] = 7.35, another different number.

What's the proper math here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well into the realm of WP:OR. We need reliable sources establishing what sort of analysis is relevant to Canada’s multi-party electoral system and how stats should be calculated. If sources calculating swing exist, we should just cite them. If they don't, it isn't a number we should be including.--Trystan (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might come up. It seems to be that we report these numbers on the basis that swing is a commonly reported statistic for other Westminster-style parliaments, and for American elections, but I don't recall ever seeing a Canadian source report on swing for a Canadian election. In my view swing is a statistic and we don't need to cite specific calculations, and we report on plenty of statistics that we calculate from reliably-sourced data such as a party's vote change from the previous election at the riding level, I guess because it's relevant and can be calculated indisputably, even though I doubt you'll ever see any source of any sort report on how much the PPC's vote changed in Cardigan from the previous election. Swing is kind of an edge-case there, since there could be different ways to calculate it, and I guess that's what my question is: what formula do we use? It's fine by me if the answer is "we don't", I'm just looking for consistency. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the NWT riding example you cite above, for 2015 and earlier, the two-party swing is calculated as the one-party swing of 1st place minus the one-party swing of 2nd place, divided by 2. For 2019, it is 1st-2nd without dividing by 2. No idea where the number for 2021 or 2025 came from.

This UK source discusses the very limited relevance of two-party swing in a multi-party system. So it's a number of dubious relevance that we aren't calculating with any consistency or clarity, making it meaningless at best and misleading at worst.--Trystan (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is common in Australia for political pundits to refer to the two-party-preferred vote because we have ranked voting system. You can find sources in that article if you need them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the context of UK elections, then you calculate the swing by the second place party, unless it is a gain from a party that didn't place second. In that case, you calculate the swing from that party. That's the way I've been calculating it, anyway. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a concept that comes up in Canadian election coverage at all — it's a concept that people have tried to add to Canadian election articles on the flawed reasoning that we have to slavishly follow the structure of British election articles, but it's just not a thing in Canada in anything like the same way that it is in Britain. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, Canadian analysis only discusses the change in each party's vote (one-party swing), and how any parties that gained support took voters from parties that lost support. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Crerar

I have the article on Harry Crerar up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Crerar/archive1. Reviewers are desperately sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could commit to doing so, but not until the weekend after this one. Kwkintegrator (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kingsmith

Came across Ray Kingsmith, a curler and unelected political candidate whose article is quite poorly sourced and unsubstantive. There's obviously a basis for notability, as he's been inducted into numerous sports halls of fame and has had a Curling Canada achievement award named in his memory — but the article, as written, just jumps directly to those honours themselves while completely glossing over anything he actually did in the sport during his lifetime to even earn any of them in the first place, and references that content almost entirely to the self-published websites of the directly-affiliated organizations rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him — and having run for election to political offices he didn't win doesn't pass WP:NPOL, so he can't be claimed as a notable politician in lieu of properly establishing his notability as a curler either.

So could somebody with more knowledge of curling history than I've got take a stab at adding some actual content about his curling career to establish the reasons why he would have earned those posthumous honours in curling? Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, just ping me. I'll take a look.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regional district

Should Stikine Region be included on List of regional districts of British Columbia and Regional district or not? The number in the infobox would be 29 if included, 28 if excluded, also the infobox would be affected by not listing it as the least population and greatest area. Should the first page be renamed to List of census divisions of British Columbia? 11USA11 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nakusp Secondary School

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Clark photo

I welcome all editors to voice their opinions and help decide a consensus on the infobox photo for Joe Clark's article at Talk:Joe_Clark#Infobox_photo PascalHD (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Mark Carney image should we use

Can we get some experience editors over at Talk:Mark_Carney#Image. I'm not sure why people going out of their way to find a horrible image. Please join the conversation give your opinion. Moxy🍁 13:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Toronto Argonauts

Toronto Argonauts has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carney's seat infobox style?

Moved from Talk:2025 Canadian federal election § Carney's seat infobox

– Only further discussion was moved. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 02:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will affect many pages: the federal election, provincial elections, etc. Therefore, we should discuss here instead of there - as suggested by Kawnhr

Pinging all those in that discussion: @ZlatanSweden10 @GhostOfDanGurney @Politicsenthusiast06 @331dot - hope no names were missed.

Please see what happened at that discussion if you didn't see it. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 04:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support GhostOfDanGurney's proposal of ''Ran in [[Nepean]]<br>(Won)''. I think its the most logical and clear. Other's such as ''[[Nepean]](+ footnote)'' or just ''[[Nepean]]'' I don't think suffice.

Regarding Pierre Poilievre's, I think ''Ran in [[Carleton]]<br>''(lost re-election)'''' is best. Curious what others think though! Such as if they think "lost re-election", "lost seat", or just "lost" is best. As these are the 3 I've seen used in Canada's and 2025 Australian federal election pages (with "lost re-election" being used on Canada's election page, while "lost seat" is being used in Australia's). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "lost re-election" or "lost seat" (I don't have a particular preference between those two) to simply "lost"; I think the extra word helps distinguish this tag from the leaders making their first run and not getting in, like Pednault (or Bernier in past elections, and so on) and I likewise think there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between being defeated for re-election and just being defeated. True, Pednault's tag is Ran in Outremont (lost), so one could say that the different format should clue the reader in — but I think it's better to actually spell out the difference instead of simply making a difference and leaving the reader to know what that's supposed to mean. And plenty will see the difference, but not get why and only see it as an inconsistency, and helpfully change one or the other to match — that's why we, on that page, switched to "lost seat/re-election" over "defeated", because it was causing misunderstandings. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should save "Ran in" for leaders who aren't the incumbent in their riding; "lost seat" perfectly describes an incumbent defeated in their own riding. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wary of shoving more detail into the infobox, but this is probably okay, since we're already noting election loses. I'm not necessarily in favour but I won't really vote against it. But: what about when a leader had one seat but ran in a different one, like Chrétien in 1993 — is that also a Ran in riding (won), but with the addition of a footnote? That is, do we want to be noting every time someone runs for a riding they weren't incumbent, or is it just when someone joins parliament? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you guys decide make sure you don't put a <br> in the info box MOS:NOBREAKS Moxy🍁 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2024 BC election the Green leader has "Ran in Victoria-Beacon Hill (lost)" with a note that she was the incumbent in Cowichan Valley. I think this way of doing it makes sense and works. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Portal: yea or nay?

I've realized that portals are something of a contentious topic here compared to other Wikipedias, but I've wanted to see a Nova Scotia portal put back up since I started overhauling WP:NOVASCOTIA and I decided to throw one together in my userspace the other day: User:MediaKyle/sandbox/portal

My question is, if this portal came up at MfD today (as it did in 2019), would you vote to delete it and why? Should I wait until Nova Scotia has more FAs and GAs? I don't want to send it to mainspace just for it to get eaten alive. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally made portals for every province and territory and another 20 or so for the Arctic, the great lakes etc....these were all deleted during a mass purge of portals many years ago. They all contained an old format that didn't use transclusions.... thus where massively outdated. That said I don't see why people would randomly want a portal deleted if it's maintained...... the user who went around causing a fuss has been blocked..... I'm not really foreseeing a problem. If you believe it will help our readers navigate the topic I say do it. Moxy🍁 21:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic LeBlanc's infobox title(s)

I've started a topic in Talk:Dominic LeBlanc to discuss how to manage his many constantly changing titles and portfolios in his infobox. Hopefully we can figure something out before it changes again. WildComet (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Square (Dartmouth, Nova Scotia)

Please add reliable sources. I might have an additional photo or two from my trip in summer 2022. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried... Couldn't find much that was very good. I get the idea there was some hullabaloo about it when it was first built but can't find any newspaper articles or anything to back that up. MediaKyle (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmau5 article in need

Heyhi, for the past quarter of the year I have attempted to improve the quality of the Deadmau5 article. I've failed to attract the attention of editors with similar leanings so if anyone here is interested in improving the article I encourage you to come and check out what I've done with it. :) Thank you!! ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalise or not, interim party leaders

Do we have an agreement on whether or not to go with "Leader" or "leader" in interim party leaders' infoboxes. We do capitalise in (for example) Nycole Turmel, Bob Rae & Bill Graham (Canadian politician)'s infoboxes, but there's been attempts to lower case in Don Davies's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those should be capitalized, whether interim or not: "leader" is not a proper noun or a formal title. Same with "whip". The existence of pages where people are erroneously styling against guideline does not mean we ignore guidelines and claim that the non-guideline practice is the correct one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So to put it properly, there's been attempts to bring the Don Davies article better in line with WP:MOS. As anyone who edits here regularly knows, we tend towards minimal capitalization. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I see in an extremely good-faith move, GoodDay has decided to edit war first and seek absolution later. Tagging RedBlueGreen93 since he's also been working on this article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? two similar reverts? Anyways, I hope (either way) we'll agree on consistency for these bios of interim party leaders. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Turmel's has been changed to a new look, concerning this topic. Her's now reads "New Democratic Party leadership positions". GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out a way to best display that Turmel led the NDP on an acting basis and an interim basis at different times. I’m not too attached to it if anyone thinks there is a better way to display the unique leadership situation regarding Layton’s leave of absence. I think either of these would look the best:

Regardless, I still believe that WP:MOS dictates that "leader" should not be capitalized in these instances. Just because I have not taken the time to edit other articles that arguably do not follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not mean that the Don Davies article is incorrect. RedBlueGreen93 06:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with option 2. GoodDay (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition leader's infobox

I've noticed that someone 'recently' has added the prime ministers into the infoboxes of opposition leaders. Why is this done? The opposition leader isn't a member of the prime minister's cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it being done pretty inconsistently throughout articles about both federal and subnational opposition leaders. My guess is that some editors want to clarify who the opposition leader was providing opposition to, although I agree that its unecessary and potentially misleading. I don't think that the monarch and viceroy should be added either, as the role of opposition leader is derived from the House of Commons or a legislative assembly, and it is my understanding that they are not selected by, nor do they report to a monarch or viceroy. With that in mind, I would also endorse removing first ministers from the infoboxes of speakers of Canadian legislative bodies. Has there been a previous discussion to establish concensus on this? RedBlueGreen93 06:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these matters have been overly discussed, before. If there's no strong objections from the others? I'll begin the deletions. This includes deleting first ministers from the speakers infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach, with one qualification. The GovGen and the PM should be kept for info boxes on the Senate Speakers, since the Senate Speaker is appointed by the GovGen on the advice of Cabinet. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And same for Speakers of Legislative Councils, if any have bios. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should articles have French language names?

Hello everyone - there's a conversation going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario#Should articles have French language names? that I would appreciate your voices and input to. Thanks in advance, PK T(alk) 16:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario provincial cabinet ministers to become Honourable for life

It's become a growing trend for provincial governments to give cabinet ministers the title of "honourable" for life rather than only during their term of office. Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Nova Scotia have done this in recent years and Ontario is next up. The Ontario government is proposing the Members of the Executive Council Recognition Act that will give all Ontario cabinet ministers (including former cabinet ministers who are still alive) the title "Honourable" for life and the post-nomial initials ECO for Executive Council of Ontario.[1] Once passed, this means we will need to add the ECO initials to all current ministers and Honourable and ECO to all living former cabinet ministers and will involve the editing of possibly hundreds of articles. Just something to keep an eye on. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter as a source?

I need some more opinions on this again, as I'm starting to feel like my thoughts on this topic may differ a bit from the community norm. The question is simple: Is it appropriate to use Twitter as a source for details like birthday, spouse's name, family members? On Bruce Fanjoy and David Myles (musician) Twitter has been used as a source to say they're cousins. I think this contravenes WP:BLPPRIMARY and either way is just embarrassing. In my view, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we aggregate sources, of which Twitter is not. I removed them, someone else added them back, so before I remove them again I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts. MediaKyle (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually am against Twitter links, though there was a time major announcements were made using the platform , however, if Fanjoy or Myles themselves according to BLPPrimary as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself. So if the information comes from one of those two people (not family members, but they themselves), then it can be used. Llammakey (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF has more information. Moxy🍁 14:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The way I interpret that, specifically the phrase "It does not involve claims about third parties;" would mean it's okay to use the Tweet as a source on Bruce Fanjoy (it's his twitter account) but not David Myles, and that just seems silly... I don't think it should be used at all for such things, but maybe I'm amongst the minority in that. MediaKyle (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS also says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." which is sort of how I feel about it... If this fact is worth including, then I'd think CBC or someone will report on it. MediaKyle (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of falls under undue weight or historical relevance....Some editors believe that if reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at an artist personal site it's probably not very relevant to society or their career as a whole. Moxy🍁 19:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Mary Gallagher

I have started this article as a stub. Please join me in expanding it.--User:Namiba 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some technical stuff on the stub and its talk page. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Fergus, 38th or 39th Speaker

If Anthony Rota was the 37th speaker of the House of Commons & Louis Plamondon was 'interim' speaker. Is Greg Fergus the 38th speaker? or 39th? GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's in our list as #38, so I would go with that, especially since Mr. Plamondon was in the big chair for just 6 days. Regards, PK T(alk) 11:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parlinfo calls Plamondon an acting speaker, so I don't think he should be included in the count. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating a proper SVG map of the numbered Treaties in Canada

In March 2024, I submitted a request to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab for assistance in creating SVG maps showing the accurate boundaries of the Numbered Treaties in Canada. However, the request did not seem to gain traction. The current map is a good-faith effort but lacks accuracy as it does not use GIS data (note file description which states "Borders are approximated"), this is noticeable particularly with respect to Treaty 8. The Government of Canada has made this boundary data publicly available on the Open Canada Database (hopefully with an appropriate licence for Wikimedia). A quick Google search shows that the Wikimedia-hosted map with imprecise boundaries has been reused on various other websites, which is not great. Ideally, we would have (1) a single accurate map showing all the Numbered Treaties and (2) separate files for each individual treaty. I have attempted to create these maps myself, but after a couple hours of trying, I think map-making is a bit over my head. If anyone here has the expertise to create these files, it would be greatly appreciated. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet leadership (which leaders in infobox?)

Since we started making articles for indivdual Official Opposition Shadow Cabinets by parliamentary term, the leader or interim leader of the party with Official Opposition status has always also been serving as the leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons. But now with the absence of Pierre Poilievre from the House, does he belong in the article's infobox? The members themselves were appointed by Poilievre, but he is technically not a member of the shadow cabinet, as one must be a House member in order to criticize the administration of the government during debates and Question Period. I made edits to the infobox of the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of the 45th Parliament of Canada article to use the precedents set by its preceding articles (including the opposition leader, deputy opposition leader(s), and the house leader) where Andrew Scheer is now (correctly) listed as the leader of the Opposition, but maybe we need to reconsider what to do in cases where the party leader and de-facto leader of the shadow cabinet is not serving as leader of the opposition. We could potentially try to add an additional parameter for party leader (similar to the BQ and NDP shadow cabinet articles). 00:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC) RedBlueGreen93 00:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Billy Talent

Billy Talent has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of the Royal Tour

I have created a Commons category which currently comprises fifteen photographs by HaydenSoloviev. Are any official governmental or parliamentary photographs of the event likely to be released under a free licence? I know from the 2024 royal tour of Australia that offerings can be quite limited in this context. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acadian identity with biographies

I have a feeling this has come up once or twice so I'm hoping someone here can enlighten me. Every now and again I come across a BLP that says something like "Bob Brown is an Acadian journalist" or "Acadian-Canadian" rather than "Bob Brown is a Canadian journalist". Just search "is an Acadian" in quotes and you'll find a ton of em. I recently wrote an article about an Acadian journalist from New Brunswick and now I'm wondering if I should describe him as such in the lead, but I also feel like anyone from outside of Canada is going to read "Acadian" and say "What country is that?" ... How have we historically handled this question? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC) MediaKyle (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think people might not recognize what an Acadian is then I'd suggest just wikilinking it. Simonm223 (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ETHNICITY is the relevant guidelines here: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. So, we should introduce these people as "Canadian" except in exceptional circumstances. Their Acadian heritage can be mentioned elsewhere in the lead if that important, or in the body if not. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. It seems that a lot of Acadians consider this to be a defining characteristic of their identity, but I sort of figured it wasn't quite right for the lead sentence. Do you know of any good examples of an article which this information was properly included in the lead? The article I'm pondering in specific is John Edward Belliveau. Sources describe him as an "Acadian journalist", his works lean heavy on Acadian themes and he uses Franglais a lot, so it seems reasonable that his Acadian heritage should be noted, but as of yet the article doesn't mention it at all. MediaKyle (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Aglukkaq being Inuk is mention in the lead (4th sentence). She's important enough as a MP but her ethnic background as the first Inuk cabinet requires that a mention. Again David Pisurayak Kootook's being Inuk is important as it was his skills that allowed the pilot to live. Does every Inuk listed at List of Canadian Inuit need it mentioned in the lead? Possibly as being Inuk, using all the artists in that list, is important and reflected in their works. So I would think that if John Edward Belliveau was producing works influenced by his Acadian heritage then it needs mentioning. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justiciability

If anyone can help add the section on Justiciability in Canada, please do so and add reliable sources. The talk page gives a hint. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NunatuKavut

Please see Talk:NunatuKavut#Categories. Some suggestions are requested. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content by improving articles for your country or any other, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]