Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 21

Should population history tables be a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates?

Please review and provide your comments at this discussion. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Norwich Ontario

I believe the population shown on the web page is for the village of Norwich which is within The Township of Norwich. I think that the population of the entire township is closer to 15000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.183.39 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging that - the correction has been made. Somebody changed the number falsely a couple of years ago, and nobody caught it! PKT(alk) 14:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Canada articles that would be affected by this action are these:

• Tara Strong

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Canada's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ghost Rider

I noticed a discrepancy in the description of Mount Hosner as the inspiration for Neil Peart's book title, Ghost Rider. Can someone provide clarity at Talk:Mount Hosmer (British Columbia)#Neil Peart and Ghost Rider nickname? — Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Samsamcat‎

Some eyes on User talk:Samsamcat‎ would be appreciated. 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, 117Avenue. I would also urge other editors to watchlist Samsamcat's talk page and to keep an eye out for him, as edits such as this and this give a pretty good idea about his ability to work with other editors. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you make articles on ethnic Indian populations in Canada, be sure to include info on Air India 182's impact on the community.

I started some stubs on ethnic communities in Toronto and Montreal. If you want to start articles on the following:

• Indians in Toronto, Indians in Montreal, Indians in Vancouver...

Please be sure to research and see if you can find information on how Air India Flight 182 impacted those communities? How many families were affected? Were any Canadian Indian community leaders on board? I also know that Canadian officials made condolences to India without acknowledging the Canadian Indian community.

There was a CBC documentary I saw which involved relatives in Vancouver, Toronto, and then Montreal recounting what they said to their loved ones before they boarded the plane. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Those titles in Canadian English would be East Indians in Toronto or Indo-Canadians in Toronto, East Indians in Montreal or Indo-Canadians in Montreal, East Indians in Vancouver or Indo-Canadians in Vancouver; that we use "East Indian" and "Indo-Canadian" to also include (usually) Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan people complicates that a bit further. In any case, the only information on the impact on the Indo-Canadian community that can be used here has to be from reliable sources, and if opinion/analysis should be stated as such i.e. as opinion/analysis, properly quoted/paraphrased and cited. And any condolences acknowledging "Canadians" implicitly includes all the Indo-Canadians on board. Condolences to India were because it was an Indian airline with Indian citizens on board; condolences to Canadians, again, implicitly includes Indo-Canadians. As for your request for people to research and expand the article, your better place to request that is on Talk:Air India Flight 182.Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If those titles are better, go for it! Thank you for providing guidance, Skookum! I am aware that Google Books is often a great resource to use to research the ethnic groups, and I agree that it is crucial to get the local definitions of terms. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Did I say I wanted to start those titles? No. Indo-Canadians already exists, major city or by-province breakdowns have not yet been started so far as I am aware. I have quite enough to write as it is.Skookum1 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Re Vancouver, a better title, since many Indo-Canadians in BC aren't limited to the city or even the GVRD as far as the Lower Mainland goes (Abbotsford, Mission et al not being part of the GVRD) and also spread throughout various towns and cities around the province, Indo-Canadian history in British Columbia would be the best approach.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Whether one should create an article focusing on BC in general of Vancouver (or the metro area) in particular depends on what the sources focus on/say. If the sources focus mainly on the city and/or the metro area, then make it on Vancouver. If they focus on the province in general, make it on the province. If sources on both the city and the province exist, then one can make both articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
            • "One" can do whatever they like; sources may focus on only one town, or on one immigrant family; whether sources covering the whole province exist apposite to those focussing only on one city (or on Greater Vancouver, which is 20-odd municipalities) is not that relevant to starting such an article. For a fact, Sikh life in BC is not just concentrated in Surrey and Abbotsford and South Vancouver/Richmond but also in Quesnel and other northern mill-towns, the Okanagan, and around Vancouver Island in significant numbers. Maybe you should read up on all this before opining about what sources may or may not say; and it's as if you're asking/demanding that such an article be created, without doing so yourself....or even really knowing much about the subject in regional terms to start with.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
              • "or even really knowing much about the subject in regional terms to start with." Skookum, I have created countless similar articles about "ethnicity in city" subjects. I know how such subjects are generally written and I am aware of what such an ethnicity article would look like. Humans think about things in terms of cities. As for:
                • "it's as if you're asking/demanding that such an article be created, without doing so yourself" - Well, yes. And... This is a reasonable thing to do, this is a good thing and you should encourage more people to do this. Why? Because I have limited time and I can't write this encyclopedia by myself. I've written/started countless ethnicity articles already. I've put my share in. I have the god-given right to give my recommendations/ideas to a WikiProject.
              • WhisperToMe (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I started Asian Indians in Vancouver (I read on one Wikipedia article that "East Indians" is used more, but the statement had no source). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You've started a lot of ethnicity articles, so what? YOu came here indicating you didn't know which terminology to use, or whether there should be such articles; now you've ignored what I told you about terminology, and about the problems of the "of Vancouver" title, never mind "Asian Indians" (where's your citation for THAT?). You are wading into the writing of an article on a subject (Indo-Canadian history and society in British Columbia) that you clearly don't have a clue about; but such is Wikipedia. I've "put my share in" too, especially re BC/Vancouver articles and also on ethnicity articles. I, also have limited time and I can't write this encyclopedia by myself, as is the case with all of us. But I also "have limited time and am tired of picking up after people who make a mess"....such as you just did. The title is NOT suitable, and given what's in the cites you've provided I'll either change the title, or delete material that is not part of the City of Vancouver. Let me guess, you've never been there. And you're "Indian" (such a strange term to use stand-alone in Canada, other than meaning native peoples).Skookum1 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you created {{Template:Ethnic Vancouver sidebar}} with only "Chinese in Vancouver", which you also started, and what is now properly titled Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. I did not bother adding to the latter that the first gurdwara in BC was established in Abbotsford, as that city is not part of Greater Vancouver. I trust you will expand that template and write other ethno-focused articles such as Germans in Vancouver, Italians in Vancouver and more, which would address equally-significant ethnic groups in the city; and as with the two you've already started "in British Columbia" is the more relevant context...as you will find out if you were to read up on the matter. Whether those titles should be "Chinese Canadians in [Greater] Vancouver" and e.g. "German Canadians in Vancouver" or "People of German ancestry in [Greater] Vancouver" , "Italian Canadians in British Columbia" would address the usual Wiki-conventions about such topics. You may have started lots of ethnicity articles indeed; but I wonder how many are similarly mis-titled, and how many address non-Asian groups; clearly you have an agenda here and IMO you are confusing "ethnicity" with "race".Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are curious about "Asian Indians" -it's commonly used in the United States, where I am from. U.S. sources use it in relation to Indo-Canadians:

• Shen Wu, Jean Yu-wen and Min Song (editors). Asian American Studies: A Reader. Rutgers University Press, Jan 1, 2000. ISBN 0813527260, 9780813527260. p. 41.
• "A Reader Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu, Min Song. tion to uphold the restrictions, and the passengers were forced to remain on board ship for two months while Asian Indians residing in Vancouver tried to negotiate an arrangement to allow their[...]"

"You may have started lots of ethnicity articles indeed; but I wonder how many are similarly mis-titled, and how many address non-Asian groups; clearly you have an agenda here and IMO you are confusing "ethnicity" with "race"." - What agenda is it? Oh, I know, it's to cover ethnic history around the world. That's my agenda. :)

"I did not bother adding to the latter that the first gurdwara in BC was established in Abbotsford, as that city is not part of Greater Vancouver." - Well, the article is focused on Vancouver. There are books on "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia" so I'm sure it can be added there.

"I trust you will expand that template and write other ethno-focused articles such as Germans in Vancouver, Italians in Vancouver and more, which would address equally-significant ethnic groups in the city; and as with the two you've already started "in British Columbia" is the more relevant context..." - That depends if I can find enough reliable sources on those groups.

• A Wikipedian from Texas, who has never been to Canada, has the right to edit articles about Canadian culture and Canadian people, and he has equal rights with the same Canadian people. See: Talk:ENSCO, Inc.#Regarding the address and location of this company

• Somebody said: "Someone in Texas arguing about where my company in VA is located is akin to a stranger telling me I'm pronouncing my own name incorrectly." And somebody else pointed out: "Sorry, WP doesn't work that way, we go by reliable sources." :)

So when you say: "You've started a lot of ethnicity articles, so what? YOu came here indicating you didn't know which terminology to use, or whether there should be such articles; now you've ignored what I told you about terminology," - show a citation. Please pay attention to how it was done here: See: Talk:LGBT culture in Houston#Article title as an example

"But I also "have limited time and am tired of picking up after people who make a mess"....such as you just did. The title is NOT suitable, and given what's in the cites you've provided I'll either change the title, or delete material that is not part of the City of Vancouver. Let me guess, you've never been there. And you're "Indian" (such a strange term to use stand-alone in Canada, other than meaning native peoples)." - When you edit Wikipedia, there needs to be an amount of patience and tolerance. It's common for Americans like me to say "Asian Indian." Canada's our northern neighbor and as you see above, many American sources use "Asian Indian". Maybe it's specifically not used in Canada, but I would ask you to have a tolerance for this. I don't want American editors who interact with you to get frustrated or quit editing over something that's trivial and easily corrected. Think carefully about the tone used here: Talk:LGBT culture in Houston#Article title. @Skookum1:, I'm going to kindly ask that from this point on you use this tone.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

American sources often mis-use terms about Canada and Canadians; way too often. You do not have a right to ignore {{Canadian English}} when writing on Canadian topics. You ignored what I say about Canadian norms/usages and went ahead and used an American term and limited it to the City of Vancouver, contrary to my recommendations; think carefully about your own "tone" and the way you sauntered in here and demanded material on the Air India crash be given special treatment; "in British Columbia" remains the proper context; taht some cites use "Vancouver" to mean "Greater Vancouver" (including StatsCan) is a vagary of Central Canadian usages that ignore BC realities; in Wikipedia there are existing conventions about all this, but as with Canadian English you will trot out something or other about American usages. We do not use American usages/mistakes, no more than we title Fraser River as Frazier River, a common American mistake, for example. You came looking for input, got it, have ignored it, and now refute it based on a very shallow reading of mostly-American sources. YOu created an "ethnicity" template focussed on only Chinese and East Indians, and now presume to lecture me that "Asian Indian" is acceptable, when you would be laughed out of the room in BC.Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Asian Indians" in Canada would probably imply an Oriental minority from India. Anyway, the effect of the attacks on the Indo-Canadians would have to be supported by reliable sources. It probably would be most relevant to the Sikh community. I would use Canadian terminology because it would be more readily understandable. Canadian Indians generally implies aboriginal people, who represent a substantially higher percentage of the population, particularly in Vancouver, than in the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

the impact on Canadians (Indo- and/or otherwise) is already covered in Air India Flight 182#"A Canadian tragedy" and subsequent sections. Unless there is a large body of work on that particular topic, there seems to be no need for a separate article on it at all. And you're right about "Indian" in the Canadian context, something that seems lost on our "Indian Texan" interloper who thinks "Asian Indian" should be used because it's used in the US.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • "I don't want American editors who interact with you to get frustrated or quit editing over something that's trivial and easily corrected." LOLOL you don't know the half of it; how many times I've gotten frustrated and quit editing because of aggressive/stubborn ignorance on the part of American or British admins as well as editors. On a host of subjects, not incidentally to do with (native) ethnicity in many cases, with a notably peremptory/scolding tone being used most loudly by those among the most ignorant of the subject matter and most dismissive of Canadian English per se; my tone is a reflection of long experience with that, which you have re-exemplified here. As for your Rutgers citation, it's time for Rutgers and other American academic institutions to "get with it" and for people citing them to realize they are not "with it" in terms of respecting Canadian terminology and perspectives. That that paper was authored by three people who would be called "Asian" in Canada (which is generally equated with "East Asian" rather than "South Asian") makes it all the more ironic; and "Asian Indian" is as redundant as "Asian Chinese", except in specifying Indians-in-Asia (i.e. not those in Canada). The presumptiveness that "if the US uses it, it should be used for Canada" is parochial nonsense. Your own examples of "how to behave" on trivial matters appropriately are laughable; "how to behave" when someone makes a wrong title is to do what I did - change it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Skookum, yes, you did change it, but what about the bellicose rant? I find it worrying that you find it "laughable" to use a pleasing, calm manner to discuss the possibility of making a new title. Maybe you do find problems with other American and British editors and perhaps you are frustrated. I understand it can be annoying to have people use terms common in other countries that are not common in your own, and obviously you desire to correct them and make sure they use the correct term. To do that, finds ways to avoid frustrating other editors so they don't frustrate you in turn. Going off on your fellow editors is not going to make you less frustrated, or to make them correct their ways. It's going to make them defensive against you. I don't want to absorb your frustration and I don't want other editors to absorb your frustration.
      • "On a host of subjects, not incidentally to do with (native) ethnicity in many cases, with a notably peremptory/scolding tone being used most loudly by those among the most ignorant of the subject matter and most dismissive of Canadian English per se; my tone is a reflection of long experience with that, which you have re-exemplified here." - I would characterize the tone of your above rant as "scolding". You may have a long experience with dealing with it, but what about the editor you just met? Your tone won't make him more sympathetic to your experience. He will surely dismiss your concerns when you show anger.
      • You say: "The presumptiveness that "if the US uses it, it should be used for Canada" is parochial nonsense. " - If an American editor reads an Americans book saying "Asian Indians in Vancouver" then it's perfectly understandable that for this American editor to write "Asian Indians in Vancouver", because Wikipedia is based on what is written in reliable sources, not the beliefs of the editors themselves. The American is going to think "Hey, it says that in the book, so that must be the correct term!" Without a book of your own, how are you going to argue with him/her?
        • You say: "most ignorant of the subject matter" - I say: "you get out the sources, you educate the Wikipedian, and you do with a smile on your face." Americans are going to use American terms from American sources and that's not going to change. Brits are going to use British terms from British sources and that's not going to change. They're not trying to put you down, they're not trying to dismiss you, and they're not harming you. Learn to deal with this issue in a calm, peaceful manner and do not outwardly show aggression, anger, or ranting.
      • The thing is: I agree that Canadian English articles should use Canadian terms and Americanisms should be corrected. I agree that people should be reminded to use Canadian terms. You need to use a proper method of dealing with this issue. I think the tone you use in your posts is counterproductive and I'm going to ask you again to reconsider your approach.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Cut it with the scolding and lecturing, it's boring; you made a huge gaffe with the title you used and can't admit it; and you used US-based sources to justify it, of all things. Even in the media section you only talked about radio stations in Washington state and ignored the major Indo-Canadian media which, DUH, use "Indo-Canadian" in their titles. I advised you of that usage, and pointed out the fallacy of using "Vancouver" and you completely ignored me, and now are engaging in BLUDGEONing. And yes, "most ignorant of the subject matter" is very clear in the cases I'm not going to bother to link/list for you; one admin from Ireland even bragged that it was best that she was ignorant of the facts, so as to refer only to "guidelines" and not to facts-on-the-ground about Canadian English usages/terms. In other cases, there have been attempts to downplay WP:ENGVAR and diss the preponderance of Canadian sources on some topics as not "global usage", when those cites overwhelmingly outnumber any possible US or UK sources.
        • As for "Learn to deal with this issue in a calm, peaceful manner and do not outwardly show aggression, anger, or ranting" you are projecting on me your own insecurities and it's a bore, given that you ignored my advice in the first place. It's you that's ranting, and now engaging in an extended NPA against me instead of recognizing that I was right. And here I am, widely read in Canadian affairs, and you presume to demur on the "in British Columbia" matter once sources are provided; well, geezus, you didn't even look for in-BC sources, did you? Imposing an Americanism that is completely out of place in the Canadian context, and not in Canadian sources:
          • If an American editor reads an Americans book saying "Asian Indians in Vancouver" then it's perfectly understandable that for this American editor to write "Asian Indians in Vancouver", because Wikipedia is based on what is written in reliable sources, not the beliefs of the editors themselves. That's so wildly off-base that, yes, it is laughable and also very very very parochial. It's always nice having Americans decide what Canadian articles/peoples should be called by citing their own [mistaken] sources, in the belief that they are correct, which they are not. You didn't look for any reliable sources FROM Vancouver, just cribbed a stub based on U.S. items that you decided trumped the advice I gave you on proper terminology. The Americans who wrote that book are clueless for using that term, given the wide range of sources by and about Indo-Canadians themselves.
        • Perhaps you're irked that I added the merge tag for your Chinese in Vancouver title to History of Chinese immigration to Canada; and that article includes material on Richmond which is not part of the city of Vancouver. Why don't you start articles on things you know about? - instead of imposing your beliefs and your completely mistaken notion that terms used in US sources should be used on Canadian topics; if that were the case all First Nations articles would have "Native American" titles, and Inuit would be Eskimos.
        • You came here pretty much demanding that people add something on the impact of the Air India bombing on Indo-Canadian community as if the article on that didn't already have that built into it?
        • Attacking the messenger as you are doing here is old stuff on Wikipedia, and resentment against Canadians standing up for themselves against American and British cultural/linguistic imperialism has gotten similar RANTS such as yours about that.
        • Your article was shoddy work, using about.com as a source for Punjabi Market, and didn't even get what part of the city it's in correctly; I dispute whether that UGC site is even a reliable source; no doubt you've used it in your series on ethnicity worldwide; which if that's the case shows you don't look very hard. Punjabi Market will have lots of sources, picking a travelogue from a UGC site with bad information is yet another one of your gaffes.
        • As with "Chinese in Vancouver" re History of Chinese immigration to Canada, in which Chinese history covering BC was decided long ago to not warrant a separate article from the national whole, the same applies here; I'm placing a merge tag on your pet article to Indo-Canadians, as you have provided ZILCH to warrant the separate article; even with "Greater" added to its title, its scope is too narrow; and being written based on a few U.S based sources that even got the main term wrong, is built on sand.
        • I have to wonder about Indians in Texas and how that title would are with WP:IPNA.
        • Being lectured by someone who proclaims they have lots of experience as an editor but would produce such an ill-founded article full of wrong terms and wrong facts, while ignoring local expertise in the matter, is such a regular part of Wikipedian ignorance-cum-arrogance there's little point in explaining further. I have no patience with someone presuming to scold me for pointing out they're wrong/misinformed. Anger? That's what you're giving me, being argumentative about things that have been shown to be demonstrably wrong and accusing me of "ranting" when that's what you've been doing all along yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethno-Canadian article merges

I just started merge discussions at Talk:History of Chinese immigration to Canada#merge discussion re a relatively new stub Chinese in Vancouver and re Talk:Indo-Canadians#merge discussion re another stub Indo-Canadians in Vancouver (started as "Asian Indians in Vancouver"). Long ago "we" decided that provincial-level articles for BC were not needed in the Chinese case and the same applies with the Indo-Canadian subject. Not much to merge, re-inventing the wheel, though tidbits like the US-source material about pirate radio stations in Washington may not be in the Indo-Canadian article yet (no effort was made to look for sources from Vancouver, or from BC, it seems); but there is no reason for a separate article at this point, given that the defender/creator of those articles is even resistant to the reality that Indo-Canadians are not limited to the City of Vancouver or even Greater Vancouver, saying "if sources prove that". Well, looking for them would have been a good place to start huh? He would have found the Indo-Canadian Times and the Indo-Canadian Voice for starters, instead of basing his title on an academic work published in the U.S.; curiously, also, someone had put {{British English}} at the top of Talk:Indo-Canadians, which I just changed to {{Canadian English}}.... no wonder I complain about cultural/linguistic imperialism/parochialism from US and UK editors when you come across stuff like this, never mind the ethno-soap agenda at work in their creation. And then getting arrogantly dressed down for making US and UK editors feel unwelcome by pointing out their mistakes. I've tried to keep the merge discussions straightforward and brief; and for those who want to oppose them for whatever reasons without working on improving the stubs....I have to ask what is it in Indo-Canadians and History of Chinese immigration to Canada/Chinese Canadians that's sufficient to warrant a Vancouver-delimited title (or even a BC-delimited one)...what will you add to those stubs to make them worth keeping?Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG determines what is suitable for a standalone article. Now both Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver exist. Their bibliographies (further reading) are very large. I found a bibliography in Sikhs in North America and have added the proper sources.

So, would such articles survive AFD? Yes they will:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Hmong in Merced, California
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Armenian Americans in Los Angeles
• This was back in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Americans in New York City

The issue I had wasn't with the different words... it was with a combative tone which will not work well on Wikipedia, especially when it's not coupled with reliable sources. Now I have found Canadian sources which use "Indo-Canadian" As a result, I started this: Indo-Canadians#Terminology. To correct people's vocabulary, show them the sources. Subtract the tone, add the sources, and everything will be fine. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so me, a veteran Wikipedian active in Vancouver and BC content, telling you that "Asian Indians" wasn't good enough for you, when you hadn't looked for those sources you found after actually looking, and after speciously defending your choice or title by pointing at American usages and then defending that over Canadian usages as if "Asian Indians" was correct? And rejecting the pan-BC reality of the Indo-Canadian presence as YOU hadn't found any sources yet (because you hadn't looked), and where did "Vancouver Sunset" as the location of Punjabi Market come from (it wasn't in that about.com travelogue you used to cite it). Subtract your own tone, and what's with the ethnic-tub-beating? Indo-Canadians is already a massive article, as is Komagata Maru Incident and List of Indo-Canadians? What can you add, as someone who's never even been to BC, that's not already in them? Ethno-SOAP is what your efforts are. It's not like only Chinese and Indo-Canadians are the only ethnic groups in Greater Vancouver or in BC are of note. I've pointed out at parallel topics, you go "well, once sources are found"....as if they don't exist until you find them, and the word of someone from the place isn't enough for you. Your citation of two succesful defences of articles you wrote on ethno-specifics of Merced and LA as "precedent" isn't worth much; especially when there are already articles on both Chinese Canadians of all kinds and Indo-Canadians likewise. Why don't you spend some time on German Canadians in British Columbia or Latin Americans in British Columbia? Your template's narrow Chinese/Indo-Canadian items point to where your own biases lie.Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Here: Compare this Template:Ethnic Houston sidebar to Template:Ethnic Metro Detroit sidebar. I started each and every article in that list. So... what happened? Here's what happened: Nobody wrote enough about European immigration to Houston. It's all about what I can write about, not what exists. There are German, Italian, etc. immigrants to Houston, but nobody has written about them! I can't write an encyclopedia article on something nobody has written about!

What can I add? Anything on Google Books or anything from any source I can grab off of Wikipedia:RX. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, all about what other people wrote. As a Houstonian, I do have an advantage of being from Houston as I better know where to find source. But I also understand that an editor from Vancouver has the right to add content to these Houston articles, he has the right to use what sources he finds, and he has the right to disagree with me in an editing dispute.

So Re: "And rejecting the pan-BC reality of the Indo-Canadian presence as YOU hadn't found any sources yet" - That never happened. I never "rejected" a pan-BC reality. I simply chose to ask about, then write about, the ones in Vancouver.

"Your citation of two succesful defences of articles you wrote on ethno-specifics of Merced and LA as "precedent" isn't worth much" - Go ask people on AFD if they are worth much.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I had dozens of precedents re native endonym RMs, and also re WP:CSG#Places items, and they were often ignored or excuses made why they didn't apply. This is not an AfD, it was an effort to involve others in the evolution of these titles towards a merge of parallel materials. You STILL have not provided any information or further material, on why these articles are needed on top of the existing ones; they are complex topics, with more about them than you are as yet aware (as demonstrated here time and again), and yet your are WP:OWNing them as if you were an expert on the subjects. Not just somebody cribbing together an ethno-exegesis from what you can find, making it up as you go. And seemingly somewhat obsessed with writing about these topics, without any real knowledge of them; and as yet not addressing vast amounts of historical and biographical material on everything from drivers' licensing scandals to the abused rights of farm workers re Sikhs, the Khalistan movement; your one mention of Chinese parents' efforts to launch political campaigns for separate Chinese schools and/or schoolboards is thin on the ground and one-sided, and then there's the Chinese-only marketing campaigns re real estate developments, the 'empty condo' and 'empty monster house' problems, and so much more; or the discrimination faced by the original Chinese Canadians from the new-era ones since t he '80s, and more and more and more; even your lede in the Chinese one begins only in 1886, not with the origins of the Chiense presence in Vancouver before that (which is one reason why Chinese Canadians in British Columbia/Chinese Canadian history in British Columbia (the former a title implying a summary/list about individuals, the latter about history and society). But strap on your wiki-boots, keep on posting references to books you haven't read, and pump these articles up as much as you like. Your attempt to bludgeon these merge discussions before anyone else has even chimed in, even though you know little about the subjects, or the city/province, stands for me as yet another article written by cribbing sources without context or insight. But such is Wikipedia. You have as yet provided NO REASON why "your" articles should exist independently of the already-extant ones on both subjects. Hmong in Merced and Armenian Americans in LA are not valid comparisons; your success in getting the resident claque at AfD to support your other self-authored articles...but AfD is not a place where reason prevails. Anything but, all too often.` `Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's my reason for writing "ethnicity in city" articles: People consider "ethnic history of a city" an interesting subject, a valuable subject, and one that has importance to their local culture. I first noticed articles such as History of the Jews in Galveston and that got me started. Several editors interested in Jewish history had already made city-by-city articles on it. That made me interested. If people write books about something, and a Wikipedia's goal is to write about what other people write about, then there is a reason for the subject of those books to have an article. Example: The authors of ethnic history consider "Irish in New York" as a worthy topic to write books about. That's why the corresponding article survived AFD. That's your reason.

I am from Houston, and I wanted to document the ethnic history of my city. People have written books about the Mexicans in Houston, Texas, so I wrote Mexicans in Houston. Then I moved onto the Chinese and the Vietnamese. Then I noticed there were books on ethnic history in other American cities so I did that. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Detroit, even Columbus, Ohio. For the Hmong people I wrote about the Hmong in Merced. That survived AFD, and in any case I wrote Hmong in Minneapolis, Hmong in Fresno, and Hmong in Wisconsin. Then I moved onto other places in the world: Japanese in Paris, Chinese in London, Hui in Beijing (the Hui people are an ethnic group in China). There are similar city-by-city articles I started about LGBT populations. If you look at my userpage, an ethnic Japanese living in Brazil gave thanks to me writing about the Japanese in Sao Paulo. These articles have become standard worldwide and Wikipedia-wide.

I know however much the sources say about the subjects. Don't know anything about, say, the Cubans in Miami? That's A-OK. Crack open a book and read it. Wonder if you can write an article on it? The question becomes: did someone write about it? If it's yes, crack open the book and write about it. You say: "keep on posting references to books you haven't read, and pump these articles up as much as you like." - But the content I added reflects what is written in the book? How could I have not read it? :|

If somebody says that something is not covered in these articles: Get out a source and write about it and add the content. Nothing's stopping anybody from adding to it. See, Skookum, here's the secret: Wikipedia is a volunteer project. You say I don't have "real knowledge" about these subjects. Well, the people with "real knowledge" haven't gotten out to write them, have they? How do you get them to do that? The way to do that is to start a stub and list the sources. That's how you get the people with "real knowledge" out. And that "real knowledge" only counts if they are using and showing Wikipedia:Reliable sources that they are supposed to be using anyway.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ignorance of the subject was amply demonstrated by your use of "Asian Indians"; that you are actually using Canadian sources and Canadian terminology now is a start...but you still haven't provided any reasons why what you are putting in these articles should exist separately from existing articles.Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

your other ethno-titles are maybe acceptable within US-based Wikipedia standards; but "Mexicans in Houston" would indicate "Citizens of Mexico in Houston" as with other similar; again, American usages/standards do not carry across the border. Maybe you'll figure that out. But to me, you are writing on subject areas you only have a cursory knowledge of as yet, and providing sophomoric justifications for your sudden ardent interest in these particulars; yes Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that's why there's so much amateur content in it, and so many jejune defences of "garbage in garbage out".Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[post edit-conflict] I note your new creation Germans in Greater Vancouver still ignores my informed advice that it is impossible to separate ethnic histories of the urban part of British Columbia from the rest of the province.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to create articles specifically on a city basis, Skookum. That's not an insult to the rest of the province, that's not ignoring the rest of the province. It's just a way of categorizing information. I created Mexicans in Houston and Mexicans in Dallas-Fort Worth. Does that prevent someone from adding to Mexicans in Texas? It does not.

• 1. "Sophomoric" start articles are to be cheered and praised and be given joy. As much as you want people to write a fully-formed, perfect, well written article from the beginning, that often doesn't happen and it usually won't happen. Most excellent articles have a start as a small, undeveloped stub. The stub process is necessary to encourage people because most people don't have the time and most people don't even know it's possible to write about these subjects. I am showing people yes, it's possible, you can do it. By doing this I am also saying: "Hey, here's a start article. This is a Wiki. Please improve it!" I may have not known much about the Japanese in Sao Paulo, but the Brazilian welcomed by start.
  • If you are still skeptical: There was an editor who argued that my start of LGBT in San Francisco needed way more content, but then he thanked me for starting an article on this "daunting" subject. Without my start, it was likely nobody else was going to do this. So, here I am. I start the article, and now the article has been started. Somebody else may get an idea and finish.
• 2. "but "Mexicans in Houston" would indicate "Citizens of Mexico in Houston" as with other similar" - The article actually has the title History of Mexican Americans in Houston. I will say there isn't a consistent naming standard and I won't mind if the articles are moved to other titles. I wouldn't mind if there is an RFC over their titles.
• 3. The public has expectations that Wikipedia "covers anything". There are clearly subjects which don't deserve coverage, but if something does deserve coverage according to WP:GNG you may as well go and start it, right?
• 4. "but you still haven't provided any reasons why what you are putting in these articles should exist separately from existing articles" - Are you doing to ask Northern Illinois University the reasons why it writes articles on ethnic history in a city by city basis? Mexicans in Chicago, Italians in Chicago. What about the "Encyclopedia of Chicago"? Germans in Chicago, Italians in Chicago. If other encyclopedias are doing it, why can't we? People think in terms of ethnic groups cities: A "Brooklyn Jew" or an "Italian from Philly" - And if American ethnic groups are categorized that way, so are Canadian groups, and French ones, and Chinese ones, etc.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Canadian service rifles

I was wondering if there's an article about the history of Canadian service rifles? (such as the Ross, Lee-Enfield, FN FAL, C8) ? I noticed that the Lee-Enfield is being withdrawn from service. [1] -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Dalton (wrestler)#Requested move (again)

Page move is proposed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver

RFC at: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion: Should Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver be separate or should the latter be merged into the former?

Another question: Would it count as WP:SYNTH to have a dedicated article on the Indo-Canadian population of Metro Vancouver? (Vancouver, Surrey, and other Vancouver suburbs) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The nom's complete lack of familiarity of the place and subject matter is borne out once again by his (her?) use of "Metro Vancouver", which is the DBA/brandname of the board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is he/she had had any familiarity at all with Canadian topic/title conventions he would know about (as similarly he would have known about the "Indo-Canadian" term vs "Asian Indian"). The context of his/her title was "Asian Indians in Vancouver"; I had pointed out, after moving that to the correct term/title and sense meant to Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver, that the true and most relevant context, if a split away from the main Indo-Canadians title was to be done, would be Indo-Canadians in British Columbia; instead of entertaining that, and seemingly to prevent me from doing a further move to that, he/she created the "in BC" title as a stub, and has spent the last three days since padding it so it looks plausible....in reality Indo-Canadian history and society and BC can not be fit so neatly separate from itself by pretending that subjects about Indo-Canadians in Surrey/Vancouver etc can be treated separately from those in Abbotsford-Mission/Chilliwack or Nanaimo/Duncan or in the Okanagan or Cariboo or elsewhere.

Ten days ago he/she did not even know the correct term to use, and though he/she has fire-bombed any discussion about this with lists of links he's found (once he/she finally found out the proper term to use) and various posturing about "many locals" and "plenty of locals" and what they want (I'm a local, he/she doesn't care what I'm telling him/her)......the fact is that the history of any ethnic group in Vancouver or Greater Vancouver can NOT and should NOT be separated because someone from far away is being stubborn about refusing to listen to advice.

I know comments like these are not normal for this page, but the background to this quarrel is in several places, and the history of its various pretenses and misconstruances needs to be stated.Skookum1 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the readers are perfectly capable of going to the RFC page and reading the discussion/dispute for themselves. I have replied to Skookum's concerns there. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no reason to indulge your mistake by re-posting something you had overwritten on top of mine. And don't presume to lecture me on CANTALK; I am a regular member here for many years now and it is you who are WP:FORUMSHOPPING, not me.Skookum1 (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forumshopping: It states: "Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." - To avoid forum shopping that's what I did. I phrased them as neutrally as possible. In addition it states: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." - So that's what I did - I raised it first elsewhere but there have been only two participants for now. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Page Update

Is there a bot updating this page? The content in this page such as current peer review requests, good article nominees get outdated really easily. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 21:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Move request: Chinese Canadians in British Columbia to Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver

Hello. I have submitted a move request for Chinese Canadians in British Columbia to be moved to Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver. Another Wikipedian believes it is improper to have ethnicity-based articles focusing on a city, so he moved Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver (I created this article with the intention of focusing on the Chinese community in Vancouver) to Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. My move request is here: Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Requested move. You are welcome to discuss whether it is proper to have an article focusing on a Chinese ethnic population of a particular city or metro area, or whether there should only be such areas focusing on prefectures/provinces/states.

For full disclosure, both I and the Wikipedian who moved the page are together currently involved in an editing dispute regarding Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and Indo-Canadians in British Columbia over whether the articles should remain separate or be combined together. You may see the pages of this dispute here:

• Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#If you make articles on ethnic Indian populations in Canada.2C be sure to include info on Air India 182.27s impact on the community.
• Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#RFC:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver
• Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Ethno-Canadian article merges
• Talk:Indo-Canadians
• Talk:Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it WP:SYNTH to make an article on the Indo-Canadian population in Greater Vancouver separate from that of the Indo-Canadian population of British Columbia.3F
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia#RFC on Indo-Canadians in Vancouver
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#About.com.3F

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This notification is contrary to guidelines and includes editorializing which falls under WP:POLLING.Skookum1 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:POLLING is about the collection of votes or deciding things by votes. The purpose of this message is to inform all interested parties by WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I used the wrong wiki-cap title; WP:POLL maybe, the attempt to enlist sympathetic votes rather than simply stating the existence of the the discussion; your inclusion of the ancillary links is also a violation; for an admin, you sure aren't in habit of respecting things like that; not that lots of admins behave questionably.

Watchlisting request

Following the news earlier today about Jian Ghomeshi's firing from the CBC, it's beginning to break on social media — and will probably start making the real media soon — that Ghomeshi has released his own statement about the matter. And unfortunately, it looks to be exactly the kind of sensitive, prurient "revelations about his private sex life" matter that requires us to pay extra special attention to our WP:BLP rules. I've put the page under one week of temporary "only autoconfirmed users" edit protection to preclude drive-by IP assassinations, but would ask that as many editors as possible help to monitor the situation for potential BLP violations over the next few days. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted and duly noted. Another that many of us should watch for POVitis and editorializing and p.r. mole/political agenda-type activity is 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. I just looked at it for the first time as I'd searched Nathan Cirillo to put him on my watchlist also.Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Denis Lortie

I noticed that Denis Lortie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has several cleanup notices. With the new parliamentary shooting attack of Zehaf-bibeau, it might be a good time to improve the prior parliamentary shooter -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

TCH Shields

Called a "PD version", is this actually used anywhere (on the road)?

This version of Alberta's went from the one similar to NB to the left, but note the shading.

This blank version is much darker, and is listed as PD Crown Copyright

This 16 in BC is yet another shade, and is listed as PD Crown Copyright

Is there a reason that File:New Brunswick Route 2 (TCH).png is fair use, while most of the others that I have checked (i.e. File:Alberta Highway 1.svg) are PD crown copyright, and over at commons? They are generally all the same (maple leaf, road number, province at the bottom), although many of them have different shades of green. I honestly don't pay attention on the shade when I drive the Trans-Canada, but are they different? If there isn't a copyright issue, and they are all the same colour, they should probably be all updated over at commons (an issue for over there I know). There is also File:TCH 2.svg which is called a "PD version" which is looks like it is just made up with a generic maple leaf (I don't think it is actually used anywhere on the roads). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on the description page for the NB Route 2 shield, the only reason it is marked as fair use is the fact that nobody has updated it. The image was uploaded in 2007 and since it was first published in 1959, its PD date would have been January 1, 2010. That "PD version" is nothing I have seen before. It certainly is not used in Western Canada, and if that shield does not accurately represent what the shields in NB look like, they should be removed. We should not be peddling inaccuracies for the sake of copyright paranoia. Resolute 19:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that makes sense, so a quick solution would be to change the fair use rational to a PD licence with a copy to commons tag. Notwithstanding the shading differences. I also agree, having driven on the TCH in nine provinces, I have never seen the "PD version" illustrated on the left in any of them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that changing the licensing tag is appropriate. As far as the shading goes, I would imagine those are either cases of different people using different best guesses, or reflections on the fact that at different times, governments have used different paints and materials for signage. I would say that I have seen something close to all of those shades used on street signs in Calgary alone, for instance. But it would be nice to get the official colour the government mandates for those as present and unify them.Resolute 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

After the licence change, the module for Template:jct will have to change to update the proper image. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Template:jct (and probably others) goes a lot deeper than that. Have a look at what happens when it is used for all the TCHs. I put the shields, and the templates at User:Kelapstick/Trans-Canada Highway for visual purposes. Looks like the whole thing needs to be fixed. I will update the licence for TCH 2 in New Brunswick, as it seems like it is an anomoly. Also Quebec and Ontario, although I don't think they use the TCH shield, rather a blank beside the provincial? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

← OK, I think I have most of it sorted, and am going to request that the shields in the template for all provinces except Ontario and Quebec be linked to the proper provincial TCH shields. It seems as though, based on the way roads are signed in Ontario and Quebec that the way to go with them is either both a TCH and provincial shield side by side, or just the standard provincial shield. I am thinking the latter, as it makes it easier for consistency. Newfoundland and Labrador needs a shield made up for Route 1, and it is a little different than the standard shields used across the country (noted in the link above). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the PD "TCH shields" are a relic from when the actual TCH shields were still under Crown Copyright. Now that that's no longer an issue, we can probably delete them. –Fredddie™ 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Conservatory of Music

Hello. Would someone uninvolved in the discussion please close the merge proposal at Talk:The Royal Conservatory of Music#Merger proposal. Whatever the outcome ends up being, the discussion has lingered for a year, has grown stale, and should be wound up. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Skeezix1000, just need someone to actually do the merge.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger done. Thanks, kelapstick. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes

Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Redundancy model. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Canadian people, authors

Should all biographies of Canadian people carry the talk page banner for this project? Or all whose description as Canadian may be problematic? Or fewer than that?

Concerning authors: Does Library and Archives Canada or some other reliable source provide online coverage of Canadian writers/illustrators (perhaps only those with numerous works in the catalogue), such as AUSTLIT for Australian (Sonya Hartnett, Robert Ingpen) and New Zealand authors; British Council for British and some others (Sonya Hartnett)? National Library of Australia does provide some that are valuable here, but I don't recall one; many rely too heavily on wikipedia (Garth Nix).

--P64 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Project banners are typically fairly informal. If you think there is a decent tie to Canada, then feel free to add the banner. I'm not sure if there is a definitive list of Canadian authors from a government-related agency, however. Resolute 17:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hot Chicken sandwich

FTI, Hot Chicken sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for renaming, and for merger, and there's a discussion of the relevance of this as a separate topic. For the multiple discussions, see talk:Hot Chicken sandwich -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Hot Chicken sandwich

Discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation format

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation format. regarding the format of CS1-style Hansard citations. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Can anyone help me with the Mary Steinhauser article? It looks like she was apparently fairly big news when she was held hostage and shot, but I'm running into some issues with sourcing due to it happening in the 70s. I'm trying to piece stuff together, but it looks like her death resulted in some changes in the overall prison and legal system. I figured that asking here would be a good start, since this happened in Canada and some of you might remember this or know something about it. Or at least know where to look for the sources. The official website run by her sister has a lot of news clippings, so that's helpful, but not all of them have all of the info. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• It really needs some editing for clarity and so on, since I'm having to piece all of this together as I go. I'm really afraid of getting something wrong. It does look like this was fairly notable, but again- it needs some overall editing from people more familiar with the event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for sources on ProQuest, Google News Archive, or other news archival websites? ProQuest has about 60 articles from the Toronto Star with the name as search parameter (some unrelated to the subject), but as I do not have full access, I can't provide details about the content. Google News archive has about 300 results, the initial few of which seem like good sources. A Google Books search seems to yield a few good sources too, but also a bunch of conspiracy theory entries. Google Scholar has a few entries, mostly making passing mention of her. Mindmatrix 17:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am finding sources, but mostly it's just that I'm not entirely familiar with what happened so I've made more than a few errors while editing and I'm worried that there may be more in there that I haven't detected but that someone more familiar with the topic may pick out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I Never Liked You—Featured Article Candidate

I've nominated the article for Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown's graphic novel I Never Liked You (1994) for Featured Article. Please take part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Never Liked You/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Indo-Canadian versus South Asian Canadian versus East Indian Canadian

I notice Indo-Canadians originally stated: "Indo-Canadians (also known as Indian Canadians) are Canadian citizens of Indian descent or India-born people who reside in Canada."

But Elizabeth Kamala Nayar states:

• "The term 'Indo-Canadians' came into use in the 1980s as a result of the Canadian government's policy and ideology of multiculturalism. It refers to Canadian-born people whose origins are on the Indian subcontinent." - That would make it the same thing as South Asian Canadian which states: "South Asian Canadians refers to Canadians who were either born in or can trace all or part of their ancestry to South Asia."

There is a PHD thesis by Sumartojo which explains Indo-Canadian versus South Asian Canadian versus East Asian Canadian and I used it as a source here: Indo-Canadians#Terminology

• PDF p. 17/82: "The term “East Indian” is generally used in Canada to refer to “people whose roots are specifically in India”" (and he cites Nayar p. 235)
• Nayar p. 235: "'East Indians' refers to people whose roots are specifically in India." and the same page states "'South Asians' is a very broad category as it refers to people originally in the geographical area of South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. 'South Asians' also refers to Indians who have migrated to other parts of the world such as Fiji, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and East Africa."

So does this mean Indo-Canadians should have content moved to South Asian Canadians and then be renamed "East Indian Canadians"???? Or do we have a new East Indian Canadians article made and then have South Asian Canadians merged into Indo-Canadians? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So, now you presume to come along and challenge the long-established name of an article based on your readings of sources and ignore long-standing consensus, based on a few hand-picked quotes you've found, now that you know the proper term to search for? WP:DEADHORSE, give it up, there's no reason to rename these articles at all and it's a can of worms you're opening (South Asia also includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and in some reckonings also Burma/Myanmar, so they're not "exactly the same"). Your game-of-names about long-standing title conventions and the topics addressed entirely new to you is tiresome...and not slightly "disruptive". Do you have any other applecarts you intend to field wild-card arguments about? Indo-Canadian is the widely accepted term, in Wikipedia, and also in the real world (e.g. the Indo-Canadian media use it, as does mainstream media). Stop trying to rejig things to fit your reading of certain references and your own linguistic prejudices/preconceptions. There is no constructive purpose to your question here, only more dissembling of the kind I'm becoming too familiar with (and bored by).Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That "original" version of the article had "Indian Canadians" removed for good reason; it was a wrong usage for Canada and not viable in Canadian English, where "Indian Canadians" and "Canadian Indians" would refer 9 times out of 10 (or 19 out of 20) to First Nations people.....but hey, why stop with Indo-Canadians, why not propose changing the name of First Nations too? Maybe to you they're "Native American Canadians?"Skookum1 (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Indo-Canadian is the widely accepted term, in Wikipedia, and also in the real world (e.g. the Indo-Canadian media use it, as does mainstream media)." - The problem isn't the acceptance of Indo-Canadian - the problem is that Indo-Canadian really is the same thing as "South Asian Canadian" and that it is NOT "East Indian Canadian" but that until now it was defined as being the same as "East Indian Canadian" in the lead! - Currently there is no article for East Indian Canadians and we have two redundant articles: Indo-Canadians and South Asian Canadians. I don't care if Indo-Canadian is used instead of South Asian Canadian (that is up to you and everyone else) - What I am saying is that the terms are clearly redundant. There should be one article for "Indo-Canadian" and "South Asian Canadian" while "East Indian Canadian" gets its own article.

If there is "long-standing consensus" for definitions: where are the sources supporting this consensus? Show me the discussions and show me what sources were brought up. If there is a source conflict (when two or more sources disagree) that can be discussed. If other sources use the same definitions as Nayar, then there is no debate about definitions.

Statistics Canada does not use "Indo-Canadian" as a category while it uses "South Asian" but obviously the Canadian government does promote "Indo-Canadian". I have no preference regarding which one is chosen. Widyarini p. 8 stated that some authors define "Indo-Canadian" as including only those with Canadian citizenship. Statistics Canada defines "East Indian" as a sub-category of "South Asian"

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: - I re-read Nayar's definition of "Indo-Canadian" and that means a person born in Canada of Indian subcontinent origins. That would include Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh but Sri Lanka and Nepal are often defined as not a part of the subcontinent. However there are Definitions of "Indian subcontinent" which do include Sri Lanka and Nepal. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: - Another definition of Indo-Canadian:

• Sharma, Kavita A. The Ongoing Journey: Indian Migration to Canada. Creative Books, 1997. ISBN 8186318399, 9788186318393. p. 16. "Notes 1 Indians are variously designated as East Indians, South Asians and Indo- Canadians. The terms are used interchangeably throughout this book except that 'Indo-Canadian' has been used for only those Indians who have acquired Canadian citizenship." - Search view, Search view #2

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

More flogging of a WP:DEADHORSE. This article title has been stable for a very long time, your attempts to overturn it based on the few definitions/sources you've found so far are irrelevant; unless there is good reason to overturn long-standing consensus, no change should be made. But you sure are trying, aren't you? That this yet another emendation of the vast amounts of SYNTH you have posted on other discussion boards is getting repetitive; trying to enlist support for your position etc.Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: You say there is consensus that overweighs the definitions I show. Show me this consensus. You are responsible for giving proof and evidence to back up your claims. I am not responsible for doing so.

I also believe this response is misguided. As you know from Moonriddengirl's posts, reliable sourcing is what defines Wikipedia. In fact, there is no reason to be upset by this effort of mine to get sourced definitions.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: consensus I have done some searching. Talk:Indo-Canadians#Is this about Indians from the Republic of India or South Asians.3F and Talk:Indo-Canadians#Does this article include Pakistani Canadians.3F seem to be inconclusive, with no sources brought up. I am also unable to find any previous discussion about the terminology in the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board or in the Talk:South Asian Canadians. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are engaging in extensive SYNTH and have done so on related discussions, also, your lengthy addition to "terminology" in the Indo-Canadians articles is mostly SYNTH and your approach to this, as a new topic to you, is entirely original research "oh I found another definition"; your attempt here to dispute long-standing Canadian English titles is way out of place; yet you continue to want to advance your agenda here, and continue to demand sources and links when you have only just discovered this subject and now presume to want to re-name things to suit...the sources you've picked. Long-standing consensus re stable titles is what it is; long-standing consensus; not to be blithely overturned by a newbie who's just foun:d out what the proper term to use it (so, gee, you want to presume to dispute and redefine that term now, to suit your agenda....). You are out of line, here and elsewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an unsatisfactory response. I asked for evidence of previous discussion of definitions of "Indo-Canadian" and this was not provided. I asked for reliable sources and these were not provided.

This discussion should be entirely focused upon the issue of definitions of Indo-Canadian, East Indian, and South Asian. Please do not conflate it with that other discussion.

The article African American has its definition sourced to reliable sources. Also nowhere in the discussion did I say that it was inherently wrong to choose "Indo-Canadian" as a definition. Talk:African American#Antebellum.3F shows a discussion

Using dictionary definitions or definitons in reliable source is not SYNTH. It is WP:V.

If no references to any previous discussion are presented, I will presume that this consensus you speak of does not exist. Therefore this discussion is doing a huge favor to these articles, as it is now establishing what they should be about.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Your ongoing arrogance is breathtaking e.g. I will presume that this consensus you speak of does not exist Who are you to "presume" anything much less to pontificate on WP:Canada about what you, as an American, think we should rename this article to based on your novitiate acquaintance with the subject, or indeed with Canadian society or proper terminology to use on Canadian articles. Your pretension at continuing your "debate" by making demands such as you are constantly doing is noxious. This has been a stable title for a very long time, and here you are, not a month into writing on this, and presuming to lecture and demand for this and that on not just this but on several talkpages now. Failing to find support for your SYNTH division of Vancouver from BC, and even more for your splitting off of the subject of "Asian Indians in Vancouver", you are now resorting to want to change the name that you didn't know and presume to challenge the long-standing consensus (arrived at by informed consensus of Canadian editors, not by any formal discussion as is the norm now) because you have been ignorant of the various definitions and usages. Indo-Canadians use the term, and per WP:NCET what they call themselves should be the title of the article....not what some sophomore in Texas whose personal wiki-thing is a wiki-wide campaign of "ethnic groups by city" articles....Your reference to Native American as some kind of pretext for whatever it is you think you're talking about is apples and oranges. And t his bit "This discussion should be entirely focused upon the issue of definitions of Indo-Canadian, East Indian, and South Asian" is not what you say it is; you want to change article titles, SYNTH-research what YOU think should be the title, and continue to field non sequitur after non sequitur and demand after demand; your disrespect for me throughout has been utterly WP:AGF and this attempt of yours to sideline discussion to definitions only as if that's all you were up to is disingenuous as hell. You do not live in the real world, know little about Canada and or about Indo-Canadians and apparently don't give a fig for what has existed long before you joined Wikipedia; people like you are time-wasters and you are not doing anything constructive with this attempt to name-change and definition-game the losing side of your agenda that you are currently on. WP:DEADHORSE means what it says, and elsewhere in TITLE and other guidelines/policies it says flat out unless there is a valid reason to develop a new consensus, there is no reason to change a long-standing stable title (whether or not it had a formal consensus process to establish that). You are being disruptive, are constantly AGF, and FORUMSHOPPING in extremis; your adminship should be pulled, IMOSkookum1 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • " Therefore this discussion is doing a huge favor to these articles, as it is now establishing what they should be about."[ A huge favour? How is muddying the waters with your juvenile demands a huge favour to anyone?Skookum1 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Never mind, the IP user was blocked. Nonetheless I agree with the idea that each user should state his/her case in five lines or less. So will do that:

• The definitions of "South Asian Canadian" and "Indo-Canadian" overlap, while "East Indian Canadian" (its own definition: Canadians of origins from post-partition India) does not have its own article. The two articles should be merged at either title while East Indian Canadian should be created. I do not have a preference for either "Indo-Canadian" or "South Asian Canadian." Three lines :)

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so already having created one POV fork to protect your false SYNTH notion of urban/rural BC, you now propose THREE more POV forks so as to re-tool normative Canadian English. Good grief.Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the three terms as per "normative Canadian English" as per WP:V. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to cite the whole of Canadian English usages of any of the terms and contexts you are so abysmally ignorant of, and apparenetly hostile to. Statcan is the obvious place to go for definitions, Canadian Press' and CBC' styleguides are internal databases and not available to source. if you are so ignorant of the subject and of Canadian English, you should have learned about all this before you started writing whole articles by pastiche-ing together any source you could find, and presuming to argue about geographic contexts (Vancouver/BC) about places you know nothing about? And rather than accept AGF what you were told by an experienced Canadian editor, you have been citing and ranting and posting walls of text to support your campaign to OWN these topics, using your SYNTH suppositions and extrapolations as if they were fact?Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Other than the aforementioned StatCan (Census of Canada) and media usages (because there are no published style guides, you're welcome to do searches of each newspaper's/network's google results for what they use, and it will be overwhelmingly "Indo-Canadian" that you'll find, unless someone specifically from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Nepal is being discussed), the Canadian Encyclopedia redirects "Indo-Canadians" to "South Asian Canadians" with the opening lines saying, point-blank

"Those people referred to as South Asians, Indo-Canadians or East Indians are one of the most diverse ethnocultural populations in Canada. They trace their origins to South Asia, which encompasses India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka."

and in the body of that article

"People referred to as "South Asian" view the term in the way that those from European countries might view the label "European." While they acknowledge that South Asians share cultural and historical characteristics, their basic identification is more specifically tied to their ethnocultural roots. In areas such as Metro Toronto, over 20 distinct ethnic groups can be identified within the large (more than 857,575) South Asian population"

Worth noting also that the the roots of the Sikh Canadian community included many who came from pre-Partition India; the Pakistani Canadian article says "Most Pakistani Canadians are Muslims", to which I just added a cite needed tag as no numbers are provided to establish this, the article downplays Sikh Canadians though it also says, without mentioning Sikhs directly, "Most of the Pakistanis who had settled in British Columbia were Punjabis and took advantage of the new immigration policy to sponsor members of their families.". Exact figures on Sikhs vs Muslims among Canadians with origins from what is now Pakistan are not easily discernible and would require SYNTH to establish through tricky comparisons of historical census data on country of origin, which isn't broken down by religion on StatCan (religion is broken down separately without cross-reference to country of origin). Suffice to say that "Punjabi" in Canada could and has referred to both those from India and those from what is now Pakistan - and Bangladesh or Malaysia/Singapore), and the derisive "Paki" in Canada is/was most commonly use for Sikhs in general.

There is no need for any external interpretations as demanded, nor any need for your presumptive suggestion to merge these articles (all of which you only found out about, or even looked at, after you were made aware of "Indo-Canadian", which you attempted to reject). Your game is becoming tiresome, as is the onslaught of your deluging discussions in several different places with endless listings of cites you've found/selected to support your case, which is built on sand...and arrogance.Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, what you posted above is making the case that Indo-Canadian and South Asian Canadian need to be merged together. You realize that, right? I have no opinion on whether South Asian Canadian or Indo-Canadian is the better term, so any protests accusing me of labeling Indo-Canadian as an improper term have no merit and no relevance to this discussion. Your anxiety is based off of a misunderstanding on your part. All you have to do to deal with it is:

• "I absolutely prefer "Indo-Canadian" in case of a merge - Skookum1" - There, post over. There is no reason for you to be upset in this discussion. I never said Indo-Canadian is a bad term. I have found that "Indo-Canadian" and "South Asian Canadian" need to be merged together. You should agree with this 100%.

If "East Indian Canadian" is an inappropriate/untenable topic what about Pakistani Canadian or Sri Lankan Canadian or the other "nationality-based" topics? Are they inappropriate too?

" "I don't have time to cite the whole of Canadian English usages of any of the terms and contexts you are so abysmally ignorant of," - It is your job to make me "not ignorant" of these things, but that actually requires finding explicit definitions and declarations of what "South Asian" or "Indo-Canadian" or "East Indian" mean. If you "don't have time" to do that, you "don't have time" to contribute to this discussion. This is true for any dispute on Wikipedia.

You post about how the same group is known as "Indo-Canadians" and "East Indians" and "South Asian" (what it means is that the words are being conflated with each other even though they also have their own specific meanings). I knew that already: There were reliable sources that explicitly say that those terms are conflated, and you can find what I wrote here: Indo-Canadians#Terminology and I had shown you this section before. I also knew that already in regards to South Asian Canadians being made up of so many groups.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

•  Comment: The way I see it, these terms do not vary so much that they deserve articles each. Neither do their scopes vary that the new articles are justified by this. In addition, these terms are not so widely apart in meaning or usage that their clubbing together would result in problems for readers searching for material. I do not support split or additional forks. What I do request is that those who add WikiProject template banners also add their assessment about the article's importance and class, so that this work does not remain for others. Also, concerned editors morally should take up those glaring issues which require improvement, notably replacing bare-bone urls with cite templates. I have done a couple & request others to do the rest. AshLin (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • From my research I have found that the terms "Indo-Canadian," "South Asian," and "East Indian Canadian" all are often conflated with one another even though there are often specific definitions. Do you believe that Pakistani Canadian, Sri Lankan Canadian, etc. should also be merged into the same article? Or do you think Pakistani Canadian should have its own article while East Indian Canadian (the specific term for Canadians of origins from post-partition India) should not have its own article? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @AshLin: Is it okay if you do me a favor and answer my question and disregard the discussion below? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, geez, man, get a grip...why should he "do you a favour" by ignoring someone pointing out how anti-guideline and POV-fork creation your conduct has been from the start? You ignore me regularly, now you're asking a third party to do the same. And once again you are wallpapering discussions with your SYNTH views and pretensions, all of them WP:POINT and yes, given you fiddling with "definitions" on various pages it's very clear your nose is out of joint that "Asian Indian Canadians" was changed to the correct Indo-Canadian.Skookum1 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Please respect AshLin and allow him to discuss his third opinion. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • My view is like this. I had opined about the need for separate articles on three related terms & my opinion is that since they are very closely related and separated by nuances, these should preferably be treated in one article & not in different articles. However, if articles on different populations of naturalised Canadians are sought to be created, then the community should be notable, the article created explicitly should show the need in terms of relevant, well-referenced content and consensus sought at the mother project especially since the issue has arisen in debate. Such an article would best be created in user space & placed for consensus before move to main space. Articles must not be created merely on nuanced differences in definition. At the same time, opposition to these articles must come from reasons why Wikipedia is better off without such an article. Consideration of both sides of the argument (for & against) may be postponed till after the candidate article on User space is created.(continued)
        • On an unrelated issue, I do feel that WhisperToMe & Skookum1, who are arguing about these articles should first of all improve the articles, by copy-editting etc - personally, I consider it a shame when mature, experienced editors don't use cite templates but opt for bare bone urls on simple web hyperlinks in the referencing. I have done my bit with a few edits on improving references. My request is please improve the article before getting into a dispute about it. AshLin (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

          I'd be happy to add more sourced content (I wrote Indo-Canadians#Terminology). After your request I did convert a few more bare bones URLs and flagged one citation as being unreliable. Thank you for your input. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    • POV-fork city huh? So what about Indo-Canadians of Trinidadian, East African, or Malaysian roots? "from post-partition India" doesn't cut it; given that you wanted to use "Asian Indians" and only found out about the other canadian articles, and the proper term, less than a month ago, your pretentiousness and posturing is getting very tiring and not slightly obnoxious. Why don't you learn about the subjects, and learn about Canada (and listen to some Canadian editors) before shooting your mouth off about mergers and new titles? Your nose still out of joint for having "Asian Indian" corrected, despite your protests that it was supported by incorrect RS?Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Asian Indian" is old news and splitting/merging articles do not make POV forks. I think this discussion should be focused on the current issue at hand. I would recommend, to all editors, disregarding any input that does not discuss the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that the definitions need to be clarified.

How to sub-divide "South Asians" as per Statistics Canada (the agency does not use the term Indo-Canadian) may be found here (the sub-classifications go by "national" origin or by "ethnic group") - For instance there are categories for Bangladeshi (nationality) and Bengali (ethnic group in both Bangladesh and West Bengal):

• Bangladeshi (Bangladeshi Canadian)
• Bengali
• East Indian - Redirects to "Indo-Canadian"
• Goan
• Gujarati
• Kashmiri
• Nepali (Nepalese Canadian)
• Pakistani (Pakistani Canadian)
• Punjabi
• Sinhalese (Sri Lankan Canadians)
• Sri Lankan
• Tamil (Tamil Canadian)
• South Asian origins, n.i.e. (nie = "not included elsewhere")

The term "South Asian Canadian" does include those with origins from East Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc. (Nayar p. 235). How those South Asians classify themselves is up to them. I do not have data which states how those ones classify themselves.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I collected definitions of "Indo-Canadian" here: Talk:Indo-Canadians#Definitions of Indo-Canadian - more or less it includes all South Asian origins and not only those with origins from India

"There is no need for any external interpretations as demanded" - You have been repeatedly told that "external" content is what Wikipedia is made of and what defines Wikipedia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

NOT "external content as selected/cherrypicked for SYNTH purposes" as you have been constantly doing. The point of the Canadian Encyclopedia citation is that it establishes that the three terms are, in Canada, tantamount to the same thing; and we are not talking about renaming South Asian Canadians, though it seems you would like to merge it, "we" are talking about whether Indo-Canadians is the correct title for that article, which you clearly are on a tubthump to challenge. But here's a guideline for you, WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification which you evidently don't give a flying fig for:

"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title."

The titles of the Indo-Canadian Voice and Indo-Canadian Times and various organizations speak for themselves, as does the normative use of "Indo-Canadians" throughout Canadian media. So your speculative sophomorisms and SYNTH clattering together of selected citations to advance your thesis/agenda are against guidelines; academic definitions that lead you to "conclude" (SYNTH) anything different are discounted by that guideline, and by various passages in WP:TITLE (which is a policy, not a guideline). your campaign against this term is completely uncalled for and groundless in Wikipedia terms, and your peppering your reams of cites and SYNTH ideas across multiple discussions is a complete waste of time.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"we" are talking about whether Indo-Canadians is the correct title for that article, which you clearly are on a tubthump to challenge." - Incorrect. You completely misread the beginning post at 17:41, 2 November 2014 which means the arguing on your end is completely pointless. We are talking about whether to merge "Indo-Canadians" and "South Asian Canadian" together and carve out content for "East Asian Canadian." Any claims that I argued that "Indo-Canadian" is an inappropriate are putting words in my mouth. I never made such an argument.

I already knew that the words are conflated. (Widyarini p. 7 says that "Indo-Canadian" and "South Asian" were used interchangeably and Henderson p. 65 stated that "Indian" and "South Asian" were conflated in the past). Nonetheless Wikipedia also supports formal definitions from governments. Even though common speech conflates things we must also stick to formal/recognized definitions from reliable authorities.

"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." - In order to do that, you need a reliable source stating explicitly that. If you are not willing to find such a source, you must not ask people to do that. Wikipedians should not say Indo-Canadians are the preferred term over South Asian because [Insert name of Wikipedian] said so - No, they should say Indo-Canadians are the preferred term over South Asian because [Insert name of reliable source] said so

"The titles of the Indo-Canadian Voice and Indo-Canadian Times and various organizations speak for themselves" - That is Wikipedia:Original research without a source explicitly saying so. There is the South Asian Focus in Brampton and "A National South Asian Newspaper, CanAsian Times" both from Canada. I could say "look at those titles" as an OR way to say "South Asian" is better.

In order to oppose a merger of Indo-Canadian and South Asian Canadian you have to come up with a reason why they shouldn't be merged together. If you don't do that, you cannot oppose such a merger. Everything you've stated would be in support of such a merger.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, and putting words in my mouth to suit yourself "Everything you've stated would be in support of such a merger." is not the case at all; Indo-Canadians and South Asian Canadians have stood as articles for years; there is no more usefulness to merge them, or even to advance such a merger, than there is to merge Norwegian Canadians and Canadians of Danish ancestry to Scandinavian Canadians. WP:NCET's self-identification passage is more than ample reason to reject your external SYNTH analysis to impose YOUR views on the titles of these articles; "South Asian" is a regional-origin grouping, Indo-Canadian is more specific to a subgroup of that; and yes, the CE says the terms are interchangeable in regular use in Canada, but you have as yet provided no valid reason why long-standing titles should be renamed or merged to suit your agenda; re WP:POINT. Your post above about "ignoring the content below" was offensive anti-AGF; I state again that I think your adminship should be pulled for the conduct and agenda-mongering you are indulging in.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

By the "logic" you are indulging in, and per NCET, why not just merge them all (German, Chinese, Ukrainian, South Asian/Indo-Canadian, etc etc) to Canadians??...... indeed, most Indo-Canadians I know personally and in countless media op-eds simply prefer the term "Canadian", as do most of us no matter what background we are of. The wiki-obsession with ethnicity is not in step with public reality, but then little of wikipedia is in step with reality. And you are definitely not in step with reality, or have any respect for long-standing titles that you have only just discovered and want to dispute/merge etc. What's with the obsession with ethnicity and nomenclature anyway? Not that you'll answer that, but you clearly spend all your day on this, and expect others to also. You have deluged page after page with your arguments, and presume to even tell other people who do show up to "ignore" what I have to say. Geezus.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You say: ""South Asian" is a regional-origin grouping, Indo-Canadian is more specific to a subgroup of that" - Do you have sources? (The Canadian Encyclopedia statement has been addressed but it does not have the answer) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are now proposing a triple merge, or are you presuming that your opposition to merging Indo-Canadians in British Columbia to Indo-Canadians will succeed because of your deluging/drowning the discussion (and so many others) with your POV/POINT-agenda? "Do you have sources?" is getting to be a tiresome refrain. Do you have common sense? is the response; it's already clear that you have provided no basis whatsoever to overturn long-standing titles without broad consensus (see WP:TITLE about that) - a consensus you are clearly not getting in the responses so far; your argumentative behaviour about titles that have been around long than you have been on Wikipedia is beyond ridiculous, it is disruptive in the extreme; so, are you going to launch an RM for your "new agenda" to merge South Asian Canadian with Indo-Canadians, on whichever title you will name-war over, even before this merge discussion is closed? You have no clear idea about procedure, no respect for what others tell you, and tell them to "ignore" me for disputing your nonsense. Grow up.Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

""Do you have sources?" is getting to be a tiresome refrain." ... Moonriddengirl post: "The only authorities we appeal to here are the published ones, not our personal standing or expertise." No sources = no substance = no say in this discussion. Do you want to be a part of this discussion, or not? (Yes, I've read the article in The Canadian Encyclopedia but it has not introduced anything new into this discussion) - Here is why: My research states that the definition of Indo-Canadian does not involve a particular geographical distinction in South Asia and that the real distinction between "South Asian" and "Indo-Canadian" involves whether someone is born in Canada or not. So, if Indo-Canadian in fact does have a geographical distinction, what reliable source says this explicitly in relation to "South Asians"? I want to find more sources that discuss these definitions. I want to untangle this scenario. Are you going to help or not? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of "leave well enough alone". There is no compelling reason to fiddle with these titles or definitions, other than satisfy your obessiveness about them. I've had enough, my days get wasted because of you;

[post edit-conflict]] Oh, so I'm supposed to use my whole day to satisfy someone whose agenda has now spanned at least ten different talkpages with walls of texts and SYNTH arguments and endless repetitions of the same agenda just to satisfy YOUR demand for sources for what is obvious to a Canadian. Do you get paid for this time you are wasting? Do you pay me for this time you are wasting with your endless demands. Others in the merge at Talk:Indo-Canadians, which you so ardently have opposed, have stated clearly they see no reason that the merge should not go through, is that your problem? You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, and me, on so many places it's hard to remember where; and yet you didn't even have any knowledge of this subject, or the terminology, a month ago....and here you are "Mr Expert" wanting to rename articles, merge others, POV fork others, and you expect to be taken seriously? Be taken seriously, ie. that someone else should spend their day coming up with sources that you will cherrypick to continue SYNTHing away and pretend they mean something different than they do, as with your new little tub-thump about merging Indo-Canadians into South Asian Canadians before the merge on the former is even concluded? I'm resisting seeing a neophyte to Canadian topics sashaying in, using the wrong term, taking umbrage at seeing it proven wrong and changed, FORUMSHOPPING all over hell's half acre, and stitching together cites to SYNTH up a case - completely abusing RS to advance a thesis/agenda - is not valid incantation of the RS refrain. What @Moonriddengirl: said about RS is very true, but RS should not be abused, and your histrionics about me outproducing you on your piecing together quotes from cites you've found (cherrypicked) to respond to your massive onslaught; there's plenty of RS, and long before any formal "consensus procedures" had become "mandatory" (as you seem to think they are), that established the separate titles for Indo-Canadian, Pakistani Canadian, South Asian Canadian, Bangladeshi Canadian long ago, likewise as to why there are no "ethnic groups by city" titles within WPCanada....but you, it seems, have only been reading up to find passage/things to use to "prove your case" and overturn long-standing titles , and deluge them with indiscriminate masses of information to pad your "contributions", when not playing Wiktionary-man while building "Terminology" sections to continue your UNDUE disputatiousness in article-space.

@Antidiskriminator: analyzed your peremptory behaviour re your POV forking of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia re Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and your disrespect towards me from the start. Are you writing a thesis on "ethnic groups in Canada" or WHAT? As I've said before more than once, I think your adminship should be revoked, and in this case you have carpet-bombed so many articles with your ideas/cites that they have become unreadable, as have all discussions you have firebombed with your argumentations and SYNTHifications. I dont' have 24 hours a day, apparently as you do, to go research more citations....or indeed to read t he massive amounts of things you have cited but cannot possibly have read in the timeframe, or to analyze your stitching-together of the tidbits you have selected to "prove your case". You have no common sense, no manners, and are disregarding what TITLE and other policy says about long-standing titles and also WP:NCET. You have been a WP:BRAT and behave like a WP:DICK towards me with lines like I "have no place in this discussion" above. This is WP:CANADA and I've been here a very long time and you are, to me, nothing more than a kid in Texas fresh out of school with a bad attitude and a whole lot of arrogance as to your ability to amass (if not read, and think abou) citation after citation after citation. More and more and more I'm starting to realize that you are doing all this for attention and that you enjoy wasting other people's time with nonsense and "go find me citations" i.e. "go waste time on my agenda"..... all other Canadians on this board have ignored you, I'm starting to think I should too; maybe someone else will have the patience to deal with your juvenalia, I'm a year away from sixty (over three times as old as you) and don't need high blood pressure because of some pup from the US who is obsessing over ethno titles in another country that he doesn't know diddly-squat about first-hand.

Maybe some other WPCANADA editor will take you on...you are disruptive, arrogant, obstinate and increasingly patronizing. It's YOU, not me, who "has no place here". Your close-mindedness about what you already have decided should be the case has filtered what you have been looking for, and you have been looking for nothing but things that supprot you; that's SYNTH and OR and you've been anti-AGF from day one. I'm going WP:DISENGAGE and you can go around boasting you drove Skookum1 away, I'm sure someone will be impressed; your wasting-my-time has kept me from working on articles that are in need of improving, and also from my lunch. I dislike ANIs or would have launched one on you a week ago; increasingly that's where you belong, and you will no doubt do hwat you have done here and on ten other pages - bludgeon, bombard and make demands on other peoples' time. Go merge them all, then - every Canadian ethno-article into Canadians because, per WP:NCET that's who we are and what we call ourselves....wikipedia's obsession with ethnicity and race is very un-Canadian and I've had enough.....

@Bearcat:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Carrite:, @Resolute:, @Ground Zero:, @The Interior:, @Moxy:, maybe one of your may have something useful to say towards this kid, all I see is someone hell-bent on changing Canadian titles to suit his sophomoric obsession and war on someone who got in his way for his "business" (he means hobby) of crating ethnicity by city" articles....there's too many pages to list them all, and he's even more long-winded than I've been at my worst. Iv'e spent days wrangling with him and seeing him drown out comments of others on merge discussions with his repetitive obstinacy and "have better things to do than "go run and play fetch" to play his game any further. I got blocked for a lot less than this crap he's pulling, and am tired of instruction creeps making demands to do this or that as if it were mandatory or must be done right now. I'm getting too old for this, and once again Wikipedian nonsense is eating up my health and diverting me from my own writing activities...I have no vested interest in any of these titles, otehr than protecting Canadian articles/namespace from stupidity and ethno/political agendas, but apparently he has a vested interest of some kind about "ethnicity by city" and an obsession with definitions that belongs in wiktionary, not taking up huge new sections in half-a-dozen articles. Skookum1 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This has gotten so ridiculous I'm going to de-watchlist this page, and the others...since no other Canadians are braving this guy's walls of text why don't we just let him rewrite the whole of Canadian article-space from his desktop in Texas. And WhisperToMe, I'm gonna de-watchlist all the other places you've been bludgeoning with your "ideas" (your own ideas) and blockading discussions with the same old shit over and over, and you can have your way with them. I'm not the first Wikipedian to throw up their hands about inanity like yours, and Inote others here aren't bothering with you...so I'm not going to bother with you any longer, and you can keep your insulting 'you don't belong here' to brag about to your friends. That you originally came here demanding that more content on the Air India bombing be placed in whatever article it was seems to have been the start of your campaign to war with Canadian article-space. Fine, have at it, and be sure to brag to your professors that you showed up a top-400 (no. 383 actually) editor; maybe it'll sound good in the thesis you're so obviously working on. My patience, such as it is, is done. You've been so succesful I'm dewatchlisting my own country's wikiproject talkpage, right after I sign off.Skookum1 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to leave this discussion anytime. Goodbye. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - While I personally find the term Indo-Canadian to be confusing, that does seem to be the established term for "Canadians hailing from the Indian subcontinent." All other sub regional names (South Asian, East Asian) should be redirects; if one is writing about a specific ethnicity's connection to Canada, that ethnicity being part of modern India, that should be a free-standing article (presuming sourcing exists). I've got no dog in this fight — my own opinion of how WP's naming principles should be applied in this case. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 1: we should not be surprised that there is a lack of clarity or consistency over ethological terms. That is commonplace, e.g., "Asian" meaning "Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese" in Canada, while meaning "Indian/Bangladeshi/Pakistani" in the UK. I don't expect that we in Wikipedia are goign to be able to sort this out in a way that will keep everyone happy.
  • Comment 2: Above all, we should not be creating new terminiology in an attempt to create clarity. "South Asian" is a reasonable term although it is less common, but I have never, ever, heard "South Asian Canadian", although I don't know why not. It is probably just too long for people to use commonly. I don't think that Wikipedia should be trying to promote the use of a new term. "Indo-Canadian" simply is the commonly used term. The citizenship distinction between Indo-Canadians and South Asians I think is arbitrary, and I don't think it is ueful. Citizenship does not impact one's culture. While it may impact one's self-identification, it doesn't impact how otehrs see these people. A more useful distinction (though not one that I think we should make here) is between Canadian-born and foreign-born.
  • Comment 3: I appreciate WhisperToMe's attempt to get the discussion focussed on what terms are used in reliable sources. We should also keep in mind the principles behind WP:COMMONNAME, though, and not use academic terms. The article title does not have to address ambiguity in the subject matter. If there is ambiguity, that should be clarified in the introductory paragraphs.
  • Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment: Does this mean there is consensus to merge South Asian Canadian into Indo-Canadian (so "Indo-Canadian" is the surviving title)? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh

If anybody's looking for a make-work project, I've just come across a major clusterfuck that will require some disambiguation cleanup.

For much of Wikipedia's history, Toronto's main alt-weekly newspaper was located at the title Now (magazine) (even though it is technically a newspaper rather than a magazine in format, people do generally say "Now Magazine" when they're talking about it.) Approximately a month ago, however, it appears that an editor from the UK arbitrarily moved it to Now (newspaper), and hijacked the resulting redirect to point to Now (UK magazine) instead — but failed to correct any of the 500+ inbound wikilinks that were already using the title to point to the one in Toronto rather than the one in the UK.

I've changed the target of the redirect to the disambiguation page at Now — like it or not, the UK one does have a legitimate enough claim to the title that we can't just take it back arbitrarily — but the links that wanted the Toronto publication will need to be corrected to point to Now (newspaper). I've started fixing some of them in AWB, but would appreciate some assistance so that I'm not sitting here all night doing this by myself. That said, if you are willing to participate, do be careful — I have already come across one article that did intend the British magazine, so please do a quick context check before changing a link.

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Inbound links using NOW (magazine) and Now magazine will also have to be corrected. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They're all corrected now, as far as I can tell. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bearcat. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that The Now (newspaper) isn't listed at now (or any of the "The Now"s...) Shouldn't this Surrey paper be listed? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a little confusing. Newspaper or not, it is actually called "NOW Magazine", which in recent years is shortened to "NOW" (all caps). Why not just call the article "NOW Magazine"? TFD (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Because per WP:TRADEMARK, Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization instead of catering to corporate preferences. Ground Zero | t 13:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Ground Zero's point, another problem is that the British magazine would still have an equal claim to that title too. There's just no way that the Canadian one can be given any title that includes "Now" and "magazine" without also including a geographical disambiguator (i.e. "Canadian" or "Toronto") as well — any version that fails to include a geographic point of disambiguation has to be a redirect to the dab page rather than an article about either publication.

Sure, the article can still be moved to another title, if somebody's got a better one to propose — but it can't just retake the old title, or any version of the old title that doesn't have a geographic disambiguator added to it too. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

coverage of forest industry/sector in BC sorely lacking.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia#Forest industry and MoF.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

anyone know a conversion rate for 1877 dollar to modern dollars (re Wms Crk article)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining#Williams Creek .28British Columbia.29 updated and spam removed.Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

First nation

Why dont number of each first nation count in census? for example how many cree?--Kaiyr (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean self-identified Cree, non-status Cree, status Cree, Cree on reservations? Or some other grouping? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

He's asked this elsewhere, he wants to know if the Canadian Census gives by-FN-ethnicity listings, and the answer is "no".Skookum1 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

best data we have about that is by reserve List of Indian reserves in Canada by population -- Moxy (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Or certain ethnicity/nation/First Nation pages which give the groups' own estimates. The ongoing problem with population-by-reserve is that many reserves/bands are more than one ethnicity on the reserve/in the band. Works OK more or less in regions where reserves are "monoethnic" like in the Maritimes re the Mi'kmaq; the other issue in terms of counting up ethnicities is that many bands don't allow census takers on their reserves so the "official" count (the Canadian government count) is not complete, whether INAC or StatCan for the source....and of course only status natives are counted on INAC, not people of the ethnicity who do not have status, and many people, Metis in particular but others also, are part-Cree but not counted by any Cree government. Bands' own figures, when on their sites, IMO should be regarded as just as "official" as any Canadian government figure, in that bands are "official" and also sovereign in many cases, by declaration or imputation; point being is they would have more correct information than a scattershot census that for things like language and ethnicity is only a 1 in 10 sample (before the long form was cancelled by the current federal regime), and in which not all reserves are accessed by census-takers...and no distinction between e.g. Ulkatcho and Tsilhqot'in is made re the Anahim Lake FN or between Denesuline and Tlicho and Cree on various Alberta and SK reserves. Council of the Haida Nation figures vary from anything StatCan has to say about Haida Gwaii, for example....and even then some status natives living in that census division, on or off reserve, might be "North American Indian" i.e. from nearly any FN or NA group on the continent.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment of 2nd Canadian Infantry Division

In July 2013, the featured article 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was merged into 2nd Canadian Division. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/2nd Canadian Infantry Division/archive1 to decide whether the combined or original article should retain featured article status. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Last Post Fund

Having jut created the article Last Post Fund I was looking through their website here, there are some good photographs there from 1910 and the inaugural ceremony. Based on {{PD-Canada}} it looks like they should be public domain, and suitable for upload to commons, am I correct in this? Photograph copyright is not my strong suit. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

TransCanada restructuring, Energy East, Kinder Morgan et al

The TransCanada Pipelines article, or rather where it redirects to (at present little more than a stock listing/advert) ....re this restructuring matter and that there were two companies rather than one (or ? I dunno it's confusing) needs expansion and. The relationship to Kinder Morgan isn't in the article, nor is there one on Energy East pipeline (which shouldn't need that dab, as Energy East redirects to a page with a Spanish title and that's not PRIMARYTOPIC of "Energy East" IMO. http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/24/Kinder-Morgan-Breaking-Law-Economist-Alleges/ This article addresses the restructuring issue re the NEB]; corporate SEO and mainstream media mostly working from corporate press releases means that's not in the first pages, if at all, in the googlesearch above. This article is only about their Energy East p.r. campaign but what it says needs to be somewhere and should be noted as a caution to watch for POV/COI activities on all connected articles. I'm seriously tired of political battles in Wikipedia and am trying to keep myself to geography and history articles and the like (in order to protect my aging health, partly) but wanted to field these here so that someone can put those links to use and also straighten out or clarify/connect that "nest" of related articles.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add that the above are connected to the ongoing politicking but I'm fatigued with political articles and trying to stay away from POV battlegrounds for a while; but noting that Burnaby Mountain does not yet have a section on the demonstrations and arrests there and a separate 2014 Burnaby Mountain protests is kinda called for; (the date being needed because of the history of protests and strikes at SFU in times past).Skookum1 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Stanley Park"

The usage of Stanley Park is under discussion, see Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Front de libération du Québec

"Front de libération du Québec" has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Front de libération du Québec -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

+15 Skyway title?? re Calgary

Was a bit taken aback by that title, don't think I've seen one start with /+/ before.....it's pronounced as "Plus 15" and methinks there's a UE/NUMBERS rule re TITLE no? Also not indicating what it is seems strange; if it's commonly referred to as "the skyway" for example that should be in the title; is it really MOSTCOMMON for Calgarians to refer to this as "+15" or is that just a "brand" for the project? I found this while searching for the Bantrel Tower, re this matter.Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

From WP:TSC - There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _, this is primarily because of the way Wikimarkup works. I don't think there is any restriction on starting an article with +, although it translates to %2B in the URL because of technical limitations of URLs (the same is true when there is a + inline with the title, similar to Peg + Cat). There are a few articles that start with +, such as +44 (band), for example (whereas +44 redirects to Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom). As for common name, I cant really say what that is, however there is a trailblazer marker in the picture at the top of the page that calls it +15, so it's "officially" called (or labeled) that in some cases. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

subcat name for gold-bearing creeks (or rather placer mining, as not all were gold)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#subcatting creeks.2Frivers with gold placer history. Input needed before I make one.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

For now, I've just added Category:Mines in British Columbia and there's Category:Gold mines in Canada, but a subcat of both either for Category:Placer mining areas or some such title will be needed; there are dozens of potential entries.Skookum1 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is for sure grounds for a placer mining category, although I am not sure what the exact wording of the title should be.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly there's no "Category:Placer mining", I'll look in Category:Mining techniques which did show up there and see what there is.Skookum1 (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had a look in the mining techniques category and was surprised there was no category for placer mining, that is needed for sure, I will go and generate it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute

Just a note that I've taken on the task of completely redoing this school's wiki, since it's currently in a terrible condition. It hasn't received a major update in 3 years it seems. Work will start tomorrow, December 11th. I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, and am still learning a few things, so I'm just posting this so that while I'm working on the article and once I'm done, someone more with more experience can do a quality check.

Sly14Cat (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember WP:V, WP:COI and WP:ADVERT when updating the Wikipedia article -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

any online archive for CBC other than their own site?

I've been trying to look up news coverage for the Mohawk Civil War of 1990 and expected I'd find something on CBC's site for Akwesasne but nope, most recent news items is 2012 only.....and google news ain't much better. As I've noted elsewhere, Izzy Asper ordered CanWest destroy all his acquisitions' archives, so not gonna find anything from major papers, unless in the G&M's digital storehouse, which I can't access as not a university student or whatever.....same goes for finding out the date of the military takeover of Newsworld that same year and for contemporary sources for Oka et al in general; must be something out there, other than in city hard-copy archives and fiches....suffice to say "history has been deleted" and I'm curious how to get around that; everything from Oka to the Meech Lake and FTA elections and more are "not to be found" online......much has been deliberately swept into the dustbin.Skookum1 (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Mohawk Civil War bluelink wrongly goes to Oka Crisis and shouldn't. But explaining that, or writing the needed article, ain't possible without citations or things to read...so far haven't really cruised blogspace..but that should still show up there you'd think.Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I did manage to find the Toronto Star's archives and some search results [2] [3] [4][5] [6] [7], but can only see abstracts; I searched for both "Akwesasne" and "Mohawk Civil War" and got some abstracts....maybe enough to start the "story of the article" but still in need of a cite for the title....it may be in one of the articles I can't see, I remember the term well...this was months before Oka. Also looking for news copy about the seizure/takeover of Newsworld by the military during the crisis....and the original news copy about the SQ fatality, as what was around about that does not match what the coroner's report later said. There should be lots of coverage in US papers...Albany NY and Messina NY....what else I remember may not be out there - the US military taking control of the reservation on the US side, for one thing.Skookum1 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing red links to blue

There is a ever changing IP that makes edits like this and this. They are changing the red link to the First Nation or Council article to a blue link for a community. In the first example the community is not even the one associated with the First Nation. However, more importantly by doing that they hide which First Nations don't as yet have an article. I think it's a better idea to have the red link than going to the community, even if it is the correct one. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree need to know who does not have real articles. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

government and community articles should be separate so yes we need to see those redlinks; there's lots in the FN categories where the govt name goes to a reserve, and where reserve and community articles and such are merged (when they shouldn't be); so a lot of govt articles are currently redirected titles. List of First Nations governments I don't think exists; those within Category:First Nations governments and its subcats that are italicized should be looked at for separation/expansion, and similarly with italicized titles in reserve and community cat hierarchies occur.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look through the government categories....seems I've straightened most of them out....the ON, SK, MB, QC reserves and communities do need straightening out yet thoughSkookum1 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

POV tag re Prosperity Mine coverage on Taseko Mines article

Please see Talk:Taseko Mines#POV tag re Prosperity Mine coverage.Skookum1 (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a Vancouver-centric split of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia?

Should there be a Vancouver-centric split of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia?

See Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Enough sources to prove standalone notability of Vancouver Chinese and do an article split.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:FORUMSHOPPING again huh? the RM was only a month ago and here you are trying to overturn it again with yet more "walls of cites". You lost the RM, consensus has spoken, now work on bringing the article into useful shape and drop the renaming campaign; it's against guidelines to try to do this, as you should know.Skookum1 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlike last time, both of you please keep this discussion in one location rather than multiple. Hwy43 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That was the point of my post; he's the one shotgunning notices time and again on multiple boards and talkpages, and writing at length even more than I'm known to do to advance his agenda; there's so many of them I can't keep track of them; and so repetitive and cite-heavy that I de-watchlisted even this page, and some others among the many, and it's always the same resistance and campaign to "get it his way". This is the only page I've replied to his seven or eight notifications out there, can't remember where the other was.Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Vancouver usage" challenged

Note the discussion about the usage of Vancouver in Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. which I was meaning to post here but have been having system issues, or on WP:Vancouver and WP:BC where that's been gone over before; as also with the meaning of "Indians" in Canada. Re this section's title, Chinatown, Vancouver and Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia) and other articles already exist, and Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia and Chinatown subsections on various articles; "Vancouver"'s standalone notability in the Chinese context is Greater Vancouver's, but neither historically nor in current terms is the "Chinese world" in the Lower Mainland separate from that of other Chinese in the province; it's only because of his mass of content clips of UNDUE nature and his ongoing thrust about additions, while neglecting the consensus-spoken reality to improve the article. I see no reason (nor have others) why Vancouver, whether defined by city boundary, or the GVRD boundary, or by a vague international usage which includes Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and even Gibsons and Whistler; Wikipedia should not be so vague in its usages, and needs be specific. And sources can be wrong, especiallyabout sloppy usages and bad geography. That being said, re this name-dispute announcement, the RM was only a month ago, all these notifications are improper and against guidelines.Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The Entire Category:Native American archeology tree

Category:Native American archeology and all it's subcategories, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming to use "indigenous peoples of North America" so that the US and Canadian First Nations categories can be merged in a follow-up nomination. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

amazing online historical resource for BC: online city directories

Someone I know who's also into BC /PacNW history just posted this on FB and immediately I recognized it as a rich trove of details on early BC towns up to 1955; Vancouver Public Library's fully digitized City Directories from 1860-1955. I've just begun exploring it now....Skookum1 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Memorial roads of Canada

Category:Memorial roads of Canada, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

White Pass Trail

White Pass Trail currently doesn't have an article (it points to White Pass), but the complementary route Chilkoot Trail has an article along with Chilkoot Pass. Shouldn't this trail also have an article? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Celine Dion FAR

I have nominated Celine Dion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox

Steve Nash is a dual citizen. You are invited to help form a consensus on how his nationality should be presented in the bio's infobox. Please comment at Talk:Steve_Nash#Nationality_in_infobox. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Social Justice Party of Canada

Eyes welcome on this article about a new political party. As first posted it was a copy of the party manifesto, posted by new user Canadian007 who wrote "I am one of the volunteers with the Social Justice Party Of Canada, and I added the overview of our party platform at the direction of our party president". COI has been explained to him, and Legacypac helpfully rewrote it so as not to be a copyvio, but it is still essentially the party programme, with no independent sources. None are likely yet, because Canadian007 wrote on withdrawn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social justice party of canada:

"we have been in SUPER STEALTH mode. We are literally working around the clock this weekend to get everything rolled out Monday, we have been trying to launch everything all at once; Website, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Youtube, Tumblr, Linkdin.. "

I have moved it to Draft space, because WP is not here to help them with their launch. I have no idea whether this a serious contender likely to win seats and change the Canadian political landscape, or just another fringe group, and I guess it will take some time after the launch for that to become clear. Once there are independent sources, anyone (not connected with the party) who thinks notability has been established is welcome to move the draft back to the main space. JohnCD (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

2012 tour of She Has a Name, Featured Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ron Wear deletion discussion

1. Ron Wear
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear

Please see ongoing deletion discussion for Ron Wear, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

1. Critical response to She Has a Name
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name

WP:GA article Critical response to She Has a Name, promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion, discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Article needing attention

I just came across Ontario Paralegal, an article which requires some attention. There are some significant differences, completely unique to Ontario, in how paralegals are licensed and in what duties they're eligible to perform professionally, so this may be a potentially legitimate article topic in a way that "Any-Other-Province-or-US-State Paralegal" would probably not be. But as written, it's not actually an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination, but rather reads like the introduction to a paralegal training textbook and is sourced almost entirely to Law Society of Upper Canada backgrounders rather than independent sources. (And, for that matter, even the title isn't exactly ideal — though I don't know offhand what would be a better one: "Paralegals in Ontario" maybe?) I'm not an expert on the topic by any means, so I wanted to ask if somebody can help to clean this up to a more appropriately encyclopedic presentation. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Flowerdale, Alberta and Harrisville, Alberta nominated for deletion

Consider reviewing and joining the discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowerdale, Alberta
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrisville, Alberta.

Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR notification for 2012 tour of She Has a Name

I have nominated 2012 tour of She Has a Name for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Torontonians...

Any photo bugs in or near downtown Toronto on a sunny/blue sky day who could take a photo of First Canadian Place? The building has been reclad for more than 2 years (pushing 3), and our only decent photos of the tower are from the pre-recladding, marble exterior days. The current photo in the infobox (reclad, from 2014) is okay, but a better photo would be appreciated. I will try, but my photos tend not to be any better than the one we are currently using. Many thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Vancouver watchlisting issue

A user, User:Mr. Motorist, has edited several articles pertaining to former political figures in Vancouver, asserting that they bear direct personal responsibility for the current state of traffic congestion in Vancouver because they failed to back a specific freeway construction proposal in the 1960s. This content is sourced exclusively to articles about the current state of congestion which fail to mention the freeway in question, or any of the politicians he's been dirtwashing with it, as having anything to do with the issue — making it a violation of our rules about both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The user started this campaign on January 19, following which it was rapidly reverted in all cases, and then came back to reinsert it again earlier today.

The affected articles to date are Mary Lee Chan, Darlene Marzari, Art Phillips, Mike Harcourt and Tom Campbell. As of now, the assertions are reverted back out of all five articles again, but the user's persistence to date suggests that this may continue — and unfortunately, pending changes protection won't stop it, as they've been around for long enough and have enough mainspace edits to have autoconfirmed status already, so it's either semi/full page protection (which I'd rather not add to this many pages in one shot) or vigilant watchlisting.

Accordingly, I'd like to request some willing users add the articles to your watchlists to help monitor the situation. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bearcat - you should face the facts. We have congestion in Vancouver because these freeways were cancelled by those past politicians and individuals you are trying to protect. History has well recorded their position against these early highway plans and because these individuals did not act for the good of the whole region, we now waste much of our lives stuck in needless traffic and we waste a lot of our expensive fuel in doing so. The general public has a right to know this. We are the most congested city on the continent because we don't have a proper, integrated expressway network. These political figures are responsible for this current mess and it should be properly recorded... not covered up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Motorist (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for the publication of original research, or for the promotion of personal criticism. We are required, as a non-negotiable matter of binding policy which must be followed on Wikipedia, to maintain a neutral point of view about our article topics — but what you're adding is a synthesized personal opinion, linking two completely separate issues in a way that is not explicitly supported by any of the sources you're adding. Until you can find a reliable source which explicitly states that Vancouver's traffic issues can be laid directly at the feet of Marzari or Phillips or Chan or Harcourt or Campbell, it's inappropriate for us to assert a connection that the sources you're using for it haven't already asserted. Regardless of what level of blame for the issue you may personally think they hold, reliable sources have to explicitly name them as being directly responsible for the issue before you can blame them for it a Wikipedia article. There are no "facts" that I somehow need to "face" — I've got no dog in any fight about Vancouver municipal politics, as I've never lived outside of Ontario in my entire life. But I'm a Wikipedia administrator, so part of my job around here is to enforce Wikipedia policy when it's being violated. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

freewayangelist- Bearcat seems to have an "edited" trail of the actual history of the area, which conveniently backs up the facts "as he sees them". We are in the 21st century and our freeway system was built for 1960's population and is still not yet completed. In the US we constantly see construction and widening of highways and they add extra lanes regardless of opposition. In Canada, we promote more transit for local commuters but this only leads to more congestion. What about those who have family and work to commute for rest of their life. Drivers are paying 2 hours of their lives being stuck in traffic probably till they go to their graves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.206.225 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a venue for the publication of opinion. No matter how bad Vancouver's traffic is, it's not our job to point fingers at any individual person as being responsible for the problem if reliable sources haven't already done so first. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There are RS in various media about the long-term impact of that freeway's not being built and that setting a precedent for there being no freeways within the City of Vancouver itself, except the TransCanada which runs for 20 blocks or so at the very eastern edge of the city. Councillor Gordon Price's campaign to reduce traffic in the downtown peninsula was explicitly about that, and the "Chinatown Freeway"'s example was cited as precedent quite often. Also on his menu and a result of his influence the system of downtown bikelanes and ditto on the bridges into the peninsula, and revisions to the one/two-way pattern of major streets are also part of why downtown traffic is such a nightmare. As for traffic in the rest of the city, the development /economic pattern of the metropolis requires that all the commuter traffic heads there; the "town centres" in the suburbs, which were meant to draw business and workplaces out of the core, have not worked out like that. That because of the commuter pattern the bridges from the 'burbs over the Fraser and also across Burrard Inlet and the Pitt are heavily congested, and wind up in complicated street/arterial patterns in Coquitlam and Burnaby.

And is the City of Vancouver meant, or the general way it's used to mean all of the GVRD? Burnaby's street and arterial pattern is random in its pattern and not tied together well and is a bizarre complexity of big diagonals and irregular N-S arterials imposed/mixed onto ; New West has systematically sought to block that city from being overrun by thru-traffic from the outer suburbs into Vancouver, and that's very citable, as is the bit concerning the suburban bridges already mentioned. Surrey and Coquitlam and Burnaby traffic are every bit as nightmarish as Vancouver, and their street patterns even more disorganized.Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not denying, for the record, that it might be possible to write a neutral, unbiased and properly sourced summary of the role of the highway project in question of setting up the city's current traffic issues. An article about the proposed highway project itself, for example, might be a worthy contribution to Wikipedia — for a comparable example, we actually have an entire article, Cancelled expressways in Toronto, about the mid-20th century network of expressways that were proposed but cancelled in Toronto. Vancouver would absolutely qualify for a similar article, if it can be properly sourced and maintain a neutral point of view. But that's not what the user in question was doing — they were WP:SYNTHing sources that didn't properly support the assertion that there's a direct connection between the two issues, as support for a non-neutral editorial commentary that was attacking the politicians in question. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bearcat, for your comments and the knowledge you provided on this subject. I would be very interested in seeking your help and guidance to prepare the article you suggested on cancelled freeways in the greater Vancouver area. As you suggest, that may be a better forum and everything could be tied together. You seem to have much more knowledge on the workings of Wikipedia than do I (as a newcomer) and I would sincerely appreciate your help in presenting this information in a factual manner. Would you be able to help me? If so, could we correspond off-line? Again, thanks for your interest and the time you took to respond. It is appreciated. Also... as a sideline, now that you have John Tory as mayor, you may see some improvements in traffic flow within Toronto.

"Our history is being colonized

14,000 essay about the POVization of BC history and misdirected accusations and condementions of Skookum1 for standing up to it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About the 'confusing' November 1 post that's not in this section, that's in the section about WhisperToMe wanting to merge/rename Indo-Canadian and South Asian titles per his ongoing retooling of Canadian usages and word-warring as also with Vancouver and other things; per the comment there from Reso saying it's a credit to him for remaining calm in the face of my apparently uncivil tone is enabling the continuance of his mode of "speak softly but carry and big sledgehammer"...and a shovel for long arguments advancing his own ethno-POV agenda and bulldozing and bludgeoning discussions on several talkpages and board and also bulldozing me in a highly AGF fashion ever since he appeared here in WP:Canada about the Air India bombing and then started to launch a series of heavily overbuilt and UNDUE/TRIVIA-compiled ethnicity-in-Canada articles. That I get accused of incivility when I'm being ignored and bossed and patronized repeatedly and persistently, escalating in recent days since a discussion on my talkpage where he disputed my removal of "Anglophone schools" he'd peppered on BC Education pages, again persisting to dispute us (two other Canadians weighed in and explained things to him) and asserting he still thinks hes right; it's all been very frustrating and rather disgusting that I would be hauled out to an ANI for being "combative" and "confrontational" in the face of an onslaught by a highly POV editor who has come out of nowhere to commandeer our history and society on an extremely POV basis, with selective sourcing and an ongoing rejection of sources that he's never read but condemns for not being available on line and demanding page-cites when they're not required...and telling me that because I don't own the many books I once did, and didn't take page-cite notes when reading countless others I didn't own, I am not able to contribute to a discussion...which he dominates with walls of rambling illogic and ordering me to go buy those books "ASAP"..... books he hasn't read himself, ergo is not able to contribute to the discussion himself as not having the knowledge I gleaned of them, and from years of reading BC newspapers and magazines and more; he wants to restrict "his" articles to "scholarly" sources and is engaging in POV SYNTH..... So if the rest of you don't want to take a hand in the matter because you find me confrontational and combative, that's very misdirected; soft-spoken and nice-sounding language can still be very uncivil, especially when it's disrespectful and massive amounts of board warring and talkpage niggling and ignoring materials I provide (linked sources) and says that events and issues in sources I've brought up he should find and read and enrich his knowledge of the topic he is so assiduously seeking to dominate and behave as editor-in-chief. So much edits and walls of argument I often wonder if he's a team of editors; he has opted out of the edit summary tool so it's impossible to know how many of his thousands of edits are his masses of board essays and talkpage self-justifications and how many are articles; the resulting article is an increasingly POV screed based on his very narrow and extremely biased selection and SYNTH of sources and a huge amount of material he's warring, persistently, to exclude from the article by dint of his lengthy argumentativeness on nearly anything I say or suggest. THAT is uncivil behaviour and also rankly WP:OWN and an ongoing confrontational behaviour, highly disruptive to discussion. But predictably, in the ANI that resulted where someone with an axe to grind over the Ottawa shootings article launched a block vote-call against me, it was me who was accused of OWN behaviour by BC content; by someone who doesn't edit in the area, nor know anything about it, but had previously joined a certain other admin in condemning "Okanagan", "Shuswap" and other region-names as "original research" because they were not officially defined.....who also knows nothing about BC geography or history; and neither does WhisperToMe, whose geographical gaffes on various articles and arguments he's been expounding are many and yet he tries to argue about them too, citing his misreadings/synth constructions of the sources I'm not the one who's being combative and confrontational; I'm the one responding to anti-guidelines behaviour in extremis and blatant POVism and defending our history from being re-written and over-written by someone who hasn't even looked around the related BC Wiki-content and demands cites for such things as Golden Village and Metrotown being foci of Chinese life and commerce; when that's already on those articles. I've hesitated to link on that talkpage other related articles, or he may go there and start demanding page cites and enact his repeated and imperious threat to remove anything that's not page-cited or ref'd as per his SYNTH claims about WP:V about when page-cites are mandatory (only when quotes are given); So though I said that he was wrong, and showed why, over and over and over including on the OR board, he continued to assert it and demand page-cites or he would remove even mentions of events from the talkpage if they were not properly sourced as he demands. So then he turned around and while continuing such demands, went at it the RS board and sought agreement that there was some passage in RS about page-cites in some circumstances meant that all books of a certain length were mandatory; he got two negative answers, and of course my own once I found out about the discussion via his usercontributions (as I had about two other immense and rambling self-justifications/expositions of dispute-SYNTH on the OR board), and yet still maintained on the CCinBC talkpage he had a mandate from that board. He doesn't listen, he only goes on and on and goes "is it OK to do this now?" as he did above re the South Asian/Indo-Canadian matter and lots of other cases. If more of you were 'eyes on' with this it would help but most BC editors that would know the material and the milieu are long-gone or busy elsewhere...or avoiding the discussion because they dislike my "tone" or have that WoT/TLDR thing or confuse extended point-sparring as "anger"....well, yes, it is anger now, given the way I've been being treated by his onslaught these last few days. He complained to TheMightQuill since his arrival on that talkpage I'd "interfered" with "his choice" of title for a subject he's only just learning about as he goes......without any knowledge of the province's general history and no grasp at all of the geography, and with a zeal for disputing terms and standard wiki-conventions by SYNTH arguments constructed out of his very narrow selection of biased sources; yes, academics have all kinds of nasty things to say about "white" history in BC, but they regularly make assertions and denunciations and generalizations that raise eyebrows and no small amount of offense to those who know the broader history and know that many of the items they dwell on and conflate have more to them than just focussing on "the bad stuff"...with clearly disprovable claims per data and other sources out there; and far more context, good and bad, than he wants in "his" article. Yes, he needs "interfering with"....... big-time. I've burned myself out trying to deal with him and very misunderstood for it. The sweatshop environment of the workload he's deluging on the article and talkpage and also in his demands and disputes of me is un-wikipedian and uncollaborative; I guess because he's No. 34 on the all-time 400 list he feels he has some kind of editorial authority; all Wikipedians are equal, supposedly, but not in his universe; and "scholarly" standards and sources are invoked in the course of building not just a POV screed or his justifications for excluding sources. These are propaganda techniques, I'll be very blunt about it, and attacking the messenger or the design of the package so as to avoid or override or prevent through time-consumption any discussion of the issues and other sources and what messages and actual facts there are that would and do conflict with the POV diatribes by "scholars" like his modern "scholarly" sources are (including grad theses and book reviews from the same school of "new history" scholasticism that is totally out of touch, and contemptuous of "history before them" by others) . I'll leave you to consider why it's "so important to him", as he patronized me about me not being equipped to "contribute" to the discussion, and how it is he can spend amazing amounts of time doing all the mass of posts and arguments what seems like all day every day, with rapid-fire barrage-edits advancing his POV and an incredible about of TRIVIA and UNDUE and more; if he's also editing other articles at the same time then it's even more of a query as to how he pays for his time...or who does. Summary; if nobody else in Canada cares enough or knows enough about the material to see what's going on with all this, and would rather shun or denounce or criticize me or play up to him; then fine, you've lost a good Wikipedian to yet another wikibreak out of frustration with the harassment I receive for standing up for what's right, as also happened the native endonym RMs sand also the WP:CSG#Places town-titles and the "terror campaign" on the Ottawa and St Jean-sur-Richelieu articles..... it's not just me, in your passiveness about this, or lack of willingness to look simply because you see my name you have allso written off your own history to someone clearly intent on furthering the writing and controlling information on it for POV-agenda purposes. Whose? His own righteousness or some skewed WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by taking one side in a complicated subject and beating the other side to death, or demanding and/or threatening anything else about the subject be deleted....because "scholarly" sources mandate it, as does he; and nobody else matters....least of all me. Apparently my 40 years and more of readings about and knowledge of the province are "original research" and he's the authority and now also editor-in-chief on the subject. And who he is he again and has he ever even been here, or had any sense of what's already in Wikipedia, and what existing/evolved wiki-standards/conventions there already are? As far as BC Wikipedia goes, I'd venture that many here (Wikipedia if not on this board, where I know I'm a bete noire though still recognized as knowledgeable and a good resource person for sources etc) that I'm something like an editor emeritus or dean/doyen in the wiki-province within Wikipedia given the amount I've contributed here and the value placed and thanked for on that mass of contributions and the barnstars and back-pats I've received and the encouragment to stick with it and not give up....well so far I haven't given up but it's getting close to the time when I will stop writing for Wikipedia and instead write about Wikipedia. Publicly. That's not a threat, it's just a statement of simple fact resulting from exhaustion with the b.s. that goes on in the backroom and the amount of b.s. that regularly gets shoved down my throat for standing up for what's right and fighting off POV agenda-edits and POVite warriors seeking to suppress and/or control content..... Could be he just wants to "win Wikipedia" and be No. 1 editor but it's obviously more than that; he's being too focussed on the POV tone/theme of "his" articles and controlling what's in them for it to be just gamesmanship and wanting to be top dog wikipedian. Full-time and very aggressively and not in the interests of all Canadians, only one particular socioethnic sector which does have a very political context in the country of late, as indeed it's had in BC since its earliest days; our history is being colonized and revised, efforts being made to wall out even discussions of sources, while ignoring sources that are provided digitally in order to wipe away the real history and replace it with one that serves the political interests not so much of Chinese Canadians...but of a certain foreign power with massive amounts of influence over our governments, media and our educational institutions. Summing up, learn about your own history and watch over it...or someone else will, and not in your interests and not in the interests of inclusiveness, rather exclusiveness, or in the interests of the country, but of another's. That most WP:Canada people don't know much about BC history of politics past and presence is a reflection of the effect of the Granite Curtain (as Allan Fotheringham dubbed the Rockies) and that's normally OK - we like it that way, as one pundit quipped - but ignorance of that history means that if you don't write it....someone else will, and not in a good way. "Resistance is futile, you will be deleted" is the subtext and indirectly and directly what I'm hearing; I feel like writing WP:BORG and WP:SWEATSHOP and WP:WOE ("walls of edit" and essays and more because of all this...but I give too much of my intelligence and soul and heart to this place anyway...... if I'm left alone to deal with, or try to, this onslaught against truth and collaborative writing by someone hostile to both, soft-talking as he may seem, all by myself then so be it; but don't condemn me because you don't want to investigate the problems, or look into BC history and modern society enough to oversee it wisely, then so be it. One day I will die, and the knowledge and perspective I have and am respected for inside and outside wikipedia will be gone and.....probably deleted and overwritten by the digi-verse, while book after book that goes onto the bonfire of history, or is thrown to the curb by SYNTH claims about what's RS and what's not and what's allowed re cites and what's not......well I guess I'll be dead and will know better than to care anymore; but for now I still do........and curiously I still cre about what's in Wikipedia despite the extensive abuse and harassment I've gotten on a string of matters where, when the dust settled, turns out I was right all along.Skookum1 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've said this to you years ago on your talk page: it would be easier to deal with your concerns if I didn't have to invest significant amounts of my time reading a wall of text in order to offer a cogent reply. You'll attract more responses to your concerns if you write a concise summary of your concern, instead of a tome missive. Moreover, don't misconstrue lack of responses as indifference. Wikipedia is huge, and each of us here has had to deal with lack of input in various domains in which we contribute. (For example, check the contribution history of the articles I've created and submitted to DYK - there are very few contributions from other editors in any of those articles, likely because the people interested in these subjects aren't on Wikipedia, or don't know these articles were created, or don't have the time to contribute to them, and so forth.) We can deal with your idiosyncracies, but please don't expect us to invest an exorbitant amount of our time to deal with issues you've encountered. (For the record - I only read three paragraphs of your comment; if I read the whole thing and replied to it all, it'd take about 45 minutes, which I'd rather spend preparing and consuming a meal.)

To summarise: write concise, information-dense comments, and you'll get more replies. Mindmatrix 20:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Amen, Mindmatrix. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Skookum, but this giant screed is virtually unreadable. Please take the advice many of us have given you and make your arguments in a concise manner. All these diatribes do is drive people away from the debate. Resolute 00:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, here, Resolute. I often ignore these diatribes as I don't want to invest time in someone that can't help themselves by heeding the advice offered repeatedly by others. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reso, I'm gonna be really blunt: you need comprehension lessons if you call that a screed and call it "virtually unreadable". If you think that's long then you haven't seen all that I have seen since WTM showed up; your title for the box collapse was AGF, also. Too many people around Wikipedia demand point-form presentations; this is a complex matter which can't be explained in simple terms for simple minds....and involves a collection of propaganda tactics .

"All these diatribes do is drive people away from the debate" is in fact a summation of the barrage of diatribes that I have been subjected to and dozens of talkpages and board discussions deluged with, all to advance a pointedly POV agenda and revisionist version of BC history along one very obvious ethno-political tubthump and soapbox.

If you can't be bothered to read something that I obviously care about enough to spend up til very late (3:30 am) to complete and lay out as clearly as possible then you should not be commenting on it, or NPA'ing/AGF'ing me. More of the same from the cold-water crowd unwilling to investigate a serious matter and instead attack the person who brought it forward and shit on them.

I have a lot of writer friends; but Wikipedia is the only place I hear from people who tell me I'm a bad writer and am "virtually unreadable" and "need writing lessons".....geezus man you don't know the half of it as far as bad writing (his article style is atrocious and somewhat second-language "bald" with bad syntax) and lengthy diatribes; I've been seeing them daily for months; on several fronts.

If you don't want to read it, then don't. But don't shit on me for it - or title it in such a way as to misrepresent what it's about; I changed it for obvious reasons. If you don't care about BC history being written to serve the purposes of propaganda favouring another country's interests and influence on Canada; fine; go write some sports articles; I care, and some here do; and some can actually read and think and not get all nasty about seeing long texts and take the time to understand instead of to denigrate.

All the folks who say this "it's too long to read" are really just shooting the messenger and not engaging the issue. Impatience and demands that things be written like Coles Notes, in point form, and can't recognize "concise" in long-form text would never make it through a major work of any kind; and yet here you are, limiting discussion-depth in the course of editing a wikipedia; or rather, not editing it, and letting a propagandist run unchecked while you crap on the person bringing it forward. Then again, I recall you as being one who supported the keeping of the POV FOO of the Harper government series of articles, too.

"too long to read" and incongent and SYNTH rambles and bizarre conflations of guidelines into rules and demands are what all the above is about; bullying and bulldozing and more to advance an agenda that you should be worried about, but are too impatient to bother reading. If you don't have an open mind and a readiness to listen to a long-time editor who's weathered various battles and won lots of them and been shown to have been right despite his long-windedness, then butt out.

I came across this in the Epoch Times last night; it's no secret that info-war is being waged in this world:

"China’s state-run cyberattacks have been described as a war without bullets, with the Chinese regime stealing U.S. wealth, innovation, and military might. As government and industry are scrambling to find means to respond to the incessant barrage of attacks, the story about how this assault began remains little known."

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1230816-how-silencing-chinas-dissidents-led-to-stealing-the-wests-secrets/

Might as well substitute "Canadian history and society and politics" for "US wealth, innovation and military might" in that; the tactics are recognizable, I've seen them on other sino-centric rampages here in the past, and in UseNet. "Barrage of attacks" is the modus operandi, as is the "you're not capable of contributing to this because I say so" crap that I'm being shoved in my face by this guy - who if he's on scholarship or funded to build his world empire of 'ethnicity by city' articles (which must all be really crappy though cited out the ying-yang), then there's a COI issue and, as I explained and you won't read, grounds for a CHECKUSER investigation to see if he's even really one person.....and even in Texas, where he claims to be. He's never been to BC or to Canada, yet is behaving like Editor-in-Chief of anything he touches. With "walls of text" that you don't have the patience to read; or the courtesy, for that matter.

I'm fed up having to deal with on my own and getting snide put-downs like yours whenever I bring it up in the detail it needs to be addressed with.Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolute needs no lessons in comprehension. You need a lesson in how to not be incomprehensible. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, you have been collaborative with me over time and I know are concerned about history; I did the best I can to summarize a very complex matter, but a VERY obvious problem with this editor's works and his massive posts and board wars. Criticizing me in the course of justifying why not to read what I've had to say is..... getting tiresome. I've "invested significant amounts of time" trying to deal with the barrage of garbage-y and POV content and lengthy talk/board avalanches...and not just me, but our history, is getting buried. So don't read what I have t o say; you won't read his masses of crap either then, and really, nobody should have to; arguing and arguing and arguing and never listening, never apologizing for or admitting to mistake.

I'm late for work from stopping to reply to your putdowns and refusal to read what you should be reading instead of shitting on me for undertaking to explain. Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

" I only read three paragraphs of your comment; if I read the whole thing and replied to it all, it'd take about 45 minutes, which I'd rather spend preparing and consuming a meal.)"

Only 45 minutes ? and you'd rather eat than read/think. Geez, try out replying t o WTM sometime, or reading all HIS avalanches/walls of over-cited nonsense and POV self-justifications. "Oh, I'd rather eat something" is a sad comment on the way this world is going.Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So, on the one hand, you say you're late for work and have no time to respond to my single paragraph of text (1246 bytes), and on the other, you tell me that instead of feeding myself and my family (something we need to do several times a day to survive) I should respond to your wall of text (14284 bytes - more than eleven times the length of my message). And "only 45 minutes" refers to one of your posts; do you seriously think I'm willing to invest significant portions of my life to respond to long, meandering posts that mingle serious questions and concerns with irrelevant personal commentary and tangential thoughts? All I did here was offer some simple advice: cut to the chase and state the problem, omit everything else - it'll save you lots of typing, and us lots of reading, and everyone involved lots of time. It'll also elicit more answers. Second, "what you should be reading" is condescending and patronizing - I'm capable of determining what I should do with my time, thank you very much. Third, I didn't make any "putdowns", about you or anyone else, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't mischaracterize me in this way. Fourth, I'm not refusing to read your concerns, I'm refusing to read your concerns when they're enveloped in massive walls of irrelevant tangents. Fifth, your concerns may (or may not) be valid, that doesn't imply they should be my concerns, and it doesn't imply that I don't care.

Note that this has nothing to do with any particular concern you've cited. My comment is strictly about the way you present your concerns to us. So, once again, if you want my input on a specific concern, state it bluntly (which you typically do) and concisely (which you rarely do) without the spurious tangents. Otherwise, don't be surprised, offended, alarmed, shocked, disappointed, or whatever that I don't respond to you. Mindmatrix 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As for "dealing with my idiosyncracies" it's lot more than "idiosyncracies" I'm seeing in the infowar that's underway and a lot more text to read of his than you'd ever deign to look at . I see I came to the wrong place; but this is here for others to read who can and will. Geezus that you guys think *I'm* long winded; I dont know whether to laugh or cry...or spit.Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Skookum, I am quite sure I noted in that ANI thread that if you found an opponent as verbose as you, that you might begin to understand what we put up with. I am going to make this simple. WTM has noted on my talk page that they intend to stop interacting with you. You do the same. Disengage. Or I'll bring this back to ANI with a request that it be forced upon you. Everyone else, I suggest the same. Allow this to end. Resolute 04:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd have liked an end to this quite a while ago but found myself thrown to the bearpit where hostiles with their own POV agendas/axe-grinding and ugly behaviour of their own turned what was supposed to be a mediation into a vote-call to block me - to stop me correcting POV and challenging illicit edits and presumptive and illogical arguments. Fine, I never wanted argument with WTM, all along I've been trying to explain and educate him only to get AGF and avalanches of it in return; so you are saying let the article stand as it is in its rank POV form then? Is that "disengagement" or enablement of POVism and ongoing and escalating AGF against me, allowing POV material to stand intact and unchanged?

Yes, disengage, I'm tired of having to defend the truth and fairness and only getting shit on for my troubles; I have found an opponent even more verbose as I am, profoundly so....only I make sense, and he doesn't. If you were capable of reading all that has gone on you might have an idea what I'm talking about; instead you tell me to shut up and let the bullshit-content stand as it is without any attempt to correct content to NPOV as it should have been? Whatever, WTM is more than welcome to disengage from me - by giving up his attempt to bowdlerize the article, and others he's created and warred over controlling in similar fashion .... by finding another "ethnicity-by-city" in another country go continue his very questionable agenda over such one-sided content as he has been amassing.

That once again the issues concerning content and sources go unaddressed while ANIs and denunciations here of my personality issues or whatever the latest slag against me is become the theme of discussion, and nobody wants to have a look at the problems with that article and this includes yourself, saying you're not interested in the topic but coming down with a hammer because you have no inclination to try to read and understand the issues or learn about the content and the sources. Fine, I have no interest in hearing from him demanding from me or do this and that because he says so. He never admits he might be wrong; I at least am capable of that; and my respect for the "community" has slid another few points as ineffective and deflective. I will not withdraw from BC history or related articles or content because someone has warred with me, combatively, in trying to control what's in them, and what I can or can't mention on the talkpage. The rest of you don't care about the topic, or as TheMightyQuill admits, don't know very much about the topic; I do. And I know where sources are, online and off, and what's in them.....

Yes, disengage. But this is more than about the battlefield that WTM has persistently attacked and AGFd me in, this is about the POVization of Wikipedia by political agendas of all kinds; same as with the Ottawa shootings article and the attempt to argue to change the Mount Polley mine disaster article to a less "extremist" title. Whatever, you'll condemn me for speaking my mind about this larger topic; of which this case is currently damaging me....and my saggin respect for the "community" and its tyrannical-consensus ways. History is written by the victors, and also deleted by them when nobody is looking. Fine, disengage, from any further attempt to get WTM to listen to what he needs to know about the topic he's tried to OWN and POVize, I'll do that. But I will add more material to that article that I've found and have ready ....but have had no time to add because of being confronted daily by yet more nonsense and AGF. I should have known better than to speak here; "never waste your time arguing with people who are committed to misunderstanding you and who will pass judgement on you instead of listening to what you are saying.

Wikipedia has fallen very far from the collaborative, cooperative environment of informed and considerate editors it ws when I first joined so very long ago now. "If you don't have any familiarity with a topic, please stay out of discussions about it", that's in guidelines somewhere but one of those passages that is never listened to by those who build careers hanging out on AFD/RM/CFD/ATN et al; and content suffers for it, and bad decisions made on spurious and often personal grounds. Fine, disengage indeed.....has it occurred to anyone that if no one engages untruth and POV/COI activism then the latter will prevail?

No, I thought not....and should have known better than to think that Canadians in other provinces gave a good god whatever about BC history and politics, or even geography. Fine, disengage; I've de-listed this page before because of WTM once before and might as well again, and remove myself from my own country's wikiproject and only use the WP:BC and WP:Vancouver templates when tagging articles in future. If I see my contributions "interfered with" as he puts my activity in opposing his bulldozing and bad geography and POV constructs, don't blame it on me for knowing better or knowing more about a topic that you admit you don't even care about. But damn you sure are ready to condemn someone whosse information and accounts of issues you won't even condescend to read.

Signing off with User:Skookum1#Apt_quotes_re_Wiki-.22culture.22 and de-watchlisting this useless place now; I won't waste my words and ideas and energy on people who refuse to read them and only come back with with NPA/AGF dress-downs who don't even understand nor want to take the time to learn the history that has been being abused in the course of all this. I'll consider whether to withdraw from Wikipedia once again, but have no doubt that others who do respect me and value my disinformationists and will ask me to come back as so often before....and I'll find more damage to NPOV once again, as before with Theresa Spence and Idle No More and to ......well, anywhere where disinformationists have been scattering their distortions without anyone giving a damn, or even knowing enough to know wrong when they see it.Skookum1 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That once again the issues concerning content and sources go unaddressed...: I've already explained to you how to elicit my input. If I have to search a wall of text for the kernel of a concern, I won't bother. If you state your concern briefly, I (and perhaps others) may be inclined to participate in the discussion. It's as simple as that. Mindmatrix 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Skookum, I really recommend that you listen to Mindmatrix's advice. Many times, I have found myself on the same side of an issue with you, yet I don't get involved in the discussion because I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with your extremely lengthy posts which are usually patronizing to anyone who disagrees with you. Something is fundamentally wrong with your approach when you are turning away like-minded editors. And God help anyone who has a different opinion, no matter how reasonable, because my experience is that you consistently fail to assume good faith and are usually condescending. Your comments above are not helping. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mining industry AUTO activity and should Canadian-owned mines abroad carry the WP:Canada wikiproject? I think it's a necessary idea

This is part of the observations I made on Jimbo's talkpage about p.r., partisan, corporate and security state infiltration of activism, and suggests to me that things like the Marlin mine and Fenix mine in Guatemala and various other mine articles involving Canadian mining companies should carry the WP:Canada wikiproject template and be kept an eye on for POV/COI/AUTO activity and especially a watch for suppression or deletion or minimalization of human rights content and corporate/political matters.....I've already spent too much time here tonight with myh previous section, but it needs saying before I book out... not that anybody care waht I think is important. For those who do comprehend I have useful things to say and am kinda astute about this or that, please see Talk:Mineral industry of Guatemala#content seems WP:AUTO in flavour and does not mention human rights issues at *all*. Also some kind of article about "Canadian investment abroad" seems needed, likewise Chinese investments in Canada, American investments in Canada and so on. Not that there's not a shortage of experienced editors to monitor them, much less write them. I guess not as interesting for most people as sports and celeb and highway articles and such.... tough to understand, lots to watch out for; but blatant POV/COI/AUTO activity of any kind needs to be reminded of, even if nobody has the belly to actually take action about it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Project banners are generally informal, so if you feel there is a strong enough tie between the article and the project, feel free to add the banner. Doing so does not mean the articles will be watched any closer, however. As to the suggested articles, I worry a bit about WP:SYNTH, but especially about WP:COATRACK. But if quality sources exist for those topics, there is no real reason not to create articles if you are so inclined. Resolute 14:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes

Is there a reason that Canadian city and town articles that use flag icons? MOSFLAG says not to, for example London, Johannesburg, New York City do not, but Beijing, Baghdad, and Cairo do. Is this just garden variety inconsistency, or do we have a document that says we will use them in Canadian articles?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not." So, neither yes nor no for settlements, but a solid "if you wanna, I guess", so it does appear that the MOS doesn't force the issue. I dislike them and would prefer they not be included. Mindmatrix

It seems there is currently a discussion at the village pump about the issue.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For those interested, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal regarding flag icons in infoboxes. There is also a short blurb at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#A process question: misuse of flag icons. Mindmatrix 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Canadian content

With Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards having evolved significantly since I first created beaver hour back in 2005, and with my own understanding of the best way to present and structure a topic having done the same, I now believe that instead of being the topic of its own separate article, it should be simply discussed in our main article on Canadian content as an aspect of the larger topic rather than as a standalone topic in its own right. Accordingly, I've proposed that "beaver hour" be merged into "Canadian content", and am requesting input at Talk:Canadian content#Merge proposal in case anybody disagrees. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox nhsc

If anyone is interested, {{Infobox nhsc}}, the infobox used on some articles pertaining to National Historic Sites of Canada, is subject to a proposal to merge it with {{Infobox historic site}}. Discussion here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Canadian navigational boxes

So I am not sure if anyone noticed but I reverted the changes to all the navboxes at Category:Canadian navigational boxes like Template:Canada topics that were recently changed a few times. As all know I am not a fan of the colors...but that said we have had a heated conversation a few years about the colors....thus I have reverted the blanking of our format. Could I get a few others to watch over these pls. I think the ip is right as in they should a look like all the others on Wikipedia...but this is not the format we all aggred on. Do we need to tlak about this again??? -- Moxy (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth another discussion. FWIW, I agree with the IP on this one, but also agree with the reversions, pending said discussion. Resolute 23:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the current color is a bit much ....normal naveboxes would be best all around. I cant find the old conversation to link to though...would be best to see what all had to say before. -- Moxy (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The one good thing about the current colouring and the default is that they both meet WP:ACCESS standards. So the debate is really only esthetic. Resolute 00:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Aesthetically, I like it as is, but I can't find another country topics navbox with national colours, so I can't really see why we're special. I could see how it would get out of control. What was the argument for bucking the trend in the old discussion? The Interior (Talk) 00:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess it matches this noticeboard :) The Interior (Talk) 00:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think its because this board and/or wikiproject is much more involved then most other projects (we have so many long term editors here). WP:USA is dead considering the amount of Americans there is. The Canadians, WP:China and WP:AUS have been very active for a long time....thus we all have our own MOS and style conventions. -- Moxy (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it looks cool, but we're not special, it should be standard. Is Newfoundland and Labrador included in this discussion? I think the same thing, they should have the standard colours as well. 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Before we all hop on the "it should be standard" train, is there a policy or guideline which says that it should be standard? I'm not saying it shouldn't be standard, but sometimes I find people on Wikipedia (present company excluded) say things should be matchy-matchy for no other reason than it satisfies personal desires that things be matchy-matchy - as a result, there is the omnipresent notion that things should be standard (even if there isn't a compelling reason for it to be so). And it's not as if we routinely have {{Canada topics}} at the bottom of the same articles as, say, {{Germany topics}}, where one might want similar templates to match. It would be one thing if we had an accessibility issue, or our template was designed completely differently than any of the others. But neither of those are the case. We're effectively talking about colours of borders and a maple leaf. It's not really a case of inconsistency so much as it is one of a couple of unique elements. I'd like to know if we're offside a policy or guideline, because that should be our starting point. And, P.S., The Interior and 117Avenue, we are special.  :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would think WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR would be the applicable guideline. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks. But as I read that, I don't see any conflict with it. In fact, it contemplates colours being used for identification that are "appropriate, representative, and accessible". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no policy on Wikipedia that navboxes are limited to a single standardized colour palette that has to be followed with no variation permitted for any reason. Rather, as long as certain principles of accessibility and legibility — such as not choosing a background colour that's so close to the text colour that the text becomes unreadable — navboxes are allowed to follow a variant colour scheme that's representative of the topic. Just for a couple of examples, {{Green parties}} has the default colour scheme replaced with, guess what, a green one — and musical artist navboxes are done in colour schemes that match the colour schemes of {{infobox musical artist}} (i.e. solo artists in yellow, bands in a shade of blue that isn't the same as the default blue, and on and so forth.) Of course, that doesn't mean that we can or should create random colour schemes for each individual navbox — one that mixed colours with no contextual value to Canada, for example, would be inappropriate — but a red-and-white colour scheme does have particular "representative" value in the Canadian context, so it's entirely permissible per our navbox policy.

I'm not opposed to a discussion about whether we should consider abandoning the red-and-white colour scheme that's been applied to many Canadian navboxes — consensus can change — but nothing in Wikipedia policy requires us to follow the default blue, so it would require a consensus to go back to default colours rather than a single user's arbitrary diktat (especially when that single user is an anonymous IP.) Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I, for one, am perfectly happy with the red-and-white format. PKT(alk) 13:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, me too. It's actually more crisp and clean than the default, in my opinion. (It's essentially the same as the graphics for this page... Is it also under challenge?) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

les aéroports ... (proposed move)

Should Montréal–Mirabel International Airport be moved to Montreal–Mirabel International Airport (i.e. no accent on Montreal)? This is an issue also presumably affecting other Quebec airports, such as Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport and Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. Discussion is at Talk:Montréal–Mirabel International Airport#Proposed move to Montreal–Mirabel International Airport. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"track and field athlete" vs "athlete"

See Category:Paralympic track and field athletes of Canada which has been proposed to be renamed by stripping "track and field" from the name -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ontario, CA

the meaning and usage of Ontario, CA is under discussion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Canada Games

with the Canada Winter Games going on, it might be a good idea to make it a project collaboration article? 2015 Canada Winter Games and List of Canada Games need improvement. We're also missing Canada Games Council --- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've requested that the Games logos be uploaded at WP:IFU -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent POV editor

Can some of you add Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States to your watchlist? A persistent IP editor keeps making a change to the intro that is incorrect (stating that Canada has a public system and the US a private system, whereas the reality is both countries have both private and public components in their healthcare systems. It's been a month of dealing with the same vandalism. I'd rather not protect the article for something so trivial; perhaps a tempblock of the IP? Anyway, for now a few extra eyes on the article are welcome. Thanks.Mindmatrix 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added it, and just reverted an edit (from a slightly different IP address). PKT(alk) 19:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put a one-week editing protection on - auto-confirmed users can still edit it; the same change being made four or five times a day is getting ridiculous. Mindmatrix 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated establishment year question

Tangentially to the above discussion, how should we handle establishments of organizations etc. in an area that didn't geopolitically exist at the time of establishment. For example, we currently have Category:1857 establishments in Ontario, which is incorrect (it should be Category:1857 establishments in Canada West; I'll address this one soon). Moreover, Alberta pre-1905 was substantially smaller than when it joined confederation; Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba have all acquired more land over time, and the Northwest Territories has lost significant chucks of land. Given that we have categories for Upper and Lower Canada, and pre-Confederation Newfoundland, should we also create those for the districts of Keewatin, Athabasca, Alberta, et al. Do we go further back, to New France? What about pre-Confederation top-level categories, such as Category:1857 establishments in Canada. Mindmatrix 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've been sifting Nunavut-related establishments in Northwest Territories categories if they occurred before 1999. I think we should do the same with other files, such as northern Ontario settlements established before Confederation. Mindmatrix 16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about what geopolitical context existed at time of establishment. I think our readers would be more interested about the current geopolitical context. For the pre-1905 Saskatchewan establishment categories, we could simply write an explanatory sentence at the cat that technically they were established in the geopolitical context of the North-West Territories (as it was called then) but the current geopolitical context is used. Hwy43 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At a certain point, one needs at least a Masters in Canadian History to be able to follow the historical evolution of current Canadian jurisdictions. I agree with Hwy43 on this one. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

suffice to say that current political geography (NB btw, "geopolitics" is a somewhat different term, sez he who's been a student in the field) has to be used or "FOO in Canada" about events in pre-Confederation BC would not be used; same with pre-1949 Newfoundland. Similarly, the site of Whitehorse was in the short-lived expansion of the Stikine Territory but in wiki usage it has to be stated "in Canada". And re pre-Confederation BC, currently there's no by-year cat for the 1860s and 1870s (other than maybe one subcat, 1861 I think) but items from 1870 and 1871 (to a certain date) should also be put in Category:Pre-Confederation British Columbia).

Also a bit tangential but because this is about establishment-date categories, and bypassing the natives-were-there-first line of argument, somewhere like Dewdney, British Columbia was first settled by a non-native in 1861 and has that establishment cat....but it was incorporated in 1892, then disincorporated in 1906 (we have no "disestablishments cats")...there is no separate Municipality of Dewdney article nor should there be (it included more than modern Dewdney); but there's not yet an infobox on it; if one were placed are there fields for "first established" then "incorporated in" [as what etc] and if needed "disincorporated in"? Seems like overkill but in a lot of cases it was a long time before incorporation came along (Lillooet was first established as a non-native settlement in 1858, then a townsite laid out and current name adopted in 1860...incorporation wasn't until the mid-20th Century).

Also on the subject of establishment cats, all IRs have a particular date they were designated on, some such as those created by the Douglas Treaties (not all of which remain today) were before the Indian Act, and while most will have Indian Act-associated dates there are others since whether via Crown Commissions or "deals" such as how Peckquaylis, which had been the St. Mary's Indian Residential School and its grounds was transferred to joint administration of 23 bands of the Sto:lo.....in many cases it may be hard to find out the date of the establishment, or as with Peckquaylis, the date of transfer to IR status, but so far I don't recall seeing establishment cats on any IR articles, though maybe on some town/locality articles the IR titles may redirect to. Same goes for FN governments themselves of course.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To me, it looks like the consensus here is to use current political boundaries for the establishment by year categories. Hwy43 (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic comments in which context of discussion was lost
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's a consensus that's going to need revising/revisiting. The District of Lillooet's boundaries have changed since it was created, mid-90s I think; and it has a year of founding in terms of its original townsite survey and renaming in 1860...but didn't have municipal status, I think, until after WWII; first as a Village I think, then a District by the 60s...could have vbeen made "up" into a DM when the boundaries were extended, but I don't think so. Then there's Mission where Mission City and Mission District had different establishment dates and weren't amalgamated into the current District until the early 1970s..... then there's Abbotsford, which used to the the District of Sumas, the Township of Matsqui (er, District?) an the tiny square mile of the Village of Abbotsford; its boundaries were also extenedd after amalgamation. Same with the City of Chilliwack vs the old District of Chilliwhack....and then there's Hope, which has similarly been expanded. And hm Kamloops and Prince George are now pretty well regional municipalities if not by name, and all that was done in the last couple of decades only, though teh towns are much older; and Kamloops was founded as Thompson's River Post aka Fort Shuswap aka Fort Kamloops in the 1810s or so.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Who came up with this "consensus" anyway? I'd say it needs revising, or junking and starting over from scratch with more informed input regarding town histories and municipal histories/border changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) Ugh... Re-read this entire brief thread. This discussion has to do with "... establishments in province/territory" categories where the community was established prior to the establishment date of its current province/territory. It has nothing to do with non-existent "... establishments in municipalities" categories. Your concern is over something that does not exist. Municipal boundary changes, status changes, restructurings, etc. are irrelevant. Hwy43 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: you initiated this discussion. User:Skeezix1000 and I commented in November and were in agreement. Skookum1 also commented in November but it was confusing. What are your thoughts given the November comments and the new ones expressed today? Hwy43 (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my (somewhat inadvertent) neglectfulness of these discussions, so thanks for the ping. I read most of the comments from the initial discussion, and wanted to ponder about it for a while, but then I became sidetracked writing articles. Anyway...

Skookum1, I think you misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. It is only for province-level "by year" establishment categories, not municipal categories. See the discussion thread above for settlements. Regarding your statement that we have no disestablishment cats - I've been working on that one too - see Category:Disestablishments in Canada by year.

After some consideration, I think what we should do is use the most relevant name for such a category when possible, such as Category:1821 establishments in Upper Canada, and make those subcats of categories using modern names (in this case, Category:Establishments in Upper Canada by year, which is a subcat of Category:Establishments in Ontario by year). Unfortunately, Upper Canada and Ontario are not the same geographical area, so we may well need Category:1841 establishments in Ontario anyway. This problem exists only for Ontario- and Quebec-related articles. For clarification, is the suggestion for Ontario and Quebec to do as I've written here, or to merge the respective Upper/Lower Canada (and Canada East/West) categories to the provincial versions, or something else?

This is mostly a non-issue for the east coast, as those provinces have more or less existed as-is since inception (yeah, I know, a few caveats...), so we can use those names exclusively per the suggestions in this thread. As for the west and north, we can use the modern names for years before provincehood, again per the suggestions in this thread. Does anyone object sifting "older" categories to the relevant pre-provincehood category (such as Category:1857 establishments in Alberta as a subcat of Category:Establishments in Alberta by year and Category:1857 establishments in the Northwest Territories, conveniently neglecting Rupert's Land), or is this overkill? What about adding an image to each province or territory establishment year category, such as one of those found on Territorial evolution of Canada#Timeline? Mindmatrix 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK yeah lots context of this discussion, had lost track of it being about provinces/territories only, my bad. Re the comment about the "confusing" November 1 post, see new section below and yes, it's very confusing...and confusion is part of the toolkit and methodology of what I've been trying to deal with, in order to protect the whole truth and NPOV while many of your look away and/or condemn me.Skookum1 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, in my last post, why would you think "confusing" November email was a reference to a November 1 email in an unrelated discussion eight topics earlier than this one? I was referring to your November 25 comments earlier in this discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I took a peek at the categories for US states. They seem to follow this suggestion, that is categorizing Category:1666 establishments in New York in Category:Establishments in New York by year and Category:1666 establishments in the Thirteen Colonies, the latter of which is a subcat of Category:Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by year. There are no establishment categories for the United States for years preceding 1776. Mindmatrix 19:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, likewise pardon the neglectfulness. For the New York example immediately above, I see it is categorized both to the current relevant geographic area (State of New York) and the geographic context that was applicable in 1666 (Thirteen Colonies). This approach appears to address the shortcomings of the approacj you summarized in your first Jan-31/15 comments.

Do you think employing a double-pronged approach is therefore a good idea? For a complex example, Lloydminster would fall under Category:1903 establishments in Saskatchewan, Category:1906 establishments in Alberta and either Category:1903 establishments in the North-West Territories (more likely) or Category:1903 establishments in the District of Saskatchewan (less likely)? Hwy43 (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cougar

The naming of "Cougar" (should it be "Puma"?) is under discussion, see talk:Cougar -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Establishment years and settlements

Over the past three weeks I've created a significant number of "(Year) establishments in X" categories, which I've also been populating. A few other editors have also been sifting articles into these categories, and also creating similar categories. This raises the question of how to properly deal with settlements. Here's an example I noted in a message on my talk page:

Unfortunately, some settlements are difficult to categorize by this system. For example, King, Ontario was settled by Europeans in 1798, but the first documented info I found states 1800, and it was incorporated in 1851. This ignores the native Wyandot occupation of the area preceding it all, the French exploration of the area (with campsites etc.), and use of routes through the area and sites within during the early fur trading period.

In that message, I forgot to mention that Yonge Street was established in the early 1790s through the township, and (documented) patent letters for land first issued in 1797. This neglects pre-European settlements, which Skookum1 suggests on my talk page could be sorted into Category:Settlements in Canada established in pre-Contact times or some such.

Anyway, what to do? Here's a short list of options:

1. don't use these categories at all
2. use incorporation date as the year of establishment
3. use first documented settlement date as the year of establishment, and first incorporation to sift into new category tree (for example, Category:1967 settlement incorporations in Canada–from a similar proposal by Hwy43 on my talk page–or a somewhat differently-named category)
4. some other sorting technique

Given the massive effort required to deal with year-based categories, I'd rather get this right the first time before we collectively invest our time sorting articles. Mindmatrix 16:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

While we should always be sensitive to the fact that Canada didn't suddenly begin to exist the moment Europeans trod onto it, I think we should use date of incorporation as year of establishment (and, ideally, have "Settlements in Canada incorporated in X" subcats or some such thing). King, Ontario may have been inhabited for eons before anyone even called it King, but the legal entity was established in 1850. It's not perfect, but I believe it's the only way that these types of catgories can be used consistently and in a manner that avoids debates over who arrived when.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is not all communities (settlements) incorporate as municipalities. It alienates unincorporated communities, which were all established at some point through a less formal process. Hwy43 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the problems with the alternatives, it might be unavoidable that such categories can't be used for unincorporated settlements. Doesn't really "alienate" them. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I support option 3 so long as it is named Category:Municipal incorporations in Canada as the generic "settlement" term is an umbrella term that is inclusive of both unincorporated communities and incorporated municipalities when the purpose of this category is the latter. Note that the suggested category also lends itself to be split into subcats by municipal status if the need warrants. For example, for a city that originally incorporated as a village and then a town before ultimately incorporating under its current city status, we could eventually acknowledge this progression with Category:Villages incorporations in Canada, Category:Town incorporations in Canada and Category:City incorporations in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How is option 3 workable? Any archaeological indication of potential settlement would mean that we'd be using a vague "pre-Contact" category for a good many of this country's municipalities. Toronto, for example, would lose both Category:Populated places established in 1793 and Category:1834 establishments in Canada - heck, for Toronto we even have a National Historic Site of Canada for a Seneca village which existed many years before 1793. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those would be the same thing as "Toronto" though. Historical Teiaiagon and the modern Baby Point neighbourhood, for example, are within the city's current borders, but were established independently (and in their case, in the same place), and so would be independently categorized. I'm not stating we should follow this proposal, only that I don't think it would affect the categories for Toronto as you state. That is, the archaeological site article/redirect would obtain the appropriate establishment year category, not the current municipality. (I do, however, have a hankering to update Toronto's category to Category:1834 establishments in Upper Canada.) Mindmatrix 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to resolve this in 2015? Or did you already find a solution, Mindmatrix? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should try to resolve this in 2015, which has since arrived. @Mindmatrix:, did you see Skeezix1000's question above?

@Skeezix1000: a "pre-contact" category is a very different thing IMO. Is it even possible to apply a Gregorian calendar year to a "pre-contact" establishment? Hwy43 (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding everyone. I haven't found a good solution for this yet, though I agree with Skeezix1000 about using dates of incorporation for those entities for which such dates exist. For unincorporated settlements, we can either omit such categories altogether, or include them in a best-effort or best-available-info manner, which Skeezix1000 notes can lead to "debates over who arrived when". Another option is to include the earliest date for which there is incontrovertible documentary evidence of permanent human habitation at that settlement, and require that it must have a reliable source in the text as well. (But this does not confer the same date to the incorporated municipality in which it is located; using the example above, the 1850 category would be applied to King, Ontario, and the currently non-existent article/redirect for the community of Armitage would get the 1800 category.)

I'd also like to be able to handle articles such as Teiaiagon. I'm ambivalent about Skookum1's proposal of Category:Settlements in Canada established in pre-Contact times, but if such a category is used, I'd prefer a less unwieldy name. (I haven't been able to divine one, though - the best I've come up with is Category:Settlements in Canada established before European colonization, which isn't simpler.) Mindmatrix 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, after much stewing, for those settlements established:

• after colonization, what about nesting Category:Settlements established in Canada and Category:Municipalities incorporated in Canada (or "established") under Category:Establishments in Canada?
• before colonization, what about nesting the slightly less wordy Category:Pre-colonization establishments in Canada under Category:Establishments in Canada?

For the pre-colonization category entries, we likely won't have sub-categories that drill down to years as I anticipate actual years under the Gregorian calendar are unknown, but we could potentially sub-categorize these into sub-geographies of Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)