Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 25

City/Province/Country

I was looking at this [1] bit of overlinking (we don't need to specify that Saskatchewan is in Canada twice in three lines, let alone link both occurrences of each term).

I'm sure this must have come up before, but I can't find a discussion on when we need to specify a province with a town (not suggesting that Saskatooon is well known enough not to need the province) and when we need to specify "Canada" with the mention of a province. Meters (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the links to Canada. Not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a clear consensus on when it's necessary to specify "City, Province" instead of just "City". WP:CANSTYLE does suggest that sometimes it's not, but doesn't quantify a specific test for how to determine whether any given town or city has crossed the "necessary vs. not-necessary" line — it basically leaves it up to a judgement call. It is definitely not necessary to add "comma Canada" if the context of the article has already pinpointed Canada — for example, if the introduction of the article already states that the subject was Canadian, it is not then necessary to affix comma-Canada to every city name in the entire article thereafter. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Personal Insurance Company

The article The Personal Insurance Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Company exists, but there's no sourcing provided to show that it is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article (even a stub) per WP:ORG. A quick search for sources only found the routine coverage mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH, but not the kind of multiple independent independent sources providing the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish Wikipedia notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits on Andrea Horwath page

An IP editor has recently made a series of edits on the Andrea Horwath page ([2], [3]). Some of the content could, plausibly, be retained in an amended form, but the current version strikes me as being clearly in violation of WP:NPOV (and of WP:UNDUE more specifically), as well as being of questionable relevance to a Horwarth biographical entry to begin with. Could other editors please review this situation?

More generally, is there a current "best practice" as regards pre-emptively semi-protecting pages like this during an election campaign? CJCurrie (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the page. As for "pre-emptive" protection, the best practice (and policy) is that we do not. Protection is in response to disruption that is occurring, not to protect against disruption which might happen. But in practice it is pretty common for electoral candidates' pages to end up semiprotected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I please reiterate my request for people to keep an eye on this page? It's getting close to election day, and the questionable edits are continuing. CJCurrie (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted this, restored an earlier version before the disputed text, and responded to the other editor's talk page comment (although I'm not seeing this as an IP editor?). I don't have a firm opinion on the text specifically but a cursory glance makes me wonder if some of that text would be best at Ontario New Democratic Party or Ontario general election, 2018. It may be too specific for the party leader's article unless it's an issue that has been heavily covered and stems specifically from something the party leader said or did. freshacconci (✉) 18:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Marcus Gosse

I've just postponed G13 deletion on this abandoned draft about a Canadian Mi'kmaq-heritage artist. Is anyone here interested in adopting the article? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Indigenous MPPs

Earlier today, a user added the claim to new MPP Suze Morrison's article that she was the first person of indigenous descent elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. She isn't, of course, as Peter North earned that distinction 28 years ago — she might, however, be the first indigenous woman, pending the answer to my question. But the main question is that soon after that claim was added, an anonymous IP "corrected" it to "one of three indigenous MPPs elected in 2018". But besides Sol Mamakwa (whom I already knew about, as I created his article this morning), I'm having trouble identifying who the third would be. It has to be a newly elected MPP, as North was reportedly the only indigenous MPP ever elected before last night — but I can't find a source which clarifies who the third is, or if they're just wrong and it should be two instead of three. Does anybody know? Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I've solved it; it's Guy Bourgouin and his background is Métis. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yuri Bezmenov

The article is poorly sourced in general, but we need a good citation for the most basic of information such as his death. He was a Soviet and he defected to, and then died in, Canada, which is why I'm posting it here. He supposedly used the name "Tomas David Schuman". And the only citation for his death is a Windsor obituary stating a man with that name died in 1993. It needs to be confirmed that he used that alias, and that the person listed as dead is in fact the same person. [4] Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a person to Canadian Geologists

How can I add William John Sutton to the list of Canadian Geologists? Cheers, Jan Bridget — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janbridget (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Janbridget: Where is this list? I see list of geologists and category:Canadian geologists. Do you mean one of those? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janbridget (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Janbridget: That was unhelpful. I gave you a choice between two options and you you didn't indicate which you wanted. That Sutton article looks quite bad and needs a lot of help. The sources are poor and possibly suspect and should be improved. To answer both the questions: add the subject alphabetically by family name to the list with a brief description. Use the existing entries as examples. Add the category to the bottom of the article below the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Ontario provincial electoral districts

If anybody has the time and inclination, List of Ontario provincial electoral districts needs to be updated. Info about the districts can be found at Voter Information Service of Elections Ontario (for example, Ajax). See also Category:Ontario provincial electoral districts, which I've updated to remove defunct ridings, and to include those from Category:Future Ontario provincial electoral districts. (Aside: should we retain this cat. for the future, or delete it and recreate it when necessary?) Mindmatrix 15:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maxime Bernier

Can editors, particularly those who edit on Canadian political topics, please review Maxime Bernier? One editor is aggressively reverting attempts to make the article NPOV[5] Landbroke99 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Grey jay move discussion

I have started a discussion on changing the title of the article on the Grey jay, a topic of interest to this project. If members of this project are interested in providing input, please see the discussion. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

New Democratic Party

It doesn't happen often, but now & then, an editor shows up at the aforementioned article & adds the provincial & territorial seat totals to the infobox. We know, the NDP & it's provincial & territorial branches are more interlinked then the other federal parties to their provincial/territorial branches. But, we've no consensus for such additions. Would appreciate more eyes on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You are not having a good day with "it's" and "then". Must have been a quick missive. I'll see what I can do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that provincial/territorial seat numbers don't belong on the article infobox for the Federal party. PKT(alk) 22:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The page may require semi-protection, as an IP tried to restore the branches. Likely the same individual who re-added earlier under an account name. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If the party only had one article that was covering all federal and provincial aspects, and the provincial branches didn't have their own separate articles, then adding provincial legislature seats to the infobox would make sense. But you're correct that since each provincial NDP has its own separate article already, provincial legislature seats are not needed on the national party's article. I've also added a comment to the article's talk page, which can be pointed to more easily than this discussion if there's a need to direct future editors to an explanation of why it's undesirable. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it so happens that the provincial NDP seat numbers are mentioned later in the article, under New Democratic Party#Provincial and territorial wings. Showing the cumulative totals from this table in the infobox is not useful, IMO. PKT(alk) 18:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That should perhaps also be converted into a simple list of links to the provincial party articles, but it is a different question than the infobox. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Pre-1867 "Canada" categories

I noticed today that our article New Brunswick general election, 1857 is curiously categorized under Category:1866 elections in Canada; the equivalent 1857 category doesn't exist. I was going to create it, then thought, should it be called elections in *Canada*? Canada didn't exist as a country and did not hold elections before 1867, the elections were for various British colonies which eventually became part of Canada later on. The Province of Canada held elections prior to 1867, but colonies like New Brunswick were not part of that province, and Newfoundland was a separate dominion until 1949, so isn't lumping all of these under events in Canada confusing? I don't really know what the solution is, though. We don't seem to have any articles on elections in the Thirteen Colonies so I can't compare; the only outlier I see is Colony of Vancouver Island election, 1860 and 1863 which are only categorized under "elections in North America" categories.

My suggestion is to create a system of "British North America" categorizations for pre-Dominion of Canada events, since the BNA territories were largely a continuous entity under the British Crown even if they were sometimes administered differently, and did not all become parts of the Dominion of Canada at the same time (or at all, c.f. the Thirteen Colonies and the Floridas). I would recategorize largely following this pattern:

• 1860 <events> in North America
  • 1860 <events> in Bermuda
  • 1860 <events> in British North America (including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the Province of Canada, Rupert's Land, Vancouver Island and British Columbia, and so on)
  • 1860 <events> in Jamaica
  • 1860 <events> in the United States
  • etc.

For years after 1867 there would be <events> in BNA and Canada, after 1907 <events> in Canada and Newfoundland, and after 1949 just Canada. Of course maybe I'm just overthinking it. Any thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You're probably correct that pre-1867 categories should be renamed in accordance with the name that was actually in use at the time — but that would entail a big project of getting the categories set up and/or renamed as needed. In the meantime, however, given that New Brunswick is a Canadian province now even though it wasn't at the time, categorizing a pre-confederation article as "Year in Canada" is still preferable, if not ideal, to not categorizing it properly at all — but categorizing the 1857 New Brunswick election for the wrong year is just wrong regardless of how we choose to handle the distinction between "Canada as it existed in 1857" and "Canada as it exists today". So for consistency's sake, I've created the "1857 elections in Canada" category and refiled that election there in accordance with the existing category structure — but that's without prejudice against a project to reconsider how we categorize pre-Confederation events in the jurisdictions that are now Canada. —Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please fix the "Premiership of <NameOfCanadianPrimeMinister>" pages

No bonafide Canadian would ever refer to the "premiership" of Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper. A Canadian may well consider it derogatory to refer to a Canadian prime minister (who leads or led the country) as a "premier" (someone who leads or led just one of the 10 provinces and 3 territories within the country). Please get a real Canadian to read, edit -- and when necessary fix -- pages about Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve4496 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Premiership" is the official term for the post of premier or prime minister in the Canadian parliamentary system (and many others); see wikt:premiership, for example. There is no need to make the change you've proposed. Mindmatrix 19:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A variant of the no true Scotsman fallacy? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be prime ministership. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have only ever seen premiership in print. [6] [7] [8]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Duke of Montmorency

I would appreciate help concerning the French Canadian history. My starting point was Montmorency River; this article says that de Champlain named the river to honor Charles de Montmorency-Damville whom he dedicated the explorations. This was the redlink; I created the article, the guy was the Admiral of France and is notable anyway. However, he does not seem to have any relation to New France or de Champlain whatsoever. I checked the Canadian Encyclopedia [9] and it says that the dedication was to Duke de Montmorency, later the viceroy of New France. Well, I started looking at the lists of viceroys: List of Governors General of Canada. It only lists one Montmorency, Henri II de Montmorency. He was born in 1595 and was 13 at the time of the de Champlain expedition (1608); the article about him does not mention any connection to de Champlain. At this point I am lost and I am not sure whether de Champlain dedicated anything to any de Montmorency and which de Montmorency this was. I do not mind creating more articles (I speak French, and using French sources is not problem for me), but at this point I am lost. I suspect this material is amth which Canadians learn at school. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

List of power stations in Ontario

• List of generating stations in Ontario
• List of power generating stations in Ontario

Am I crazy or are these two literally the same article and thus should be merged? Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like List of power generating stations in Ontario should be merged into the other article, and a redirect left behind. List of generating stations in Ontario appears to be better fleshed-out....PKT(alk) 00:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just what I've done. Looks like one article was made in 2014 without knowledge that there was another article covering the same topic. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! .....PKT(alk) 20:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

NEED HELP!!! appealling a speedy deletion of a page that is vital to Canadian history, culture, and content

Hello, The wikipage in question is "This High School Has Closets" For starters, I primarily create pages about Canadian artists. I often find that a lot of non-Canadian editors on here make no effort to review what is important to our Canadian values and what is important.

I also would like to point out that I did not create this page in question nor am I the author. The page was created by the LGBT Studies editors. And I have appealed to them as well.

I feel that this page was deleted for "weak reasons. "Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This High School Has Closets"

I appealed to the editor who deleted it and he felt no discussion came about in support as his sole reason for deleting the page. Please keep in mind that this page came about because LGBT studies editors reviewed "page requests" and felt this was of merit to the LGBT community to create.

However, It has important Canadian historical value for the following reasons: 1) It references a landmark decision by the Canadian Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to bring their partners to the prom. 2) The book prompted the Canadian Library Association to review their LGBT policy

I also felt that the editor who deleted it ignored the fact that another editor told him the page was written within the "neutral" manner as it followed wiki guidelines.

I am asking for your help in appealing this bad decision.

Furthermore, when I went to reddit (I'm a novice and wanted advice on how to do this). I went to the wikipedia page and asked for advice on how to appeal this decision. I got a nasty reply from a "TPARIS". TPARIS went on to post to my appeal to the editor that he would delete the page too. So, there seems to be some vindictive bias in his post. I thank you in advance for your assistance. Tews~enwiki (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it wasn't "a speedy deletion", it was an WP:AfD. Second, there was little support in the deletion discussion, so its conclusion appears to be logical. Third, I highly doubt that the article in question was "vital to Canadian history, culture, and content". My suggestion would be, if you feel strongly enough about this; try drafting a measured, balanced article about the subject in your sandbox, being sure to include references to support its notability. PKT(alk) 19:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

TParis was the furthest thing from nasty. Anyway, Tews~enwiki, if you enable your email, I can send you the prose of the deleted article. I won't restore it because of the promotion concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Firstly, his nasty comments were made on reddit then he went on to post his comment here which I view as a vindictive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tews~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The notability of a book is not established by what the article says, it's established by how well the article can reliably source what it says to media coverage about the book. No book can ever claim anything that's so "inherently" notable that its article gets exempted from having to be referenced properly — the notability test is not "It references a landmark decision by the Canadian Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to bring their partners to the prom" or "The book prompted the Canadian Library Association to review their LGBT policy", but "real media covered the book and its achievements", Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Afd is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This High School Has Closets Meters (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

municipal lists of historic places

Discussion at Talk:List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Kincardine local historic sites may be of interest. Can/should there be a separate List of Kincardine historic places or similar title, or should they be included in List of historic places in Southwestern Ontario#Bruce County, or should there not be Wikipedia coverage? --Doncram (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

BC editors: Northwest Community College name change?

Hi there - Whilst wikignoming today, I tripped over Northwest Community College in Terrace, BC. I checked its URL and found that they are apparently in the process of renaming to Coast Mountain College. Before the article is moved/renamed, can somebody pls. confirm that this is a real namechange, and not a faux name change like University of Western Ontario's rebranding as "Western University"? Thanks!...PKT(alk) 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MoneySense ranking

An editor has been adding the MoneySense rankings of Canadian cities to a number of articles. I have started a discussion at Talk:Port Colborne#MoneySense ranking about this. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

Could we get some Canadians over at Jordan Peterson.....as we seem to have American rhetoric taking over the article.--Moxy (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

City/Province/Country linking in infobox

An IP hopper is insisting on linking place, province and country in various Canadian articles. See the recent edits with "I want to keep the Canada link" summaries in these edit histories [10] [11] for a small example of the edits.

Is it appropriate to link the country as well as the city and province in the infobox? Meters (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I gave the user an edit-warring warning. WP:CANPLACE clearly says not to link the word Canada. That's in accordance with MOS:OVERLINKING, which says not to link to country names, "unless there is a contextually important reason to link", which in the case of these articles about buildings, there isn't. I don't see why infoboxes should be any different.

On the other hand it's not clear about provinces; WP:CANPLACE says "Major cities do not need to have the province linked. Do not overlink Canada or provinces when locations are mentioned." Why would minor cities need the province linked, and major ones not? Maybe it's meant to say major cities don't need to have the province mentioned? What does "when locations are mentioned" mean, why should provinces not be linked then, and doesn't that contradict the previous sentence? MOS:OVERLINKING says not to link "major examples of ... locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia)". I don't see that provinces would fall under that. I usually see American states linked, for example. Is there some previous discussion or reasoning about not linking provinces? --IamNotU (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If editors want to discuss the linking of the province as well, that's fine, but I'm not questioning the linking of the province. I'm questioning the linking of Canada when we already link the city and province. So, "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada" vs "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada"as in this example edit. Meters (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case, this is probably not the most appropriate place to discuss it. The specific question of whether a country name should be linked is clearly answered by MOS:OVERLINK: no. The IP user gives no reasoning other than "I want to, because some people (might) click on it". If they feel that's a valid argument, they should take it up at the OVERLINK talk page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, a relevant infobox page, or some other general talk page. There's nothing about Canada that should be treated differently than any other country, in terms of whether it should be linked to either in the body or in infoboxes. There shouldn't be special rules or consensus made here, that apply to Canada, that differ from the general rules or consensus.

On the other hand, as there are several people changing the IP editor's edits in different ways with respect to the province, it would be helpful to have some consistent approach, to settle the edit-warring. Unfortunately WP:CANPLACE isn't clear to me. I would think, in the above example, it should be [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]], Canada, in line with eg. [[Pickering, Ontario]], Canada. But despite a surprisingly large amount of discussion, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about provinces:

• Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23#Our Provinces are missing.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#"City, Province (Territory)" format
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 198#Proposal to add missing advice on geographical names
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#recent changes to "Places" that don't seem to have consensus

--IamNotU (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s usually not even appropriate to have city, province, country. Usually only city, country or city, province. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"City, Province", alone shouldn't be used unless it's clear from the context that it's in Canada, per MOS:CANPLACE and standard Wikipedia practice with every other country's place names except the US. Even those are tending to include "United States" more often, in acknowledgement of an international readership. --IamNotU (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have written. We have written (and recently re-written) CANPLACE, I'm simply stating that city, province is appropriate for clearly Canadian subjects. For instance in Stuart McLean's infobox, listing all three is unnecessary. Montreal West, Canada and Toronto, Canada should be used and the first sentence in the personal life section is ideal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout

A new editor has been working on the Amanda Lindhout article. Could someone please review my talk page comments and reverts (and those of the other editor)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. The editor is right to be concerned about puffery, but was confused about notability requirements in article content. I left a comment, hope it helps... --IamNotU (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor also deleted large chunks of data so I've requested full protection until the issue is resolved. Why is this article such a target? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like a sock puppet, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of OpinionsAreLikeAHoles, and/or user "InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting". Did you not suspect that already? The main issue seems to be with the fact that she worked for the Iranian "Press TV", others have also been targeted. On the other hand there are definitely valid issues with puffery, COI, and unreliable sources in that article. --IamNotU (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

-- above comments moved from Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. We have identified some self-published sources. Could use some additional eyes and hands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for change to the Template:Infobox Canada electoral district

I've posted this comment on the Talk page for the Template:Infobox Canada electoral district, but thought I would add it here: I'm afraid I find this infobox confusing because it does not say right at the top if the riding is a federal or a provincial riding. Since it starts with the flag and province, I thought at first it was always referring to provincial ridings, but then I realized it could also be referring to a federal riding in that province. Could the first entry in the box be changed to give a choice between "Federal electoral district" or "Provincial electoral district", and if federal, put the maple leaf flag in n(or the ensign, for pre-1965 electoral districts)? (if it's a federal riding, still important to say what province it is in, but the key thing is to make it clear that it's referring to a federal riding.)

For example, look at the entry for the two different Argenteuil ridings. Can you tell at a glance from the infobox which is federal and which is provincial? Since both have the Quebec flag, and no federal symbol, I assumed both were provincial districts, until I started reading the article and realized one was a federal district.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, the actual problem isn't with that first field — as you can see on the provincial Argenteuil, there's supposed to be a box directly under that which denotes whether it's a federal or provincial electoral district, and if you look at any active federal electoral district (e.g. Nickel Belt) you'll see that it's present there as well. So the real problem here is actually that, for some reason, defunct districts like the federal Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel seem to deprecate the "federal vs. provincial clarifier" box from displaying at all anymore. But even for a federal electoral district, the flag-province field is still conveying a very important piece of information — what province is the district located in? — that isn't conveyed anywhere else in the infobox, so it's not the actual problem here: the real issue is making sure that defunct districts stop making the "federal vs. provincial clarifier" box disappear. I've posted to WP:VPT to see if we can get a template coding expert to look at this. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that editors remove 'active' from the fed-status or prov-status parameter, instead of replacing it with the value 'defunct'. See my other comment for more info. Mindmatrix 20:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

In Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the parameter fed-status had no value (I've since added it); the documentation clearly states this is mandatory parameter, because it's value is used in a switch to determine what gets displayed. The same thing applies for prov-status. Note also that the infobox is flexible, so that it may be applied to an article that is about both a provincial and federal district; when I first wrote the template, there was still ongoing discussion about whether the provincial and federal district information should be amalgamated into one article or kept as separate articles, so I ensured the template could handle either situation. Mindmatrix 20:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, could you maybe add an "error" function, whereby any article with that field empty gets automatically added to a projectspace maintenance category (e.g. Category:Canadian electoral districts with status missing or something like that), so that we can get on top of adding the correct status flag wherever it's missing? Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to this discussion; some real life stuff was happening. I just have two comments. First, I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion of coding. But second, that's missing my point. Why is the only visual identifier on a federal riding, a provincial flag? Why isn't it the maple leaf flag? I went back to the Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, which, if I've understood the coding discussion correctly, you've since tweaked in some way; but still, the immediate visual impact is a provincial symbol. Yes, if you read further in the infobox, you find that it was a federal riding; but the point of having visual symbols is tthat they are quicker and sometimes easier to follow quickly than reading text. And to me, having a provincial flag as the most obvious visual symbol at the top of the infobox for a federal riding is misleading. It makes sense to have a subsidiary symbol to show the province where the federal riding is located, but I still think that the primary visual symbol for a federal riding should be a federal symbol, not a provincial one. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Alberta separatism

This article is undergoing a bit of expansion recently; might need some eyes to help with keeping the content neutral and well-sourced. The Interior (Talk) 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the watchlist. Thx. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

People's Party of Canada

A lot of enthusiasm at this page for a new political party and some questionable edits (like attempts to call the party Autonomist, seriously) - I would suggest this could use editors who know WP:SYNTH and WP:RS policy as it relates to political articles. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Degrading template

Wikipedia ads	file info – #110

IMHO the template for this project is degrading to Canada. Request revision. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here a problem with it.......... PKT(alk) 00:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (edited)

I have to agree. It appeals to a twenty-year-old mentality and fails a level of respect and professionalism. The problem is that no replacement option was proposed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean it's playing with broad stereotypes of "Canadian things" but I don't feel particularly offended. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel we have had this discussion here before, but can't find it off hand, but yes, it's self depreciating humour, which while some won't find funny, is not particularly degrading. As mentioned above, feel free to suggest an alternative, however. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is, a discussion which was also started by Rgdboer. So yes, unless you have a viable alternative to suggest... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Peace, order, and good government has been a popular theme. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the funny version. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Bah, too serious, so politically correct. Nothing wrong with the original tongue-in-cheek version. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Representing Canada as a joke undermines credibility. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Just because you're out to save the world doesn't mean you can't have fun along the way." I vote for Keep. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Rgdboer, you tried to take issue with this banner three years ago and failed to convince anybody that there was a serious problem then — because there isn't one. Being informal and humorous in a banner ad is not automatically "degrading" to anybody — I'm a pretty serious kind of guy a lot of the time, myself, yet I fail to see the problem with a bit of levity. (In fact, I appreciate humour from others precisely because I suck at making the funnies myself.) Drop the stick and go find something productive to do with your Wikipedia editing time. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In Canada, we drop the stick to start a fight. I think you mean keep your stick on the ice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Propose we just cycle the words "construction, construction, construction, winter (hockey) instead of either of the previous versions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep WikiProject Canada is a user group, and this informs others that we are sociable (Beer), enthusiastic (Hockey) and sweet (Maple syrup). What's so offensive about that? It suggests that Wikipedians can join this group and be welcomed and receive support from non-bitey people who enjoy editing. And who also have a sense of humour and humility. As an ad slogan, associating things with our "brand", it seems pretty good to me. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Beer is not sociable. If you were in an area of homelessness, would you be offering beers to the residents to be sociable? For instance, when's the last time you invited anyone of us to have a beer with you, or to do anything sociable with you? I won't continue, but I can go down your list of synonyms for what these activities mean to you. The banner add is demeaning, offensive and should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you should put down the WP:STICK on this one. I don't see your proposal getting any support. Maybe go and have a beer, chill out a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      • First, it's not my proposal. I have no problems with consensus being against what is right, but when people make stupid comments it just goes to show what kind of support this clearly degrading banner has. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've got no issues with the current banner. Leave it as is....PKT(alk) 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Will Bouma

There's a bit of an edit war brewing at Will Bouma, over the matter of whether his article needs to make note of how he voted on the Better Local Government Act. He's from Brantford, so his personal opinions on the structure of Toronto City Council aren't of any special relevance — but there's an editor arguing that it's a matter of such uniquely overriding importance that every individual Conservative MPP should have their personal vote to "support the nullification of free expression rights" immortalized in their BLPs forever. Never mind things like party discipline essentially requiring him to support the legislation, never mind Wikipedia's responsibility to follow a neutral point of view rather than expressing our own editorial opinions one way or the other about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Bill 5. But it's about to hit the three revert rule if I keep dealing with this myself — anybody else willing to come help out? Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest that there's nothing else notable about him other than his support of this bill. And I do think voting to foment a constitutional crisis is rather more than a normal "voted on party lines" situation. If you really want to push that he's not notable for that I'd propose we take his article to AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

All legislators of top-level sub-national entities are notable per WP:NPOL, so sending this to AFD would only be be trying to make a point. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, AfD would be moot. However I think considering whipped votes and all one could make a pretty convincing argument that backbench provincial MPPs are not inherently notable - barring those that become notable because of their antics, they can never really do anything other than what they're told to by party leadership. But that's a different discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Outside of the Premier, the Attorney General, Minister for Municipal Government, maybe their Parliamentary Assistants, and more tenuously, Toronto-area MPPs, a mere, non-floor crossing vote on what was obviously a whipped vote isn't really worth mentioning on an individual MPP page. Such an inclusion likely wouldn't be borne out by coverage in RS either, barring some widely covered public statement that an MPP might have made. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A brief apology. I got snippy about somebody calling Bill 5 non-notable previously in talk and wasn't editing from my happy place. I do think a discussion of the notability of provincial back-benchers is worth pursuing at some point in the future as per the discussion further up but want to otherwise apologize for my grumpy comments on the talk page for Bouma, a dispute I will concede completely at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Forests of Canada

I just started Forests of Canada. If you have time, please drop by and improve it. Also, if you think it should be moved to List of forests in Canada (now a redirect to Forests of Canada), please say so at article talk. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done! Watchlisted, and I made a few tweaks in the lede. I'll see if I can dig up some content on NB and PE (yes, there is vegetation other than potatoes on the island!) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ashcroft, BC edits

Could I get some experienced editors watching the Ashcroft, British Columbia article please? There has been some disagreement about additions to the climate section there. The page has attracted a little bit of attention over time from a couple of editors possibly in part because Ashcroft may be Canada's only desert, but there's no evidence for that yet as the climate monitoring station has about 20 more years to go to create a 30-year dataset to either prove or disprove it. While the idea may be exciting to some that this could be a notable place for climate in Canada, what may be enthusiasm is getting ahead of Wikipedia policy and good sense. Having more people watching the page would be helpful. Air.light (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

NB election results?

I just checked the New Brunswick general election, 2018 page to find out the percentage shares of the vote, which I don't see on the CBC's pages..... normally when there's a provincial election the results go up as fast as they're coming in, or at least by midnight..... it's now 1 a.m. there. Are there no Canadian Wikipedians working on election pages now, or is NB just low-priority for Wikipedians in the other provinces, namely ON and AB, where a lot of you seem to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.69.14 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, someone fixed it since my last post here..... with the new results, the infobox half an hour ago had only the outgoing standings.` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.69.14 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We actually don't "rush" into "updating" Wikipedia pages about elections "as fast as the results are coming in". While certain selected pieces of information (e.g. the colour tabs for the declared winners in some electoral districts, but not necessarily all districts and not the rolling ballot count) may get added to the page "as the results are coming in", more often than not that's because newbies are jumping in to make premature edits that sometimes have to get reverted as wrong — generally speaking, we want to wait until things have settled down and are more or less finalized before we actually start any comprehensive completion of the election results in our article. We don't, for instance, want to keep updating ballot totals every time one more polling station reports in — we want to wait until all polling stations are done reporting in before we add any numbers to the page at all. We're writing the ten year view of history here, not the instant news cycle — it's not our job to be constantly refreshing the article with up-to-the-minute numbers at anything like the speed of the CBC or Elections New Brunswick. And we don't make our own projections about who's likely to win an election that hasn't already had its winner declared by the media yet, either — certainly some people try to use Wikipedia to publish their own personal elected and leading declarations, but that's not what we're here for. Our role is to add the numbers to our article after they're finalized, not as they're rolling in. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

User page fun

{{Top icon | imagename =WP Canada Logo-.svg | width = {{{width|24}}} | height = {{{height|}}} | id = WikiProject-Canada | wikilink = Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada }}

-) --Moxy (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge second anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be hitting its second-anniversary mark. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia outage on 10 October

Just a heads up that there will be a brief editing outage on 10 October at 14:00 UTC for a data centre switch. Viewing articles and files will not be affected. WMF posted about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 59#Reminder: No editing for up to an hour on 10 October Mindmatrix 20:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

New Senator needs an article

Can someone write an article on Martin Klyne who was appointed to the Senate on September 24th? See [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.164.26 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Fire stations

I've been developing List of fire stations in Canada, a section of a worldwide list which so far includes just 5 notable ones which were in Category:Fire stations in Canada, plus List of historic Toronto fire stations. Compared to several hundred in the United States. Surely there are more historic ones that are included in historic districts or otherwise didn't get categorized yet, and surely there are some notable modern ones, with or without articles yet. Help would be appreciated! --Doncram (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Cannabis in Canada

Anyone want to take a crack at update? ? --Moxy (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Seedrioru

Was wondering if any one from WP:CANADA know anything about this place?. None of the content is supported by any citations to reliable sources, and much of it is quite promotional and overly detailed. Maybe a stub could be written for this, but it seems to be in need of some serious trimming or may even need to be deleted. Just a guess, but it has the feel that the primary contributor was someone connected to the place since the first edit he made was to create the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Five Manitoba community lists proposed for merger

FYI, a proposal has emerged at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba about merging List of cities in Manitoba, List of towns in Manitoba, List of villages in Manitoba, and List of rural municipalities in Manitoba into List of municipalities in Manitoba. You are invited to provide your comments on that discussion here. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on election/referendum naming format

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ijiraq (mythology)

Would someone take a look at cleaning up Ijiraq (mythology). I would have done it but I have a bit of a conflict there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Lubicon Lake Indian Nation

Hello. With the recent historic land claim settlement between the Lubicon Lake and the Governments of Canada and Alberta, please keep an eye out for possible edit warring on this page, particularly with respect to who the leader is. What is at play here is there is the Lubicon Lake Band, led by Billy Joe Laboucan, and the Lubicon Lake Nation, led by Bernard Ominayak. Best I can recall is Billy Joe Laboucan was elected in 2013 (and re-elected in 2018) but that wasn't observed by Bernard Ominayak and his followers. Now looking back with fresher eyes, I believe what happened was the Lubicon Lake Band was formed by splitting off from Bernard Ominayak's Lubicon Lake Nation. See the edit history from June 25, 2013 to February 3, 2015 for the slow edit war arising from controversy over the true leader. If things flare up, or even if they don't, perhaps splitting this article so that there are a separate ones for Lubicon Lake Band and Lubicon Lake Nation (currently a redirect) is in order, where Lubicon Lake Indian Nation becomes a dab to both articles. Hwy43 (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Provisional Government of Saskatchewan flag

Someone has downloaded this flag and captioned it the "Provisional Government of Saskatchewan flag" without any sources. Sources call it the Fenian flag.

Provisional Government of Saskatchewan flag

Maybe the flag should have a new caption. I have removed the flag from the "Provisional Government of Saskatchewan" page twice so far since the symbols on the flag appear to contain symbols and colour of another group (clover leaf, golden lyre and fleur de lis on a green background). The flag is being used on ten wiki pages.

http://www.legislativeassemblyofassiniboia.ca/en/page/122/signalling-citizenship-and-identity-flags-and-resistance https://hallnjean2.wordpress.com/the-red-river-resistence/flags-and-the-resistance/-- Kayoty (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I've listed the image for deletion at Commons. Even the Fenian flag story doesn't quite explain this, because this wasn't the actual Fenian flag either. My best guess, to be honest, is that somebody self-created this in a misguided attempt to have a placeholder image to sit alongside the "Provisional Government of Saskatchewan" link in contexts (like the infoboxes of military battles) where countries typically have a flag thumbnail next to their names, due to the lack of any historically attestable flag image to use. But no, this was definitely never the real flag of any polity or political pressure group, and there isn't even any historical evidence that the Fenian flag that people pranked John Schultz with looked like this. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for listing this file for deletion.-- Kayoty (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Vancouver City Council

With the new members of Vancouver City Council having been sworn in today, and the vast majority of them being brand new councillors, I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help actually get their articles started. I don't have the knowledge about Vancouver's municipal politics needed to do it all myself — I know their names, but don't have any depth of knowledge about the important issues needed to make their articles substantive. What's especially critical is that Melissa De Genova, one of the few incumbent councillors to be successfully reelected to a new term, was also the only councillor in the previous term whom nobody on Wikipedia ever deigned to start an article about at all — it couldn't be that nobody gave a flying hoot because she's a woman, could it? I sure hope not, but there is some reason that she was persistently ignored even by Vancouverites. So it's really critical that we rectify this oversight, but again I don't feel qualified to take it on it myself. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move at The Maritimes

A requested move is taking place at Talk:The Maritimes#Requested move 15 November 2018. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Prostitution in Canada portal

We need to look at the Canadian related portals being made and see if they hold any real value for our readers .. is there a long-term plan of a portal for every page?...I am not sure? ...but found....Portal:Prostitution in Canada ... Portal:Air Canada...should we hAve these?.....look at the pictures at Portal:Prostitution in Canada. ... prime minister Harper father's of Confederation... is this a joke.

I think we should keep an eye out for odd portals being made.... hundreds if not thousands are popping up.. like here.

--Moxy (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Any Hamilton-based editors that can help with a resource request?

See WP:Resource_Request#Robert_Melville_Smith's_contribution_to_freeway_design_in_Canada for more. There is a book available in the Hamilton Library system called "Thomas Baker McQuesten: Public Works, Politics, and Imagination". If anyone here is able to go take a quick peek, it appears (from Google snippets) that I'd just need a picture of pages 113 and maybe 112/114 to hopefully back up something for Robert Melville Smith - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

New editor making odd implications about constitutional order

John K. Young Jr (talk · contribs) has modified Prime Minister of Canada, Canadian Armed Forces and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. In each case, the editor appears to be implying that Canada's constitutional monarchy is a a legal fiction and that we instead have a republic where the prime minister (not the monarch) is the head of an executive branch and that the true commanded-in-chief of the armed forces is the prime minister and not HRH (or her duly appointed representative). No edit summaries have been provided to support the claims. No discussion has been offered (which is why I am opening one here). When references are supplied they're utterly useless such as "National Post". National Post. Retrieved 2018-11-20. (Notice here that the URL is to the front page of the National Post's website, and a look at the HTML there shows that the site is programmed to use lang="en-CA", at least when I go there, not US English, so there are many problems with the "ref".)

My reason for posting here has three separate purposes. The first is in hopes that the editor starts a discussion to explain these changes. The second is to request that editors watch our new friend to prevent further poorly sourced edits that are essentially original research. The third is to open a discussion on whether it is actually the case that we have an executive branch that is in a position to advise the monarch or the monarch's representative. When I was in school I was taught the exact opposite, so I may need to be educated on how this actually works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder this is blowback because of the problems at Monarchy of Australia article? Having the same type of federalist pushed there. Good reverts ....will also watch the articles.--Moxy (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean HM of course, not HRH. Anyways, the new editor appears to be pushing his POV. That's a no no. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The existing language is a bit arcane though. I doubt that Trudeau spends -any- time advising Elizabeth II or Julie Payette. There is a constitutional relationship and a de-facto practice and they differ. Suffice to say that Payette's role with the Forces is purely ceremonial. I think that Payette recently discussed how little she has to do. While it's not a republic, the monarchy and representative do very little effective work. Secondly, the definition of head of government -look at the article- says executive branch, so I would say Canada does have one. What else would you call it? Alaney2k (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I would go further to say that the lead of the article is somewhat contradictory to the discussion later in the article of Pierre Trudeau developing the Prime Minister's Office as the true center of power in the government. The part about advice to the Crown is thus overly prominent in the lead. And this article, like others on the monarchy, I think spends too much time on the constitutional aspects as opposed to the de-facto day-to-day running of the government, which is almost entirely independent of the monarchy. Are these articles trying to imply that the old days are still continuing? When was the last time Elizabeth II even visited? What does the Privy Council or any of that do anymore? Canada became effectively fully independent in 1982. The articles should reflect this. Alaney2k (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's always tricky, writing for articles related to constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics. The monarch or president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces in name, but the prime minister is commander-in-chief in practice. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The following was left on my talk page:

In my edits I have not posted anything about Canada’s system of government in my personal POV. In practice the Prime Minister does have primary control over the CAF and not the monarch or governor general. John K. Young Jr (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I copied it to the editor's talk page and responded to indicate that this is probably the best place to discuss the topic.

I agree that it's the difference between what is de jure and what may be done in practice, but without reliable sources, we cannot claim anything outside of what is stated in the constitution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia is not working properly for me so I am not sure if this will post in the correct place or at all.

Canada is constitutional monarchy where you have a head of state and head of government. The head of government which is usually the prime minister is not always in the constitution but effectively runs the nation. I have been told multiple times by many people that come to Wikipedia for practical information about how Canada is governed and they are constantly disappointed when Wikipedia implies something (that the monarch and governor general actually run Canada) but then discovers for themselves what actually goes on. You still may say that I need a reliable source (even though it is common knowledge about how constitutional monarchies function) and that is okay, I was just simply trying to make things more understandable to people that are new my friends. I also feel that the Wikipedia articles regarding to the Australian & British prime ministers are a little more straight forward. That is a personal opinion. John K. Young Jr (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It's not that we as a project need a reliable source, it's that Wikipedia does. I agree that we as a project should address this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Also thank you for replying and providing reason, I sometimes run into vandalism accounts. John K. Young Jr (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's a way to write up these articles to make it more clear as to what's on paper & what actually happens? then I've no problems with that. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Over the years Miesianiacal (who hasn't been around since the end of last year) made edits to Canadian governmental articles, where he (let's say) clarified the monarch's & governors general role. One can argue that he overemphasized that governmental fact at the expense of giving the impression the prime minister had little to no powers, but that of sole adviser. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds

An IP insists on changing the date of birth into DMY date format. I will be guilty of edit-warring if I revert him again, so could someone please make the changes and possibly protect the article from further vandalism. I refuse to engage with vandals & trolls. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: The article has now been semi-protected, and the IP editor has been blocked for 31 hours.......PKT(alk) 17:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I applied MDY formatting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Applebaum

There's a discussion at Talk:Michael Applebaum that needs some outside input. The situation is that Soulscanner recently revised the referencing format so that in addition to each footnote directly giving the full citation details, the article also featured a Harvard referencing-style list to repeat the same set of sources. Harvard referencing obviously isn't verboten on Wikipedia, but it requires shortening the footnotes rather than redundantly providing the same full citation details in both places, so I removed the list as redundant — and after revert-warring me over it a couple of times, Soulscanner has since tried to make the case that the article should be revised to present the references in full Harvard style rather than the existing citation style.

I don't see the need of this, because the article's sources are overwhelmingly web-published newspaper or broadcast news articles contained entirely on a single page, rather than books that need multiple citations to different pages, and the vast majority of them are standalone references that only get called as footnotes once each — so Harvarding the references would needlessly complicate and elongate the references section rather than simplifying it. But nobody else has participated in the discussion at all, and instead it's just been a back and forth between the two of us. Is anybody else willing to come weigh in one way or the other? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ben Lobb

There's also been an editwar over the past few weeks at Ben Lobb, with both sides accusing each other of biased partisanship over the inclusion or exclusion of content about his political views. Given the relatively short length of the article, it seems like WP:UNDUE weight to mention some of it, but of course as an administrator who stepped in to throw a lid on the editwarring it's not my role to express my personal opinion — so this will also need some outside eyes. Talk:Ben Lobb if anybody wants to review the situation in more depth. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

How do we handle vacancies in infoboxes of federal ridings

Myself & an IP are in disagreement over how to show a vacancy in federal ridings, see current vacancies at Outremont (electoral district), York—Simcoe, Burnaby South, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes & Brampton East as examples of this disagreement. Which way should it be done? GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think white makes more sense for a vacant seat, and grey for an independent. I also think it's odd that we have "Vacant" associated with a white colour and "vacant" associated with a grey colour. The colour shouldn't differ based on upper- or lower-case "v".........PKT(alk) 13:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain why, but the lower case 'v' creates a wiki-link to the article Vacant, while the upper case 'V' doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

....and the article Vacant redirects to Occupancy (as in a building), which isn't useful in the context of a political vacancy.....PKT(alk) 13:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Very well. I'll revert to what the IPs putting in. Though, I do wonder who the IP is, as he only started editing Wikipedia 'yesterday' & only to dispute my changes. PS: There's also an IP, who's disputing whether Raj Grewal has actually resigned yet. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You probably want casual vacancy, which you can get to from vacancy (politics). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As undoubtedly you know by now, Raj Grewal has walked his resignation back from "resigning as an MP" to "staying on as an MP and just leaving the Liberal caucus".

The truth is that an MP's resignation from the house is rarely if ever actually official as of the very moment they announce that they're resigning — usually they still hold the seat for at least another few days, and possibly even as much as two or three weeks, before the resignation actually takes formal effect. So the IP was actually correct to put the brakes on denoting Grewal as resigned, and what's happened since then shows exactly why. We stick with the date that Parliament's website gives as the official end date of an MP's term in office, not with "their term ends the moment the media report that they're resigning hits the interwebz" — as long as Parliament doesn't consider the seat officially vacant yet, neither do we. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A CBC news story had his resignation being immediate. Anyways, at least it's clarified what to do with Riding articles, when riding seats are vacant. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Germain

Not sure why my stub on Daniel Germain is being put up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Germain. Please help. This is one of the reasons I don't contribute as much to this place as I once did. YUL89YYZ (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@YUL89YYZ: I responded but did not supply a survey response at the article. The references currently present in the English-language and French-language articles do not help explain how the subject meets notability requirements. We need 1) significant coverage 2) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG for details). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He has a valid notability claim as a member of the Order of Canada, but the references being used to support the article are problematic. No matter what notability claim a person may have in theory, the inclusion test is not the statement itself, but the quality of the references being used to support it — the references have to be media coverage and/or books, not primary sources like his own organization's self-published website or its press releases.

The rule isn't (and never has been) that as long as the article says notable-sounding stuff, the references can be just any web page that technically verifies it — the references have to pass a journalistic standard of reliability to make the article keepable. People don't get Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, they get Wikipedia articles by having media do journalism about their work in that role. Don't take it personally, just find some evidence of the correct kind of notability-making sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ottawa-Gatineau tornado outbreak

Hello, does anyone want to comment here? A tornado enthusiast user has decided to unilaterally move the article on the 2018 Ontario–Quebec tornado outbreak to 2018 United States–Canada tornado outbreak, and expanding the article to cover the entirety of the two-day outbreak, from Iowa to Quebec. Considering the amount of damage it did in the Ottawa-Gatineau area, I figure there should at least be a separate article on the effects in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. But, s/he is threatening that if I do that it will just get merged into the main article later, and cited the 1985 Barrie tornado outbreak as evidence of this. I would like some additional input into this, considering the user has made these changes without consensus. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Canada federal election, 2008

Was going to move the page Canadian federal election, 2008 to 2008 Canadian federal election, in accordance was a passed Village Pump rfc. However the 'move' bid, has been removed from the article. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: Those map graphics in the above discussion, have put this WikiProject talkpage out of wack. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the navigation links in the {{Infobox election}} going back to 1988. Canadian federal election, 2008 should definitely be moved to 2008 Canadian federal election (which is currently a redirect). // sikander { talk } 17:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Page has been moved to be in line with previous years. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Election results templates

With the recent renaming of election articles, in the process of cleaning up the related categories I've identified an issue with the election results templates that I wasn't previously aware of, but which needs to be reviewed.

Specifically, the problem is that based on how it's filled out in any given template, {{Canadian election result/top}} automatically generates a category by plugging the data from specific entry fields into a category-generating code. For instance, {{Ontario provincial election, 2018/Algoma—Manitoulin}} is filed in Category:2018 Ontario general election results by riding not because that category is directly declared on the template itself, but because the nested "top" template grabs "ON" and "2018" from the province and year entry fields and subs them into a formula that automatically creates and transcludes the category by applying them as variables. Now, this isn't the end of the world when everything's working properly, but it has had several negative side effects:

(1) In several cases, it has autogenerated "[Year] [Province] general election results by riding" categories to hold standalone by-election templates in years that didn't have a provincial general election at all. In one isolated mindblower, it even managed to extend itself beyond the year to autogenerate the utterly laughable and patently unnecessary Category:Election, May 30, 1987 (by-election) results by riding.

(2) A user copied some of our Canadian template documentation pages as Malaysian template documentation pages, without actually changing any of the template coding in the documentation — with the result that several Malaysian templates were being categorized as Ontario election templates until I evicted them yesterday.

(3) Although this doesn't seem to apply the same way anywhere else, Category:Quebec municipal election results templates is stuck with seven subcategories for Montreal municipal election results "by riding", but because they're autogenerated the only way to rename the categories to their correct names is to wrap each individual template in {{suppress categories}} to bork the generator, and then manually apply the correctly named category. In a number of cases, which I've already corrected through the suppress-categories workaround, it was also generating geographically unspecified "[Year] election results by riding" categories for municipal elections in Vaudreuil, Longueuil and Dorval.

Now, while WP:TEMPLATECAT doesn't forbid using templates to artificially generate projectspace administration categories the way it does for mainspace categories, we still have to take steps to ensure that the category code can't create nonsense categories, like municipal "ridings" or "general" election years when there were only by-elections. And because the categories were autogenerated by the template, we couldn't even rename them for concordance with the new election naming convention in the easy normal way, either — we had to change the template code, which had the effect of depopulating all the existing categories, and then recreate all the new categories from scratch. So for all of those reasons, I still remain convinced that we should not be giving the template the ability to autogenerate its own categories for transclusion — that functionality should be stripped from the template, with each template having its relevant categories directly applied to the template by a human editor.

But there are too many templates to tackle for me to arbitrarily do this myself, so I wanted to solicit some input and some volunteers to assist in getting it done if consensus agrees with me. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a new parameter to the template to disable category autocreation? The default value can be OFF so moving forward these categories are not autocreated and the existing already created ones can stay there until they are cleaned up. // sikander { talk } 01:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing. If we just shut off its category generation, then that has the effect of depopulating the existing categories, unless and until they've been manually reapplied to the individual templates by a human project — I really don't think there's any way to disable its ability to generate and populate new categories going forward, while simultaneously allowing it to continue generating and populating the categories that already exist today. We have to take the step of directly adding the existing categories to the existing templates before we disable the category-generating function — because as long as the existing categories are still populated by the artificial transclusion of the autogenerated categories rather than by direct category declarations, anything we could actually do to disable its category autocreation would also depopulate the existing categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alberta municipalities

I was sorting files at Commons for settlements in Alberta by creating categories and linking them to the appropriate article on English Wikipedia. (See subcats of commons:Category:Census divisions of Alberta.) I've come across many articles here that have (possibly) incorrect information. To use an example, see Coronation, Alberta, which is a town (that is, a census subdivision) within Division No. 7. The problem is that this has been connected to County of Paintearth No. 18 by inclusion in the category, and addition of Paintearth No. 18 in the infobox. According to the article County of Paintearth No. 18, the county simply surrounds Coronation, but they are otherwise separate entities. (Both Coronation and Paintearth No. 18 are CSDs - see this list at Statistics Canada).

Have I missed something obvious? If not, then we need to update a whackload of Alberta articles. In the case of Coronation, the following would have to be changed:

• remove 'Municipal district' entry from infobox
• remove Category:County of Paintearth No. 18 and add Category:Division No. 7, Alberta
• tweak "within the County of Paintearth No. 18" to "surrounded by County of Paintearth No. 18" or some such

The county categories should only contain unincorporated communities; those that are incorporated (ie - they are CSDs) should be in the respective "Division No. X" category.

I've done similar file sorting on Commons for Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the past year, but I don't recall if they may need similar tweaking too. Mindmatrix 16:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: just seeing this now. The first action is not necessary. Although municipal districts have no jurisdiction over incorporated urban municipalities, they surround them as you've said, and those that are surrounded are regarded as geographically within and associated with their neighbouring municipal districts, even by the Government of Alberta here. This helps explain why language such as "within the County of Paintearth No. 18" is widespread and acceptable, and could be why municipal district categories have urban municipality articles within them. I will trudge through and report back my findings. Could very well be inconsistency or half complete implementation. Hwy43 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Likely going to do this trudging during the Christmas break. 'Tis the season to be busy. Thanks for the patience. Hwy43 (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

May Quebecers' nationality be listed as Québecois rather than Canadian in infoboxes?

Following question was raised over the undo of an edit [13] changing the infobox nationality of René Lévesque from Canadian to Québécois. Moving discussion here from Talk:René Lévesque since this issue is not restricted to this one person,and I can't find anything in the archives about this. Meters (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If Canada has agreed that the Québecois form their own nation within Canada (not disputing if he was Canadian citizen), and he claims to be Québecois. Why can't it be said that he had Québecois nationality. All relevant authorities (e.g. Canada, René himself and Québec) agreed that it was acceptable. Much like Irish people born in Northern Ireland remain "Irish".

Would anyone have any objections to changing to Québecois? ZacharyFilion (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Since I've undone your edit twice already and posted to your talk page, and you've posted to my talk page you obviously know that someone objects.

I'll raise this issue at the Canada project board to get input (since this issue affects more than just this article).. Meters (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, since this issue could affect many Canadian biographies I'm going to move this to the Canadian project page. Meters (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thread moved 01:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I undid this edit thinking that nationality was intended to be the same as citizenship. I was interested to discover that the "Nationality" and "Citizenship" fields in the office holder tinfobox (or at least in the prime minister's version used for some reason for Lévesque) are not synonyms for the same field. It is possible to give someone one nationality but another citizenship. So, we can, if we wish, say that .someone is of Quebec nationality but Canadian citizenship. Meters (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship can have different meanings according to context. I suggest the meaning for info-boxes is usually nationality under international law, which is the country to which one owes allegiance and normally issues one's passport, whether or not one is a citizen. There is no doubt that Levesque was a Canadian citizen under the Citizenship Act 1947 and therefore had Canadian nationality. TFD (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, René never had any allegiance to Canada, and, as both the governments of Canada and of Québec have said, he can be a Québec national, for example, Bobby Sands was a British citizen, due do him being born in the UK, however, his "nationality" is listed as Irish due to him identifying as Irish. Your nationality is what nation you belong to, and all concerned governments have said that Québec is a nation.ZacharyFilion (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

People are assigned nationality at birth and retain that nationality unless it is revoked or renounced, neither of which happened in this case. Bobby Sands was born a dual national, i.e., owed allegiance to Ireland and could have applied to them for a passport. I do not know whether he renounced UK citizenship. Anyway, the editors on that article have disagreed over the years about what the infobox should say.

Levesque of course owed allegiance to Canada. He did not deny that Quebec was part of Canada but argued that it should not be. Someone in Ontario may want Canada to be part of the U.S., but that does not absolve them from their obligations to the Canadian state.

TFD (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Levesque was a Canadian & so we should use Canadian in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This kind of question comes up all the time of legal citizenship versus ethnicity, and which one "nationality" is meant to be. As it happens Lévesque was born in New Brunswick, and he also served in the United States Army in World War II and wouldn't that require him to have American citizenship? I don't see anything about his actual citizenship cited in the article. However some say Québécois are recognized as a distinct ethnicity, so he could be a Québécois citizen of Canada in that context I suppose, but the label seems to be contested - whether Québécois refers to ethnic French Canadians or just all residents of Quebec regardless of ethnicity, and also I guess both of those could be defined as a nation. I don't really know the answer here, except that one cannot be a legal citizen of Quebec. I think Bobby Sands is a bad comparison - the UK and Ireland are both passport-issuing countries and one can be a citizen of both, while Quebec is a province within Canada and does not issue its own passports. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Kenora Thistles FAC

I am reluctant to bring this up, but I have Kenora Thistles at FAC right now, and as its been more than three weeks with little to no comments, I'm afraid it'll get archived again. So if anyone is willing to take a look, it would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed term elections, in Canada?

What was the point of the federal government or provincial governments passing any fixed term election acts? There's resistance at 30th Alberta general election & 43rd Canadian federal election to moving those pages to 2019 Alberta general election & 2019 Canadian federal election. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about Alberta, but the Canadian election must now take place in 2019, and with the PM's assurance, it's likely to be October 21 barring a vote of no confidence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Canadian election does not have to be held in 2019. It would be very legal for the election to be held in 2020. One may look at Canada's "fixed election law":

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Combined with the supreme law, the Constitution of Canada:

4.(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

As for this "no government would disregard the fixed election law" bit, it's already happened. Note secondary sources: "We don't have fixed election dates, and can't"

And Wikipedia policy (WP:CRYSTALBALL): "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place". Ribbet32 (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

In answer to the question "What was the point of having the law?", to disclose my bias, I support this law and believe it can be useful when a convention builds up to follow it. But so far, with it already being disregarded in Canada in 2008 and Alberta in 2015, no such convention exists yet. The fixed election law itself recognizes the GG's discretion (presumably at the PM's advice) to say for any reason, "Nah, 2019's not the right time to dissolve Parliament, we'll wait a few more months for spring 2020." Ribbet32 (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a wonderful interpretation of primary sources. Do you have any secondary sources that support? CBC does not. Ans since we have multiple sources that support 2019 and none that support another year. We have many sporting events that have not taken place and yet have a year so CRYSTAL does not apply since we know it will happen this year despite your convoluted argument against, I say go for it. We can always fall back on WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The federal fixed elections law was not disregarded in 2008 because it was not yet in effect, and it was not disregarded in Alberta in 2015 because the federal law only applies to federal elections. The government can create whatever laws it wants as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution, and there is no conflict in this case: the Constitution places an upper term limit but not a lower one, so the federal law complies. There cannot now be an election held in 2018 as there aren't enough days left to fulfill the minimum requirement, thus barring some extraordinary circumstance which has occurred only once in the country's history and then only after several years of the most extreme total war in global history (by that time), the 43rd federal election will occur in 2019. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector I feel that your comment about Alberta is misrepresenting my comments and ask that you take it back, please. I am not an idiot who thinks a federal statute applies to Alberta and was referring to Alberta's similar law which I posted about on the relevant talk page. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You quoted the federal law and then said it was violated by a provincial election, as an example of why we should consider the federal law invalid for the purposes of determining the next election date. Nothing I wrote was a misrepresentation or intended to be derogatory, your statement simply required correction. You and I might understand what you meant (I think) but we can't assume that for anyone reading this discussion - multi-level federated government systems are unusual and weird. No offense is intended at all, although I disagree with your conclusion. I did make a mistake, though: the one parliament which lasted beyond the BNA Act limit was Borden's in WWI, not King's in WWII. I added "by that time" to correct.

Notwithstanding all that, of course the existence of various laws has little impact on Wikipedia decision-making. We've always renamed our "next" or "upcoming" election articles once we are reasonably certain of the year they are going to occur, and as we've laid out here, we can be reasonably certain that the next federal election will occur in 2019, since it's required by law to occur before the fixed date in 2019 and can't now occur in any earlier year. It's possible but extremely unlikely that it could be postponed beyond the end of the year: the Governor-General has discretion to dissolve Parliament at will, but she doesn't have the authority to unilaterally overturn a duly-enacted federal law, so in practice she can only dissolve Parliament earlier than the fixed election date, not later. The only circumstance in which the election could occur after the fixed date in 2019 is if the Liberals passed a new law to amend the Canada Elections Act to extend the date into the future, which would be political suicide. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not say the law was "violated". The law was followed inasmuch as the Governor General has discretion, both under the statute (subsections 1 and 2) and the Constitution, to call the election within the five-year time frame. I never used the word "violated" and would appreciate it if you stopped putting it in my mouth. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem happy to ignore the substance of the argument and only focus on the parts which you think are intended to insult you. I assure you there is no such intent. The Governor General maintains discretion as you've said to dissolve Parliament at will, I'm not arguing with you on that. However, the GG's discretion is limited by the five-year limit in the Constitution, and by the "fourth year following the previous election" rules in the statute. She can call an election earlier than the fixed date, but not later. So why should we not move the article to the date of the election? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Plus, those cases where the law and precedent set by the fixed elections act were not "violated" but instead, the government like that of Quebec in 2014 decided to call an early election, not delay it. Is anyone else, other than @Ribbet32: and federal/Alberta talk pages, opposed to this (long-overdue) change? A Red Cherry (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No I'm not the only one who thinks this way, Ahunt has argued the same and Bearcat similarly in the past. If a consensus builds, a consensus builds, but I didn't think your unilateral moves were particularly helpful. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I was not aware of any opposition to the move. Their edits have been reverted already, so sorry, and I will be more careful about that in the future, and obviously not change this one back until a consensus development occurs, of course. A Red Cherry (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think providing the projected year is more helpful to readers that providing the number. Fixed terms came in to remove the government's power to choose dates most advantageous to them. But since it is not part of the constitution, it has loopholes, and the realities of parliamentary government, it is not rigidly followed. It does not appear at this time btw that vice-regals might exercise discretion if a government wants an early election, although the dismissal of Christy Clark means that a minority government's request for an election may be refused. But that of course does not depend on fixed election dates. TFD (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The dispute here regarded one's likelihood of calling an election after the fixed date has passed, not before. A Red Cherry (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. ...don't really have a view on the above...but after reading a few of the articles I can't help but notice the infoboxes are huge width wise sandwichin the leads all over. This does not seem to be the norm in other countries?--Moxy (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Other countries tend not to have six major parties contesting the election at the federal level. My display is 1600px and it looks okay but not great. It would be narrower if there were 2 leaders per line instead of 3, but then it would be much longer. Should we do this a different way? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to actual democracies, our friends to the south are pretty much the only nation that has very little choice. Canada is on the short end of the number of parties scale. There are 10 in Spain, with more who contested for a place in the 2011 general election, 14 in Germany, 18 in the UK, 6 major and 24 minor parties in Italy, and 35 in France. So by "other countries" what are you talking about? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is the treatment of those elections in infoboxes, and presumably in the media. There may be 30 parties contesting the election in Italy but only 3 leaders are included in the infobox in 2018 Italian general election, which coincidentally makes the box the same width as the one we're talking about. Similarly, 2016 Spanish general election, 2017 German federal election, and 2017 United Kingdom general election all list list 6 leaders in 2 rows of 3 (same as ours), and 2017 French presidential election lists only two. So I guess if the infobox is too wide it's a general issue, not one of just the Canadian elections. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've already moved (a few days ago) 66th Prince Edward Island general election to 2019 Prince Edward Island general election, without opposition. We'll likely (tomorrow) need to open RMs for 30th Alberta general election & 43rd Canadian federal election articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame update

Hello. I noticed that the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame is very out of date. The official website has up to 2018 but Wikipedia only has 2008 and 2010. I would update the article but I notice that the article has sections by ceremony year and lists all of the awards given out that year. Each ceremony has multiple songwriters and songs inducted with some special achievement awards as well. I was wondering what would be better: keep the sections by ceremony year and add the missing years or organize by type of award then list each year like at the Songwriters Hall of Fame article. Let me know what you think. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I would avoid using the 'ceremony by year' approach for two reasons - the Hall has separate categories for songs and songwriters, and (more importantly) they don't seem to have ceremonies every year - the site lists 8 ceremonies, with a significant gap between 2011 and 2017. I would suggest a table with columns for name and year of induction (wherever available). PKT(alk) 23:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo needed for political figure

Can anyone help me get a photo for Mike Crawley, CEO of Northland Power and former Ontario Liberal Party president? Confusingly, the CBC staffer who reports on provincial politics is also a Mike Crawley, likewise not Michael, no middle initial. When you google the name, you get our article, conflated with the CBC headshot. Given that the two Ontarians are of similar age/sex/ethnicity and indeed location, it would be good if we could distinguish them. I created Mike Crawley (disambiguation) but a photo would help. I imagine "Provincial Affairs Reporter" probably doesn't meet our guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (people), but if you disagree and want to create a stub bio on the journalist and author, that would be great too. Any ideas? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A journalist needs to be the subject of coverage by other journalists, not merely verified by his own employer's website as a working journalist, to clear our notability standards for journalists — so you're right that the CBC Mike Crawley probably wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article right now, but that's got less to do with his title being "provincial affairs reporter" and more to do with the lack of other media outlets doing stories about him as a subject. Images of Mike Crawley the CEO aren't actually hard to come by on the web, as long as you search for "Mike Crawley Northland Power" instead of just "Mike Crawley" — but what doesn't turn up is images that are licensed under Creative Commons, GFDL or public domain, as opposed to having preexisting copyrights that aren't compatible with use on Wikipedia. Ultimately, though, it's Google's job to fix their own mistakes, not our job to fix their screwups for them — so we can't really suspend our own copyright or notability rules just because Google's attaching the wrong photo to the wrong person in a basic Google search. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my instincts re creating a new article for Mr CBC. I know we're not here to fix Google's mistakes, but I'd like to provide a clear and unambiguous service to our readers, if it's within my capabilities. I hope in posting here that I might attract the help of a Canadian with ideas of how to find a compliant photo of Mr Northland from business or political sources. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Canadian signs

Pls see my post at commons.--Moxy (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Longueuil coordinates

Both Longueuil and Urban agglomeration of Longueuil have the same geographic coordinates. Is that correct? They do not seem to match the locator map. If someone could take a look and correct them in Wikidata, it would be great. --Micru (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The dot on the locator map does seem marginally off — it seems centred just a little bit too squarely in the river rather than on the shore — but at the actual map scale, it would be virtually impossible to adjust with the actual degree of precision required (which is a matter of micrometres or less at best). But it's not implausible that the geographic coordinates of a city and the geographic coordinates of the urban agglomeration centred on that city would be the same — cities and urban agglomerations span a range of geographic "coordinate" points, not just one, so providing geographic coordinates for a city is an arbitrary choice: do you pick the exact geographic centre of the physical borders, the exact geographic centre of its downtown core (which is not necessarily the same spot as the geographic centre of its physical borders), the axial centre of its population distribution, the location of its city hall? But since the city is by definition the primary core entity of the urban agglomeration, it's entirely reasonable to pick the same point to "locate" both things. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Geographic centres are better representation for pushpins on maps, since they are by definition squarely inside the thing being indicated, so will not say, fall in a river. If you put a pushpin for Canada in Lake Ontario, that's not particularly helpful, if it's in Flin Flon, Manitoba, it's squarely inside Canada, clearly indicating that thing that is Canada. Pushpins should avoid boundaries at all costs, since they will then misrepresent what is being pointed out, the thing nominally being represented, or its neighbour that should not be represented. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You still missed the point. At the scale that the locator map in our article actually represents, the dot is unadjustable — the question of what we pick as the coordinate location applies to the template that offlinks the coordinates to plot them on Google Maps, not to the location dot. Even if we picked the geographic centre of Longueuil instead of the downtown core for that purpose, it still wouldn't move the dot on our locator map a titch, because at the locator map's scale the move would represent less than the width of a single human hair. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Canada image map

Hi. I think the Template:Canada image map shown in its own random blank section at Provinces and territories of Canada, and Canada#Provinces and territories is terribly placed. I shrank the size slightly from the giant 625px to 500px and is still perfectly readable, but not to Moxy. He also claims it squishes the text, but at 500px, the text is virtually "squished" the same amount as the thumb image. I wouldn't call it squished, it is not drastic, it just moves the text to the side like any other floated image does. We should either have the clickable map at the top where the map should be or not at all and just keep the thumb map. The clickable map in its own blank section serves no real purpose. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You squished the text on two articles and reduce the readability of this one image. So what I am claiming is you caused an accessibility problem on two articles just to float an image. --Moxy (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop saying the text is squished when it is not. It is shifted as much to the left as any image on the article that is floated to the right does. Floating the image, the smaller image that doesn't have to be 625px whatsoever, actually improves the accessibility of the image because we don't need an excessively large image in an empty section all by itself. When do we ever have one image in a section all by itself? The map of Canada belongs in the lead and it does not have to be in its own giant section for it to be readable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: I see the image you uploaded, I don't know what computer you're using, but on mine it didn't look like that at all, and I have a pretty small laptop. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes that the point dont use odd coding because not all have the same view......coding dont work the same for all ..thus best to avoid.--Moxy (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

On my PC with 65 ich TV.....As you can see the "See also" links are broken up as is sentance after sentance of the text. --Moxy (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As seen on my phone Note 8 "See also" links dont even lineup with the links...and map is almost non readable. --Moxy (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Not shrunk image on mine, probably not for Jonesey95 either since he said it was a better arrangement of the map. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility is more important than aesthetics. I recommend undoing the resizing and the changes to Canada before continuing this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: It must be the template that's messing it up on your end; how does the thumb image look? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

These are great examples of why we should not used HTML codes for floating....noone see the same thing with HTML coding. I am not sure why you would think that a huge white space is better then a bigger map thought? But not one of the above images is an improvement in my view. Thus would need more peoples input.-- Moxy (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: I guess there is a bit of white space there, but there also is a lot with the image on its own below, I didn't really have a problem with it on Canada, although I'd say to just get rid of the clickable template and replace it with the thumb so we can have it beside the text - it looks much more presentable that way. I was initially trying to fix it for the provinces article because I thought the map in its own section labelled "Map" was very strange and wasn't kin with List of states and territories of the United States. They also have Template:USA imagemap with state names but do not use it on the page. I think the clickable map is more fluff than function - the thumb in the lead is perfectly fine, we have the table for readers to click. I don't think we need it on either page as the thumb is sufficient. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree ...the map makes sense in the lead of the provinces article ...my bad.--Moxy (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this discussion over? if so, then it should be archived, as the map examples are messing up this talkpage, by making it too wide. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The settings on the talk page are to archive 91 days after the last comment. You just extended it until the beginning of May. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll just cut/paste & transfer it to the archive page. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There's also one-click archiver, but you could just leave it alone for 90 days.

Let me try one thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Jody Wilson-Raybould

Over the past couple of days, an anonymous IP has been persistently editing Jody Wilson-Raybould to ensure that the article clearly and unequivocally portrayed her shift from Justice to Veterans Affairs earlier this week as a demotion. Obviously, under our neutral point of view rules, it's not our job to say that on here: our role is to simply portray it as a change of position, not to cast value judgements on why she was reassigned. Even PMJT himself claimed it wasn't meant to be understood as a demotion, and while that might certainly have just been political spin it's not our role to call it that — our job is to just neutrally call it what it objectively is, a change of position, and not to express our own opinions about either Wilson-Raybould's competence or Trudeau's honesty.

However, although a different IP number reverted them once, it's otherwise been me catching this every time. I've temporarily semi-protected the page for the moment, but just wanted to ask if some other people are willing to help keep an eye on this in case the offending IP comes back once the sprot expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added the article to my list............PKT(alk) 22:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this settled? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Huron (Canadian band)

So I found this article name "Huron (Canadian band)". To me, at first glance, it appears to be an article about First Nations, though it's actually a rock music band. I would say that this article title may astonish casual Wikipedia users who type in something that would turn this up (like 'Canadian Huron bands'). Could there be better disambiguation, possibly with the current title redirecting to a disambig page? -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

While it might only confuse a casual Canadian English-speaking user, you might propose Huron (Canadian rock band). Another question might be if this group is actually notable enough to have an article as it seems to have only produced one album? and no mention of chart ranking. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for the addition of "rock" in the disambiguator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while releasing multiple albums and having chart rankings are certainly among the notability options at WP:NMUSIC, they are not the only options — a band that has neither of those criteria under its belt can still be notable for other reasons under other NMUSIC criteria, such as #1 (having enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, which does appear to be demonstrated here.) So you're certainly welcome to try your luck at AFD if you still think there's no strong notability claim, but it's likely to be a waste of everybody's time — the article is well-referenced to enough media coverage to show passage of an NMUSIC criterion, so it's very unlikely to get deleted. Otherwise, however, the only valid question to be addressed in this discussion is whether we need to apply extra disambiguation to its title or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Does this need a formal move discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Link error on Prairie Theatre Exchange

Manitoba Theatre Workshop founder Colin Jackson links to British sprint athlete Colin Jackson in the history section. This link should be removed. I would fix it myself but I have been employed by PTE in the past and I want to avoid any conflicts of interest.206.45.83.105 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for flagging that error.... PKT(alk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just for future reference, even if you have a direct affiliation with the topic, you're still allowed to edit the article yourself to make purely factual edits — conflict of interest issues only apply if the edits are subjective or advertorial and raise an WP:NPOV dispute, not if the edit is strictly fact-based. In a case like this, you'd be perfectly free to edit the article to fix the obvious mistake. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Also for future reference, we shouldn't link in headings: Prairie Theatre Exchange. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Cyclopaedia of Canadian Biography

Full transcriptions of two volumes of the Cyclopaedia of Canadian Biography (1888 and 1919) can now be found at Project Gutenberg. They may be useful sources for biographical articles for Canadians who are lesser known today. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57724 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53635 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruzulo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

François Protat

There's been a bit of an edit war over the past week about whether Genie Award-winning cinematographer François Protat is alive or dead. There were no sources shown at all the first time he was edited to reflect him as dead, so it got reverted — and then today, somebody returned him to dead on the basis of a French language source which speaks of his disparition. The problem is that while "disparition" can be translated as death in some instances, it's much more usually used to mean disappearance in the sense of being reported missing — and even the person who added the source did so with the edit summary "assumed dead", meaning even they don't really know for sure. Obviously there's something wrong here, and we need another source which does a better job of clarifying whether he's dead or just missing, but I've been completely unable to find anything else.

Does anybody either know where to find a better source than I've been able to find, or have some insider information either way? Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we just say "missing and presumed dead", if that's what the source says? "Reported dead" is probably not accurate and I agree should not be used here. The source given is the only recent news I'm able to find, and it does read like an obituary. He's not old enough for the presumption provision in WP:BDP. Also, I'd expect there to be more buzz about it if he has in reliable fact died. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that I'd expect more reliable sources to be reporting his death if he were confirmed dead, but at the same time if he had simply disappeared I'd also expect there to be reliable source reporting of that (think back to Claude Jutra in 1986, or George Smitherman's husband in 2013: their disappearances got coverage.) But the source isn't actually saying "missing and presumed dead" either — it literally just says "disparition", and then leaves it up to the reader to interpret which of the two meanings it intended to communicate. I agree that the source probably means that he died, but only if you imagine me drawing out the word probably into a miasma of vocal fry the way people do when they're trying to say they can't commit to certainty. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, disappeared (or disparu in this case) does not mean dead; he may have simply 'gone off the grid' in some way. PKT(alk) 22:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not a source we can use as referencing per se, but somebody has located a Facebook post from Protat's son which states that he died. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this settled-down? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, better sources have now been located to confirm that he actually died. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

42nd Parliament, House of Commons, political parties etc.

How many vacancies are their now? I believe it's five, but not sure. If its five? then we've got some updating to do on several articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're correct, GoodDay - the 3 ridings with by-elections this month (York-Simcoe (my riding), Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Burnaby South), and now Nanaimo—Ladysmith and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. PKT(alk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The 42nd Canadian Parliament, House of Commons of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, to name a few articles & related templates, will need updating. I will commence to do so, later today, unless there's objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's five. People completely missed Sheila Malcolmson's resignation from the House, for example — I've been concentrating mainly on Juno and Canadian Screen Award content lately, so I wasn't checking in on whether other people were staying on top of political stuff that wasn't specifically brought to my attention, but after her provincial by-election win last week I noticed that she had never actually been removed from the House of Commons template at all. I note that people were much better about updating things at the provincial level — by the time I heard the results, her article and the riding article had already been updated appropriately, but I had step in to fix the navboxes. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Jody Wilson-Raybould

Just a heads-up, due to the sensitivity of the current matter, I've applied a week of semi-protection to Jody Wilson-Raybould to prevent drive-by IP vandalism. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Good call, Bearcat.....PKT(alk) 18:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Future RMs

If I can figure it out (someday) how to do it? I'll be opening RMs at 30th Alberta general election & 43rd Canadian federal election articles. Barring an extremely rare, unforeseen situation? those elections are going to take place in 2019. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Partisanism, again

Earlier today, an anonymous IP removed sections from the articles about Ontario MPPs Lisa MacLeod and Amy Fee which addressed the recent controversy around the Ontario Autism Program. They alleged in their edit summaries that the sections were "biased information" added by an "angry parent", but (a) they offered no real evidence that they actually knew the identity of the editor who had added it, or any reason why "angry parents" couldn't still have valid points, and (b) I'm not seeing any obvious evidence that the content was editorializing anything not supported by the sources being cited for it.

I ran an IP lookup on the editor, and it gave me a domain ID beginning with "pctnon", which seems at least potentially suggestive of a server directly associated with the political party ("Progressive Conservative T-? N-? ONtario") — so while I can't definitively prove anything, this may need some attention for possible conflict of interest editing.

At any rate, I don't personally see an obvious bias problem with the content. For the moment, I've reverted the IP and placed temporary semi on the pages to prevent it turning into an edit war — but since I've been concentrating mostly on film-related rather than political content lately, I'm aware of the autism controversy from the news but not all that familiar with the deep details. So I'd like to ask if a couple of other contributors could look over the articles to see if they can identify an NPOV problem I'm not seeing. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the material you restored in both articles, Bearcat, and I see nothing wrong with it - the text reflects what I have seen/heard in the news, and it appears to be properly referenced. The IP who deleted it has no basis for claiming that an "angry parent" was involved. PKT(alk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That "pctnon" appears to be simply Bell's internal code for "Picton, Ontario", so it's not evidence of COI. Indefatigable (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead sentence at territorial article

Pls see .....Talk:Territorial evolution of Canada#Lead change.--Moxy (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019: Vive la Francophonie

In connection with International Francophonie Day on the 20th, WikiProject Women in Red is focusing on Francophone Women throughout the month. Help us to increase coverage of Canadian French speakers in English and/or in French, turning red links into blue.--Ipigott (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Properly sourced weatherbox for BC town?

Could I get others points of view of whether this weatherbox is sufficiently sourced please. There doesn't appear to be any climate data available from Environment Canada for this location. Thanks Air.light (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada ‎

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada.--Moxy (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ready, set, lick

With the news about actor Boyd Banks licking a TV journalist live on the air, there's naturally been a drive-by IP egging frenzy on his article today, much of which has crossed the WP:NPOV line into calling him a creep — and, yeah, somebody who would actually do something like that probably is a creep, but it obviously isn't Wikipedia's role to call him that in our editorial voice. For the moment, I've inserted a neutral statement about it, referenced to a proper reliable source, and placed sprot on the article for a week — but I also checked the page statistics, and noted that it had zero page watchers when all of this was starting to go down. It's obviously got one now (raises hand), but wanted to ask if anybody else is willing to add the page to their watchlists to help keep things under control once the sprot expires. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Watching, but just wanted to observe that that is an excellent protection log summary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Supply Management

Can someone check Supply Management, I feel like Oceanflynn may be making edits in Good faith by posting only sources that are favorable to supply management and deleted content that seems unfavorable. I feel like he might be violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines and come off as Disruptive editing. Thanks, 134.117.249.113 (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Election results templates

A user has caught, and listed for deletion, a bunch of election results templates for the 2013 British Columbia general election that aren't actually in use. However, the actual problem isn't that they're redundant or useless — they just haven't actually been applied to the pages that election results templates are meant for, but rather each district/MLA pair is hardcoding the 2013 election results in-page instead of actually calling these templates. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_28#Unused_British_Columbia_provincial_election_2013_templates.

The templates should actually be used in lieu of hardcoded results tables, precisely so that the MLA's article and the district's article can't be edited in contradictory ways, so really the only problem here is that the creator of the templates never finished the job of actually adding them to the relevant articles at all.

So, since there's a fairly large cluster of templates involved and I'm not overly inclined to tackle the whole job by myself, I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help go through the list of templates to make sure they're actually being applied where they're supposed to be. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I can help with that, Bearcat. Some of the templates themselves need a bit of work. PKT(alk) 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Removing lists of judges from articles on Superior/Provincial courts

This would involve removing a lot of content from each of a couple dozen articles, so I thought I'd float it for discussion first in case anyone objects. Currently, every article for a Superior or Provincial court in Canada (see the corresponding rows of links at Template:Courts_of_Canada) includes a list of current and former judges. In many cases, these lists are very long (e.g. Supreme Court of British Columbia). I would like to remove these lists. They take up a lot of space, and I think provide more detail than is appropriate for Wikipedia. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, a person is typically included in a list of people only if they meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. And per WP:JUDGE, a judge is presumed notable if they've held "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". The provincial courts of appeals are provincewide, but the superior/provincial courts are not. (I'm inclined to still keep references to current and former Chief Justices of these courts, where they exist.) Dindon~enwiki (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this RfC. At this point it's just a comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant RfC in the generic sense of the word, not WP:RFC. Colin M (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The superior trial courts certainly are province-wide. Why do you say they aren't? --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a provincewide system, yes, but the jurisdictional area of a judge on it is not provincewide. Provinces are divided into several distinct regions (eight in Ontario, frex), which each have their own distinct set of superior court judges who can only hear superior court cases in that specific area and don't normally have jurisdiction outside of it unless they're given a special temporary secondment to another area. So the system is provincewide, but each individual judge on it is not a provincewide titleholder for the purposes of our notability criteria for judges. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That may be the case for Ontario but it is not the case for either BC or Saskatchewan, which are the two courts which triggered this discussion. In BC, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the province (Supreme Court Act, s. 9(2)), and s. 3(2) provides that "The court may be held before the Chief Justice or before any one of the judges." Same for Saskatchewan: s. 9(1) of the Queen's Bench Act provides that the Court "has original jurisdiction throughout Saskatchewan" (s. 9(1)), and s. 9(3) provides that: "(3) Judges have jurisdiction throughout Saskatchewan." For those two provinces, the judges of the superior trial courts meet the notability requirement of jurisdiction throughout the Province. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar wording exists in the Provincial Court Act of BC, governing the Provincial Court of British Columbia. "The court and every judge have jurisdiction throughout British Columbia...", "The court may sit at any place in British Columbia...". In practice, it seems like the justices of the Superior court work within a particular county (see the parentheticals in this directory) - the Supreme Court act even has clauses relating to residency requirements. I think the idea that every judge in BC is notable violates common sense. The wording of WP:JUDGE is not crystal clear on this point, but my understanding of the phrase "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is that it refers to the highest court of the state/province (so the courts of appeal in Canada, and state supreme courts in the US). Colin M (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to this issue, I have to disagree with Bearcat's statement that Superior Court judges in Ontario don't have province-wide jurisdiction. There are regional divisions of the Court, and judges are assigned to sit in those regional divisions, but that doesn't mean they lack province-wide jurisdiction. An order of a judge applies throughout Ontario. For example, if a company in financial difficulties has assets in Kingston, Toronto and Windsor, and a judge sitting in Toronto issues an order affecting the assets of the company in favour of the creditors, that order applies to the assets in Kingston and Windsor. It's not necessary to have the order re-issued by a judge in the regional divisions to make it apply in Kingston and Windsor. Residency and regional divisions do not limit jurisdiction. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect to ColinM's point, I don't find the definition of judge in the "notability" guideline to be ambiguous: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". That's not tied in any way to the court hierarchy. Given that court hierarchies are such a common feature of the court system, if the point of the notability criteria were to only cover the highest court in a province or state, it would have said so. Instead, it uses the term "province wide". As the examples given illustrate, trial courts in Canada have province wide jurisdiction. So, I don't see any ambiguity there. However, I take your point - is province wide jurisdiction enough to say that someone is notable? Instead of approaching this as an ambiguity and then doing workarounds on a case-by-case basis, perhaps what we should be doing is establishing a notability guideline for the Canadian judiciary? There is one specifically for US judges: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, so why not one for Canadian judges, based on our court system? --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Vancouver neighbourhood categories

I've created and populated Category:Coal Harbour, Category:Kitsilano, and Category:West End, Vancouver. Please feel free to add and remove entries appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Election graph

I wanted to raise a discussion about File:Canada federal elections.PNG, an image that's currently used only in a disused navbox template that's up for a deletion discussion. That navbox's deletion is justified, so that's not the question I want to raise — rather, I have questions about whether it's worth retaining this particular image at all.

The image, for the record, is a bar graph depicting the popular vote breakdowns in every Canadian federal election. However, there are significant problems with it:

1. The old pre-1942 Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives and the contemporary Conservatives all use the same colour shade, while only Reform and the Alliance are singled out for separate colours. However, we've had this argument before in other places: yes, it is technically true that the modern Conservatives are the legal successor of the old PCs, but they're also the legal successor of Reform and the Alliance — so the 21st-century Conservative Party has to be denoted with a different shade of blue than any of its predecessor parties, because it's deceptive to treat it as continuous with the PCs but not continuous with Reform and the CA.
2. Specifically in the span between 1993 and the PC/CA merger, however, the PCs are handled completely differently: instead of being given the normal colour they have everywhere else, they're simply buried in the "other/independents" colour. This is marginally defensible in 1993, due to the loss of official party status, except that the NDP didn't have official party status in that parliament either but are still denoted with their normal NDP colour — and in both 1997 and 2000, the PCs did have official party status but are still being othered instead of using their standard colour. So, basically, what the template is implying is that the PCs simply ceased to exist in 1993 before reemerging in 2004 as exactly the same party they used to be, with no indication of any Reform/CA continuity at all — and that's just not what happened.
3. The image hasn't actually been updated at all since 2008, and is missing the two most recent federal elections.

So, my question is this: is it worth getting somebody to fix it so that it can be repurposed somewhere, or should we just have it deleted outright as an inaccurate image that doesn't have enough utility to be worth fixing? Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I just checked the article that would be the most obvious potential candidate for repurposing this, List of Canadian federal general elections, and it already has a different bar graph on it to convey the exact same information. That graph is still missing the 2015 election (though it does have 2011), but avoids the Conservative continuity sins. So I'm just going to list this for deletion instead of trying to get it fixed, since there's already another template in place. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous law categorization, and capitalization of Aboriginal

Two discussions started in the context of the Canadian Law WikiProject that could use some broader input.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law#Style proposal: capitalization of Aboriginal (aboriginal) (small-scale consensus seems to be to capitalize, based on secondary sources, dictionaries, and stylebooks)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 18#Category:Canadian Indigenous case law (intention is to give effect to the distinction drawn in Canada between Indigenous law and Aboriginal law)

Any input there would be appreciated, and maybe Aboriginal capitalization could be useful as part of this project's style manual too. Sancho 16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Rideau Hall's official resident

This isn't something that I'm going to overly dwell on. But, it does appear odd, to have Rideau Hall described as the official residence of the Canadian monarch and governor general, when via CBC, CTV reporting & writings, it tends to be mostly described as the Canadian governor general's official residence. At the very least, WP:WEIGHT would seem to favor the governor general's status as RH's official resident. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The monarch has never lived there, even when she visits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Maria Augimeri

Bit of a situation on Maria Augimeri's article where I could use a bit of assistance. When I recently viewed the article, the results of the 2018 election (in which she was defeated by James Pasternak under the new 25-ward model) were not being written about in a properly encyclopedic tone, but were covered only in terms of directly quoting her own personal thoughts on how she felt about getting defeated rather than actually describing what happened or why. The exact content was:

“ James Pasternak beats fellow incumbent Maria Augimeri in Ward 6, York Centre
“This was not the election that the people wanted, said Augimeri”
“I’ve done this job as a sort of religion. For me, it’s been a calling, Augimeri said, at times holding back tears.” ”

Now, this is obviously not the kind of tone in which we should be writing about politicians, so I rewrote the section more neutrally:

“ In the 2018 Toronto municipal election, which saw many incumbent councillors running directly against each other due to a reduction in the number of council seats, Augimeri was defeated by James Pasternak. ”

Today, however, an IP number with no prior edit history has been revert-warring me, flipping the text back to the soundbite version, on the grounds that "Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased at all times. The use of public domain content should not be frowned upon nor discouraged." Except that (a) quotations are not "public domain" content, and (b) my more encyclopedic descriptive text is the more appropriately neutral and unbiased version, and the "Maria Augimeri's personal diary" version is not. However, it's not clearcut vandalism, so I can't just semiprotect the article or pull rank as an administrator if it gets to WP:3RR.

Is anybody willing to assist? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a bit more about her thoughts on the defeat (blaming the reorganization), but in an encyclopedic manner. I've added the page to my watchlist as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Signage and Freedom of Panorama

Apparently all images that include signage in Canada requires a WP:Fair use rationale, and is not covered by freedom of panorama (Commons:COM:FOP Canada). According to WikiMedia Commons, such should be deleted from Commons (such as Commons:COM:Deletion requests/File:Décarie Hot-Dogs de Montréal.jpg).

If this is carried out quickly on Commons over all Canadian images, many will be deleted, unless quickly reuploaed to EN and FR wikis with FURs attached to illustrate our various Canadian articles.

The reuploading would seem to be an important matter for WPCANADA/QUEBEC on EN.wiki and FR.wiki

-- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What did the original image look like? If it was a shot of a building and not of just the sign, perhaps the Commons deletion request was wrong? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a shot of the storefront, with the sign of the shop at the top, and part of the neighbouring business and 2nd floor apartment and sidewalk visible. Most of the photo was the store window looking into the restaurant. I find that COMMONS deletes things for very odd reasons. PD are deleted because someone relinquished their own rights so COMMONS doesn't accept that a person can give something to the public. A company releases photos from their portfolio, but COMMONS deletes the photos because the division releasing the photos isn't the same company, even though they share the same street address. It would not surprise me if COMMONS just deletes any Canadian photos with signs in them as an ongoing task whenever one is noticed. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry did not see this before....it's shock....we have been dealing with this guy for years ....will find more info.--Moxy (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada

Good day all, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [14]. Please make sure to check your spam folder for the confirmation email since it seems to always go there. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Reeves and mayors of former municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto (moved from project page)

Question: how do those below listed here meet WP:CANSTYLE#Municipal politics and then WP:POLITICIAN? Hwy43 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

All the reeves and mayors listed were in office after the creation of Metropolitan Toronto in 1954 and thus also had seats on Metro Toronto Council (ie they were Metro Councillors). According to WP:CANSTYLE#Municipal politics: "City councillors are deemed notable just for being city councillors only in "major metropolitan cities". Metro Toronto, by definition, was a major metropolitan city therefore the reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto are deemed notable. Ffolkways (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That criterion refers to the city council, not necessarily the Metro council. Metro councillors can still clear the bar if they can be reliably sourced well enough to clear GNG, but they do not all collect an automatic notability freebie just for existing just because Toronto's city councillors do — and as has been illustrated several times in the past, Metro councillors aren't guaranteed to always clear GNG on their sourceability across the board. Some do, yes, but many don't. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The exclusion in the referenced section excludes sub-units such as Mississauga, but does not necessarily exclude super-sets such as Metro Toronto. It should be noted that Metro Toronto had the same geographical limits as the amalgamated City of Toronto and some functions such as policing were administered at the Metro level.--Big_iron (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the old boundaries of Metro correspond to the current boundaries of the city is irrelevant to the notability of a Metro councillor. They weren't the boundaries of the city in their own time, so a Metro councillor does not get retroactively massaged into a "global city" councillor just because the boundaries of the city were expanded in 1998 — a pre-amalgamation Metro councillor from any of the former suburban municipalities still has to clear the county councillor test, not the "global city councillor" test, and the "county councillor" test has no automatic freebies for anybody anywhere in the absence of extremely high nationalizing sourceability. The only surefire way to make a Metro councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is if they were from Core Toronto, and thus served on both the Metro and Toronto city councils simultaneously — and even then they're fundamentally notable because city, not because Metro — but for a Metro councillor from Etobicoke or Scarborough or Swansea or Leaside or the Yorks, it's "show enough coverage to make them more special than most other county councillors or bust".

Metro councillors do not get a retroactive application of the Toronto City Council notability test just because the boundaries of the city changed later on — they have to be sourced and substanced well enough to make them special cases. The "global city" test that gets Toronto's city councillors in the door only applies to Toronto City Council itself — it does not apply to Metro, or to the municipal councils of the former suburban cities that got amalgamated with Toronto in 1998. Municipal council of the core city only, limited to whatever boundaries delimited the core city in their own time. Prior to 1998, the only people who get the "global city council" freebie are the ones whose wards are numbered on this map. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, @Big Iron: is correct. The fact that the boundaries of Metro Toronto were only later adopted by the City of Toronto is completely irrelevant. You are completely dismissing or minimizing what Metropolitan Toronto was and its importance. Metro wasn't some county council, Metropolitan Toronto was the largest municipality in Canada and the Metro level of government was the senior level responsible for the TTC, the Police, Public Works and the most important functions of the municipality. The mayors and reeves of the constituent parts of Metro were senior politicians who sat ex officio on Metro's executive committee and chaired various Metro boards. They were the most important municipal politicians in the city, much more so than say the junior alderman for Toronto's Ward 4. The senior politicians of Toronto City Council sat on Metro (ie the Mayor, Controllers, and senior alderman (wards had two aldermen) and Metro Council had much more power than Toronto City Council. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"That criterion refers to the city council, not necessarily the Metro council." - Bearcat, you're splitting hairs and making a distinction without a difference. Metro Council was a municipal council, a metropolitan council, and was, as the article Metropolitan Toronto states, an "upper tier" level of municipal government. It was superior to its constituent city, town, and borough councils and was made up of senior members of each (and later directly elected members. The mayors and reeves (before 1967) all met the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges by virtue of being "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.12.31 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, by and large the suburban mayors and reeves before 1967 don't all meet the NPOL criteria: the core part of the notability criterion, the one that the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors have a problem passing as a rule, is the "who have received significant press coverage" part of the equation. Even for members of Toronto City Council proper, the notability test still isn't "automatic inclusion freebie, with no reliable sourcing required, just because the person exists" — the notability test still lives or dies on how much press coverage they get in the role, and a person who didn't get enough press coverage to clear that bar can still get deleted. (For instance, if there were ever a councillor who won their seat on election night but then died the next morning, so council had to fill the seat with a by-election or an appointment before the election winner had even actually been sworn in as a councillor at all, then that person would not get to keep an article just because they had technically won the election, because they had never actually held the office at all.)

The "metropolitan city" test in CANSTYLE is the boundaries of the city proper. The only people who get the global city pass of NPOL are those who sat on Toronto City Council itself. Not Etobicoke City Council, not Scarborough City Council, not North York City Council, not Metro Council — prior to Megacity, the councillors in Old Core Toronto are the only ones who get the global city pass. I've actively checked ProQuest when suburban Metro councillors have come up for discussion, however — and as a rule, the pattern that applies in most cases is that Metro councillors from Core Toronto almost always did have enough press coverage to clear NPOL #2, mainly because they simultaneously sat on Toronto City Council and got coverage in that context, but Metro councillors from the former suburbs very often didn't get as much coverage as the downtowners did. It's not about whether Metro was "superior" or "inferior" to the city — it's about the depth and range and volume of media coverage that the respective levels of government got, and important or not, Metro councillors just didn't necessarily always get as much media coverage as city councillors did.

When former Metro Councillor Bob Sanders came up for AFD a couple of years ago, the level of press coverage needed to support an article about him simply wasn't there. When Betty Sutherland (the person who sparked this discussion in the first place) came up for AFD earlier this year, the press coverage needed to support an article simply wasn't anywhere to be found: the article was resting far too strongly on primary sources and photographs, with very little reliable or notability-supporting media coverage, and even when I searched ProQuest the depth and volume of media coverage that had to be there to save the article simply wasn't there.

The notability test for politicians at the municipal level, even in Toronto, is not "because they're technically verifiable as having held office, they're guaranteed articles and exempted from actually having to show substantive press coverage" — the press coverage is the notability test. Not just one or two glancing namechecks of their existence in articles about other people: coverage about them, which enables you to write a genuinely substantive article. That's the thing you're missing: the suburban mayors and reeves and councillors of the preamalgamation era simply do not always have the same depth or volume of press coverage that the Core Toronto councillors had. NPOL #2 explicitly says the notability test is press coverage, so the includability knife cuts on how much press coverage the person can or cannot show. I'm not making up my own special notability rules here, either: AFD consensus already decided all of this, and I'm just reporting the way it works. I'm not inventing my own notability tests at all — I'm simply telling you what the state of Wikipedia consensus around the notability of municipal politicians is.

All of that said, there are certainly going to be some individual cases where a municipal politician in a preamalgamation suburb actually did get enough press coverage that you can actually write and source a genuinely substantive article — that's a different matter, and will be judged on its own merits. But the suburban mayors or reeves or councillors do not all get an automatic free pass over NPOL just because their municipality got annexed by Toronto at a later date: for mayors and reeves and councillors in preamalgamation Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York or Leaside or Swansea, the notability test they would have to clear is the ability to write and source enough substantive content about them to credibly demonstrate that they should be considered a special case, and the ability to minimally source the fact that they existed is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So what's the difference in your mind between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967? Its powers didn't change, the members of its executive committee had as much authority before 1967 as after. All that changed was the number of constituent municipalities was reduced. But a Metro Councillor pre-1967 was no less important figure than one after 1967, particularly if they were on the executive committee. And I think you continue to misunderstand what metropolitan government was for the purposes of the "metropolitan city" test. The boundaries of the "metropolitan city" before 1998 when amalgamation occurred *were* the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, not the old city of Toronto. If you look at population figures it was the figures for *Metro* which were given, not of the old city. You also completely misunderstand what happened in 1998. The City of Toronto did not annex North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke etc - all the submunicipalities within Metropolitan Toronto were dissolved and amalgamated into the new "megacity". This is completely different than say, the old City of Toronto's annexation of Parkdale in 1899 or of Yorkville, or other communities that were annaexed. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the notability test for city councillors is not about the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto: it's about the city qua city boundaries of the City of Toronto. The phrase "metropolitan cities" in CANSTYLE does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that the notability pass extended to all politicians in suburban municipalities within the metropolitan area — kindly note that the exact same notability statement that you cherrypicked that phrase from also explicitly states that "This "exemption" exists only for the main municipal governments of those six cities themselves; it does not extend to smaller municipalities within their metropolitan areas". It applies to the city qua city, not to smaller municipalities within Metro but outside the boundaries of the city proper.

Secondly, I didn't say there was any difference between Metro Council before 1967 and after 1967. That year has nothing to do with changing the notability of a Metro councillor at all, and isn't a notability cutoff of any sort: regardless of whether they served before 1967 or after, their notability still lives or dies on whether they got enough press coverage to clear NPOL #2 or not. Metro councillors after 1967 are not automatically more notable than Metro councillors before 1967 were — no matter what side of that line they served on, they still have exactly the same chance of passing or failing the "who have received significant press coverage" test either way. The only reason I said "before 1967" in my comment is because I was directly responding to a comment in which you said "before 1967" — it's not that 1967 makes any difference to the notability or non-notability of a Metro councillor at all, it's that I was simply responding to a comment in which you used those words.

Thirdly, I didn't misunderstand anything — you're drawing a technical distinction between "amalgamation" and "annexation" that has nothing to do with how the words are actually used in practice. That distinction might be important to uphold in a formal government policy document — but in a Wikipedia discussion about the notability of politicians it's just nitpicking about an unimportant issue that's tangential to the actual point, because the precise technical distinction between amalgamation and annexation doesn't change the notability equation for politicians either. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My reference to "reeves (before 1967) was because the reeves were rebranded as mayors for the 1967 election. In any case, a newspaper archive search will find ample news coverage for the various reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto in the daily press. I think you'd find this if you searched rather than oppose the creation of articles before the fact. I don't think your apparent argument that "metropolitan cities" excludes the metropolitan level of government makes any sense. Metropolitan Toronto had clear boundaries and was clearly established in law as the senior level of government. Arguing that a city qua city boundaries doesn't refer to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto but only to one of its constituent parts isn't logical and makes as much sense as arguing that New York City refers only to Manhattan. 199.7.157.25 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't care what you think I'd find. I've done newspaper archive searches for the reeves and mayors of Metro Toronto when they've come up for discussion at AFD — literally 90 per cent of all the work I do on here at all is archival searching for underreferenced or missing old topics that don't Google well, and I literally search either ProQuest or Newspapers.com (or both) for something every single day I'm on here. I've personally searched newspaper archives for old Metro municipal politicians all the bloody time when they came up at AFD — and yes, there have been some exceptions in individual cases, but as a rule they very often don't actually get enough coverage to clear Wikipedia's notability bar for local politicians (which is considerably higher than just "they're verifiable as existing", so the ability to show that they get namechecked in coverage of other things is not enough to cover it off.) I did the searches when mayors of Leaside and Long Branch and Swansea have come up for AFD, I did the searches when Bob Sanders and Betty Sutherland and other Metro councillors from the pre-megacity inner suburbs came up for AFD — and the necessary depth of coverage simply was not there. What you think I'd find doesn't matter — I'm telling you what I actually do find, because I've actually done the damn work.

Secondly, old core Toronto was not Manhattan to Metro's New York City in the pre-megacity era — Metro was a pumped-up county, not a city, and old core Toronto was a city, not a submunicipal borough. Municipal governance structures vary in different places, but if you insist on an inherently imperfect New York City analogy, then it's not "Metro is New York City and old core Toronto is Manhattan", it's "old core Toronto is New York City and Scarborough is Hempstead and North York is Yonkers and Etobicoke is Hackensack NJ". Rather, the most accurate contemporary analogy available to the old Toronto-Metro relationship is found in Vancouver: is the Greater Vancouver Regional District the "city" level, so that every municipal councillor in Surrey and Maple Ridge and Port Moody and Pitt Meadows and Burnaby and New Westminster and the Coquitlams gets a guaranteed free notability pass because "Vancouver", or is Vancouver the city and the GVRD is the extended metropolitan area? The answer is the latter, not the former.

Incidentally, don't think I haven't finally figured out who you are, and why you're posting anon-IP despite appearing to have more inside knowledge about how Wikipedia works than anonymous IPs with no prior edit history normally do. If you're really that interested in expanding the web's knowledge of Toronto's local history by writing about old pre-megacity Metro politicians, then by all means start your own Toronto Politics Wiki, where you can set your own inclusion criteria and referencing rules and write about mayors of Leaside and Mimico to your heart's content. But no, Toronto's not getting its own special Toronto-specific exemption from the way notability works for municipal politicians everywhere else, just because it happens to be your own personal domain of interest. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame you spend so much of your time trying to have historical information erased rather than building articles but I guess people get their kicks in different ways. 208.98.222.75 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Our role is not just to keep everything that somebody deems "historical information", because anybody can say that everything is "historical information" of one sort or another. Our job is to keep articles about topics that clear our notability standards, and not to keep articles about topics that don't — and just calling something "historical information" is not the magical difference between those two things. Every mayor and every municipal councillor everywhere is always "historical information", and Metro Toronto's municipal politicians do not occupy their own unique sphere of special historical importance unmatched by everywhere else's municipal politicians. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

But you are spending your time tearing down rather than building. 199.7.156.233 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll stack my record of article creation and improvement against yours any day. And trust me, I'll win that competition hands down: I've created over 50 new articles just this week alone, the difference being that they're about topics that pass our notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You could have spent the past hour researching the first Japanese Canadian appointed to the bench who was also the first elected to public office in Ontario - one of the few racialized minorities to win office in Canada prior to 1970. Instead you removed redlinks to his name in hopes no one would create an article on him. An afternoon well spent. 199.7.156.233 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"One of the first members of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not an instant notability freebie that gets a person into Wikipedia either. A smalltown municipal councillor does not clear the notability bar as more notable than other smalltown municipal councillors just because he happens to be racialized, and even provincial judges aren't automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for being judges either. The notability criterion they would have to pass still hinges on the quality of media coverage they received in that context, not just on being able to technically verify the fact itself.

There's no rule that people have to research redlinked names before they're allowed to unlink them — if and when somebody does actually write an article about Lucien Kujata that properly demonstrates and sources that he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all (which, again, is not guaranteed just because he was racialized), then his name can be relinked in the appropriate places at that time, but Wikipedia has no requirement that every name of every person that appears in every article always has to be left as an open redlink just in case they might have a stronger notability claim for other reasons not communicated by the context that the name is being linked in. It's not my responsibility to research every redlinked name in Wikipedia to see if maybe they have a stronger notability claim beyond just "smalltown municipal politician" before I'm allowed to unlink it in a list of smalltown municipal politicians — if you think he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then it's your responsibility to understand what our notability criteria are and to demonstrate that he passes them. It's not our job to keep an article about everything and everyone who exists, or even to leave a link open for potential future creation just in case, and cleaning up articles that aren't complying with our standards and rules doesn't mean I'm tearing valuable content down (especially given that I very clearly have a long-established and well-documented record of creating valuable content.) Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So go write the article. You have access to the newspaper archives. You might even have found out about the Ontario cabinet firing him from the bench. It was a huge story. You could have spent the past hour actually doing research and building a killer article. Instead, by trying to get articles deleted, or trying to prevent their creation, rather than trying to improve them, you only discourage potential editors. I certainly don't see the point of starting an article on Kurata if you're just going to come along and try to get it deleted rather than working collaboratively to improve it. 99.230.206.119 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a responsibility to start the article about any topic I don't personally choose to take on, any more than I have a responsibility to look at a person whose name is being linked only in the context of being a smalltown municipal politician without an automatic NPOL pass and do outside research about whether actually has some other notability claim that isn't being shown by any of the articles where his name is being linked before I'm allowed to unlink his name. If and when somebody chooses to take him on, and writes a proper article that demonstrates and sources his notability properly, then his name can be relinked when that happens — but nobody on Wikipedia has any responsibility to comply with your orders on what or who to prioritize, or any responsibility to leave a list of redlinked names as redlinks, or any responsibility to research whether each person in that list of redlinks actually had a stronger notability claim before unlinking it, or any responsibility to leave a poorly sourced article about a person without a strong notability claim alone instead of AFDing it.

Besides, even being fired from the bench might still just make him a WP:BIO1E, if he doesn't have enough coverage for other reasons besides just that — so even that's still not an instant notability guarantee anyway, and it's still not my responsibility to have researched the depth of coverage he does or doesn't have before I could unlink his name in a list of excessive redlinks for people who mostly don't clear our notability standards at all. If you think he's notable enough, then by all means go to draftspace and have a ball — but I have neither the responsibility to do it for you, nor the confidence that you've actually learned your lesson about how much work you would actually have to put in to make articles about people at the municipal level of political significance approvable.

I don't owe you the courtesy of complying with your orders about who I should start articles about; I get to choose what I devote my attention to, who or what I start the articles about, and on and so forth. I don't owe you the courtesy of leaving redlinked names in a list of red links alone rather than unlinking them. I don't owe you the courtesy of granting you a special personal exemption from having to follow the same notability and sourcing standards that everybody else has to follow, or the courtesy of leaving an article that isn't meeting our standards alone. And I don't owe you the courtesy of agreeing with or listening to your opinion of my editing skills — my record of creating high-quality, well-referenced content about notable topics speaks for itself, and I owe nobody (especially not an anonymous IP who's likely a banned user) any apologies for not submitting to their opinions about my editing skills or obeying their orders about where else I should redirect my editing priorities. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So if this is a suspected sock, and a simple review of the contribution history of the requested article project page quickly reveals a pattern similar to a blocked user and one of the user's subsequent socks, it sounds like an SPI is in order. Hwy43 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What article or list are you talking about, please? Please provide a link.............thanks, PKT(alk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Requests#Reeves_and_mayors_of_former_municipalities_of_Metropolitan_Toronto Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If somebody's argument is that the listed people should have an unreferenced stub created - I say no, following Bearcat's argument. List of reeves of the former townships and villages in Toronto and the lists linked from that list are sufficient, unless somebody can do enough research to create an article that will stand up to WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Folks such as the Reeves of the Village of Long Branch in the 1960s shouldn't get a pass past Wikipedia's standards. PKT(alk) 21:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Both Bearcat and PKT have articulated the concerns I had when I declared my observation at the start of this thread. I notice that a couple IPs following Nixon Now's ban and Ffolkways had interest in this list of redlinked articles to be created before, adding and deleting entries. Presumably those entries that were removed from the list were those where the articles were created. I am interested to see how many ended up being deleted through AfD or other means. Hwy43 (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suffering from a long term decline in the number of active editors, largely because the most active admins on Wikipedia are officious power-trippers. By all means range block my IP range for 72 hours or a month and in the process block a few hundred editors in the GTA, perhaps even yourselves collaterally. You'll be doing us all a favour. I can think of nothing more important than saving Wikipedia from articles on local historical political figures, especially if it means we can have more articles on minor comic book characters, and obscure television shows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:f2c0:9349:e00:79e6:1c47:338b:e44e (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you want to create articles about suburban municipal councillors and smalltown mayors, then by all means, nothing's stopping you from starting your own TorontoPoliticsWiki where you can set your own inclusion standards and your own rules about how well the articles have to be sourced. On Wikipedia, however, it's Wikipedia's rules or bust. And read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you think the existence of articles about TV shows or comic book characters is in any way relevant to the notability of a municipal politician — for one thing, the notability criteria for politicians and comic book characters are completely irrelevant to each other, and for another, comic book characters and "obscure" TV shows also get deleted if they don't have the notability claim or the sourcing to clear our inclusion standards for comic book characters or TV shows. And by the way, 99 per cent of the people who complain about Wikipedia admins being "officious power-trippers" are actually saying more about their own behaviour than they are about the admins — with very good reason, I virtually always hear complaints like that as code for "whaaaaaaah, mommy, that mean bad man won't let me make up my own ruuuuuuuuules!!!", and you have yet to show me any reason to see you any differently than that. People don't get banned from here if they follow the rules, y'know. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't expecting such a childish response. Arrogant self-importance, yes. Childish petulance, no. 199.7.156.246 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing arrogant, self-important, childish or petulant about it whatsoever. People try to break the rules, such as by ignoring our actual notability and sourcing standards and trying to substitute their own special rules for their own pet content, all the damn time — and an administrator's job on here is not to look the other way or help them do that, it's to enforce the rules. If you don't like the fact that our notability rules for municipal politicians require much, much more than just the ability to show one or two sources verifying that the person existed (or the fact that our notability standard for city councillors attaches to the city itself and not to the city and its suburbs), then again, you're free to go start your own historical wiki on Metro Toronto's political history where you're free to make up your own inclusion and sourcing rules — but if you want to contribute here, you have to obey the rules of here. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, Big Iron and PKT: the list of former mayors and reeves has been deleted. After investigating those articles created in the history of this list all those I found were deleted. As such, it is highly unlikely the remaining entries in this list would survive similar AfDs if and when they are created as they are unlikely to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is untrue. The articles were deleted for the most part not because they failed a notability test but because they were created by a banned user. There's no need to prejudice editors by suggesting a priori that bios on those individuals would not pass WP:N just because of one admins deletionist bias. And while this discussion has drifted away from being about the articles to an ad hominem attack on the previous author and unsubstantiated attacks on and assumptions about my identity, the fact remains that many if not all of the politicians in question did have notable press coverage in major metropolitan newspapers in Toronto as members of the Metro executive and would easily pass WP:N if given the chance. For example, the Marie Curtis article now easily passes WP:N notwithstanding Bearcat's objections and refusal to notify her, the article's original creator, of his AFD. All was needed was giving an editor a shot at it. 199.7.157.58 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody in this discussion has a "deletionist" bias. But what Wikipedia content does have to do is follow the rules.

Firstly, our notability standard for mayors of small towns is not just "one or two or three sources can be shown to verify that the person existed" — every mayor of everywhere can always show one or two or three sources to verify that they existed. But every mayor of everywhere is not automatically accepted as notable, so the way to make a smalltown mayor notable is not just to show what every mayor could show — the sourcing has to expand to a degree that marks the person out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other smalltown mayors, and showing one or two or three sourcing hits in the local media is not enough to do that. And no, the fact that the small town happened to be a suburb of a major metropolitan city, thus meaning that their routine local coverage appeared in the Toronto Star instead of the North Bay Nugget, is still not enough in and of itself to make a smalltown mayor special — you still have to either be able to show nationalizing sources expanding beyond just their local media market (e.g. coverage that extends to Ottawa or Vancouver or Montreal or Winnipeg), or write a really substantial article that cites dozens of distinct sources and not just three or four. This isn't a personal standard I made up just to be unfairly "deletionist" about stuff, it's the rule established by consensus: smalltown mayors are not automatically notable just for existing, so getting a smalltown mayor over the bar requires you to do much, much more than just the bare minimum needed to demonstrate that they existed, and smalltown mayors are not automatically entitled to keep short, inadequately sourced stubs that aren't already doing that.

Secondly, another of our rules is that content that was placed in the article by a banned user has to be removed from Wikipedia. Even if it's about a person who actually does clear our notability standards, the article itself still has to be deleted and then recreated from scratch by an editor in good standing. Again, not a personal preference I made up to be "deletionist": the actual rules of the place as written.

"Deletionist vs. inclusionist" is an archaic Wikipedia paradigm that's irrelevant to how the place works today, anyway, because what every Wikipedia contributor is always supposed to be is a qualityist. Good content that follows our notability and sourceability and contribution rules doesn't get deleted just because "deletionists" don't personally care about that subject area, and problematic content that doesn't follow our notability and sourceability and contribution rules doesn't get kept just because "inclusionists" storm the ramparts with an army of sockpuppets to attack other editors over it. The knife cuts on an article's quality and its degree of conformity or non-conformity to Wikipedia's rules, not on what subject areas individual editors do or don't personally care about.

Alaney2k took on Marie Curtis's article already, and has sourced and substanced it much, much better than it was at the time of nomination, so that AFD has now actually been withdrawn since he's done enough that wiping out the sockpuppet content didn't require deleting the whole article anymore. But for future reference, if you want to create articles about suburban municipal politicians from preamalgamation non-core Metro Toronto, then the standard you have to clear to get them over the bar is not what Marie Curtis looked like three days ago, it's what Marie Curtis looks like now. If you can't at least roughly match Marie Curtis's current degree of sourcing and substance, then the person you're trying to write about is not includable here: not because Bearcat is a "deletionist", but because Wikipedia's rules around the notability of municipal politicians explicitly (and intentionally) set a much higher bar than just showing that the person existed. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Joe Enook

I'm just getting ready to go home and sleep but I noticed that Joe Enook had died, Passing of Speaker Enook. If someone wants to add that to his article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I did the basics for this - I'm sure more info can be added. PKT(alk) 15:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposing deletion for about 40 articles on Manitoban judges

I've found around 40 articles on judges who I think fail notability. They all follow similar patterns:

• Created by User:MBueckert
• The subject is a judge on either the Provincial Court of Manitoba or Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. As I said in an earlier discussion here, this does not create a presumption of notability via WP:JUDGE (see also this AfD).
• The article generally has just one reference, that being a government press release announcing their appointment to the court.
• The article's content restates (and, unfortunately, sometimes copy-pastes) the information from the press release. It gives the date of their appointment, who they replaced (and why that person vacated the position), and gives some routine facts about their background prior to the appointment (where they went to school, what law firms they worked at, whether they did any teaching, what areas of law they specialized in, possibly some kind of community engagement or volunteering that they do)

Some examples include: Frank Aquila, Kelly Moar, Lee Ann Martin, Patti-Anne Umpherville, Sidney Lerner (full list here) I don't think these articles even put forward any claim that their subject is notable (other than the fact that they're judges), which is why I hope they're uncontroversial candidates for proposed deletion (also because of the unanimous outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carena Roller). But I'm putting this forward as an informal "proposed-proposed deletion". If anyone comments here within the next week disagreeing with my proposal, I'll hold off on prodding these articles until we reach consensus (or, if we can't, I'll go through WP:AFD instead of WP:PROD). Colin M (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Another potential option is to create a List of judges of the Provincial Court of Manitoba (or some such) and to redirect all the pertinent articles there (likewise for Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba). In my opinion, such as list should include only basic information, not biographical details; for example, name, date of appointment, who they replaced, date they vacated office, etc. Whether such a list is desirable or useful is the question. For reference, we have Category:Lists of Canadian judges, but nothing there is analogous to such a list. An analogue for the US is List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri; see also Category:Lists of judges of Australian superior courts, and as an example List of judges of the Supreme Court of Queensland. I agree that articles about individual judges for whom there are no third-party references don't pass the notability threshold. (Note: that Queensland article links to numerous pages about individuals, most of them suffering from the same problem as these articles.) Mindmatrix 16:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that such list articles would not be useful (and would also be a nightmare to maintain for certain Provincial/Superior courts that have hundreds and hundreds of judges). Also, WP:LISTPEOPLE suggests that stand-alone lists of people should generally only include notable people. Thanks for the pointers to related articles. I think I'll need to do some more research to get a feel for how the hierarchy of courts in other countries relate to the Canadian system to make a proper comparison. List of judges for United States district courts in Missouri seems to be talking about a federal court, so I don't think it's directly comparable to this case. Colin M (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I just went ahead and added the PROD template to these pages. If anyone's arrived here via one of them, I'm happy to discuss. Colin M (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: Hey there, I see you've removed some or all of the PROD templates for these articles. You posted a comment on each of their talk pages as well, but I think it would be simpler to discuss the matter here. For reference, here's the comment you posted on the talk pages:

I think this needs to go to AfD, at the very least. On my reading of WP:JUDGE, he would indeed be presumed notable, as he is a judge of a provincewide court, which is specifically covered by that notability guideline: "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". I will de-PROD all the articles of judges of provincial courts for the same reason.

I don't know if you saw the link to this discussion that I included in the PROD message, but if not, I'd encourage you to read what I wrote above, and particularly the links to this earlier discussion of WP:JUDGE and this AfD, since I think they address your concern. In short, despite what the name suggests, the "Provincial Court of Manitoba" is actually a collection of trial courts spread around the province. A Provincial Court judge sits in a particular district (e.g. Winnipeg, Dauphin, Thompson) and hears cases from that region. The only judges in MB who have a "provincewide" office are the justices of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, the province's highest court. Other provinces follow a similar pattern. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply Thank you for pinging me here. I did see this discussion; I had not seen the earlier discussion, but I have now read it. It does not address my concerns - or at least, I see no agreement in the discussion, and I agree with the editors who pointed out that the WP:JUDGE guideline says nothing about court hierarchies. Yes, I did de-prod all the articles- I did not believe they are uncontroversial deletions, a view which is reinforced by reading that earlier discussion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The statement that the Provincial Court of Manitoba is "a collection of trial courts" is not correct. The Provincial Court is a single "court of record" (Provincial Court Act, Manitoba, s. 2), and "Every judge has jurisdiction throughout Manitoba..." (Provincial Court Act, Manitoba, s. 7). That seems to me to meet the test for notability: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" are presumed to be notable. The Provincial Court is a single court, with territorial jurisdiction throughout the Province of Manitoba, and each judge can exercise jurisdiction throughout the province, having been appointed by the provincial government. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I checked the discussion on Carena Roller which you mentioned. The comments there indicate that she is a circuit judge. In the US system, circuit judges do not generally have a state-wide office, being restricted to the particular judicial circuit defined by the state law in question. That's quite different from the Canadian system, which as I've outlined above, has generally gone to trial courts with province-wide jurisdiction. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Carena Roller is/was a judge on the Provincial Court of Manitoba. I think the nominator just misspoke when they used the term 'circuit' (or were using it in analogy to the US system). The comment at that AfD that was especially interesting to me in terms of precedent for interpreting WP:JUDGE was in the vote from User:Metropolitan90: Judges at the trial court level of the court system are not inherently notable, per WP:JUDGE. Colin M (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

But that's the issue, isn't it? Where in the guideline is a distinction made between trial courts and appellate courts? By tying notability to "province wide" office, the Notability guideline does not base notability on the position in the judicial hierarchy, but rather on the nature of their appointment and the scope of the territorial jurisdiction of the judge. My understanding (open to correction by US editors who know more about their system) is that trial court judges in the US do not generally have jurisdiction throughout their state, because the state court system often has county court judges, district judges and municipal judges, with limited territorial jurisdiction. Under that system, trial court judges won't meet the notability requirement, not because they're trial court judges, but because they don't hold statewide office. That's not the judicial model used in Canada, as discussed above. I will ping the various editors from that discussion to see if they wish to comment here.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90, Mark the train, Bearcat, Coolabahapple, and Eggishorn: There is an ongoing discussion about the interpretation of the Notability criterion as it applies to judges in Canada at: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. It's relevant to the discussion about the deleted article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carena Roller, which you participated in earlier this month, so thought you might be interested in participating. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Interested parties may also want to check out this RfC at WikiProject Canadian law which I opened as an offshoot of this discussion. Colin M (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what notability cutoffs you apply to what levels of judgeship, the notability test for a judge always still requires some evidence of reliable source coverage about them in media. For the same reason that television or print journalists aren't handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they have staff profiles on the self-published websites of the media outlets they work for, and musicians and writers aren't handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they have music for sale on iTunes or books on Amazon, a judge doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he or she can technically be verified by the government press release announcing their appointment to the bench or by a list of all the judges on the court's website — the judge's notability still hinges on the ability to show some evidence of journalism in reliable and independent sources about them, such as information about their career background and/or news reporting about notable decisions they handed down. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: are you referring to WP:GNG, or a lesser threshold of coverage? My understanding of WP:N was that a subject was considered notable if they meet WP:GNG or any subject-specific notability guidelines. Colin M (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Meeting an SNG still requires some evidence of reliable source coverage in sources independent of the topic. It doesn't take as much sourcing — for example, an actor who gets over WP:NACTOR on "got an Academy Award nomination" grounds doesn't have to show as much sourcing as an actor who's shooting for "notable because they've had acting roles" has to show — but it still takes more than none, and just showing technical verification in one or two primary sources (e.g. a press release from, or a staff directory on the website of, the person's own employer) is not enough all by itself. There still has to be some evidence of reliable source coverage in news media or books before an SNG is actually passed — SNGs aren't passed just by asserting that the SNG is passed, but by the quality and type of sourcing that can be shown to support passage of the SNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

For the purpose of determining whether someone sits on a particular court, I would consider a government publication a very high-quality source. If you show me a press release from the government of Manitoba announcing that Carena Roller has been named to the Provincial Court of Manitoba, and show me that her name is listed on the court's website, I will have absolutely no doubt that she is truly a judge on that court, and that she therefore meets the WP:JUDGE SNG (well, modulo varying interpretations of that guideline). Do you disagree with my claim that such sources would reliably establish that she's a judge on that court? Or do you agree, but still see a need for better (in the sense of non-primary? or more in-depth?) sources to establish notability? If it's the latter, can you point me to a policy/guideline that supports that view? (Genuine question. I'm not trying to argue that you're wrong, just trying to better understand your reasoning.) Colin M (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between "the ability to verify the fact" and "the ability to show that the fact translates into a reason why a Wikipedia article needs to exist". Every single radio or television broadcaster who exists at all can always show a staff profile on the website of their own station, for example — but that isn't enough to make them a notable broadcaster all by itself, because the notability test derives from the ability to show reliable source coverage in media that don't sign the person's paycheque. Every single diplomat who exists can always be referenced to a DFAIT press release or a government staff directory; every single writer who exists can always be "referenced" to the presence of their books in library or bookstore directories like Amazon or WorldCat; every single actor who exists can always be "referenced" to an IMDb entry or their own films' or TV shows' press kits; every single city councillor who exists can always be "referenced" to the city's own website. And on and so forth. The notability test is not simply the ability to offer technical verification that a person has a job — it is the ability to offer some evidence of media caring enough to produce some journalism about the person's work in that job. That's always true of every notability criterion, even the SNGs — there is no notability criterion that ever makes a person so important that one press release from their own employer is enough all by itself to make them notable.

Even a president of the United States would have to be deleted if he or she somehow managed to hold the role without actually garnering any media coverage for it: the notability test hinges on the reception of attention in sources independent of the topic, not just "staff" verification on their employer's own website. If all you can produce is a thinly-veiled rewrite of a person's primary source staff profile or a press release from their own employer, because actual reliable source coverage about them is nonexistent, then you haven't shown a reason why Wikipedia needs to curate content about them — anybody who's looking for that information will find the same staff profile or press release anyway, so simply paraphrasing that primary source on Wikipedia, without adding any new content from other sources because there aren't any other sources to support any other content, isn't adding value to the store of human knowledge about that person. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But most of the examples you've given don't relate to actual SNG. For example, "has had a book published" isn't one of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR, and being a city councillor doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. I think the only relevant example is the hypothetical of a POTUS with no independent media coverage. My interpretation of this case would be that they meet WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:N says that meeting an SNG (without WP:GNG) is sufficient to establish notability, therefore they'd be notable. Is there a policy document that supports the idea that they wouldn't be notable? (FWIW, my personal gut feeling is that such a person shouldn't be considered notable, and that, as you say, it would be silly to have an article that just repeats a few facts from a routine government press release. But I can't find support for that intuition in policy documents.) Colin M (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Publicity seeking

About two years ago, there was a bit of a problem on Timeline of LGBT history in Canada, when somebody tried to add herself and her partner to the list on the grounds that they were the first legally married transgender couple in the history of the world. The claim was referenced only to the couple's own self-published website about themselves, and their research to "confirm" their firstness consisted entirely of putting up the website and then waiting to see if anybody contacted them to contradict the claim or not. Now, obviously, this is not the kind of verification we require to get somebody listed in Wikipedia as a historic first, so I removed the claim from the article — but then I had to argue with the editor for several days over why it wasn't appropriate.

Things calmed down after a few days, and the problem never returned...until now.

Today, a different IP number (who may obviously still be the same person) readded the same claim about the same couple being the first in the world again. This time, the "source" was a post to their Facebook page of a "news" article in Viral Thread, a user-generated media platform that still isn't really a reliable or notability-supporting source — and even the Facebook post itself strongly implies that the couple has been actively fishing for publicity, quite possibly because of what I told them two years ago about why their own self-published website wasn't enough sourcing to get them into a Wikipedia list of historic firsts. In other words, they've spent some portion of the last two years hunting for a media outlet with low enough journalistic standards to bite down on their self-published claim without actually verifying it properly, so that they could come put themselves back into Wikipedia again with a new "source" for their claim.

I've removed it again, but I have a sneaking suspicion that isn't going to be the end of it this time. Is anybody willing to help monitor this so I'm not handling it alone? Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And it's confirmed that it's the same person adding herself: she just reverted it back into the article again, this time under the original username instead of as an IP. Fortunately XLinkBot reverted them right away before I actually had to act, because the addition included an offsite link to Facebook — so I've put the page under protection for the moment, but it obviously can't stay protected permanently, so this problem may still recur once the protection expires. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. We need more than media reports that report their own claims. Interesting approach to self publicity thought. Make a completely outrageous claim that the tabloids are sure to want to repeat (198 orgasms in 90 minutes without touching), and slip in the "first legally married transgendered couple" claim as an afterthought. Meters (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Article about York Entrepreneurship Development Institut

Hello colleagues! I am new to creating articles from scratch. Although earlier I repeatedly anonymously improved already existing articles. I noticed that there are almost no articles about Canadian business accelerators and wrote one. Could you help me with it's improvement and review? And maybe French translation...

Sorry if this is not the right place for such requests.

York_Entrepreneurship_Development_Institute --Jedi2be (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

POV and by-election results for People's Party

@Hiveho: keeps removing the February 25th by-election results from the People's Party of Canada despite the fact that this is a new party and the February 25th by-elections were its first electoral contest. Oddly, he has no problem mentioning that the party ran candidates and who those candidates are - he just keeps removing the results.[15] I suspect this is because the results were poor and that this is an example of POV editing. I'm wondering if editors can take a look at the article, weigh in on Talk:People's Party of Canada, edit the article as appropriate and put it on their Watchlists? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please help clean up WP:INTEGRITY sourcing violations at SNC-Lavalin affair

I've run into numerous violations of WP:INTEGRITY and other sourcing issues while copyediting SNC-Lavalin affair. Help would be greatly appreciated scrubbing this article, particularly as there are so many sources to evaluated, some of which are paywalled. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm using outline.com to avoid most paywalls, just so you know. Just change the url from (example) www.globeandmail.com/etc to www.outline.com/globeandmail.com/etc and you'll be able to read the full article. Safrolic (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change consensus on settlement_type parameters for Ontario municipalities

Your review and input is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario#Proposed amendment to the settlement_type parameter for Ontario municipalities. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Trans-Canada Highway

I note that File:TransCanadaHWY.png has been questioned several times over the inclusion of an extra non-TCH loop in Quebec — the highway should properly be marked as travelling only up the south side of the St. Lawrence River only as far as Rivière-du-Loup and then making the turn east toward New Brunswick, but for some reason our map also marks the A20-Q132 as continuing to hold TCH status as far as Matane, then crossing the river (by ferry, one would hope) to Baie-Comeau and then looping back down Q138 back to Quebec City and coming back across the Pierre Laporte Bridge.

Obviously this is wrong, and several people have pointed this out in the past, but nobody who knows how to work with images has ever done anything about it.

Does somebody here have the ability to fix this, or should we take this to the Graphics project to get a new replacement? Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming meetups in Vancouver

(Cross-posted to Wikiproject Vancouver) Hi everyone. There will be an informal Wikipedia meetup on June 9 in Vancouver, and at least a few of us would like to meet every six weeks or so thereafter. Please see and watchlist Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver if you're interested. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Prince Edward Island general election

I've been setting up redirects today for the new electoral districts for the current PEI election but I've encountered an issue and need to ask for input. PEI's electoral boundaries are redrawn after every third election (most recently after 2015, to take effect in the current election) but for the most part the districts remain pretty much the same, for example 2015's Tyne Valley-Linkletter is functionally the same geographic area as 2019's Tyne Valley-Sherbrooke, so it makes sense to consider this the same riding with a different name (and so there's one article, which should be renamed after the election). But in and around Charlottetown the changes are more dramatic, for example District 9, York-Oyster Bed is basically deleted, taken over by expansions of Districts 8 (Stanhope-Marshfield) and 15 (Brackley-Hunter River), while the new District 9 Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park is a more urban riding, encompassing very little of the former District 9's geographic area. I think in that case we should consider it a new riding, with a separate article. What do others think?

This is the most significant example I've found so far but I'm still going through the list. I'd like to turn all of the district links in 2019 Prince Edward Island general election blue as quickly as possible. Sources for the electoral boundaries aren't the greatest to navigate, but I have [16] for 2019 and [17] for 2015.

Related to this: there is one MLA running, Bush Dumville, who resigned from the governing Liberals and is running as an independent. Should he be listed in the infobox alongside the other major party leaders? (There are no minor parties registered, just the main 4) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if a riding's boundaries are essentially the same, then the article should just be moved, but if they are altered significantly then it should get a new article (unless the name stays the same). This does border on original research, but I think in some cases, we can find sources to suggest the continuation of a riding under a new name to get around that. As for the infobox, I think you should leave independents out of them.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirect in this situation aren't necessary. After the 2019 election is held, they'll be merely re-named (i.e page moved). GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure they're necessary, otherwise the district table is full of redlinks. We could pipe the table but that doesn't help readers trying to use the search engine for information on any of the current district names. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree on the necessity for redirects. However, as Bush isn't even running as an incumbent or party leader that shouldn't be required. Just my own opinion, but I'd think that the old VRS and GSP should be significantly different from Georgetown-Pownal and Mermaid-Stratford. Same with WRS YOB THB morphing into CHP BHR SH-MP. Let me know how your thoughts on on this issue-topic's matter. Cheers! A Red Cherry (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Electoral districts

I've recently added a section to Electoral district (Canada) which starts to address the redistribution process for provincial legislative assembly districts — however, I was only able to write with any particular knowledge or authority on the processes in Ontario and Prince Edward Island. Is anybody who's more knowledgeable about redistribution in other provinces willing to add a short section about that province to the "Boundary adjustment for provincial and territorial electoral districts" section? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with PEI which has a rigorous independent review that is carried out after every third election. It's possible the other provinces don't have a formal process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

They do, but in Ontario you have some districts that are 3-4 times the population of others (in the Northern area) although Island's max. deviation is supposed to be a maximum of +/-15% from the established mean, but only Evangeline-Miscouche is too small by this measure. Much better than any improvement on the federal level (scale of 40x though) by the way, however! A Red Cherry (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour

There's a bit of a problem brewing at Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour, which could use a few outside opinions.

Due to the length of time over which the award has been presented, the winner/nominee tables in the article are broken up by decade for reader convenience rather than being presented all as one continuous table — and recently, Geo Swan added a "Winners and shortlisted candidates of the Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour" header to the top of each decade table from the 1980s forward (i.e. the decades in which the award announced initial shortlists of nominees prior to the actual winner). Since the section is already headlined "Winners and nominees", I don't personally view it as strictly necessary for each table to repeat the header again — but I don't feel strongly enough about that to actually challenge him over it: it is technically redundant, but it's not actively harmful. However, another editor (generally using an IP number, but also a newly registered username on one occasion) has been reverting him, leading to a bit of an editwar over the past four or five days as the anon and Geo Swan keep reverting each other. This hasn't tripped the WP:3RR rule or anything, but it's still not what I'd call productive.

I've applied a week of semiprotection to keep the anon out, and I do want to clarify that I don't consider Geo Swan to be the primary problem here — the IP's clearly the one crossing a line, by singling a minor issue like this out as the hill they're ready to revert-war to the death over, and Geo Swan's entirely justified in suspecting wikistalking. But I'd still appreciate some outside opinions about whether the individual tables actually need the dedicated headers at all, and some additional assistance if the IP starts up again once the semi has expired. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch the decade-by-decade headers, but I think they're redundant, repetitive and doing things more than once. :) PKT(alk) 12:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Dennis King & Prince Edward Island

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive. But, it's getting quite annoying, this resistance to allowing edits that have Dennis King is PEI's premier-designate. See the article-in-question, including related articles 66th General Assembly of Prince Edward Island & 2019 Prince Edward Island general election. There's no sources that the Greens & Liberals are planning to prevent the Progressive Conservatives from becoming PEI's new government. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly; I agree. Seconded! 👍 A Red Cherry (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A lot of folks will want to be pedantic about waiting until Wade MacLauchlan formally resigns as premier (he has already resigned as Liberal leader, but effective upon a future event) but in my opinion it's pedantry for its own sake. Premier-designate is not a formal title anyway, it's just used to refer to the person expected to be made premier when a series of legislative and conventional box-ticking happens, and so basing it on reliable sources calling him premier-designate is just fine. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the issue in this instance has less to do with "he hasn't been formally sworn in yet" — denoting the winner of the election as "premier-designate" during the transition period is standard practice — and more to do with the fact that strictly speaking, we don't yet know for sure that the Liberals and Greens won't come out with an electoral pact that makes Bevan-Baker the next premier instead of King. That said, that's not actually a reason to refrain from listing King as the premier-designate — we can fall off that bridge when we get to it, but in the meantime there's no reason to treat King any differently than the winner of any other election. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Once he's sworn in, he's no longer premier-designate. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Prince Edward Island general election district templates

(cross-posted to Talk:2019 Prince Edward Island general election)

I started creating templates for election results based on the ones used in other provinces, since I noticed we don't have them for elections in PEI, and we might as well. I've so far created Template:2019 Prince Edward Island provincial election/Souris—Elmira (because it's district 1) and Template:2019 Prince Edward Island provincial election/Charlottetown—West Royalty (because it's one of the only ones which has all four parties plus an independent). I'm busy today and probably won't be able to get to all of these and I definitely won't be around tonight once results start coming in, but they're there for whoever wants to use them. Elections PEI doesn't have a placeholder results page up but they will later in the day, so that source will need to be added. I don't know if or when expenditures will be posted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a number of page moves are needed for ridings whose names/boundaries have changed since the last election. I was about to update Template:PEI-ED but I found some of the situation of some of the ridings confusing, so I bailed out of the task rather than get something wrong. PKT(alk) 15:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at List of Prince Edward Island provincial electoral districts, it should help clarify the situation and highlight where moves are needed. I think moves are also needed because the titles use hyphens, and I think emdashes are standard for these. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I should say, all of the districts' boundaries have been adjusted somewhat, but there are no reliable sources saying which districts are renames and which are "new" districts. I created redirects and new articles based on my own judgement, generally based on how much of a district's area remained the same, or how much the "old" district resembles the "new" district, or which "old" incumbents are running in which "new" districts. I'm open to discussion on this, of course, but I think what I did generally makes sense. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We've a problem here. For example: Alberton-Bloomfield is virtually a continuation of Alberton-Miminegash & Alberton-Roseville, yet its being treated as a entirely new district with a separate article. Meanwhile AM & AR are combined into one article Alberton-Roseville. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to show sources which verify that the new district is "virtually a continuation" of the old district before we can presume to treat them as one continuous article topic — a new district name defaults to a new article until proven otherwise, not vice versa. What was done 12 years ago, when most of our standards and practices were royally forked up and we did a lot of stuff badly, is not controlling on how we should handle things today — just because editors haven't taken on the job of cleaning up the bad old way doesn't mean the bad old way overrides current best practices in 2019. Maybe the new riding should be treated as continuous with the old one rather than as a new article, but we're not automatically merging Bloomfield with Roseville just because we merged Roseville with Miminegash in the past — we require reliable sources to tell us that Bloomfield, Roseville and Miminegash were all fundamentally the same thing before we treat them as the same thing. It's entirely possible that what should really be done is unmerging the old articles rather than continuing to merge the new ones — again, we need reliable sources to verify that the boundaries didn't change, and the name was the only real difference between the two topics, before we merge them into one topic.

To be clear, I tried looking for proper verification of where a new district represented an actual boundary shift, and where it merely represented a change of name with no significant realignment of its boundaries — and per his prior comment, so did Ivanvector — but apart from a single one-off mention of the changed boundaries for one Stratford-area district in a "ridings to watch" article, I was completely unable to locate any verification whatsoever of what actually was or wasn't changed in the last redistribution. Even when I tried looking for the old district maps so that I could eyeball them against the new district maps, they failed to be locatable either. (And even that one district for which I had been able to source a significant boundary change was also being erroneously indicated by our article as a straight continuation of an overlapping but very non-identical predecessor district until I fixed it.) Reliable source verification trumps statements of subjective personal opinion, not vice versa — so we have to default to new articles until reliable sources can actually be shown to support a merger, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I posted a link to where the old maps from the 2015 election somewhere up the page, but here it is again. For the districts from the original redistricting, see the 2005 election report. And for the 2017 electoral commission, see here. Elections PEI reconfigures their site so frequently and haphazardly that things very quickly become hard to find, and most links from Google are broken at the moment.

I disagree that we have to find reliable sources saying that a new district is a continuation of the former district that was in the same geographic place, otherwise we must create an entirely new article, for the same reason we don't have to have reliable sources to say the sky is blue. It's perfectly reasonable to say that Cascumpec-Grand River is the same district (or basically the same, or has the same electoral legacy) as Tyne Valley-Linkletter and Tyne Valley-Sherbrooke, with the boundaries having been adjusted a few times but generally covering the same geographic region and significant communities. It's the district that's just outside Summerside to the west and northwest, including Tyne Valley, Lennox Island, and Wellington and Richmond but not the French parts. It's been the district in this area since 2nd and 3rd Prince, which were different districts in a different electoral system. In fact, keeping "communities of interest" together in the same districts through redistricting exercises is one of the stated goals of the boundaries commission. For our purposes it makes sense to have all of our information about that area in one article. And in the case of Evangeline-Miscouche, a district representing a significant minority population, it would be improper to make three separate articles just because of minor adjustments to its boundaries (the commission also notes that this district is kept basically the same despite resulting in a lower population, because its elected member is expected to also serve as a representative for Acadians elsewhere on the Island.) Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't split Evangeline-Miscouche because it has had the same name in all three redistributions. That's not the issue here. I don't care that much one way or the other, unless the riding is essentially the same (even if the name changes), with only minor boundary changes (say under a 10% population shift). But, I have only bothered with splitting an article up if it's obvious that a predecessor riding isn't right, which I had to do Parkdale-Belvedere. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Good call, the suburban Charlottetown ridings rarely stay the same. I think when the last redistricting occurred (2006-ish?) someone just followed the district numbers (referring to the districts solely by their number is very prevalent here) so our article on former District 11 Parkdale-Belvedere just got renamed to the new District 11 Charlottetown-Parkdale, and they followed that pattern all over the island. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that what may seem immediately obvious to an islander is not necessarily immediately obvious to the overwhelming majority of the human population who are not islanders. The continuity of electoral districts in Prince Edward Island is not comparable to whether or not we need to source that "the sky is blue" — for starters, the colour of the sky isn't actually an objective or consistent physical quality of the sky itself, but of how it appears to the human eye depending on cloud cover, time of day and refraction of light. (The sky outside my bedroom window right now is very grey, and five hours ago it was black, and in different weather conditions it can also be white, orange, red or even pale green.) So it's not because "the blueness is patently obvious" that we don't use outside sources to support "the sky is blue" — it's because the colour of the sky is actually a much more complex and nuanced and variable matter than just "the sky is blue, the end", and we do use reliable sources to explain and support those complexities and nuances.

So yes, we do need reliable sources to tell us whether a "new" district represents a significant boundary shift or just a renaming of fundamentally the same thing, because it's not such a patently obvious truth that outside verification would be completely unnecessary — it can't be left up to people's differing personal opinions, particularly given that not everybody on earth lives on Prince Edward Island at all. We require reliable sources to verify the changedness or unchangedness of electoral district boundaries everywhere else, so we can't give PEI its own unique PEI-specific exemptions from the rules that every other electoral district on earth has to follow just because one or two PEI-based editors consider it "patently obvious" to them — as I mentioned already, I even caught at least one case where a new district had been summarily redirected to an old district even though there actually had been a very significant boundary shift that unequivocally cleared the "too different to simply be merged" bar. (The old district took in a piece of Charlottetown, but then went all the way across the island to the north shore, while the new district was just the old district's Charlottetown piece itself, so they were clearly very different things.) So we need reliable sources to tell us whether a district's boundaries changed or not — even just actual maps of the old districts, that we could eyeball against maps of the new districts to see where there were or weren't any changes, would have been good enough if I'd been able to find any maps of the old districts on the web.

Editors who actually live in PEI are obviously going to be in a better position to find the right kind of referencing one way or the other than editors who have to rely solely on what Googles — on-island libraries, archives or even Elections PEI itself might still have copies of the election redistribution report, and/or copies of the old district maps, to provide better verification of what did or didn't change. So instead of arguing that we should somehow exempt PEI from the standard practice that every other electoral district in the world has to follow just because of what a couple of PEI-based editors consider to be "common knowledge" to them, why not invest some time into finding better sources to support your personal opinion as to whether any given district is fundamentally a continuation of an old district or a genuinely new entity? I obviously have no objection to some of the new district articles being remerged with the old ones if the right sources are brought to show that the district is fundamentally the same thing — but we can't just assume that a new district is fundamentally the same thing as an old one just because it kept the number, has a new name that retains partial similarity, or picked up the candidacy of an old district's rerunning incumbent, because none of those things inherently prove that there hasn't been a significant boundary shift. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding sources, to be blunt, there aren't any. The Electoral Commission reports (which I've linked to in several places now) do not go into any kind of commentary about this, they pretty much just say "here are the districts as of this date". They go into methodology a bit but there's nothing like "we took this district and adjusted it" or "we took this district and split it into these two new districts". One key note from the 2017 reports is that the Commission moved away from using rural roads as boundary divisions, trying to avoid situations where rural residents on one side of the road were in a different district than their neighbours on the other side, and so with just that change it's pretty safe to assume that every district had a change in its boundaries. So what's the path forward based on that? Do we create an entirely new set of articles after every redistricting? Do we need, for example, Belfast-Murray River (2007-2019) and Belfast-Murray River (2019-present)? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Even just the old district maps or descriptions are useful sources for whether there's been a significant boundary shift or not, because they can be compared against the current district maps. We don't necessarily require sources which describe the adjustment in prose — if we have or can find sources which describe or depict what the old district boundaries were, then we can directly compare those to the current boundaries, and don't need to hold out for commentary.

And at any rate, none of this means that we would need to split up Belfast-Murray River like that. If the name stays the same, then the existing article just stays the same regardless of any boundary adjustments that do or don't happen — the article should obviously still describe significant boundary changes if there have been any, but if the name has stayed the same then there's no need to split it up. Only districts which get new names actually raise the question of whether it's fundamentally a new thing that should get a new article, or fundamentally a renaming of the old thing which should just get the old article moved.

If you've got the old maps, then go to town: compare them to the new maps, document what did or didn't change and source it to the maps, and then once it's been properly documented what did or didn't change we can make properly informed decisions about where mergers are warranted and where new articles are preferred. All I've said is that we need to follow real sources, and not just guess. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think we're on the same page then. That's the comparison I did when I created List of Prince Edward Island provincial electoral districts, and if I didn't provide the sources for the maps then I'll go rectify that. Someone else added the "representation history by community", which might also be helpful. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We should use the District #, to determine continuation. For example: Alberton-Miminegash, Alberton-Roseville & Alberton-Bloomfield, are all still District 26. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because some districts are moved significantly despite having the same numbers. Anyway, if we're looking for old maps, Elections PEI has their election reports here which include polling division maps from each election going back to 2000. While not as reliable of a source, you can go to election-atlas.ca/pei to easily compare riding boundaries between elections. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely not use district numbers to indicate continuity. If you go by district numbers, several of the pre-2017 districts are not even in the same general location as their 2019 counterparts. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it POV to call the SNC-Lavalin affair a scandal?

I'm really desperate for some outside eyeballs on this article. Any eyeballs will do. The relevant section is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#Is_it_really_WP:POV_to_call_this_a_scandal? Safrolic (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)