Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 28

Manic GT in Oshawa

Hello. I'm looking to improve the article on the little sports car with a great name, the Manic GT, that's turning 50 this year. I know there is a model exposed at the Canadian automotive museum in Oshawa. If someone has a picture of the car, they are welcome to upload it. --Webfil (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The museum is closed for now or I'd walk down the street and snap a picture for you. I've asked some local car-aficionados on Facebook if they have pictures of it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: A friend of the curator is going to get me a few pictures next time they check in on the place. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Floydian: thanks a lot, looking forward to that. --Webfil (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Webfil: so the car is indeed in storage to make room for an exhibit on GM Canada. However, the museum curator Alexander Yates was happy to provide a photo of it. I don't deal with OTRS because their mountains of red tape makes me want to smack someone... but if you get issues from the assume-bad-faith copyright ninnies, I can have him send them an email. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. Apparently there are editors that spend their entire time here assuming bad faith. Now I get to harass the person who was kind enough to dig out a photo that they took, to email to me, that doesn't appear on the internet, because some wannabe lawyer can't find proof on the internet that the image is by the person that I uploaded the image credited to. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Floydian - just a small point, but the date in the Summary for your photo says 2014 - should be 2021, no? PKT(alk) 19:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I put that based on the EXIF data. According to the author this is an old photo from when it was on display. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

HMCS Wallaceburg (J336)

Talk:HMCS Wallaceburg (J336) has a hidden copyright violation notice. It should be visible as a cleanup message on the article page, but it is instead hidden on the talk page. As it dates from 2011, this clearly is really in need of addressing. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the notice on Talk:HMCS Wallaceburg (link above is the talk page of a redirect). The offending content was removed from the article in 2012, but I've requested revdel of the history which contains the potential copyright violation using {{Copyvio-revdel}}, per WP:Copyright problems#Suspected or complicated infringement. Once that's complete we can remove the talk page notice. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done: The copyvio in 2011-2012 has been revdel'd; I've removed the notice on the talk page. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization situation

We've been uncapitalizing prime minister of Canada & deputy prime minister of Canada in the respective bios of the individuals that have held those articles. Why then 'now', are a few editors forcing capitalization at Chrystia Freeland? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't follow closely but I recall a discussion on a very similar topic recently, which I see you were involved in. I suppose that once again consensus on this topic wasn't found. I don't imagine there's much for this wikiproject to do about that. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Prime Minister of Canada" is a job title, much like "President of the United States of America" is. If you're going to uncapitalize one, you need to uncapitalize the other as well for consistency's sake. --Rob Kelk 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

President of the United States uses a lower case p when it is not starting a sentence, and that convention appears to be consistent. Editorial guidelines in news outlets appear to use the same: lower case for the position name (prime minister of Canada), upper case when used as a personal title (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.8.91 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in Ottawa

The editors at COVID-19 pandemic in Ottawa need some help - I don't necessarily think the article is notable but if you could take a look and offer some guidance and/or editing - that would be nice. I focus on COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario and COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto and don't have a lot of time to help out with that particular article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added a medical case chart and a photo I took back in May. I'll help out with future updates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability criterion for Judges

Hi all. Some of you may recall we had a discussion a couple of years ago about the notability requirement for judges. To the extent we reached a consensus, it was that the issue was the presumption of notability for some judges and not others at "Notability (people)." It's taken me a couple of years, but I've finally got around to raising the issue over on the Talk page for that guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposal_to_restrict_notability_criterion_for_Judges . Would welcome any comments anyone may have about the proposal, pro, con, or neutral. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Major awards for Canadian artists

Hi everyone. It's Art and Feminism edit-a-thon season so I'm trying to brush up on what constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" for purposes of establishing notability among Canadian artists. Are all the awards at List of Canadian art awards considered well-known and significant? Is anything big missing from that list? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll vouch for anything in that list that's sponsored by a provincial or federal government institution. I can't vouch for anything that isn't. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr. David Williams

I've started a bit of a stub article for David Williams (physician), Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario. It has been slapped with some BLP issues (not a lot of google work can get some bio info on this guy). Happy to have other editor's eyes on it. Cheers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia Featured article review

I have nominated Chetwynd, British Columbia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

RegionalRural municipalities and numbers

Any reason why the current articles on regional municipalities include numbers when seemingly that is not the COMMONNAME? - if it's disambiguation, the better practice would be the standard parentheticals. If you have no clue what I'm talking about see the litany of requests at WP:AFC/R (starting with that one) for context. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I believe you meant to refer to rural municipalities. See past discussions to implement the current approach here and here. Bottom line is there are so many competing variants for common name by rural municipality (RM) that it is impossible to determine and confirm the common name for each, and the common name confirmations would be inconsistent across the >300 existing and countless other historical rural municipalities with numbers in their official names. The consensus was therefore to simply go with the official names for each RM. There was an attempt in 2019 to move County of Minburn No. 27 to County of Minburn that failed. As for the RM-related requests at WP:AFC/R, I see the value in creating most if not all the requested redirects. Don’t understand why the formal requests are being made in that venue when the redirects could simply be created boldly by the editor (unless IPs don’t have such permission). I wish that user would register as many of the editor’s good faith edits are problematic, which could potentially be overcome with improved communication potential. Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: I was stubborn for about 4 years before getting an account (see, that got me no good - apparently not being completely clueless is suspicious)... Anyway, no, IPs and non-autoconfirmed users cannot create anything in the main (article) space. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation, but that's old news. I'll implement the requests then, and leave a message for the IP. I just wanted to know what I was doing, since I'm a fair bit away from Saskatchewan and in my corner of the woods we have MRCs so... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, RandomCanadian. I just placed messages on the talk pages of eight of nine of the IPs I believe to be the same editor presenting the benefits of a registered account. On the ninth I witness a block by Stwalkerster (see here), I believe due to the use of a WP:PROXY, which blocks account creation. Not sure if that applies across the other IP addresses. Hwy43 (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:, just a courtesy heads up for you to check the new thread below as it relates to the above. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

National Advisory Committee on Immunization

National Advisory Committee on Immunization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted. It seems like this should have an article? Or redirect somewhere? -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

made it redirect to COVID-19 vaccination in Canada WildComet (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Municipal government in Canada merge into local government in Canada

Hi all, started a section in Talk:Local government in Canada about merging these two articles, they seem to be pretty dead so I thought I'd post here as well. WildComet (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

University of Windsor - date of establishment and former names

Hello all - there's been a "discussion" via competing edits (boy, is that ever euphemistic) in University of Windsor regarding how to best represent its origins in the infobox. Its history has been a matter of evolution with different names and responsibility. Would editors experienced in similar situations please chime in at Talk:University of Windsor#Date of establishment / Former names ? Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 01:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

BBC Kids

FYI, there is a discussion about the use of BBC Kids (formerly a Canada-only TV channel; now an Australia-only TV channel), see talk:BBC Kids -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad Omen

Yesterday, I created a stub article about a short film, Bad Omen (film), that got a Canadian Screen Award nomination earlier this week — however, an anonymous IP has already edit-warred me twice to remove some information from the article. The first time they did it, they used no edit summary at all to explain their actions, and the second time they claimed that they were removing "spoilers" — but the information they were removing is just a simple plot summary directly referenced to a public interview that the filmmaker conducted about the film's own base themes, and is thus hardly a "spoiler" since he talked about it himself in a public forum. And furthermore, even if it were a "spoiler" Wikipedia doesn't actually have any rule against "spoilers" in the first place — our articles about films are allowed to reveal the "plot twists" (assuming this was even a "plot twist" in the first place, which it's not at all clear that it would be) and the onus is on the reader to avoid reading the article at all if they're concerned about spoilers, not on us to refrain from spoiling anything.

But since it's not clear-cut vandalism, I can't revert them a third time without tripping the WP:3RR wire, and since it's a brand new article I just created yesterday it doesn't have very many watchlisters yet. So I wanted to ask if anybody is willing to add this to your watchlists and help keep an eye on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Mixed economy or market economy?

The economics in canada article currently says that Canada is a market economy. But the Canadian Encyclopedia says that Canada is a mixed economy [1]. So what type of economy is Canada exactly? X-Editor (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm weary about the fact that the source for that [2] is dated 2001 - a lot has changed since then. Considering the opening line of "mixed economy" says "A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise." And that a "mixed economy" is used to describe our closest trading partner, the United States I would argue it is indeed a Mixed Economy and the previous source for "Market Economy" is outdated. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I’ll go ahead and make the change! X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Inuit clothing

Hello, can I get some thoughts about Inuit clothing before I toss it up for GA? It was getting rather large, so last night, I split it into two articles, Inuit clothing and history of Inuit clothing, but now I'm having second thoughts. The diff before the split is here - that version was just over 10,000 words, while the split version is now 7800. Should I keep it split, or self-revert? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Abraham Lake

Hi all! I was actually watching a video the other day about dangerous bodies of water and stumbled across this [peculiar man-made lake]. I was wondering if anyone who has gone here before would like to contribute some more information regarding their experiences visiting this place. I personally want to check it out sometime as well :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldearf0 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

proposal to change image for Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada

Current image

Proposed image

In 2009 I added File:Aboriginal War Veterans monument (close).JPG to Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada when we got Indigenous peoples in Canada to GA level. I am proposing that we change this - for 2 reasons - not sure a veterans memorial is appropriate to represent all Indigenous Canadians and the fact it does not have the "Official" symbols of the 3 aboriginal groups. I am proposing to use File:Transparentadicon.png that has the 3 recognized Indigenous Canadian symbols (as presented here) all incorporated into a red maple leaf - our national symbol that was chosen to show one country and did so to remove any colonial symbols from our national flag.[3] - [4]. As a member of the Kanyen’kehá:ka community I am bringing this here because I get very offended when people refer to the maple leaf as a colonial symbol - a symbol that my grandfather wore into battle and is on his grave stone because he fought and died for this country.--Moxy- 18:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed image v2

I objected to this change because I don't think it's appropriate to represent Indigenous people with a canadian state symbol, due to the colonialist relationship between Canada and the indigenous I people. In 2015, the United Nations Human Rights committee published a report enumerating multiple human rights violations of indigenous people in Canada [5]. The final report of the National inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found that Canada was engaged in an ongoing genocide of indigenous people. [6] As such, I suggested the use of the an image with a turtle instead as a reference to Turtle Island. However, I would not object if only the wheel at the center of both icon be used.

I appreciate you sharing the story of your grandfather, and the story of indigenous veterans is why the war monument was somewhat appropriate for this template. Just keep in mind that many indigenous people don't feel the same way about canadian state symbols. Mottezen (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling Bull shit on your POV - find a source that says what your saying. Real facts are Canadian flag is an important part of indigenous heritage [7] ...so much so that there has been a movement to change the flag ...but making sure its still has a maple leaf in it because of its meaning. [8]. The design with the turtle looks nice but its only represents one northeastern myth...plus not sure why we should give undue weight by having 2 first nation symbols - while omitting any Canadian connection when the article is about all "Canadian" Indigenous peoples". An advocacy POV based on no sources is never the way to go. --Moxy- 20:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to look any further than this article you linked, with the quote "It is Canada Day. Remember that we live on stolen land and there is nothing to celebrate." The author likes to another article in the same publication: "The Chronicle Herald apologized for publishing a Canadian flag. For the artist's design, the creator "recognized himself as a Canadian and First Nations Canadian and infused his dual identity into his work, reflecting both his cultural heritage and the current nation" meaning the current flag represents only "the current nation" and it needs to be amended to include his "cultural heritage".

Additionally, defacing the Canadian flag to protest for indigenous rights have become more common in recent years [9] [10].

Removing the Maple leaf would not remove the "canadian connection" from the template. Using the three officially-recognised indigenous symbols in Canada is sufficient. The Metis flag is not used for mixed-heritage peoples anywhere else in the world.

I hadn't seen this poll before, so I'm less opposed to the image you're proposing as before. Times are changing though, and this poll is a bit dated. But before linking this poll, I need to say that An advocacy POV based on no sources is what you were doing, not me. All the sources you linked before that were unrelated to the conversation. Mottezen (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So I think we are good to go. Only source we have is some child vandalism to show distain vs national polls and the reason behind the flags creation with no colonial imagery and no race symbols (that for some odd reason you find not relevant).--Moxy-

Mottezen and Moxy. I only just noticed this. I would say no to the turtle. Turtle Island only represents some First Nations and does not feature in Inuit culture at all. I'm unsure if it features much in Métis culture. If you want a symbol that is more widespread among indigenous Canadians, then a raven. Although commonly thought of as a west coast First Nations symbol it also features in Inuit, Cree, Dene legends and right across to the east coast. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the turtle itself is a common term within First Nations for Turtle Island (Native American folklore). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz. Some but not all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing a valid reason not to change...but the current image has served us fine for years. Perhaps best to just keep it as is in case others like Mottezen who are not familiar with the meaning behind the imagery associated with our flag may take offense.--Moxy- 00:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Question

Quick question about a recent development within the past two weeks: is there any compelling reason why we would need two separate articles about National Arts Centre for the theatre company, and National Arts Centre (building) for the brick-and-mortar facility that they perform in? I'm not seeing one, there's a fair amount of overlap between the two topics, neither article is so very long that a splitout would be needed for size management purposes even independently of the partial content duplication, and this was started by a user based in Belgium who may not be as authoritative judge as Canadians are of whether we need this or not. But obviously, I wanted to solicit some outside opinions from other project members before trying to merge them unilaterally: do others agree with me that this is unnecessary and should be collapsed back into one article, or is there a valid basis for two separate articles here that I'm not seeing? Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat - I agree with you. This version before the Belgian editor did the split appears to be of a reasonable length, in my opinion. PKT(alk) 16:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to reach out to that editor, User:Beireke1, to ask why they did it, before undertaking a merge or merge process. --papageno (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

IMHO at 20 kB (total article size) that is well too small to justify a split, as described at WP:SPLIT. Now the solution is rather simple in that the edits can be reverted and the (building) page can either be deleted or maybe kept as a redirect (though it's frankly an unlikely search term). I've left the editor a notice on their talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Best keep as one subject....no point in making readers runaround to find info.Moxy- 03:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, the reason to split out the initial article comes from this issue that we observed in a Wikidata data modelling project on performing arts data. Wikipedia articles are linked to a Wikidata item. That is a one to one relationship. This means that every topic in Wikipedia should correspond to a concept described as an item in Wikidata. Arts organisations and architectural structures seem conceptually too different to describe in one Wikidata item, as explained in the page linked above. As a test, I tried to split out the articles of some of these cases to keep both the articles and the links to Wikidata as clean as clean as possible. I understand that it may seem a bit unusual from a pure Wikipedia perspective, but from the point of view of the Wikimedia ecosystem as a whole, I (and the people within this project) believe that it makes sense. The only alternative to this that we see is to allow a one to many relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles, so that multiple Wikidata items could link to the same Wikipedia article. Beireke1 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think there was a workaround for this by using redirects on Wikipedia; I cannot recall exactly how it was done, but I think it involved creating a new article for the second concept (e.g. the building), linking it to the corresponding Wikidata item, and the defining it as a redirect. Unfortunately, there is currently no standard way, at least to my knowledge, of disentangling concepts on Wikidata (which is direly needed) without running the risk of breaking some of the interwiki links on Wikipedia. At the same time, from a Wikipedia standpoint, it may be legitimate to treat several concepts (e.g. organization and building) in one and the same article if there is insufficient content matter for two or more separate articles. --Beat Estermann (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is often called the Bonnie & Clyde problem.DrThneed (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Then what would currently be the best way of dealing with the problem on a semi-large scale (hundreds of items, with great variety of linked articles in different Wikipedia language versions)? I don't see much activity after this discussion was closed. Beireke1 (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beireke1: I think there is two different things here. To split the Wikidata item into two items makes total sense. But, doing the same thing in Wikipedia EN is not as good. Because of other concerns than data logic. Also, if you split the page in Wikipedia EN, why not also split the page in Wikipédia FR? And all the other languages… I wouldn't bound the 2 together. Changes on Wikipedia are not forced by Wikidata, they are independents projects. Regards, Antoine2711 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it's helpful for me to weigh in, but these are two different things. The National Arts Centre as an organization is conceptually different from the National Arts Centre as a building. I actually think it would be fine to have articles on different topics in Wikipedia. The building is used for lots of things unconnected to the organization and has its own history. The building is its own thing. I would be really very happy with two separate Wikipedia articles and I'm happy to work on this. I don't see the advantage of having one article, certinaly this shouldn't be base on length. Either way, two separate Wikidata items. --Smallison (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I did the same on the French Wikipedia pages, but of course there will be similar topics where I don't master all the languages in which there are articles. So I would be very much in favour of a one to many relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles. And if the community decides that this kind of articles can't be split, we will have to make the very difficult decision in Wikidata which item to use to link the article to. As Wikidata Q-numbers are often used to pick up and reuse Wikipedia content, I would prefer to keep the relationship between concepts in both projects as clear as possible. Beireke1 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am no WP expert, so I will not comment on whether a single or two articles are needed for Wikipedia users. But I've spent enough time in Wikidata to attest that fuzzy and/or conflicting interwiki links are a real challenge when attempting to achieve conceptual clarity in Wikidata. I fully agree with User:Beireke1 that one-to-many relationships are needed because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, was never meant to achieve the level of granularity that Wikidata, as an RDF-based knowledge base, was designed for. Let's take the National Arts Centre as an example. No later than yesterday, I created individual Wikidata items for each individual department of the National Arts Centre Corporation: French Theatre, English Theatre, Indigenous Theatre, Dance, NAC Present. This would be completely overkill in Wikipedia. But it is absolutely necessary in Wikidata in order to accurately match these Wikidata items with external base registers and directories of all sorts. Moreover, each NAC department has its own artistic director and has full autonomy to act as a producer or presenter of live performances. This level of detail is important for performing arts archives. The same goes with the NAC building, which is comprised of four distinct performance spaces. No need to create a Wikipedia article for each one. However, each one needs its own Wikidata venue item (still on my to-do list) to support several cultural consumption use cases (i.e. geofencing individual spaces within the larger building). Wikidata is meant to examine parts of the elephant and link them into a whole. Wikipedia... well, as I said, I'm no Wikipedia expert. But interwiki links absolutely need fixing (and the redirect process described in the Bonnie & Clyde problem doesn't cut it for me). Fjjulien (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles follow Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy on splitting is WP:SPLIT, which doesn't mention Wikidata or the Bonnie & Clyde problem. If the Bonnie & Clyde problem is significant enough that Wikipedia policy should be changed to help resolve it, a larger discussion should be raised on updating WP's policy, but until then it shouldn't be a reason to structure Wikipedia articles in a certain way. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@M.nelson: Ok, I understand. What would be the place to raise a discussion about the need for a one to many relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles, so that multiple Wikidata items could link to the same Wikipedia article? Or can we find out whether it has already been raised before? Beireke1 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beireke1: I think there ought to be discussion in Wikidata itself or on meta.wikimedia.org, since this is an issue spanning Wikipedia projects, not just with the English site. Looks like it was discussed recently on meta at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Wikidata/Link Wikipedia redirects to Wikidata items -M.Nelson (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A number of COVID-19 articles have fallen into neglect

The following articles have become quickly outdated (I'm sure due to pandemic fatigue) if any editors (especially from their respective provinces/specific regions) would like to try to clean any up, especially general timelines or ledes that would help make the whole COVID-19 in Canada project look nicer :)

Articles:

• COVID-19 pandemic in Nova Scotia
• COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec
• COVID-19 pandemic in New Brunswick
• COVID-19 pandemic in Newfoundland and Labrador
• COVID-19 pandemic in Montreal

Thanks!

CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

See what can be done this weekend. Best try to update before the merger crowd comes around.Moxy- 22:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Photos of cricket grounds

Hello WP:Canada members. I'm just over from the Cricket Project. We're looking for editors to take pictures of cricket grounds which have hosted major matches at international/domestic level. Here are some cricket grounds, both located in Toronto, which we currently do not have photos for. It would be greatly appreciated if any project members living locally to these grounds were to dust off their cameras and take some photos! The two cricket grounds are about 3km apart. Thanks in advance. StickyWicket (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rural municipality edit warring against consensus

Hello all, we have an IP-hopping editor that is warring at numerous rural municipality (county-equivalent) articles and lists, particularly at List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, renaming the municipalities contrary to the consensus here for Alberta and the extrapolated approach of that consensus here for Saskatchewan. The IP editor finally reached out to me on my talk page here. Following my response, the editor evidently didn't like it and reverted me yet again with this edit with a strange and unfounded accusation. Would interested members of this WikiProject please watchlist List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan? I'm about to revert again and apply a level three warning on the editor's talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They indeed appear to be disruptive. If they continue its a candidate for WP:AN/3RR; and then if their IP proves to be changing faster than before it is a case of semi-protection required. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisted both articles. Persistent vandalism should be taken to 3RR per RandomCanadian. Builder018 (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Builder018: Just to clarify, this is WP:NOTVAND; just run of the mill WP:Disruptive editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Noted, thanks for the clarification. Builder018 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian and Builder018: thank you both. Coincidentally I tried to apply a fourth level disruptive editing warning using Twinkle and it doesn’t exist. So once a disruptive editor gets a third level warning it appears Twinkle deems further disruptive editing as vandalism. Regardless, I agree with the NOTVAND assessment. Hwy43 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: That's because of 3RR - if they've made more than 3 reverts; they can usually just be reported to the edit warring AN board (above). Anyway, if the templates run out, it's always a possibility to make a short (as to not waste too much of your time) message explaining why, both for AGF purposes and for avoiding technicalities. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: unfortunately with the way things go with this editor, I will always be the first violator of 3RR and punishment might boomerang. I realize there are exceptions for blatant vanadalism but it is evident here that things are grey between disruptive editing and vandalism. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: The IP is back, if you haven't watchlisted the page. [11]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, RandomCanadian. Check this incivility: [12] [13]. Persistent disruptiveness and incivility increasingly shows the editor is WP:NOTHERE. I will request a block tonight. Hwy43 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Since been WP:AIVed. About to surveil all the other damage done in the last 24 hours. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: Apparently that didn't work. Now at ANI. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: And apparently no action out of ANI aside from archiving. Puzzling and disappointing yet Wtmitchell did block the IP for one week vandalism. Maybe the block was upon review at ANI or Wtmitchell stumbled across the IP via other means and blocked by coincidence. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: hopefully last ping on this matter but SPI initiated. Hwy43 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing that SPI can do for IPs, and they all geolocate to Alberta anyway so it is probably the same person on a dynamic IP (basically the same information CUs could give you, me thinks). If you want to check the ranges that would be Special:Contributions/70.64.0.0/12 and Special:Contributions/2604:3d00::/28 (you'll need something more precise in any case). If they keep coming back the pages can be semi-protected, but that shouldn't be required for now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really. They can do a range block, if it's an associated range, which is what it seems like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FAC nomination of William Lyon Mackenzie

I have nominated William Lyon Mackenzie for featured article status. Mackenzie was the leader of the Upper Canada Rebellion and a prominent journalist and politician in pre-Confederation Canada. I welcome all comments at its nomination page here and you can review the featured article criteria here. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideology of the federal Conservative Party

Hi all, I'm seeing over at the Conservative Party of Canada article that a lot of changes are being made to ideology and are unsourced and not discussed. I started a thread on talk to hopefully get more feedback on this. Cheers, WildComet (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Federal buildings in Canada has been nominated for upmerging

Category:Federal buildings in Canada, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Layton

There's been a slow-moving edit war over several months at Jack Layton, over the question of whether his cause of death should be listed in the infobox as "cancer" or as "metastasis". Now, obviously cancer can metastasize, but metastasis is simply the process by which cancer spreads from one part of the body to another, and is not in and of itself the thing that a person with cancer actually dies of — but various IP numbers (but also including one user who seems to be here almost exclusively to crystal ball imaginary results for as yet nonexistent future elections in their own sandbox rather than actually contributing to mainspace) have been insisting on switching "cancer" to "metastasis" mostly without explaining why it should be the latter.

I'm also of the opinion that the logged-in editor should probably be editblocked on WP:NOTHERE grounds, because making up pretend stuff for the lulz isn't what sandbox is for, but since I've been directly involved in the cancer-vs-metastasis debate I'm not going to do that myself because it would look like I was abusing admin tools.

But my primary reason for posting here is to ask for outside input on the cancer-vs-metastasis issue: which one should be more properly described as Jack Layton's cause of death? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the type of Layton's cancer completely undisclosed? Do we even know for certain that his cancer spread— that it wasn't just a recurrence? — Kawnhr (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see on Death and state funeral of Jack Layton that it was a unspecified, newly diagnosed cancer. There was little discussion as to its type or prognosis, but it has been suggested that it was metastasis into bone cancer[4] or lymphoma.[5] If it's not publicly known what the cancer was, then it would seem to me that we should leave it at that. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reaching out to WP:MED as editors there are interested in these types of questions. I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to have an opinion. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Go with what the reliable source(s) say. Any unsourced change to that information should be reverted as unconstructive, and if an editor continues to make unsourced changes, warn him/her. PKT(alk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've restored cancer. We should avoid WP:JARGON if possible, and in this case "cancer" instead of "metastasis" does not appear to be inaccurate. It's also what sources like [14] and [15] say... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Spouse of the prime minister of Canada

Just a heads-up that Spouse of the prime minister of Canada was just, for the second time this year, peed on by an anonymous IP (same range as last time) who tried to remove the infobox, leaving only a freefloating thumbnail of SGT at the top of the page in lieu, on the grounds that it's "neither a role nor a title". I've already reverted them and placed two weeks of semi-protection on the article (I would have done just one, but second time in three months means escalation is necessary) — but I wanted to ask people to keep an eye out, because the last time they went on this particular crusade they also went around stripping "Infobox prime ministerial spouse" off all of the spouses' biographies, leaving only "infobox person" so that the infobox conveyed nothing about the person's time in the role that made them encyclopedic. So I'm asking that as many people as possible keep an eye on that — I have all the spouses on my watchlist, but I can't guarantee that they won't try to pull something while I'm not looking. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not on my admin account but you could block 2607:FEA8:7E0:1E49:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) to rein this in. Looks very much to have been one user on this range since March 2020. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism aside, the article is problematic since this is not a notable function (it doesn't get that much, if any, coverage in typical news, unlike the PM - this is even more true for the further back in time you go, systematic gender bias et al.) and any notability for the persons in the article is likely to be either unrelated or not be actual notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't exist as a formally defined political role under law doesn't mean it ceases to exist as a cultural concept. You can't possibly be Canadian and not be aware that the spouse of the prime minister is treated as a public figure who does public stuff, like charitable patronage and advocacy work, and gets scrutinized by the media almost as intensely as the actual prime minister does. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly, I don't look at the local news that much (especially these times with that boring COVID stuff and my own real-life priorities), so I might not be a reliable indicator of what gets covered (though it certainly doesn't appear much if at all in international news). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Willma Gendb

Draft written by subject, if someone feels like getting involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy, the tone is wholly promotional and as a whole it appears to be based on poor sources so it would not survive AfD either RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well this could and should have been speedied but instead it gets a whole week at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Willma Gendb... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine Hunters Canada

Looking for some editors to help improve the article at Vaccine Hunters Canada - I believe to editors unfamiliar to the subject it's notability is in question. In my mind the organization's direct or indirect responsibility for thousands (probably in the tens of thousands at this point) [16] of shots given during the COVID-19 vaccination in Canada rollout are enough to make this a notable page. Take a look and see where some improvements can be made (there's a few lines which use sourcing that are primary sources so I'd like to move away from that if possible). CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Two Nova Scotia communities

First is Fergusons Cove. According to the history section it was originally called Falkland, Nova Scotia for which we also have an article. According to the Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB) there is no community in Nova Scotia called Falkland. So should Falkland, Nova Scotia be a redirect to Fergusons Cove?

Second is Purcell's Cove. According to harboursiderealty.com and Interpretation Planning Purcell’s Cove Granite Quarries it is spelt with an apostrophe. However, according to te Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB) it is Percells Cove. Anybody know the correct spelling? Search engine results are mixed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice (Toronto Raptors)

I have nominated Toronto Raptors for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Merchant ship flags

A discussion is taking place at WT:HV#Merchant ship flags of the British Empire re flags flown by merchant ships of the British Empire. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Donald J. Savoie

I have been informed that the Donald J. Savoie entry "has been undone because it appears to be promotional." I understand that you had earlier undone a much longer piece.

I read the entry - everything in the earlier piece or in the shorter version, which you drew from, is based on on facts. In short, everything in both pieces is all facts based. I have, in recent days, read entries on your website about other academics. How can you possibly construe that the entry under my name contains "promotional" material while the others do not is beyond the pale.

The entry under my name on your website does not square with the facts and paints a gross unfair portrait of my contributions, which is injurious to my reputation.

I am now making a formal request to delete all entries under my name on your website. My formal request is straightforward - take down the entry under the name Donald J. Savoie from your website. The entry is incomplete, misinformed, lacking in integrity and injurious to my reputation. I note that this is not the first request to take the entry down.

Donald J. Savoie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirppa (talk • contribs)

@Cirppa: First, with respect to the article Donald J. Savoie, here are the salient points in the current article:

• Canadian public administration and regional economic development scholar
• professor at l'Université de Moncton
• awarded the Killam Prize
• published many books, journal articles, and essays
• shortlisted for the National Business Book Award
• made an Officer of the Order of Canada

How are these "lacking in integrity and injurious" to you reputation?

Second, editing an article of which you are the subject or with which you are intimately associated is not acceptable. As user Cirppa (talk · contribs), nearly all your edits are to this article, and those that are not are related to it. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Those who want edits made on articles about themselves should discuss it on the relevant talk page (in this case, at Talk:Donald J. Savoie).

Third, I have reviewed various older versions of the article, and it is clear that the content removed was promotional (for example: 5 December 2014, reverted with the summary "this is an article, not a resume"); specifically, it was material that is more appropriate on a curriculum vitae. Such material is considered promotional on Wikipedia. I do think you meet the inclusion criteria for academics (or the general notability standards for people), but be aware that articles must satisfy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography using reliable sources. You cannot simply add material that has no third-party sources as references. For example, a previous version of the article stated "In 2000, he became one of only a few individuals from North America to receive an earned D.Litt. from Oxford University" but provided no reference, and the current article states Oxford University as alma matter, again with no reference. Statements such as "everything in the earlier piece ... is based on on facts" is irrelevant if an accompanying third-party reference is not included to prove that fact.

Wikipedia may be open and can be edited by anyone, but there are still fairly strict editorial standards in place to ensure neither promotional nor attack pages are created or endure on the site. Moreover, no individual, including the subject of an article, has ownership of that article. Content therein is subject to all of Wikipedia's editorial policies and style guidelines.

Ultimately, if you want the article deleted, it can be taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (it is a more formal process than Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which was what was previously removed). There are no quarantees that the article would be deleted, though. It will be an open discussion about the merits of retaining or deleting the article based solely on notability and availability of references. Mindmatrix 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice (Great Lakes Storm of 1913)

I have nominated Great Lakes Storm of 1913 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Line 5

Enbridge Line 5 has no indication of the international incident that Whitmer is proposing. Regardless of the recentness of this event, it would be a notable part of the history of the pipeline. The impact of a shutdown should be documented, whether by government order, accident, or sabotage (such as with Colonial Pipelines recently). -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Quebec

Looking to fix up our Quebec article and would love some help. See talk for more details...poor article needs some tender loving care. Think will start this weekend.--Moxy- 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking at French Wikipedia (WPP Qc and WPP Cda) for some help might also be a good idea -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

improving Dryden, Ontario

Hello all,

I am a relatively new editor and am working on improving Dryden, Ontario in my sandbox (User:Eviolite/sandbox -- the scattered external links are for my own reference). (I don't live there, but I saw that a lot of the article seemed unsourced or needed expansion.) I would appreciate it if a more experienced editor could help guide me in regards to what to include, organisation, etc (and also spot things I do incorrectly). Some specific things:

• A lot of the information on the city is, understandably, from its own website. I would generally need to find other sources for most things, right? What about history? I can't find many sources -- Google's newspaper archive doesn't have much that would be important enough to include in the article and I can't find online books (Dryden has a public library which seems to have some books about it, but as stated before I don't live there.)
• I'm not sure how to find sources on arts/culture/recreation that aren't directly related to it (e.g. an art group's own website). Is that okay?
• Is there any one source to find the representative history of a federal or provincial riding? I don't want to add a source for each election.
• re physical geography: I can't really find any more info to add, but I'm not sure what I have is sufficient. Is there anywhere I can find info on soil, etc? (In a similar vein, is there any governmental data on agriculture, etc?)

Thanks in advance. eviolite (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eviolite, welcome to Wikipedia! Here's some advise I wish someone gave me when I started at Wikipedia:

• archive.org has lots of books in their system, which you can access by creating an account. It is where I get the majority of my book sources.
• WP:LIBRARY has access to many databases. Some you will get automatic access to, some you will have to "apply" for (but most people are accepted in a few days).
• Your local library system might have access to other databases. Search their website for what they offer.
• Primary sources are OK, but secondary sources are usually better. What is the town's local newspaper? They might have an archive online that you can access.
• [17] Might help with getting electoral information.
• If you want to bring the article to FA or GA status, I suggest looking at Brownhills. It was recently reviewed at WP:URFA/2020 and deemed to meet FA standards. The article doesn't have to be this good, but it's a great template for an article on a town or city.

.:I hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of the information! I'll see what I can find. (Unfortunately, the town's local paper shut down two years ago, and their website seems to be usurped, but everything else looks good to check.) eviolite (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

One other thing to be aware of is that our references don't have to be solely web-published stuff that you find via Google — you are allowed to cite stuff to print-only content such as books, paper or microfilm or database copies of old issues of the Dryden Observer or the Kenora Daily Miner or the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, and/or magazines, without hotlinking the citation anywhere. So know that you're not limited to sources that Google, and you can use sources that you find in print versions. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Groundhog Day, Quebec style

I've posted an RFC to Talk:23rd Quebec Cinema Awards for input on how to handle a titling problem. I previously requested input at WP:FILM, but failed to get any significant participation, so I've had to escalate to a full RFC — so I'd appreciate, if possible, if some people could actually read my RFC and offer their thoughts. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Move request on Sudbury’s Shaar Hashomayium Synagogue

Hello everyone - there's a move request at Talk:Sudbury’s Shaar Hashomayium Synagogue that is stagnating, and could use some more input. Thanks, PKT(alk) 18:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is now closed (article moved). Thanks to those who participated! .......PKT(alk) 16:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium

Can someone more experienced merge the Montreal Planetarium and Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium pages? They are the same. The official website is https://espacepourlavie.ca/en/planetarium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsofineti (talk • contribs) 09:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, they're not the same. The original is closed, and the Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium opened in 2013. PKT(alk) 14:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Montreal Planetarium" should be renamed to Dow Planetarium as its historic and common name. "Montreal Planetarium" can then become a set index for the two (current and former) planetariums -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Good call, I'd support that. The opening line of the Dow Planetarium page could be adjusted to read something like "the Dow Planetarium, latterly known as the Montreal Planetarium, was..." which would help the readers locate themselves. Pyrope 04:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

A review needs to be performed on Haida people. There are issues to include a 2007 "More citations needed" tag and this is not in line with the criteria (especially #1). Otr500 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

John Davidson (Lower Canada politician)

Can a history buff help me out with some name disambiguation? I'm writing an article on the Bagot commission, a pre-Confederation royal commission on Indigenous affairs (see my userspace draft). One of the commissioners was John Davidson, described at page 38 of doi:10.7202/030883ar as "a former Crown land commissioner". John Davidson (Lower Canada politician) was (according to [18], the lone source that article cites) a commissioner of Crown lands beginning 27 January 1838. I am tempted to think that these people are the same, except for the fact that the Assemblée's page says this John Davidson died circa 1838, which is too early for him to have been on a royal commission that reported in 1842. Any ideas? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't actually saying that he died in 1838, it's saying that he died en où après ("in or after") 1838. All it means is that 1838 is the last time his name shows up in the Assembly records — which makes sense, since 1838 is when the Assembly was dissolved in favour of the unified Province of Canada — but he could still have been alive for literally decades after 1838, with the Assembly just not having access to the information because its status between 1838 and 1867 left gaps in its records.

I'll give you another example of how this plays out: one of my own 3x-great grandmothers is essentially undocumentable after the birth of her last child in 1863. The death records for the town where she and her husband were living at that time aren't available prior to 1870, but there isn't any death record for her in the books that are available — and neither is there any death record for her in the town that the family moved to in the 1880s, all the way up to the time those records dry up in 1915. There is a death record for her husband in the second town around 1889, but it names his wife without saying that she was already dead (which doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't, but it does mean it's not going to help me figure that out one way or the other.) So the only thing I know for sure is that she didn't die between 1870 and 1915 — she could have died between 1863 and 1870, or she could have died after 1915, and I can't find the records either way. So for a death date, all I know for sure is that she died after 1863, but she could still have been alive fifty years after 1863 for all I know from the records I've been able to find so far. In principle, I suspect that "she was already dead by 1870" is likelier to be the case — but I have no way to prove whether I'm right or wrong about that.

So yeah, given the land commissioner detail, I'd say you have enough evidence to go with "same person until proven otherwise". Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Kaska Council

Are Kaska Nation and Kaska Tribal Council the same topic, or is one article supposed to be for the nation and the other supposed to cover the government? -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The latter. They are related topics. The nation is to Ontario as the Tribal Council is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The two articles need rewrites then, as they are right now, it is not clear what each covers. The intro sentences of both articles claim to be tribal council articles. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Green Party of Prince Edward Island

• Green Party of Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other related pages:

• Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 Prince Edward Island general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User GoodDay and I are in a dispute over how to address the situation in PEI a few years ago where a candidate for a provincial seat died days before the election, resulting in the election in that district being held at a later date from the general election. Sourcing on this is mixed: the single source currently in the article (The Guardian/SaltWire [19]) refers to this as a byelection, while some other sources (such as CBC [20] and including Elections PEI [21]) call it a deferred election. GoodDay has changed this to an "extension" election, which I haven't been able to find quoted in any source. I changed it back to "by-election", quoting the source in the article, and GoodDay reverted saying "The source says by-election, but it wasn't. It was an extension from the provincial election", clearly demonstrating WP:OR.

How should this odd situation be described? Notably, the "byelection" source was written days after the district's election was cancelled, while the other two were written after the new date. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It was not considered a by-election in 2019, but rather an extension (or deferred) election. A by-election occurs when an MLA/MP etc dies or resigns. That wasn't the case here. But you're correct, there are conflicting sources. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Elections PEI trumps the reference from The Guardian/Saltwire, with this phrase on its site: "Deferred Election Held July 15, 2019", since it is the governing authority for the Elections as a whole. PKT(alk) 17:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with PKT. Elections PEI has the final word on this IMO as they are the literal authority on the matter. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Elections PEI, I've changed the edits from "extension" to "deferred". GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be settled, then. Cheers! Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

How many seats?

We've differences of # seats between the articles House of Commons of Canada & Parliament of Canada articles. Perhaps related articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems the House of Commons of Canada article is correct, being updated after Ramesh Sangha's removal from the Liberal caucus and the resignation of Diane Finley. (also see the House of Commons website) eviolite (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:Distant Early Warning Line#Article issues concerning article issues and current classification. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

List of census agglomerations in Canada

The article List of census agglomerations in Canada lists census agglomerations, which are effectively smaller versions of census metropolitan areas. In fact, the article List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada (which was moved from List of metropolitan areas in Canada; relevant discussion here) incorporates both CMAs and CAs. As a result, the former article seems like a strict subset of the latter. This doesn't seem right -- I feel like there should either just be the one list incorporating both or have two entirely separate ones (especially as the CA list seems neglected and is out of date) -- but I'm not sure what to be done. Thoughts? eviolite (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I support formal separation of CMAs and CAs by removing the CAs from the combined CMAs/CAs list and renaming it accordingly. I believe that was the consensus back then but it was simply never implemented because no one seconded the motion. Hwy43 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

London car attack

Is there already an article on the London car attack? It seems similar in notability to the Quebec mosque shooting (the motive appears to be Islamophobia but the casualty count is lower). Would appreciate @Ivanvector:'s opinion (I see he edited London, On page recently).VR _talk 19:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have created an article London, Ontario car attack. Given that the London mayor calls it "an act of mass murder" it seems like an incident that will have enduring notability.VR _talk 19:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of the incident until just now; how awful. I grew up in London but haven't lived there for about 15 years. I agree with creating the article: incidents of targeted mass violence are almost always notable, and if this incident turns out not to be then the material can be merged elsewhere down the road. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If the decision is made to investigate this event as an act of terrorism, this event can be added to Terrorism in Canada#List of domestic threats and attacks. Mcbrarian (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I.H. Weldon Award from Pulp and Paper Technical Association of Canada (PAPTAC)

There's discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weldon Prize (disambiguation) of a dab page which has existed since 2009, but which doesn't justify its existence as one of the two entries is for the I.H. Weldon Award, given (since 1930) by a redlinked organisation. Sounds pretty important to Canada (I've seen those long trains carrying logs while on the Rocky Mountaineer), so perhaps someone here might be interested in turning that red link blue? It's currently an External link in Pulp and paper industry in Canada. PamD 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bill 21

I noticed on my watchlist today that the page was moved to Act respecting the laicity of the State. Would this be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME? Most of the sources in the article seem to prefer calling it "bill 21" and/or "ban on religious symbols". Username6892 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe so. The fact is that Bill numbers are used repeatedly, by both Federal and Provincial legislatures, so in fact "Bill 21" is inherently vague. It happened to be attached to a bill that was controversial as it was in process through the Quebec Legislature, so the "Bill 21" gained more notoriety than most others that used the same moniker. Now that it has been enacted, the article should rightly be named according to the name of the Act. PKT(alk) 18:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@PKT: Would this name be preferred over Quebec ban on religious symbols (the previous title which I don't find ambiguous)? Username6892 18:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, the name of the Act should be the name of the article (as it is). I notice that Quebec ban on religious symbols redirects to Act respecting the laicity of the State. Please note that we have a standard established for naming articles about legislation, which can be found at MOS:CANLAW. Regards, PKT(alk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request

With the news breaking today about the Ottawa Redblacks suspending a player named Chris Larsen because of his alleged involvement in a gay-bashing attack, I just wanted to post here to request that people keep an eye out over the next few days for potentially problematic Wikipedia editing.

The situation is that although Larsen was drafted by the Redblacks in 2019, as of today he has never actually taken the field in a Redblacks game, which means he is not yet notable under our inclusion criteria for CFL players and does not have a mainspace article as of the time I'm writing this. The gay-bashing accusation, rather, is actually his only potential basis for notability as things currently stand — but that would just make him a WP:BLP1E, and would violate WP:PERP since a criminal accusation without conviction is not a permanent notability claim in and of itself. He did, however, have presumptive redlinks in the team's roster templates, which I've removed for the time being — and there was an unsourced stub about him (albeit created before this) sitting in draftspace at Draft:Chris Larsen (Football), which I've listed for MFD due to the BLP sensitivities in play. And, of course, while his name certainly doesn't belong in lists of the team's active roster at this time (although it would obviously be readded if he's found not guilty and reinstated), it can't be removed from articles like 2019 CFL draft (although I have still unlinked it in a possibly futile attempt at discouraging a new creation.)

Furthermore, there is an article about a different Chris Larsen, who may also be vulnerable to attempted BLP-hijacking by the kind of irregular editors who don't respect or pay attention to our rules about how to disambiguate multiple people with the same name.

Accordingly, my request is as follows:

1. Can people keep an eye on the other Chris Larsen over the next few days to make sure he doesn't get conflated with the Redblack?
2. If you see a new article being created about the Redblack, could you either list it for AFD right away or notify me if you'd rather not deal with it yourself?

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing an article about the Kindred Spirits Orchestra

The Kindred Spirits Orchestra (https://KSOrchestra.ca) is looking for a WikiPedia contributor to write an article about the organization. For more information, please contact Jobert Sevilleno at GM@KSOrchestra.ca 2607:FEA8:A200:548:F495:95E6:16D7:C5F7 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note that as a person with a direct conflict of interest due to your direct association with the topic, you are not entitled to solicit inclusion in Wikipedia. Wanting to have a Wikipedia article is not how you get a Wikipedia article — meeting one or more WP:NMUSIC criteria, and having a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about those accomplishments to support an article with, is how you get a Wikipedia article. An article that the orchestra attempted to solicit for itself is extremely likely to get deleted as unencyclopedic advertising. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:Requested articles stream. You could list the orchestra at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music, though there isn't an "orchestras" section so it would go under "bands" or perhaps "organisations". Describe the orchestra briefly, listing reliable independent published sources which show that it meets WP:BAND or WP:ORG or the general WP:GNG, and some helpful editor might decide to pick up the challenge and create an article. PamD 16:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there've been some deletions at Draft:Kindred Spirits Orchestra. There's at least one good source for notability – Kindred Spirits Orchestra: Finding Symphonic Strength in Diversity a 1200-word article in La Scena Musicale, a national classic music magazine, written by a musicologist/music critic. A second source with similar in-depth coverage would be enough to satisfy notability. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Found another music magazine with coverage, and created stub at Kindred Spirits Orchestra. Earwig for proper names only, looks good to me. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Legislatures of Canadian provinces and territories has been nominated for merging to Category:Legislative assemblies of Canadian provinces and territories

Category:Legislatures of Canadian provinces and territories has been nominated for merging to Category:Legislative assemblies of Canadian provinces and territories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Armed Forces sexual misconduct crisis

A number of high ranking military members have recently resigned in light of sexual misconduct allegations, including Jonathan Vance, his successor Art McDonald, and Dany Fortin. I haven't really looked into all the details, but given widespread and enduring news coverage, with outlets even describing it as an "institutional crisis", its clear that this should be covered on Wikipedia. There already exists an article on Sexual assault in the Canadian Forces, but in its more of an outdated essay in its current state. Should we expand that article or create a new one? Any help or suggestions would be appreciated, as I am not very familiar with this topic. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Provincial Great Seals

Inquiring as to whether there is a reason that the Provincial Great Seals are not featured in the infoboxes of Canadian provinces? I noticed only Ontario and Quebec have images of their great seals on Wikipedia Commons and only half of the Canadian Provinces have Wikipedia pages pertaining to their great seals. If there is not a reason I am willing to add them. SanLeone (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we need them. Most readers don't care about it and would not recognize it again even if we presented it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

More project intruding .....more time wasting

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 26#emplate:Navbox Canada.--Moxy- 19:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Canada Day

On Talk:John Mercer Johnson#Cleanup, Reidgreg and I discussed putting together DYK hooks for Canada Day (July 1). This would require at least 8 hooks (possibly 16 if DYK runs on 2-a-day at that time, though this is not required). Reidgreg suggested having a variety of topics; there's already Canadian Idiot (a song) and John Mercer Johnson (a Father of Confederation) nominated at DYK. If there's enough interest here I will acquire consensus from WT:DYK to have fully-Canadian sets for July 1. Please indicate below if you are interested in helping create DYK hooks or have article suggestions on what we could work on. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I nominated Flag of Nova Scotia (with a picture) yesterday, and I wouldn't mind having Gilles Lupien run on July 1 (already approved for whenever the Stanley Cup Finals begin). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Reidgreg: … and I've just nominated Murray Dowey. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's great to hear Bloom6132. I am starting to review the DYKs now. Once they are approved would you like to move them to the special holding area for July 1? DYK might be running 2 queues a day, so perhaps both pictures can be used. I was thinking of nominating Abegweit Passage (the strait that Confederation Bridge crosses) and Arthur Johnson (canoeist) (Canadian Olympian who was born on July 1) for DYK July 1, too. I'll post a note on WT:DYK to ask for consensus to do this with the DYK crew. Reidgreg would you like to move Canadian Idiot to the July 1 holding area? Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved Canadian Idiot to July 1. I have a draft I've been holding onto at User:Reidgreg/sandbox/Chicks with Sticks, it's about a hockey movie and I think there's potential for a good DYK hook. My only reservation is that the plot summary is a bit spare (I haven't actually seen the movie myself but paraphrased bits from various reviews and synopses). I've also noticed that Parliament Hill was recently nominated for GAN. If I can review it this week (and if it meets the criteria), that'll be another for the set. Other WP:CAN-tagged GANs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Article alerts. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a draft article on Jamieson that I'd be happy to nominate for DYK if it passes. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Bloom6132: FYI, Parliament Hill has passed GA and needs a DYK reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Parliament Hill. Thanks! It's a vital article so maybe extra incentive to run it. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, DYK stated that it doesn't want to run too many Canada articles on July 1, as they do not do this for other countries. If we decide to run Parliament Hill on Canada Day, we will need to decide which article should be taken out of the Canada Day holding area. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

We can figure that out as the day approaches; there may be others in the works as well. I rather like the idea of expanding to "Canada Week" with a series running one per set in sequence (that way they don't have to compete with other Canada DYKs for the picture slot). – Reidgreg (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If we do Canada Week, will it be June 27 to July 3 or July 1 to July 8? --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 13:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be for the promoter to pick 1 or 2 per set (or per day) starting with the first set on 1 July, and have a streak for as long as it lasts (6 hooks when Parliament Hill moves to the approved page). I feel we should concede to any reasonable objections and I'm fine going with whatever the promoters feel comfortable with. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, Bloom6132, Mcguy15, and Aknell4: You may have already seen this on your watchlist. Just to keep you in the loop: four hooks have been moved to Prep6, the 0:00–12:00 (UTC) July 1 set. Small discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Canada Day special occasion Preparation area 6. If you have any concerns about the set(s), that'd be the place to bring them up. The set will probably be tweaked a bit in the prep and in the queue, so it isn't set in stone. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 12:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: all 8 hooks have been placed in the July 1 slot, but I think previous consensus was to not to have a Canada Day hook set. I suggested that some be moved to run the day after. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved Parliament Hill from the 1 July slot to the 2 July slot. Feel free to revert if necessary. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Both sets are in the queue now. – Reidgreg (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Elks or Eskimos

The CFL team formerly known as the Eskimos changed their name to Elks. While under that name, they played at Clarke Stadium. How should their naming be addressed: use the potentially offensive name or anachronistically use the updated name? Discussion at Talk:Clarke Stadium#Elks at Clarke Stadium. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Use the name Eskimos, as that's what the team was called when it played at Clarke Stadium. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Use the name the team had at the time. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Zalika Reid-Benta

An anonymous IP has been repeatedly inserting and revert-warring content into our article on writer Zalika Reid-Benta, about the forthcoming publication of a Russian translation of her book Frying Plantain. Now, there's not necessarily anything wrong with this information per se — but they're placing it right into the introduction as if the Russian translation were one of the most centrally important facts about her career in and of itself, and they're sourcing it only to the self-published website of the Russian publishing company rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about the Russian translation to demonstrate a reason why we should care more about that than we do about French or Spanish translations.

So it's not clearcut vandalism, which means that I'm in danger of tripping WP:3RR if this goes on any further, so I wanted to ask if anybody else can step in to help out. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 British Columbia Wildfires

Just came across an article called 2021 British Columbia wildfires. Now, I'm obviously not going to call this a "non-notable" topic — but it is a terribly written garbage bag of an article, which needs a major overhaul in both writing and formatting. Can anybody step in to help fix it? Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding land acknowledgment to Canadian cities

Hi, This morning I began work on a project to add indigenous land acknowledgements to Canadian cities in Wikipedia. I have obtained land acknowledgements from official sources, such as city web sites and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. This morning I added acknowledgments of indigenous land to articles for 12 cities in Ontario and they were quickly reverted. I reversed this action by the other editor and have now sparked a revert/unrevert conflict. I am now been accused of disruptive editing and had my editing privileges threatened by this user.

I would like to bring this project to your attention to gain support for it and to reach consensus on how we can ensure that indigenous territories are acknowledged in Wikipedia articles about Canadian cities. A simple sentence in the lead of each article seems appropriate and aligns with NPOV, but another editor is in disagreement. You may visit my Talk page and contribs for more info. Happy to engage as I'd like to continue this project ASAP with limited disruption and maximum support from WP:Canada. Mcbrarian (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A consensus to allow these edits would permit "this place is situated on the territory of..." to be added to THE FIRST LINE of every geographic article about Canada. Think about it, is there any place in Canada that isn't unceded land that once belonged to some Indigenous people? I do not believe adding this would improve articles about Canadian geography. Moreover, the sourcing is shoddy.

The editor proposing this is a librarian at an Ontario university, and her edit summaries have included:

• "This editing is supportive of reconciliation with indigenous peoples of Canada and the fact that it is being accused of being disruptive is inappropriate and not NPOV"
• "Land acknowledgements for Canadian cities are part of reconciliation from the Canadian community and government. They are critical for recognizing the land that Canadian cities sit on that was taken from indigenous people and absolutely belong in the lead section".

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is difficult. I'm not opposed to this in principle, however the combative tone in which Mcbrarian has responded to a reasonable objection is not helpful. It is certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV to disagree with an unprecedented inclusion of this sort of language. The citations are difficult as they are technically primary sources that we would then be interpreting. In other words, just because the city of Hamilton has made this declaration, does not make it instantly notable in and of itself. We would need a solid secondary source to back this up. I also am not comfortable with this appearing in the first line of the lede. Before anyone accuses me of whitewashing, I am in support of land claim acknowledgments but it is somewhat confusing in the first sentence. To my knowledge, no other country is recognizing land claims in this way and to include it as such in an international encyclopedia is very localized. As the articles on the cities are not meant to represent those cities in any capacity, stating the land claim proclamation in such a way gives it an air of authority that Wikipedia does not have. I would support a sentence in the history or geography sections with secondary sources, unless someone can convince me that the official city sources do not violate WP:RS and WP:OR. freshacconci (✉) 17:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments. I did not intend for my comments to come off as combative.

"A consensus to allow these edits would permit "this place is situated on the territory of..." to be added to THE FIRST LINE of every geographic article about Canada. Think about it, is there any place in Canada that isn't unceded land that once belonged to some Indigenous people?" Yes, that is the point of this project.

I agree that this is difficult, but it also seems like a no-brainer. I am open to finding a resolution so this work can continue. Below is how I would describe this work:

This project aims to identify the first peoples to the land the city is situated on. This work is not advocacy, propaganda or self-promotion. Identifying to whom the land belonged to is not biased. The language is neutral, stating only facts. I acknowledge my mistake in writing that the territory is unceded. While this is true, the sources I cited do not verify this. These articles about Canada's geography do not exclusively summarize geographic knowledge. They also include history, some include detailed histories of the treaties between settlers and indigenous. However, many articles on Canadian cities have a History section that does not acknowledge a time before the arrival of settlers, despite having a rich indigenous history. It should be best practice to acknowledge to whom the land belonged to in an article about a city. The fact that it is not is problematic. Wikipedia's dedication to neutrality means not participating in a culture of erasure. The act of removing acknowledgements of indigenous territories from Canadian cities is precisely the disruptive and agenda-driven action that I am being accused of. It should not be an argument to include a simple land acknowledgement to these articles. Facts are facts. Wikipedia's job is to summarize facts. I do fear (and not being accusatory here) that by excluding this information from Wikipedia, this resource is effectively being white-washed - so, how can we prevent that? I'm open to the idea of adding this to a History section, but what about articles that do not have a History section?

Finally, personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia. My profession and my geographical location have no place in this discussion.Mcbrarian (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I had been thinking that indigenous land acknowledgements are acceptable additions to the History sections of articles, and not the ledes. If an article does not have one, then perhaps create a new section with a title "Indigenous Land Acknowledgement". Indeed, when an acknowledgement is added to a History section, then a similar subheading should be used. Regards, PKT(alk) 17:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable and constructive proposal. Although, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am still not convinced that this information should not be in the lead. Even if it is moved to the last sentence. I am tagging a peer who has done some work with indigenous place names. They may have some insight here as well: Erniee joMcbrarian (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• What about articles that do not have a History section? We add one. All city articles should have a history section and a short section on indigenous occupation prior to contact is better than no history section. Unfortunately, there are simply not enough Canadian editors on Wikipedia to update so many Canadian articles adequately. We can't be expected to provide a full history of Sarnia if all we want to add is the indigenous land claims. The original inhabitants of a given area are easily cited (the Canadian Encyclopedia provides good basic info on this and is considered a reliable source). A city's land acknowledgment can be supported by a primary source as long as it is just stating a straightforward fact. Any further history would need secondary sources but again that is easy to do without hours of research in academic journals. freshacconci (✉) 17:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. So can we agree on the following: to add land acknowledgement to Wikipedia articles about Canadian cities the land acknowledgement should be placed in the History section, under the heading "Land acknowledgement". If the article does not have a History section, add one.

Some cities do provide land acknowledgements on their web sites and I am happy to use these. But the best source I have been able to find is from the Canadian Association of University Teachers. They have a web site dedicated to land acknowledgements and it is broken down by institution (and what city that institution is in). These land acknowledgements are used by post-secondary institutions in Canada. This web site can be argued to be both a secondary or primary source. As a land acknowledgment guide, it is a primary document. But it is a secondary source in that the content is based on historical indigenous record. Is there a reason why such a resource would not be considered reliable? It's not an exhaustive list of all Canadian cities, but it's a great starting point for this kind of work. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion so far. Mcbrarian (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote this while several of the comments above were also being written. I am not opposed to chronicling this information on Wikipedia and support the enthusiasm, but our guideline on righting indescribably tremendous wrongs comes into play here. I suggest that adding these to the article ledes is wrong on basic style grounds: the lede is meant to be a summary of key important information from what appears in greater detail in the article body, and adding these acknowledgements to just the lede goes against that style guideline. How about adding factual historical details to either the geography or history sections of the articles? If there isn't such a section it would be reasonable to create one; articles are by no means expected to be complete (WP:NODEADLINE) and this is relevant historic information. I'd be wary of using political pronouncements as sources without backing them up with a good historical reference: Indigenous title and land claims are a legal quagmire, and these pronouncements often don't get their facts straight. Also, identifying "to whom the land belonged" is not always straightforward: there are numerous Indigenous groups who were in conflict with each other throughout pre-contact history, and these conflicts did not just end when European settlers showed up. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think this should not be used as an opportunity to add "land acknowledgements" to articles, that's not Wikipedia's purpose. Just add the historical facts, which can be based on the institutions acknowledging what the facts are. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And/or a separate List of Canadian Indigenous land acknowledgements would be encyclopedic, in my opinion. Maybe not at that exact title. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So, for example, "based on a land acknowledgement, [city] is situated on the traditional territory of [name]"? Or, conversely, "According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, [city] os situated on the traditional territory of [name]? And this sentence could be added to the History section?

I'm not opposed to a List article, but I can't rationalize having only the List article without mention of the traditional territories in each city's article. Mcbrarian (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly, no. I would just write, "[place] is situated on the traditional territory of [name]^[reference]". Unless this fact is contentious, it's plain historical information, and doesn't need to be attributed to a source, so long as the reference provided meets the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. It's a plain fact, and the reader can view the source to verify it for themselves. It's no different from writing "Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of Canada", rather than "According to the Toronto Star, Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of Canada". Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OK - This is what I had been doing when this discussion was sparked. I'm relieved that other editors agree this information is worth including in articles for Canadian cities. I'm hopeful we can reach a consensus on where it is best to add this information. Once we reach consensus, I can revise edits to the articles where I've already added traditional territory information by moving that information to the agreed upon location in the article. Much of the group agreed it should go in the History section, but one contributor suggested the Geography section and their recommendation is worth consideration. Mcbrarian (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "history". Adding specific information about a particular band of Indigenous people is history. Mentioning archeological remnants found nearby, or a village that once occupied the area, is history. The edit being proposed is a political one, and adding "this place is situated on the territory of..." to a thousand articles does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Have a look at what this editor has added to the first line of Cambridge, Ontario: "Cambridge is a city in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, located at the confluence of the Grand and Speed rivers that is situated on the territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabe, and Haudenosaunee peoples and is located on the Haldimand Tract". Even if added to the history section, how does this completely general addition improve the article? Should it also be added to the history sections of nearby Punkeydoodles Corners and West Montrose, Ontario? No, this is a political statement, and it is unrelated to any of these articles. Keep this off the thousands of geographic articles it will surely be added to. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Including details about the traditional territory enhances the available information about a given settlement. I think that the decision not to include this information is more political than to include it. Why omit valuable information about a place? --Erniee jo (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Or we could just add two new perimeters to the infobox:

• Land claim? Yes
• Indigenous band: Iroquois Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This is actually something I had reached out to Erniee jo about doing today. It's definitely a worthwhile and valuable endeavour to add this information to the box, but I still think a sentence belongs in the body of the article. Mcbrarian (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Enhancing the infobox would be good, but I don't think it should replace a well sourced statement in the article proper. --Erniee jo (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my God! I was joking when I suggested adding this to the infobox, but the fact two editors thought I was serious kind of confirms this information is equivalent to the time zone or county, with little relevance to any individual article. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677, your sarcasm is not really helping anything here. If you can't contribute to a discussion about this incredibly sensitive issue without poking fun at contributors and making half-serious suggestions, maybe you should go do something else and come back later. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how a sentence describing the traditional territory upon which a city sits is a political statement and not historical knowledge. It looks like other editors in this discussion see the merit of this addition to articles about Canadian cities and that the issue to be addressed is not whether or not the information belongs in these articles, but what section it belongs in. Mcbrarian (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mcbrarian: The lead section of an article is meant to include a concise overview and a summary of the article body: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.. As a result, I am of the opinion that it should belong in either the history or geography sections. I would also not be opposed to having the land acknowledgement info elsewhere in the lead as well (perhaps in a new paragraph at the end), but having it in the first sentence seems rather clunky (for example, the sentence Brockville, formerly Elizabethtown, is a city in Eastern Ontario, Canada in the Thousand Islands region that is situated on the territory of Wendat, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee Peoples doesn't flow well having three prepositional phrases). The structure guideline for Canadian communities is also relevant: as Freshacconci noted above, a complete article should ideally have a history section, and this is an opportunity to create one. eviolite (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I think that a traditional territory statement is more suited to a geography section than a history section. Settled land exists on traditional territory in the present day --Erniee jo (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also seems reasonable to me. As I stated above, I don't think it is a question of whether or not the information belongs in the article. Other editors agree it is a worthy addition. So, let's work out where the best place to add this information might be. Separate from the infobox discussion, we have three suggestions so far:

1. Add well-sourced sentence to History section. If History section does not exist, create one.
2. Add well-sourced sentence to Geography section. Rationale: the cities still sit on indigenous territory. Land acknowledgements are composed in the present tense.
3. Add well-sourced sentence at the end of lead, possibly in a new paragraph at the end.

Erniee jo raises a good point about this information not necessarily being history, but I have seen information about indigenous territories and treaties in an article's history section. So, it might fit in well there. I like the idea of it being in the lead, even at the end, so it is clear at the top of the article, but I understand that this is not the function of the lead and as such I am happy to concede with the points made above wrt the lead. Mcbrarian (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mcbrarian: You have mentioned a few times that this is a "project". Is it a project from your university? Magnolia677(talk) 21:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No.Mcbrarian (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty surprised to see so much hostility towards acknowledging an historic and geographic fact. While I don't think this needs to be referenced in the first sentence, it is worth including in the lead.

We try to avoid WP:RECENTISM and removing references to a land's traditional inhabitants certainly isn't helpful.

There are many examples on Wikipedia of the lead sections integrating early/indigenous inhabitants and traditional names of a territory such as London, Sydney, Canberra, Auckland, Toronto, etc. It enhances the lead and provides context for the rest of the article.

I think including a sentence to the effect of: "Indigenous peoples have inhabited [place] since [settlement period] and the present day [city, town, etc.] is situated on the traditional territory of [nation]", before then expanding on any more recent history is a good way to include this. —WildComet ^talk 21:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So as a further example, I've edited Brampton from this version to this. Indigenous history in body and recent history in lead could be expanded on but I think the general idea works well. —WildComet ^talk 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@WildComet: I think this edit works well. But in the example you provided indigenous land claims are not elaborated upon in the body of the article. Based on other comments, I wonder whether this is appropriate or if a sentence like this should be moved into the History or Geography section so it can be developed by other editors before we summarize something in the lead? What do you think?Mcbrarian (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that mostly as an example. I feel like it would be even more out of place as a single sentence in another section vs in the lead which is written as a summary, but yes the body needs to be expanded as well. —WildComet ^talk 06:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@WildComet:: Ok. I added a couple sentences at the top of the history section to maintain the chronological order of information. This information was drawn from main History of Brampton article. I also pulled some of what you added to the lead into the History section to keep the coverage in the lead brief. I think this approach to this work is a good one but I hesitate to make similar changes to other Canadian city articles until we have reached a consensus here. I'll continue to follow this discussion and refrain from making changes to other articles about Canadian cities for the time being. This is an enormous endeavour, but a worthwhile and important one in order for Wikipedia to have the full picture of Canadian cities. My plan was to start with Ontario and then move through each province one at a time. If anyone is interested in adding this content to articles about Canadian cities, please ping me so we can coordinate.Mcbrarian (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for the lead of an article on a Canadian place to state which indigenous peoples have inhabited that place, provided that the indigenous inhabitation of the place is further described in the history section. However, that statement shouldn't be part of the first sentence of the lead, which should generally give no more than the most basic information regarding the place's geographical location and political context. Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't what this editor want to add. Their original edit--which was added word-for-word to the first line of 15 city articles--was a political statement that the city was "situated on the traditional and unceded land". They then removed "unceded" when it was pointed out this was unsourced. This has never been about adding a note about those who first occupied the city; an edit which has always been welcomed. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Your point regarding the word "unceded" has been acknowledged and the issue appears to be resolved. The focus of the discussion is now on how best to make future constructive edits. Cobblet (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: "traditional and unceded" is common language around our parts. I'm sorry you interpreted a good faith edit as politically motivated. It was not. As already mentioned, your concern with the language used was received and responded to both on here and in edit revisions. Please continue to contribute to this discussion only if you can constructively engage in dialogue about where this edit should be placed in articles about Canadian cities. Please do not claim this edit was welcomed by you. It is clear in your comments, sarcasm and hostility (above) that you did not believe this information is important.Mcbrarian (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to continue adding indigenous territories to Canadian cities articles. So far it appears that the consensus is:

• This information belongs in Wikipedia
• This information belongs in the lead (albeit not the first sentence), as long as it is expanded upon later in the article
• If this information is not included in the article yet, add to History section first.

The Brampton article was updated using this approach and at the moment, those edits have not been reverted. Nor have they been challenged here or in the main article's talk pages. Mcbrarian (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've copyedited your edits. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now added some content to the Barrie article and will move through Ontario cities first, in alphabetical order. Going to take a mental break from this work for today. Hope to see more constructive conversation tomorrow.Mcbrarian (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

With this recent edit to Brampton, there are now nine sentences in the lead, and two of those sentences are about non-notable Indigenous events like the Ajetance Purchase and non-notable Indigenous people like James Ajetance. Taking up 22 percent of the lead with this bit of history and non-notable events and people is WP:UNDUE. Moreover, one of the sources is a First Nation blog, and another is a teacher's guide. This is not an improvement. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am going to ask you again to please refrain from what I can now only believe is a racist agenda that aims to perpetuate the erasure of an entire people from the historical and geographical record of Canadian lands under the guise of protecting WP guidelines. If you have constructive feedback on how to improve the article, that does not include erasing it, please share. Otherwise, I am compelled to disregard your comments moving forward.Mcbrarian (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mcbrarian: I suggested to Magnolia677 earlier that if they could not maintain a civil tone that they should back away from this discussion, and I am now going to suggest that to you as well. We have a strict policy forbidding personal attacks, and calling another editor racist for criticism of an edit that you disagree with is beyond the pale. Ignoring Magnolia's obstructionism is your choice of course, but you will be blocked if you bring this allegation again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The details regarding the Ajetance Purchase are perhaps unnecessary to include in the lead, although they are certainly appropriate in the History section. The sourcing could be improved. But these are matters of polish, not substance. Inclusion of aspects of the city's indigenous history in the lead establishes essential context and there is consensus in this discussion that such additions are a welcome improvement, one editor's disagreement notwithstanding. Non-essential details could be trimmed from many of the sentences of the lead, not only those relating to Brampton's indigenous past. To everyone involved: let's focus on the content, please. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That we haven't yet written about the Ajetance Purchase does not in any way indicate that it is non-notable, only that Wikipedia tends to be written by English-speaking whites. This is a gap in our coverage which would be welcome to fill. However I also tend to agree that details on changes in ownership (not the right word I'm sure) on the land on which Brampton was later founded is excessive detail for the lede. Think of it this way: the settler city of Brampton is not continuous with any Indigenous settlement in the same location; that is, the settlement/village/corprate entity now known as Brampton did not exist before English settlers founded it, even though Indigenous groups inhabited the land beforehand, and our article is about that entity, not the land it is situated on. I don't mean to be insensitive but it's background info, not a critical detail that needs to be fully expanded in a summary of the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to land acknowledgements in principle, but we do need reliable sources (not just the self-published website of a city government or an activist group or a blog) to support the information. I am also conscious of the fact that we have seen attempts in Wikipedia to completely obliterate any mention of the "colonial" names of geographic localities from appearing in article text at all — such as describing a person as living only in "the traditional territory of [insert one or more First Nations here]" while intentionally failing to mention any city, town or province name that would help to contextualize where that territory is for anybody who isn't already in the loop. Our role on here is not to write from an activist perspective, it's to write from a making sure the reader understands what the hell we're talking about perspective — so I'm certainly not opposed to including some properly sourced information about First Nations in the appropriate context, but we do need to be careful about how we do it, and we do have to rely on proper sources. And yes, that does also mean that detailed content about the First Nations history of a town or city generally belongs in its history section rather than its introduction — the purpose of the introduction is to summarize the basics, while the article body is where you dive into the deep stuff. I'm not going to say that the Ajetance Purchase is inherently non-notable, as I don't know enough about it to make that determination either way — but I am going to say it's not the first-day lesson in Introductory Brampton 101. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've trimmed the lead and the Ajetance Purchase is now only mentioned in the History section. We may not need an article on that treaty specifically, but we badly need one on the Upper Canada land surrenders as a whole, and one on the later Williams treaties. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've started a draft at Draft:Ajetance Purchase, however I think Cobblet might be right that consolidating all of these into an article on the Upper Canada land surrenders might be more appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note that at Brockville I removed a large edit about Indigenous People in Ontario. You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Brockville#Indigenous history. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting that in a large history section which is nearly entirely unsourced throughout, you found justification to only remove the portion regarding Indigenous history, and left all of the other unsourced information intact. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the unsourced content in the history section is specific to Brockville, and specifically mentions events related to Brockville and Elizabethtown. I thought this would be obvious. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph about the Loyalists certainly isn't about anything specific to Brockville. Moreover, you're now reverting the addition of sourced content that is specific to the Brockville area. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be some good sentiment to mentioning a muncipality is within a claimed traditional territory, if there is a reliable source. But I don't see how it is appropriate to want to mandate its use everywhere and in the lead. It is not basic geographical information, it is historical, aka anthropological information. Therefore it belongs within the body of the article, wherever it fits. Alaney2k (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree in the body.....but we need real sources....not grade school teachers advice brochures. Also need sources to mention the city proper in the source. Have seen a source at Brockville thats dubious at best..... no indication of a settlement or that it was some sort of traditional hunting ground.Moxy- 13:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please engage with the discussion on that talk page. Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

On the original topic, my feeling is that there would be WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM issues in including indigenous land acknowledgement in the article lead for most Ontario cities. I'm also not sure about how this fits summary-wise with larger topics, i.e. whether it would be mentioned at the provincial level, the region, city, neighbourhood, or all of these? (If acknowledgment is stated at the province or region article, then it would be somewhat redundant to include it in all of the articles for communities within that province/region.) A separate article on land acknowledgements would be my preferred option. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the provincial approach is that it's too general. The land acknowledgements are crafted for particular specific locations in consultation with the Indigenous groups who inhabit that specific area, and generally the municipal or academic/cultural institution acknowledgements are the most accurate (i.e. most resourced and most researched) and the most granular. For example, if we were to add this info to Ontario we could use the land acknowledgement read at Queen's Park, but land acknowledgements in Toronto read slightly different information from those read in Scarborough just a few km away (according to the city's official guidance), and those differ greatly from what's read in Barrie or Waterloo, both about 100km from Toronto (including Waterloo's modified statement for Stratford which is barely outside the city); land acknowledgements created for Ottawa are quite different again, and an acknowledgement for Thunder Bay refers to different groups entirely, because of course it does: Thunder Bay is 1,400km from Toronto. I doubt it would be very useful to include all of this information in the province's article, but the specific info added to an article where it applies is beneficial to readers.

I don't see any problem with treating acknowledgements regionally but I don't see why that has to be exclusive. We could certainly add some background info to, say, Middlesex County, Ontario on its pre-contact inhabitants, but then why not also add the same info to London, Ontario? It's relevant historic information for both articles, regardless of the fact that one of the topics is physically inside the other. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples have lived in Canada for thousands of years. European settlement of most of Canada began less than 400 years ago; less than 300 years ago in most of Ontario. WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM would only be a problem if a multi-paragraph lead section in a Canadian location article failed to include any mention of its indigenous history.

A good lead section for any Canadian place should summarize its history, even though many articles currently fall short of that ideal. That summary, where it exists, should begin with the indigenous history of the location. Of course, it should not only contain its indigenous history.

All that being said, one should be careful to distinguish between writing about a place's indigenous history, and writing about the land acknowledgements of institutions in that place. An institution's land acknowledgment is a self-published statement. Unless it happens to be a subject-matter expert (like a historical society), what it says should be corroborated using other independent reliable sources, which should also be cited.

Otherwise I agree with Ivanvector's comments above. Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear WP:WEIGHT is about the relative proportion of significant mentions in reliable sources on the article subject, not about timeframe proportions. (By the timeframe argument, location articles would include much more about the dinosaurs which once lived there.) By WP:RECENTISM, I mean that most of the coverage of land acknowledgements is relatively recent in published sources and in the overall history. I'm not saying that it's untrue, just that we don't know if this is going to become a tradition. Also, I feel that there are some emotions involved and would like to remind editors that while we might feel that there should be land acknowledgements, it isn't our job to make land acknowledgments in the articles. It's our job to summarize reliable sources on the subject. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Self-published land acknowledgements by modern institutions are recent, yes. But even in the 19th century, it was standard to begin the local history of a Canadian place with a detailed treatment of its indigenous history. Two examples from sources I've recently cited which are fresh on my mind: History of the County of Brant (1883), Part II: Indian History; History of the County of Middlesex (1889), Chapter II: Indian Residents. We knew how to do this properly back then. Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous people barely populated Canada, so the history sections of articles should only have an Indiginous history if there are sources to support they actually set foot in a place for an extended period of time. University of Manitoba professor Hymie Rubenstein wrote: "The aboriginal settlers had at least 15,000 years to populate the northern half of the continent, but on the eve of European settlement there were no more than 500,000 indigenous people in what is now Canada, or one person per 20 square kilometres. It was a virtual terra nullius by any reasonable definition". Magnolia677 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hymie Rubenstein is a retired professor of anthropology and should stick to his area of expertise. Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014, paragraph 69: "The doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763." By Rubenstein's definition, much of Canada today (e.g., the Territories) would still be terra nullius. Cobblet (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples set foot in every part of what is now Canada for nearly eleven thousand years; population density is entirely irrelevant to northern Indigenous cultures which were known to have been nomadic. Please drop this argument, it's getting very tired. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment do we have any sources as to unceded lands in Canada? When I look at maps like this for example, there are only two pieces of actual unceded land in Ontario: The Grand River treaty (since the obligations of that treaty were never met) and the eastern side of Manitoulin Island. Anyways, I see no issue with mentioning the traditional territories upon which Canadian cities are situated... However, the first sentence/line of the lede is not that place. The information has to be repeated in the body, regardless of its position in the lede or the infobox. I feel as though the infobox is the ideal place, as well as either the Geography or History sections. Infobox statements can and often do have citations, and this information would fit well under Country/Province/Region (since it will likely require several lines). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  It makes sense not to use the word "unceded" when talking about specific indigenous territories unless most reliable sources also use that term. I think we have a consensus on that. Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  The issue of using "unceded" by default in all of the land acknowledgements was dealt with quite a ways further up the thread, but yes, there are several other areas in Canada that are considered unceded. Significantly, everything under the Peace and Friendship Treaties (basically all of the Atlantic provinces) was never formally ceded, as well as a very large portion of eastern Ontario, and probably others further west but I'm less familiar with those. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, was just wondering if we had any good sources on this. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  As starting points, I'd recommend the Canadian Encyclopedia articles on Land cession to understand the colonial and indigenous perspectives on what the official literature has historically termed "cession" or "surrender" of land; and Comprehensive Land Claims: Modern Treaties for an overview of ongoing land claims. Cobblet (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh it's a good question for sure, the terminology is pretty confused between different groups who have fundamentally different concepts of land ownership, and after a century or so of what's been described as cultural genocide. I'm wary of using encyclopedias as sources but Cobblet is not wrong. Another source that's useful is the Surtees report on land surrenders in Ontario, [22], though it's nearly 40 years old now and written from the government's perspective. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm following up now that this dispute has reached Vancouver. I'm seeing the discussion above roughly in favour of including "unceded" in the body of the article if well-sourced, and opinion seems to be fairly evenly split around whether "unceded" is due weight for the lead. For the question of whether to include "unceded" in the lead, what do you all think of having it be decided on an article-by-article basis depending on how much prominence the fact has in reliable sources? "Unceded territory" may not be Brampton 101 but it is Vancouver 101, and it's not wp:recentism in the case of Vancouver - it's been in the news since the anti-2010 Olympic protests to name just one event. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If I may be so blunt...are there any Indian tribes up there in Canada who don't feel you are all living on stolen land? I mean, 95 percent of Canada is unceded, and these land claims cover enormous areas, so if you are able to unearth a reliable source supporting that Vancouver is unceded, what's to stop an editor from adding this to every Wikipedia article in British Columbia? Today I deleted a land claim from a university in British Columbia. Yes, a university. What has a land claim got to do with a Wikipedia article about university? Can we add the land claim to every high school article in BC? I was criticized earlier in this discussion for suggesting (in jest) that we add "land claim" to the infobox.

There was an article in the Financial Post yesterday discussing how difficult it is to accurately document land claims. It's irresponsible for Wikipedia to continue adding land claims using the sloppy and biased sources that started this discussion in the first place, and Wikipedia's readers would benefit little from righting great wrongs on thousands of Wikipedia articles. Wouldn't information about 200-year-old claims to enormous regions of Canada be better placed--and more useful to Wikipedia's readers--on articles about each particular Indian tribe? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

95 percent of Canada is unceded That's a remarkable claim, and certainly an oversimplification.

Looks like well over 5% of Canada is ceded by numbered treaties alone. Hwy43 (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are able to unearth a reliable source supporting that Vancouver is unceded, what's to stop an editor from adding this to every Wikipedia article in British Columbia? Isn't there an obvious answer?

What has a land claim got to do with a Wikipedia article about university? Are there reliable sources stating that the university is located on territory subject to a land claim? If so, how is that information not relevant?

There was an article in the Financial Post yesterday discussing how difficult it is to accurately document land claims. That's not quite what the article said, and moreover, it's quite clear that the writer is as clueless on the subject as you are.

It's irresponsible for Wikipedia to continue adding land claims using the sloppy and biased sources that started this discussion in the first place Then don't use those sources. Plenty of better sources are available, as any competent researcher who actually makes a good-faith attempt to locate those sources would quickly discover.

Wikipedia's readers would benefit little Who are you to speak for all of Wikipedia's readers? Cobblet (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers would benefit greatly to know what land is and is not ceded. If your home is not on ceded land, you should know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't get through this entire thread. For treatied and unceded areas, it seems like a simple and non-formal/non-political solution is to have an opening line in a community's Geography section say:

• "Grande Prairie is in northwest Alberta on Treaty 8 lands."; or
• "Cranbrook is in the Kootenay region of southeast British Columbia on unceded Indigenous lands."

Of course it would have to be referenced. Surely there are treaty coverage maps out there that have present-day communities on them. Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hwy43: What about the communities in Ontario that were originally home to the Huron Indians, until in 1649, when the Iroquois committed genocide against them and drove those still alive off their land. Would that be unceded Huron land, unceded Iroquois land, or just unceded Indigenous land? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Cobblet (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Cranbrook example applies. Hwy43 (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the discussion above, I think the fact that land acknowledgements as a practice are common in some cities but not others is relevant to the individual city pages as a Canadian/municipal cultural practice. When a city, all of its municipally-funded organizations, and even independent entities will include an identical (or nearly-identical) land acknowledgement statement on every website and in-person at all of their events, it seems like it would be relevant to a visitor or reader who is reading a Wikipedia article to learn more about what the city is like. It would also be relevant for someone visiting a city from a location within Canada where the practice is less common. However, citation is an issue because most news sources don't report on this cultural practice. Michaeltyu (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Michaeltyu

Statues

I've come across several articles about statues that were toppled in recent protests against the Kamloops mass graves, at

• Statue of John A. Macdonald (Halterman)
• Statue of John A. Macdonald (Wade)
• Statue of Egerton Ryerson
• Statue of James Cook (Victoria, British Columbia)
• Statue of Elizabeth II (Winnipeg)

All are boilerplate substubs of the "[Topic] is a statue that existed until 2021, the end" variety, while failing to provide any context whatsoever for why they ceased to exist in 2021, or any background information on where, when or why they were brought into existence in the first place. (I just now added the fact that the Ryerson statue was on the grounds of Ryerson University, which is the kind of basic information that really should have already been in the article from the jump.) Most, further, were templated and categorized as if they had something to do with last year's George Floyd protests, which they did not, and all had been added to the Canada section in List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help fix these inadequate articles (and/or redirect them to a related topic if necessary), as well as watching the George Floyd list to ensure that they're not readded there since they have nothing to do with that. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

It's just come to my attention that a couple times in 2021, anonymous IPs have posted to Talk:Jian Ghomeshi to criticize the article for not describing him as Jewish, but without providing any reliable sources to explain why we should. The first time, they posted in a five-year old subsection, which I've now removed as being in the wrong place but which never went responded to at all until I caught it just now, while the most recent time was formatted as an edit request demanding that we replace the word "Persian" in the introduction with "Jewish" (but of course, with no sourcing for why that would be warranted.)

The page has been under indefinite semi for some time, for the obvious reason, so there's no immediate danger of the article itself being affected, but given that the first instance of this flew under the radar for months I wanted to ask if some people could help keep an eye on the talk page as well. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Added to my watch list. Meters (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

City Article Streamlining and Standardization

Many city wiki pages in Canada are in need of some cleanup to stay compliant with WP:CCSG and WP:CITSTRUCT. They have grown organically over the years and most could use minor reorganization, content streamlining, references, etc... This page section is for managing and tracking changes. If you want to help contribute to this project add city links below in the appropriate headings; include a deficiency description and a contributor tagline if you are contributing. Remember to start with a proposal on the Cities Talk/Discussion page. Once the city section is completed and accepted by the city community, shrink comments down to a single line.

Target Cities: Brampton, Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, Mississauga, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, more cities...

Headings in complience with WP:CCSG and WP:CITSTRUCT

Toponymy or Etymology

Brampton missing section

Toronto missing section

Winnipeg heading misspelled

History

Geography

Cityscape

Brampton missing section

Mississauga missing section, content is in other headings

Montreal combine Arcitecture and Neigbourhoods section See: Toronto

Ottawa missing section, content in other headings

Demographics

Mississauga heading out of order

Economy

Government

Winnipeg combined with crime which should be its own heading

Culture

Brampton section in wrong place

Infrastructure - Contains transportation as a subheading

Transportation

Crime

Sustainability

Vancouver streamline content and improving references

Propose edits Talk page TheKevlar 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Brampton missing section

Calgary add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

Edmonton add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

Propose edits on Talk page TheKevlar 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hamilton add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

Propose edits on Talk page TheKevlar 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Mississauga missing section

Montreal add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

Propose edits on Talk page TheKevlar 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ottawa missing section, content in other headings

Toronto add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

Propose edits on Talk page TheKevlar 17:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Winnipeg missing section

Education

Notable people

International relations

See also

References

Further reading

External links

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs) 12:35, July 6, 2021 (UTC)

Cityscape? Sustainability? International relations? I don’t see those at WP:CCSG. As there is no Etymology section suggested at WP:CCSG, I have always felt nesting it within the expected History section is appropriate. Name origin (toponomy or etymology) goes in the lead section according to CCSG. Also, please review MOS:SECTIONCAPS. Hwy43 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mkevlar for wanting to organize city articles, but this is rather redundant. Article structure is already standardized, see WP:CCSG, which is in turn based on WP:CITSTRUCT. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. If there are any sections that you feel should be added (like Etymology, Cityscape, Sustainability, or International relations), check WP:CITSTRUCT that mentions other sections not part of WP:CCSG - such sections can be added as one-offs as needed. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Good call, the WP:CCSG and WP:CITSTRUCT will be followed. So far there are extensions to this by Toronto and Vancouver which I will monitor. TheKevlar 14:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I reordered the list above to reflect WP:CITSTRUCT. BTW, the term "Cityscape" is vague, rather meaningless. If it refers to neighbourhoods, it should be a subsection of Geography. If it refers to architecture, it is a separate section. As for Transportation, sometimes this section is so large with many subsections and sub-subsections, then it would be better to have as a separate section instead of a subsection of Infrastructure (and especially if there are no other subsections in Infrastructure). Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cityscape should be covered under geography or tossed.
Sustainability is a much too granular and non-encyclopedic topic at the municipal level to be section or subsection worthy. A discussion would be needed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline before attempting to standardize as an expected section.
International relations should be Sister cities to align with CCSG.
As mentioned/revised above, name origin (toponomy/etymology) should be covered in the lead section per CCSG. If there is a movement at CCSG to bring it out of the lead, I believe that should be covered under the History section as naming of the community is part of its history (refer to a past discussion here).
Also, Crime is a subsection that should be nested in Government per CCSG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal, city sustainability is well defined by both Wikipedia and municipalities. Many municipalities have sustainability departments with their own directors. Mkevlar (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sustainability as a general WP:CCSG heading seems premature. The WP:CCSG states The suggested sections and headings are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article on settlements. This directive can be used to build city sustainability sections and when the number of cities with this heading is significant this discussion could be moved to WP:CCSG. See below as it's a noteworthy city.

The City of Edmonton has been investing in Sustainability. The City has an active policy that is also noteworthy, furthermore there is more noteworthy content which belongs in a sustainability section.

Mkevlar (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Mkevlar: Start a discussion in the location as suggested above instead of spreading it across seven different locations as you have currently. Hwy43 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Peterborough Speedway

A day or two ago, TorontoGuy79 added Peterborough Speedway to the section of Peterborough, Ontario which lists notable sports venues related to the city. Magnolia677 removed it for the sole reason that it is not within the city's legal limits (it is one concession road outside the city). I restored it some time later, while removing some unduly promotional language; Magnolia677 reverted me with a non sequitur argument about Casino Niagara and the Statue of Liberty. The Speedway is evidently notable (has its own article), is clearly an attraction of Peterborough and not any other place, and it serves readers to mention it there. However, in the interest of avoiding an edit war, I am posting here to solicit more opinions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that exchange, and on this occasion I agree with Magnolia677. The track is a fair distance outside of the city of Peterborough itself, and is actually in Cavan Monaghan. I added information about the track to the Cavan Monaghan article on July 5th. PKT(alk) 17:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Google has the location wrong? I see it at Highway 7 and Mount Pleasant Road, about 3.2km from the legal city limit ([23]), however on satellite view there does not seem to be anything there at all. Did you copy TorontoGuy79's edit from the Peterborough article? All but one of the sources used are press releases (look for Jim Clarke or "Clarke Motorsports Communications/First Draft Media") and other than those I haven't found anything to support that the Autumn Classic "is considered one of the most important stock car events in Ontario". Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh never mind, I see it, it's back from the road a ways. Still, I wouldn't consider that much distance from the city at all, 4 minutes at the speed limit. But I get how that's not an argument. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Peterborough Airport is located 1.5 km outside the city. Should all references to the airport also be removed? Cobblet (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgment. In this case, the airport is significantly closer to the city than the racetrack, it has a Peterborough address, and it's operated by the City of Peterborough. In my opinion the airport belongs in the article for the city. PKT(alk) 14:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the distance argument (I don't consider the extra 1.7 km in distance "significant" in the context of a city the size of Peterborough), I do agree that your other points make it reasonable to include the airport in the Peterborough article. In particular I appreciate the clarification that such things are a matter of judgment and not to be decided by some blanket "rule" against mentioning things outside city limits. In the case of the Peterborough Speedway, it was unclear why that racetrack would be included while Kawartha Speedway, only about 1 km further away, was not. Cobblet (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Something definitely does not have to be literally inside the city limits to be relevant to the city's article — if that were how it worked, then Toronto's article couldn't mention Pearson Airport at all, which would be ridiculous. (In fact, many big city airports are technically located outside the boundaries of the city itself, while still clearly serving the big city.) And by the same token, the Canadian Tire Centre where the Ottawa Senators play was located outside of Ottawa when it was first built in the 1990s — and while the municipal amalgamation means it's inside Ottawa now, a "the thing must be inside the city limits" rule would mean that at the time, Ottawa's article could have mentioned the Senators while not being able to mention the venue where the Senators played, which would also be ridiculous. So no, if a thing is clearly intended to serve the city, it doesn't and shouldn't matter whether it's in the city or a few miles away in the suburbs. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A detail of the history of the census in Canada

The article titled Census in Canada said:

Beginning in 1906, the Prairie provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan began to take separate censuses of population and agriculture every five years to monitor the growth of the West.

That seems to mean that it was the provincial governments rather than the federal government that did this. (The article also says the census of the whole country went from every ten years to every five years during the 1950s.) However, this document on instructions to census enumerators for the 1916 census of the prairie provinces is for all three of those provinces and is published by the government printing office in Ottawa. Therefore I have edited the quoted sentence to read as follows:

Beginning in 1906, the federal government began to take separate censuses of population and agriculture in the three prairie provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan every five years to monitor the growth of the West.

I mention this here in case this detail needs further attention after my edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Statue of Elizabeth II (Winnipeg)

Nominated for deletion: Statue of Elizabeth II (Winnipeg) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The nomination has been withdrawn. PKT(alk) 20:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Information not discussed in secondary sources

I know this is probably a pretty obvious question, but at the article Erin O'Toole, an IP added that O'Toole was once hired as a lobbyist for Facebook. This was not discussed in any secondary sources so would adding it be considered undue weight per WP:BALASP or another policy? Username6892 01:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No comment on whether it may or may not still be undue, but it can readily be found in secondary sources - see for example Globe & Mail. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I didn't see that one. Username6892 01:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of all Vimy Memorial images again

Not aware its Canadian territory or looked at pass deletion talks ....pls see...Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Canadian National Vimy Memorial.--Moxy- 14:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Angelo Tsarouchas

Wanted to ask if anybody's willing to assist in fixing an article about comedian Angelo Tsarouchas.

As of right now, the article is using nine genuinely solid footnotes, meaning that he's clearly notable on WP:GNG grounds regardless of other problems with the article, but in its current state all nine citations are WP:CITEKILLing a single sentence stating that he exists, and then the article just ends right there without actually saying anything at all about his work. This results from relatively recent blanking of a longer version that was written like advertorialized PR and cited no sources at all, and further back in the edit history there was a version that was written more neutrally, but was "referenced" entirely to the IMDb pages of films or TV shows that he's been in with absolutely no reliable or notability-supporting sources whatsoever.

So there's no prior version of the article that can be easily reverted to, and instead what we need is for somebody to take some time to merge the content of this old version with the sources from the current version.

Is anybody willing to help work on this? Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Heads up, RFC taking place, which might affect Canadian political articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Governors General & vacancies.

I've notice that we don't have the administrators listed in the infoboxes or succession boxes, when the governor generalship was vacant. I assume we'll be continuing this practice at Julie Payette, Richard Wagner & Mary Simon, when Simon is appointed/sworn in as governor general? GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is for good reason as Administrators are simply not governors general. They are completely separate offices. A deputy may step in for their superior when they are not present (the very reason for the role to exist) but their office is still that of deputy. This in the same way as a Deputy Prime Minister would never be the PM unless appointed, or a VCDS the CDS, etc. trackratte (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note, is it even necessary to have "Administrator of the Government" in Richard Wagner's infobox? None of the other Chief Justices do, and it seems a little odd to take what is essentially an acting position and put it front-and-centre. I think a mention in the article (maybe even the lede) is enough. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to its deletion. Was going to delete once Simon was sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I just didn't want it to be there forever. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• To me, it makes sense to have it present in the infobox while he holds the role, but it certainly wouldn't make sense to retain it after Mary Simon gets sworn in. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Having (possibly) a wee bit of trouble with an IP at Richard Wagner (judge), concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@76.71.157.66: here's where to discuss it. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal on two Canadian dictionary pages with few watchers

I've proposed a merge of Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles 2 into Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles. Neither has many watchers and there have been no comments in almost three weeks, so I'm dropping a notice here. Meters (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Louis St. Laurent page: formatting of "References" section

I was looking at the Louis St. Laurent page, and noticed something odd about the formatting of the "References" section. It's indented on the right-hand side, as if there is a left-justification code. There's no special code in the reflist that I can see. Is this just a quirk of my chromebook, or is there some formatting code buried in the article? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, it's because the portal box extends into the reference section. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - that was simple. I put a couple of returns in the "See also" section, and that moved the References below the portals. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There's an AWB job and maybe also a bot that removes multiple whitespace lines, or maybe that's handled by the software now. For a permanent solution I added the {{clear}} template to the bottom of the see also section, which forces the next section to appear on a new line. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

fyi Next federal election

Supposedly, the Prime Minister will call for a snap election on September 20th. Ebbedlila (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah hah, a page move will occur at that moment. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Canadian election templates

Dozens of Canadian election templates have been nominated for deletion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 13.

Editors who want to express a view should do so at the TFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Yukon

Not the most important thing but it is now acceptable to say The Yukon. See Back to 'the' Yukon: The big return of a 3-letter word and Yukon and the Yukon. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

All that happened is that the government of the Yukon began saying that using "the Yukon" is fine and should be used in official terminology (i.e. speeches referencing the territory should now say "the Yukon"). Since the legal name is still "Yukon," I don't think it should make any difference to keep using "Yukon" on articles, but now both "Yukon" and "the Yukon" are fine. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It was just a comment to try and stop any potential warring over people changing the "the". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Intro to Canadian federal election articles

An editor @Surtsicna: had changed the intros to the articles 1980 Canadian federal election to 2019 Canadian federal election, removing the bold titles per WP:AVOIDBOLD & WP:REDUNDANCY. Seeing as he didn't complete the task, I've reverted those changes. Thus the question: Should the intro style be for all the federal, provincial & territorial articles, Bold title? or not. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That is very unhelpful, GoodDay. We had discussed this and agreed on the change. We had also agreed to continue should there be no objections. Now you reverted the edits without any warning just because I had not "completed the task". We had not even agreed on a deadline. This is counterproductive and uncooperative. Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thing to do. GoodDay, just 5 days ago on your Talk page you and Surtsicna agreed on an approach to address these articles. You clearly agreed with the idea of doing a few of them, waiting for complaints/reverts, and then moving forward. And now, you yourself, of all people, have reverted Surtsicna's work? What kind of collaboration is that? Seeing as he didn't complete the task, I've reverted those changes is one of the most ridiculous justifications I've ever heard. I suggest that you apologise here and then cap this section, so as not to further stir up trouble. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Where the hell did that guy, come from?" -- GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My change at 2021 Canadian federal election was rejected & after 5 days, I figured Surtsicna had abandoned the idea. I wasn't going to wait any longer & leave the 1980 to 2019 articles, out of sync. Besides, I never said I supported the idea of changing the article titles, but rather opposed it. Furthermore, I said I wouldn't revert any of them, if nobody else complained or reverted any of them. They did complain & revert at the 2021 Canadian federal election article. But, if my reverts of the 1980 to 2019 articles, have upset at least 'two' editors 'here' (who've both pinged me), thus bringing forward their objections? Then I won't revert again. PS: Feel free to join the discussion on the topic, at the 2021 election article. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - Shall we have me hanged, drawn & quartered, next? GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On the dissolution of parliament and incumbency

Crossposting this here for greater visibility, since this proposal affects several hundred pages: Should Wikipedia note that no MP is an incumbent when parliament is dissolved? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#2021 dissolution for the discussion. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Brian Wong#Requested move 18 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brian Wong#Requested move 18 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Premiers/Prime Ministers Designate

This is a discussion that started on Talk:Tim Houston specifically about when after an election over the leader of the winning party gets recognized on wiki pages as being "designate". There was no consensus reached on that page, with users undoing one another's edits until the point he was formally invited to form a government and everyone agreed he was designated. On the off chance a government switch occurs in the 2021 Federal election, I would rather have a consensus set in advance since the same situation occurring after a federal election would likely involve significantly more Wikipedians.

I'll just open by strongly stating that pages should recognize "Premier Designate" or "Prime Minister-Designate" when that individual is formally invited to form a Ministry, not by when the Media (The CBC or Otherwise) calls an election for one party or another. It has been explicitly stated in multiple Cases when Lieutenant Governor's invited new Premier's that the Title is Dependent on that.WanukeX (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely correct terminology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why change, what we've been doing for years? By going by news media calls? we can prevent IPs from prematurely putting in Prime Minister of Canada or Premier of province or Premier of territory, before they're appointed to office. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle that in the case of a situation being a grey area, go with precedent, it makes things consistent. This is not one of those situations, the Title of Premier Designate is a formal title given explicitly when an individual is invited to form the government, not by the media. The Nova Scotia LG was even more explicit about this in 2021 (at which point he became Premier-Designate) than the Ontario LG was in 2018 (may now be referred to as Premier-designate.). The Precedent of just adding it when the CBC calls an election is just wrong, and is contradicted explicitly by sources involved in the transition process.WanukeX (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

May we agree on at least 'one' item? It's Prime Minister-designate or Premier-designate. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Completely there, its -designate, not -elect. sorry was running a bit fast and loose with the dashes if that was your issue. WanukeX (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean -designate, not -Designate. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, is the subject's infobox being updated or is this a paragraph in the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In the infobox - "Prime Minister/Premier-designate". In the opening paragraph - "prime minister/premier-designate" (per WP:JOBTITLES). GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's nuts. It could be mentioned in the lede and body, but it's not an official title. Granted, that and $10 will get him a beer at the local pub, assuming they didn't vote NDP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Bloc Quebecois

It appears that @Ak-eater06: & I, are in dispute at Bloc Quebecois, over how the federal party's MPs & Senators (or lack there of) should be shown in the infobox. Even though the BQ choose not to run candidates outside Quebec. They're still registered with Elections Canada & thus are a federal political party. For example, Ak-eater's wants the infobox to show only the House of Commons seats (32/78) in Quebec, where's I say we should be showing all the seats (32/338) in Canada. I tried explaining to him (via edit-summary) that we don't treat the BQ in Canada, the way UK treats the SNP (for an example). GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. The BQ hold 32 out of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. The fact that they choose not to run candidates outside of Quebec and thus only fielded 78 candidates does not change that fact, and there is no separate House just for Quebec at the federal level. Notice that the page for the Green Party reads 2/338, not 2/336. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Also agree - the count should be against all available seats, not only those in Quebec. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. It's the proportion of seats held in the Commons, not how many candidates they ran. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Also agreed: what matters is their seat count as compared to the whole House of Commons, not just their seat count as compared to how many candidates they ran. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The HOC has 338 seats, regardless of where a party's seats are, regardless of how many ridings they actually ran in. I don't remember any other party having their denominator changed in the elections where they've failed to run a full slate due to leaders refusing to sign a candidate's nomination papers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@C.monarchist28:, best you read the discussion here, before making changes to the BQ article, again. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Maverick Party

I assume we are to treat the Maverick Party (formerly Wesex Party) in the same way, as the Bloc Quebecois? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

In what respect? Please be more specific. Thanx, PKT(alk) 18:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Both a federal parties, which are not barred from running candidates across the country. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

User:PKT The Bloc Québécois is a regional party and shows 338 seats instead of 78 in the infobox. I'm wondering if the Maverick Party (also a regional party) should also show 338 seats instead of 107? What are your thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. Both parties are registered with Elections Canada & therefore are not barred from running candidates across the country. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes - their seat counts should be shown as out of the total seats available (338 in the House, 105 in the Senate). PKT(alk) 18:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. See my reasoning in the BQ comments above. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

338 until more seats are added or seats are removed. Electing to run candidates regionally is no exception clause. Should we then only count where parties, such as the rhinos, end up running candidates? No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes

Is it a WP:EASTEREGG violation to pipelink a community status type (e.g. city) in an infobox settlement_type parameter to the list article applicable to the context in which it is located (e.g. [[List of cities in British Columbia)? Other examples as well.

If you care to comment, see the RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Piped link#RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes. Hwy43 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Internment camps in Canada and related categories

Hi folks, I'm Canadian but not a member of this WikiProject (because I mostly work on articles outside of Canadian topics). Anyhow, I have been working lately on articles about Dutch overseas internment camps, and I took a look at the categories/articles about Canadian internment camps (WWI/WWII). It seems the categories themselves were a bit of a mess, with only one article linked in the most general-sounding one Category:Internment camps in Canada which was not at all connected to the more specific Category:World War II internment camps in Canada or Category:Prisoner-of-war camps in Canada. I have made those latter two categories subcategories of the first one, since they refer either to a more specific kind of internment camp or one held during a more specific time period. And I went and added one or two of the categories to all the locations I could find in the articles about Ukrainian and Japanese Canadian internments etc, for the most part they had a small blurb noting the historical internment camp but did not have the relevant categories on them (The WWII one had better categorization). Definitely a topic area that could have more citations put into it across all these sites, but at least they are linked together now... thoughts? @Hugo999:, I hope you don't mind me tagging you here, but I see you created the WWII category. --Dan Carkner (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Template spam or not?

Join the talk at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Template:2021 Canadian Parliament......... in my view we should do a mass revert immediately.Moxy- 03:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC) {{2021 Canadian Parliament}}

Moxy, I'd be willing to go through them all right now and remove them all. Ebbedlila (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Are lieutenant governors and commissioners, heads of state?

Over at a currently active RFC concerning Australian governors. An Australian editor mentioned the possibility of Canadian lieutenant governors & commissioners being heads of state in Canada, in their respective province & territory. What's the view here? GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• In Canada, the governor-general is not the head of state in Canada, the monarch of Canada is (currently Elizabeth II). The GG is appointed by the monarch, and fulfils the roles and duties of the head of state, but is not considered Canada's head of state. Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • ...and so it's the same with the lieutenant governors & commissioners? GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    • In general, it would be the same as lieutenant governors fulfill the same functions of the GG in provinces, although there's the added layer that provinces are generally not considered states, so can you have a head of state for something that is not a state? My response would be no, and LGs are not considered head of state in Canada regardless. Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
      • In the three territories the commissioner is a representative of the federal government. They used to wield quite a bit of power but the position has become much more ceremonial. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
        • What Z1720 said. Canada's head of state is the Queen of Canada. The Governor General of Canada and the lieutanant governors of the provinces are the Queen's viceroys within their respective jurisdictions (I believe the GG is viceroy in the territories) but they are not heads of state. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: as been making some interesting comments at a semi-related RFC. He appears to be suggesting that the ten lieutenant governors 'could be' heads of state or considered heads of state. What's the view 'here'? GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter. Looking into it, the Canadian provinces are united in recognising HM as Canada's head of state. Some also claim they have distinct provincial heads of state. Some say it is the Lieutenant Governor, some say it is the "Crown", some say it is the Queen.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] They do not mention a "head of province". Hope this helps. --Pete (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - Ya may as well start including the rest of the commonwealth realms (except for the UK) which have viceregals. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, your comment "...in the context of the Australian republican movement – something I've been participating in since the 1990's", at another editor's talkpage. Is quite worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

As a journalist, dear chap. I mentioned it there but you may not have noticed. I don't know the Canadian constitutional situation; I'll leave discussion to those who do. --Pete (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Your revealing that you're involved with the Australian republican movement (since the 1990's). Raises my concerns, about whether or not you're attempting to promote their agenda on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, we do thank you for not trying to tamper with the Canadian political articles, the way you're attempting to tamper with the Australian political articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Pure junk.....will keep an eye out for this crap hitting Canadian articles. Last thing we want is our articles on the topic to be all messed up like the Australian articles. Lucky we have knowledgeable Canadian editors.Moxy- 23:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

^[31]

University Heraldry

Having completed an armorial of universities in Britain, I thought it was time to do one for Canada. This should be a much swifter process as the Public Register should have all the necessary information easily accessible so we don't have to hunt around for it. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor: It seems you're missing a few. How did you come upon the list of universities? It seems to be somewhat older, and does not include schools such as Trinity Western University and others listed in {{Universities in British Columbia}}. I suspect that there are similar templates for each province, such as {{Universities in Alberta}}, but I would start with {{Universities in Canada}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It's far from finished, of course. I've gone on the public register and filtered for universities [[32]], which brought up sixty-three armigerous institutions. I haven't done faculties or associations thus far and, of course, I'm only two provinces in. Any assistance in speeding up the process would be much appreciated. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No need to ping me as I saw your post here. Enjoy your effort, but be careful not to exclude any schools. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have filled in all blazons for the fifty-four full universities for whom arms were recorded (the other nine were duplicate entries). I am now moving on to the faculties, departments and colleges. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the Riel talk page

Would welcome community input: Talk:Louis Riel. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

BQ election results table

Election	Leader	Votes	Quebec			Canada			+/–	Government
			%	Seats	Position	%	Seats	Position
1993	Lucien Bouchard	1,846,024	49.3	54 / 75	1st	13.5	54 / 295	2nd	44	Opposition
1997	Gilles Duceppe	1,385,821	37.9	44 / 75	1st	10.7	44 / 301	3rd	10	Third party
2000	Gilles Duceppe	1,377,727	39.9	38 / 75	1st	10.7	38 / 301	3rd	6	Third party
2004	Gilles Duceppe	1,680,109	48.9	54 / 75	1st	12.4	54 / 308	3rd	16	Third party
2006	Gilles Duceppe	1,553,201	42.1	51 / 75	1st	10.5	51 / 308	3rd	3	Third party
2008	Gilles Duceppe	1,379,628	38.1	49 / 75	1st	10.0	49 / 308	3rd	2	Third party
2011	Gilles Duceppe	889,788	23.4	4 / 75	4th	6.0	4 / 308	4th	45	No status
2015	Gilles Duceppe	818,652	19.3	10 / 78	4th	4.7	10 / 338	4th	6	No status
2019	Yves-François Blanchet	1,387,030	32.5	32 / 78	2nd	7.7	32 / 338	3rd	22	Third party
2021	Yves-François Blanchet

Should we keep the 'results in Quebec' column, or limit it to the 'results in Canada' column. Right now, it (IMHO) looks like two separate Houses of Commons set up (one in Quebec, the other Canada). GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like an extension of the earlier question. This was a federal election, not a provincial one, and so the results should be compared to the nation, not the rest of the province. Let the prose explain the issues about how well they performed in the province, not a table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The various polls and news media show their levels based on the whole country, as it should be. Seeing 32.5% for 2019 is ludicrous when 7.7% was the actual number. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll make the changes, since there's no objections. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've implemented the changes. Feel free to look. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No objection to the change here, but I think it would be useful to include in the table a percentage of support in the seats they contested. Not the number of seats, just the percentage. Otherwise our presentation implies that the BQ is a distant fringe party with no real political force, when really they're a significant entity that frequently swing the results of national elections. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Liberals, NDP & Greens

Note: I've also deleted the 'provincial and territorial' sections from Liberal Party of Canada & Green Party of Canada. That info belongs in their respective provincial & territorial parties. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've undone these two changes. I think it's important and relevant to note when a federal party has organizational ties to a provincial one— particularly for the Liberals, who have a much more complicated relationship with the provincial cousins than the other parties do. I wouldn't object to the removal of the results templates, but I think the section as a whole has merit. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

We already have separate articles on provincial & territorial Liberal & Green parties. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If we didn't have the results tables then we'd likely list all of the provincial affiliate parties under "see also" anyway. Better for the links to have some use in the article body, IMO. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the noteworthy part is not that they exist, but that they have organizational connections with the federal party, which is not a given. This is especially important for the Liberal Party, since some of the provincial cousins are actually connected but others are not; if the prose is removed that explains this, it becomes more difficult to determine the relationship between the federal and provincial parties without checking eleven separate pages. It's just more efficient to include a small section outlining this. Again, the results tables can go— I have no objection to that— I just think the prose in these sections should be kept. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, New Democratic Party#Provincial and territorial wings should be included in this discussion too. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support deleting that section as well, as we've got articles for the provincial & territorial NDPs. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The situation is different again for the NDP - the provincial divisions of the party are all under the umbrella of the federal party. They're not affiliated, they're the same organization. It gets even more complicated with the territories, and the history of the NDP in Quebec is a whole thing. The linked section provides a good summary of all of this and should not be deleted. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the same situation with the Liberals and the Atlantic parties, isn't it? They have shared membership. I don't know if there's any organizational links between Green Parties. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I would still exclude the sections. At least the provincial elections tables. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Drop junk stats.....need prose text if anything at all.Moxy- 22:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That may be true of the Liberal Party, but I think more as a matter of practicality and definitely not the case in all provinces, whereas the NDP is specifically organized that way. Greens are really just a mess, but no shared membership. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I shall agree to deleting only the provincial/territorial election results tables & leaving in the prose text. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the provincial/territorial election results tables. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: Bring your input here. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no position on the matter, just needed an explanation. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for new party articles

I have not seen criteria for allowing articles for new parties in Canada. I would expect WP:GNG at the very least, so before I nominate Free Party Canada for deletion, could someone clarify if such criteria exists? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles about political parties must satisfy the requirements of WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. A brief web search seems to indicate this party fails both (I can find no news articles about the party other than tangential mentions in two articles). Mindmatrix 12:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I would generally be sympathetic for very small parties getting coverage but I can find almost no documentation of this one either. I don't deny that it exists and is running some candidates but I'm not sure on what basis someone would fill out an article about them for the time being. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Go for deletion. This party doesn't even have news coverage on their own website. The only thing the group seems to have done which is of note and can be reliably sourced at all is that they in fact are registered with Elections Canada. That is not enough for WP:GNG for a Canadian political party. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the sage advice. Proded for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Registration with Elections Canada (or the appropriate provincial analogue) as an official political party (as opposed to one rando calling himself a political party but never formally incorporating as such) is necessary but not sufficient; a party must also have significant coverage in reliable sources to get it over WP:ORG, and simply primary-sourcing the fact that it exists as a registered political party is not enough in and of itself if media coverage is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I wonder if PEI's Island Party still exists. I suspect, it's gone the way of the new World Hockey Association & the Global Hockey League. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Island Party disintegrated a long time ago. They organized before the 2011 election and ran a small slate of candidates (electing none), then couldn't get enough people to run in 2015 to be registered as a party ([33]), and the four candidates they did have lined up didn't run as independents. By 2019 they had disappeared. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Premier of Manitoba

Myself & @Nikkimaria: seem to be in disagreement at Manitoba, concerning Kelvin Goertzen. As I understand it, Goertzen is the 23rd premier of Manitoba, while he's interim PC party leader. Nikkimaria argues that Goertzen is only interim premier of Manitoba. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some sources have caused some confusion, I think, and have referred to him as "interim premier". But most sources such as the CBC here say "Goertzen will be Manitoba's 23rd premier for a two-month term" or similar. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

At the moment there appear to be far more sources referring to him as interim premier - double the GHits (which I realize is an imperfect measure, but useful as a datapoint). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some source are mixed up with premier & interim party leader. Goertzen is in the same situation as Premier Tom Marshall of Newfoundland and Labrador was, in 2014. Note that we've got Goertzen as premier (not interim premier) in all related articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay is correct. Legally, there is no such thing as an "interim premier"— you either are the premier (with all the powers and responsibilities that go with it), or you aren't, with no in-between or edge cases. In practice, yes, we get situations where an interim party leader gets the job, with the understanding they will only be there for a short period; and one could characterize them as a sort of "interim premier". But that's a purely informal descriptor based on the political situation, not their legal role. Legally, Goertzen has ascended to the top office, is the 23rd premier, and will be recorded as such in the history books. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is correct: under law, there's no actual distinction between a "premier" and an "interim premier". In practice, we do get cases like this, where somebody ascends to the premiership on the understanding that they're not running for the permanent leadership of the party and thus will only temporarily be premier for a few weeks or months before another one gets sworn in to replace them, so the phrase "interim premier" might get informally used in the media as a shorthand for the nuances of the situation — but in the official and legal senses there's no such role as "interim premier" per se: either you are a premier or you aren't, full stop. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with previous comments. The Lt Gov of Manitoba has appointed Mr Goertzen as head of the government; he is the premier. It's a caretake role, so doubtful that he will take any major initiatives, but if there is a public crisis of some sort in the next little while, Premier Goertzen has the full authority of the office. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Library and Archives Canada Robert Stanfield image

Hello, I am wondering what license this image is under, and I am wondering how to find the license of this image on the website. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3408575 Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: According to the file's page on Commons (link), it's in the public domain. -M.nelson (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pedimental sculptures in Canada

Very nice (IMO) new article Pedimental sculptures in Canada was immediately nominated for deletion. Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedimental sculptures in Canada. --Doncram (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

2006 Canadian Federal Election lead dispute

This version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=1043363333) of the 2006 Canadian Federal Election shows the third paragraph of the lead relating to the In and Out scandal. However, User:FobTown argues that the In and Out scandal paragraph should go elsewhere and not from the lead. Which one is right? Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Putting the scandal in the intro is WP:UNDUE. Such presentation is also at odds with other previous Canadian federal elections where the lead/intro just covers the party-by-party results. The scandal is appropriately included in the issues section. FobTown (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think FobTown is right on this one. If a major scandal arose during a campaign, ie something that was seen to affect the outcome, a case could be made for mentioning it in the lead, but that's not the situation here. The In and Out scandal came up after the vote, so I don't think the matter belongs in the lead of 2006 Canadian Federal Election. Regards, PKT(alk) 23:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Poste Montagnais, Quebec

Does anybody know exactly what Poste Montagnais, Quebec is? The article says it's a community serving "Hydro-Québec's electrical substation, "Poste Montagnais" (Montagnais Substation)" but I can't seem to find anything about it other than there was a weather station, an airport and the substations official name may be Poste des Montagnais. The coordinates in the article are for Lac Fournier. So is it a populated community, that is not listed here, or something else? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the Canadian Geographical Names Database link you provided, it refers to this location, which is west of the coordinates included at Poste Montagnais, Quebec. An aerial view using Bing maps indicates there are about a dozen structures on the northeast corner of the industrial site, likely company housing. I don't think I'd go as far as calling it a community, and a search of Community Profiles at StatsCan (specifically, for locations containing the term "Montagnais" for the 2016 census) returns "no match found". It's definitely a locale of some sort, though. Further, the CGNDB coordinates place it in Sept-Rivières Regional County Municipality, not Minganie Regional County Municipality as indicated in the WP article. Mindmatrix 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

So less a community and more a work site like Mary River Mine. Which is why there is no population given. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sent to AfD now, By the way based on the original coordinates in the article, Lac Fournier, it would have been in Minganie. According to Poste des Montagnais page it's in Lac-Jérôme, Minganie. But the Open Street Map, Bing maps and Google Earth it's in Sept-Rivières. Strange. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Numbering deputy premiers

Hello. Would somebody explain to editor @Mewulwe: that we number provincial deputy premiers? See Kelvin Goertzen, where he's potentially gonna cause an edit war. He & I crossed paths on this numbering topic, in the past (see May 2017) on bios. PS: It would be silly to have one out of eight Manitoba deputy premiers, not numbered. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is Manitoba like other provinces where a deputy premier is not always appointed? If it's not a continuous position then it shouldn't be numbered. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

See Deputy Premier of Manitoba, they've been appointed since 1988. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've no problem with deleting the numbering from all the Manitoba deputy premiers or deputy premiers overall. It would help if you or others, can give me a list of which ones to delete the numbering from. After all, it would look rather odd numbering one deputy premier & not the other, when they're from the same province. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If there's no objections? I've deleted the numberings from the infoboxes of the other Manitoba deputy premiers bios. Why? A) So they'll be in-line with Goertzen's infobox & B) I'm not interested in getting into another of Mewulwe's edit-wars. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a fait accompli but I wasn't intending to presume that my opinion on the matter is authoritative; I think it's more a matter for discussion. As far as I know, deputy PM/premier is a position that's appointed at the discretion of the sitting PM/premier, and not a compulsory position, and so there are many instances of long vacancies between tenures of deputy premiers. For example there was no Deputy Prime Minister of Canada between Anne McLellan in 2006 and Chrystia Freeland in 2019; our table says the position was "vacant" but really the position just did not exist at that time. We don't appear to say that Freeland succeeded McLellan, but I think that numbering them 9th and 10th implies succession, notwithstanding the 13-year gap. However, as GoodDay observes, Manitoba has appointed a deputy premier continuously since 1988, and Deputy Premier of Manitoba seems to be a more formal position with an actual Cabinet portfolio, so maybe numbering does make sense for Manitoba. I don't know, I'm just giving an opinion here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I merely deleted the ordinals from the bios-in-question, as I wasn't interested in edit-warring with Mewulwe, at Goertzen's bio. For the most part, I no longer put up a fight over the general-topic (ordinals in office holders' infoboxes) when he's involved. His habit of randomly deleting an ordinal from an officer holder's infobox, with 'no' regard to a politician's predecessors & successors? is annoying, though. PS - He will edit-war over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear answer here. My instinct is that DPM should be numbered by analogy to PM, and because, hey, it's an important title. But on the other hand, I can't dismiss that DPM (and provincial equivalents) is not a formalized role, carries no explicit duties and responsibilities, and is even left vacant for periods— all of which rather underlines that it is, legally, "just another cabinet post". A cursory look at legislative libraries also doesn't show any separate lists maintained for the deputies. I think I'm leaning towards leaving it unnumbered in infoboxes on that basis, since we don't number other cabinet ministers, but I wouldn't fight a contrary decision. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We've inconsistencies in the federal & provincial cabinet members. For example: Some of the bios of federal finance ministers have ordinals in their infoboxes, while others don't. FWIW - I'm in favour of 'deleting' ordinals from all federal/provincial/territorial cabinet official infoboxes, below the prime ministers/deputy prime ministers, the premiers & deputy premiers. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Deputy Prime Ministers & provincial/territorial Deputy Premiers

Note: If Mewulwe deletes any ordinals from the infoboxes of any of the Canadian deputy prime ministers bios 'or' any of the Ontario, PEI, BC deputy premiers bios? I will follow his lead & complete the deletions, in each of those groups of bios. Consistency should be maintained in one form or the other & I'm not interested in getting into any edit-wars with him. PS- Despite having been pinged to this WikiProject discussion. Mewulwe has ignored it & chosen not to give his input. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Joe Clark Wiki article lead section dispute

On the article of Joe Clark, on the last paragraph of the lead, on the second last sentence, it says, After the Progressive Conservatives merged with the more right-wing Canadian Alliance to form the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada in 2003, Clark instead sat as an independent Progressive Conservative, criticizing the merger as what he described as an "Alliance take-over", believing that the new party was drifting towards social conservatism.

Shouldn't it be "independent", rather than "independent Progressive Conservative"? Since he was technically registered as an independent.........Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No need ...Just give the reason...He refused to join the new Conservatives.--Moxy- 23:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Going by the source, he still considered himself a progressive conservative, even though the party ceased to exist, in December 2003. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, he was technically an independent, but the HoC also allows members to choose any affiliation they want; and indeed PARLINFO shows he was recognized as a "Progressive Conservative" after the merger. But "independent Progressive Conservative" is a really odd way to put it, like it's trying to split the difference between his 'actual' affiliation and his self-designated affiliation. Given it's sourced to PARLINFO I'm skeptical of this wording; it feels an awful lot like one editor's interpretation rather than what Clark actually said. Ideally, we would find a news story where Clark announces this and use, but a Google search wasn't very helpful. But rather than get bogged down in the intricacies of recognized party affiliation, I think Moxy} has the right of it: we should just say he "declined (ed: or refused?) to join the party" and leave the specifics to the body. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source (the website of Parliament) reads that from February 2, 2002 to June 27, 2004, he sat "as an Independent, recognized as a Progressive Conservative". Based on that I think saying "independent Progressive Conservative" in the lede is fine. I tried to find a better source; a Macleans article from mid-2002 doesn't mention his formal affiliation after the Alliance merger, and neither does a CBC article from 2018. My understanding was that politicians that were previously affiliated with the PCs and didn't align with the new party ran as Progressive Canadians because the Progressive Conservative trademark was taken over by the new party, but Clark retired before that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ordinals in infoboxes of cabinet member bios

We've inconsistencies in this area. I'll will slowly & gradually delete the ordinals from the federal/provincial/territorial cabinet member bios' infoboxes. Note, I won't delete the ordinals from the bios concerning prime ministers & deputy prime ministers, as long as Mewulwe doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I think these ordinals should be discussed before anyone starts applying a marginally-related consensus from one article across all possibly-numbered positions. Many Cabinet positions are logically numbered; Minister of Finance and Attorney General come to mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to care, eitherway. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Federal riding templates

2019 Canadian federal election: Malpeque
Party	Candidate	Votes	%	±%	Expenditures
	Liberal	Wayne Easter	9,533	41.38	−20.70	$52,375.96
	Green	Anna Keenan	6,103	26.49	+17.30	$24,970.77
	Conservative	Stephen Stewart	5,908	25.64	+8.08	$47,940.85
	New Democratic	Craig Nash	1,495	6.49	−4.68	$2,413.92
Total valid votes/expense limit			23,039	98.77		$87,624.55
Total rejected ballots			288	1.23	+0.78
Turnout			23,327	76.29	−2.56
Eligible voters			30,576
	Liberal hold		Swing		−19.00
Source: Elections Canada

See above, messed up 2019 template. Could somebody explain to me, what I'm doing wrong? I've attempted to create a Template for Malpeque concerning the 2021 federal election & it won't appear, plus it's messed up the 2019 template. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you made your changes to the 2019 template ([34]) and then blanked the 2021 template ([35]). Did you get browser tabs mixed up? I do that all the time. I suggest taking the code from your edit to 2019 and saving it as a new edit at 2021, that should get you where you want to go. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone has since fixed up the 2019 template. But, I'm lost as to how to get the 2021 template to appear on screen. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well it's blank, you have to put some content in it. It also looks like you were trying to call it from the template page, which gives you a template loop error. Where are you trying to insert it? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I attempted to copy/paste the 2019 template into the 2021 template & then make changes to the content. Suffice it say, it didn't work (i.e template loop). GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think I saw where you did that, but I think you (accidentally) made your changes in the 2019 template, instead of making a copy and saving it as the 2021 template. I've just copied your edit over to 2021, you should be able to see it now and work on it from there. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: Note, of the 338 federal riding templates for 2021? So far, only five have been created. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, six now. :) Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh also, if you want to speed up the process of copying the template code, you could save an edit with (for example) {{subst:Canadian federal election, 2019/Charlottetown}} which will produce a copy of the template code, and then edit it for 2021. I think these templates are a long way off from content that would require attribution. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Canadian federal election: Malpeque
Party	Candidate	Votes	%	±%	Expenditures
	Liberal	Heath MacDonald	9,912	41.81	+0.44	$84,041.53
	Conservative	Jody Sanderson	7,836	33.19	+7.55	$84,415.05
	Green	Anna Keenan	3,381	14.32	-12.17	$44,768.30
	New Democratic	Michelle Neill	1,898	8.04	+1.55	$4,489.55
	People's	Christopher Landry	680	2.88	–	$1,387.95
Total valid votes/expense limit			23,707	99.27	+0.50	$90,924.86
Total rejected ballots			174	0.73	-0.50
Turnout			23,881	74.49	-1.80
Eligible voters			31,691
	Liberal hold		Swing		-3.56
Source: Elections Canada

Indeed, thanks to you & @Eric0892:. Much appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: Make that (now) ten federal ridings. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A further note on this topic: the templates currently have a row labelled "Eligible voters" but that is incorrect. There is no count of "eligible voters" (i.e. Canadian citizens aged 18 or older), for any district, province, or the whole country. Instead, Elections Canada reports "number of electors on lists" ([36]) and bases turnout on that figure ([37][38]). Sometimes, for a specific purpose, a study is done that "uses the estimated number of Canadian citizens of voting age as the denominator [for the turnout calculation] instead of the number of registered electors" ([39]). But that estimated number of "eligible voters" is not what we use in these Wikipedia election templates. The label "Eligible voters" in these templates should therefore be changed to "Electors on lists". This comment applies to templates for Canadian federal elections; perhaps provincial or municipal elections use different terminology. Mathew5000 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Numbering cabinet ministers

We've got inconsistencies among federal cabinet ministers. Some are numbered in the infoboxes (example) 31st Finance Minister, while some are not (example) Finance Minister. Which should it be? GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We should be consistent, but I'm not sure which way is correct. I didn't think that Ministers of Finance were normally ordinally numbered, but our list in Minister of Finance (Canada) does have ordinals, so seems to me that we should also number them in infoboxes. On the same note, our article on Chrystia Freeland describes her as the 10th deputy PM and [unnumbered] finance minister, and we should be consistent there too. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I've already proceeded with removing the ordinals. Nobody else seems to be objecting. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

When are the results finalized?

Not sure if it is explicitly mentioned somewhere but, is there a deadline when are all the results certified? Ebbedlila (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It'll be a few days due to mail-in ballots for the tighter races (they won't be counted until tomorrow), but there should be a general consensus by around midnight Eastern Time. We should have a final number by Friday.[40] - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Official certification for all ridings will take longer than that. It will depend on how many contested elections and/or judicial recounts there will be. Elections Canada provides details about the processes for recounts. That having been said, the majority of ridings will have clear results within a few days after the vote. PKT(alk) 17:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion a few threads up about that. Elections Canada will post the "validated" (by each district's returning officer) results within a few days most likely, but the "official" (or is it "certified?") results may be weeks or months later. For the October 2020 by-elections the official results were posted the following February, as an example. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Joel(s) Bernard

I've been unable to determine if the Joel Bernard running today in Gatineau is the same Joel Bernard who ran in Ottawa-Vanier in 2019, and held office in New Brunswick before that. Someone better at sleuthing may want to look into this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Compare his photo on the Conservative party website in 2019 (via Wayback Machine) [41] to now [42]. It's the same guy but now they spell his name Joël Bernard with a tréma. As further confirmation, this article in Le Droit mentions that Joël Bernard, the Gatineau candidate, used to work for Stockwell Day. (Incidentally, you can see in the Wayback Machine that as of mid-August, the Conservatives listed a Robert Doucet as their candidate in Gatineau. [43] Bernard must have been a last-minute switch.) Mathew5000 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that! The official candidates list has him as "Joel E. Bernard", without the trema, so I guess that's how we should keep it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Election results templates deletion discussion

A large number of election results templates, including the results for all Canadian federal elections from 1997 to 2021, have been nominated for deletion. Editors following this WikiProject are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Election results templates, redux

A while ago GoodDay started working on the results templates for today's election, but didn't get through very many. I tried to pick up where they left off today, starting in Newfoundland and working west, but I only got midway through Nova Scotia before the Elections Canada website started throwing 500 errors, so instead I started pushing the templates into the district and candidate articles (where they exist). For the 46 ridings which have a template, that's all been completed, but that's only about 15% of ridings. I'll try to pick that up again later but I need to get some of the work I actually get paid for done. Basically, NF and PEI are complete, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are a mix, all of the major leaders' ridings are done (but I didn't touch Electoral history of Justin Trudeau, it doesn't follow the same format), and it looks like someone else started working from the west coast (Vancouver is well-represented).

If anyone else wants to pick up on this, I noticed that various users have already created results tables in many of the district articles, and the data from those tables could be used to populate new templates. Be careful doing that, though, I did notice a few districts aren't using the official confirmed candidates listings and need to be updated.

Oh and remember to get out and vote :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

hi, Ivanvector, I'll tag Manitoba, if anyone doesn't object? Ebbedlila (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ebbedlila: sounds great to me! I just got through the rest of New Brunswick and am on to Quebec. I'll probably be there for a while. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll pass the ball over to yas. I won't have the time over the next few weeks, to even attempt to complete all 338 riding templates, for the 2021 fed election. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just to update, I got a bit more than halfway through Quebec and then had to stop, and Ebbedlila I think did a good job in Manitoba but I don't know how complete it is (I don't know the province well). The category has 111 templates now, so almost a third of the way done. Ebbedlila has also removed the "will be held on" banner from the templates. I was going to switch that out with the preliminary results banner but my AWB job was depending on that tag still being in, so I'll have to come up with something else. Some users have already started overwriting the template transclusion with hard-coded election night results (e.g. Toronto Centre), I've been moving the results to the templates and restoring the links when I see it. Also, kudos to Fungus Guy who really did the lion's share of the work on creating the 2021 results tables in the district articles over the last few weeks, that was a big job. I've mostly just been porting their work into the templates. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector, hi yes, I finished the entire set of Manitoba edits. I also removed them. I apologize for not adding Prelim. Ebbedlila (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries there, you just beat me to it is all. I'm pretty sure I can still craft an AWB recipe to add the tag, but haven't done so since most of the templates don't have any results to post yet. There seem to have been delays in processing special ballots, last I checked (this morning) no ridings have been completed. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)