Talk:Lieutenant Governor (Canada)

The following closed discussion refers to whether the name of the article should include a hyphen or not.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Name

I think this name is best. Ardenn 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario (http://www.lt.gov.on.ca), Quebec (http://www.lieutenant-gouverneur.qc.ca/eng/role.html), and British Columbia (http://www.ltgov.bc.ca) spell it without the hypen in English. HistoryBA 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm: New Brunswick's does not, nor do references in the national archives regarding the prior position in the Northwest Territories. 216.13.88.86 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be this way to match the GG's title. Ardenn 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not hyphenated in the Constitution Acts (1867 and 1982). That probably seals it for me. --JGGardiner 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Passing by, I am unsure what the problem is. Though the constitution indicates "Lieutenant Governor", it also notes many terms that are not commonly used today. Old-style English capitilizes "One" and "Name", for example. As below, "governor" is the noun, not all things are equal, and the federal government and other guides recommend using the hyphen. Why shouldn't Wikipedia? 142.150.134.60 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We choose our own style here, and are not bound by government guides. I think we are better off to stick with standard practice, which is to leave the hyphen out. That's what the Lieutenant Governors themselves do, and that's how it appears in Canadian federal and provincial legislation. If the Lieutenant Governors and the legislators aren't bound by The Canadian Style, I don't see why we should be. HistoryBA 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure 'standard practice' can be qualified here ... and Wp style guidelines needn't buck authoritative guides either. There have been prior discussions regarding the hyphen and capitalisation of the term, hence the status quo. As below, a prominent federal style guide and others contradict federal legislation and prescribe the hyphen. I empathise with the anon's sentiment regarding "Old-style" English ... and the fact that the provinces may adhere to different standards is beside the point which the usage note accommodated (see below).

Much of the point of this to-do is that the article was parsed and moved haphazardly – i.e., without the proponent summarising it in the parent article, not carrying over details that were germane (e.g., usage note), or discussing anything (ignorant of the above). I mean, amidst recent botched edits, "lieutenant governor" wasn't even wikified in the body of text and there now exists a melange in the article! If there's an overarching style being adhered to through recent edits, it is definitely inconsistent. Given the above/below and the apparently equal support any which way, I've yet to be convinced or compelled to not move everything as per the Wp status quo, which is with the hyphen. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've provided citations that differ; these terms are not necessarily comparable: as per Oxford, the current topic has the noun after the adjective, while the GG has it before. And if you could spell the punc mark properly and make salient edits, I might take your arguments seriously.

As for your name calling, it's proof-positive about your juvenile/haphazard editing skills and behaviour. Until you can communicate in a civilised manner, I will refrain from engaging you in discussion. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was pointint to a Wikipedia policy. I wasn't name calling. You however are making personal attacks with your spelling nonsense. However, that won't resolve this situation. Ardenn 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Invocations of policy, veiled as personal attacks (which you seem to have a penchant for), are non-starters. If you cannot copyedit effectively, refrain from doing so. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you click on it? It is official policy, but I'll offer an olive branch and apologize to you for what you perceive as a personal attack against you. I'm sorry, I hope we can work together to resolve this amicably. Ardenn 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you even read what you cite, it indicates to use such terms judiciously. You seem to have difficulty with Wikipedia:wikiquette. I defer to my prior statements: my interactions with you have been wholly distasteful and I shall not do so hereafter. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Something conveniently omitted/botched/lost in the recent haphazard move by A. was the usage note, which indicates the following:

Notes

1. ^ In a Canadian context there are numerous, and not mutually agreeable, notions regarding hyphenation and capitalisation of the position title. The Canadian Style (an official federal government style guide), indicates Lieutenant-Governor (upper case with hyphen; p. 46) though lieutenant-governors (lower case and hyphenated) when pluralised (p. 70). Similarly, governor is the main noun in this title and it is the term that is pluralised. The Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage equivocates somewhat, indicating upper case only when used in and associated with a specific provincial L-G or name, not generally (e.g., Lieutenant-Governor Lincoln Alexander), and varied use (p. 244). Moreover, a visitation of numerous provincial websites typically indicate Lieutenant Governor (of Province) (upper case and no hyphen), likely due to the primacy of those positions in their respective jurisdictions.

For consistency in Wikipedia, the Oxford standard can be used when referring to Canadian lieutenant-governors.

As above, I prefer Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) and shall proceed to do so unless compelled otherwise. Moreover, applicable users should be very careful about insinuations of vandalism and edit-warring, since little rationale was provided to justify those comments throughout. You won't get consensus by hurling epithets. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious we need to come to a consensus on this. Ardenn 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the Oxford standard I would say the hyphen should be included in the title. -- Jeff3000 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I've opened an RFC on this matter to get a wider consensus. Ardenn 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Ardenn 20:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I've put the article up for a proposed move under policy. This is the place for the debate. Ardenn 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. I'm somewhat new here However, User:Ardenn has been removing my edits from this - that - article. This is not encouraging. Therefore, I support the hyphenated spelling above. 216.13.88.86

   Do it properly and within policy and you'll get no problems from me. How about registering? Ardenn 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

   I will consider registering, but why you removed my note to you is puzzling. 216.13.88.86 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

   You obviously didn't read the box at the top of my talk page. I don't accept messages from anonymous, unregistered users. Ardenn 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

   Well, that is your loss. You expect discussion when you won't entertain message/ to your talk page? That doesn't make sense. I imagine that is the purpose of a talk page. Anyway, think twice before you bite a newbie (sp?) and before reverting worthwhile content additions without explaining why. 216.13.88.86 17:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

   You're right. To you I apologize. I should have made a better effort to help you understand how thing work here better, and to welcome you. Ardenn 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Support As above; in addition, this dichotomy was previously noted and ignored by the requestor in this haphazard article forking (compare, w/parent article and note). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. The Oxford standard is a standard, and can easily be followed and allows for consistency across Wikipedia for Canadian topics. Using uses from certain newspapers or other publications may solve the problem here, but can lead the ambiguity in the larger sense of what is consistent. Thus for consistency accross a larger sphere of style issues, I think we should keep the hyphen. -- Jeff3000 01:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, as this is the common usage for the term (as far as I've seen it in Candian contexts, which is of course not fantastic). James F. (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think we should keep it as-is with the Canadian standard of spelling. Ardenn 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Definitely. As noted above, the office is officially without hyphen (in the Constitution), 9 of 10 LGs use it unhyphenated (on their webpages), the Canada Gazette uses it unhyphenated and the federal government protocol people also use it without the hyphen (for example[1]). And for what it is worth, a quick google search shows that the most common language usage, among non-official sites, is without the hyphen also. --JGGardiner 17:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Weakly oppose; Fowler would argue that the proper noun should be Lieutenant Governor and the use as an adjective, as in "a position of Lieutenant-Governor rank" should be hyphenated. Septentrionalis 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, for reasons given by JGGardiner. HistoryBA 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Wikipedia is not bound to Oxford standard if actual Canadian usage differs from that. Wikipedia is, by its own policy, bound to respect local usage norms if that differs from other standards. If the Canadian constitution and the actual offices of actual LGs normally use the unhyphenated title, then so should we. Bearcat 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said! HistoryBA 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appointment

How are Lieutenant-Governmors appointed/nominated in Canada?

hyphenation

Someone asked on the Canadian Project page whether it should be hyphenated. The answer is yes.--Ibis3 06:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be hyphenated. The constitution doesn't hyphenate [2], and only one of the provinces (New Brunswick) does. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Capitalization

Although the Canadian Oxford (as noted in reference 1 in the article) suggests lower case for lieutenant governor, I would argue that since current useage (January 22 2007) by all ten provinces is to capitalize the term, that is what should be used at Wikipedia. I have changed it at the general Lieutenant-Governor site, but not here in light of the apparent controversy this has generated in the past. Discuss. Flyguy649 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoration

In case anyone's watching this page, I've restored the article here as, after looking at the history and the earlier discussions, I saw no consensus for any move, and the move was then done by an anonymous ip. As was noted some time ago by others, the Constitution Acts do not use a hyphen in the term "Lieutenant Governor", and nor do the majority of Lieutenant Governors themselves. It thus seems appropriate to have the article under the hyphen-less heading, though explanations of the alternate spelling should certainly remain here. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't it the choice of the Premiers.

I live in Australia where the governors of the Australian states are the choice of the state premiers concerned. I was therefore surprised to learn that the lieutenant governors of the Canadian provinces, who perform the same functions of the Australian state governors, are in the end the choice of the Prime Minister and not the provincial premiers.

Why is that and has there been any discussions to give that choice to the premiers.122.108.156.100 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Short answer is that it was the decision of the drafters of the Constitution in 1867. They agreed to a model that was inspired by the colonial model, and gave the federal government authority over the provinces in a way similar to the way the imperial government retained authority over the federal government. Britain appointed the GovGen, who had the power to reserve federal bills for consideration in London, and the British government had power to disallow federal bills. The federal government was in a similar position vis-à-vis the provinces: the federal had the power to appoint the Lt Govs, who could reserve a bill for the consideration of the federal government, which had the power to disallow provincial bills. Our drafters looked to the UK as the model, and the US (at that time torn apart by the Civil War) as an object lesson for what not to do, including state sovereignty. I think that's different from the Australian experience, 40 years later, which relied on the US model much more than the Canadians did. As for why this issue is not in the article; probably because the role of the Lt Gov is primarily ceremonial and doesn't attract much public attention in general, so the detail of who appoints doesn't attract public attention. That means it's not come up in this article. If you can find generally accepted sources that discuss the appointment process in more detail than is covered here, have at it! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the term "viceroy" be used as a synonym for "Governor General" or "Lieutenant Governor" in articles on Canadian government?

I have started an RfC on this question at Talk:Governor General of Canada. All comments welcome. --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)