Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 29

Incorrect vote counts in Wikipedia articles

In November 2019, I noted on this page that Wikipedia had incorrect vote counts from the 2011 and 2015 federal elections. [1] The problem is that the "preliminary" vote counts were put into various articles and remained there years later, instead of the final vote counts.

Do we have any kind of systematic effort to revise articles that list vote counts, when the final counts are released? Here's an example from the 2019 federal general election, where Wikipedia uses incorrect numbers:

• Northwest Territories (electoral district)#Northwest Territories (2014–present)

• Michael McLeod (politician)#Electoral record

• Template:Canadian federal election, 2019/Northwest Territories

Wikipedia shows the following vote counts for the 2019 election:

McLeod 6,638

D'Aigle 4,279

Beckett 3,619

Falvo 1,757

Quinlan 295

total valid votes 16,291 (this is patently wrong! The sum of the figures is in fact 16,588)

rejected ballots 125

turnout 16,416

eligible voters 30,235

On the other hand, reliable sources [2][3] give the following figures:

McLeod 6,467

D'Aigle 4,157

Beckett 3,640

Falvo 1,731

Quinlan 296

rejected ballots 125

total votes 16,416

electors on lists 30,704

Weirdly, for some candidates (McLeod, D'Aigle, and Falvo), Wikipedia overcounts the candidate's number of votes instead of undercounting it.

The incorrect numbers were placed in the template in September 2020 [4] ​ — well after the correct (final) vote counts were available [5].

My point is this: Putting preliminary vote counts in Wikipedia articles, that never get corrected, is much worse than having no vote counts at all. If these incorrect numbers persist on Wikipedia for Canadian federal elections, I can only imagine how bad the problem is for provincial and municipal elections. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're able to accurately update the numbers? then by all means, have a go at it. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay: if you find information that's demonstrably not correct, you don't need to discuss before fixing it. As for a coordinated effort to verify or repair: no, there is not, other than your post here. I wonder if it would be possible to create a centralized results template and have the other templates read it? I'm not very proficient in templates but it seems like it would be much simpler to update and verify if we just had one centralized table. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with GoodDay and Ivanvector, but the reference has to be updated to a site/URL that has the correct, final numbers. Please and thank you! PKT(alk) 14:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not post here seeking permission to make a correction to some incorrect figures. There's no point in correcting these one at a time; what is needed is a coordinated effort to make the corrections or else delete the numbers. The NWT electoral district is just one example where Wikipedia has had wrong numbers since the last election. How can we avoid problems like this for next week's general election? The obvious way is this: let's not include the preliminary vote figures, at all, in any Wikipedia article. Or if we do, then the numbers should be rounded to the nearest hundred, thus indicating they are not exact figures. Printing exact vote counts would be great if they're all correct, but if they're only mostly correct, it's pretty bad. It would be better to have no figures at all. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that too: filling the templates with "preliminary" or "unofficial" results badly fails WP:NOTNEWS. We're an encyclopedia, we can wait for the official counts to be published. However, we can't actually stop the multitudes who will want to be "F1RST" to add results in based on whatever loose sources or preliminary counts they can find, so maybe the best we can do is an advisory to readers that any results published are not official, and someone who knows what they're doing can remove the notice as official results are added properly. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of all articles related the 2021 Canadian federal election, would be prudent, on September 20 & beyond. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen "Preliminary results — not final" (or something to that effect) banners on riding results tables before, which would seem to thread the needle here: allowing people to edit in the preliminary results (/ not having to fight to keep those out), while making clear that they are not to be trusted as 100% accurate (and a notice for editors to fix it later). Are those not being added here, or are they being removed prematurely? — Kawnhr (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I would agree that we should avoid preliminary numbers, and not add any numbers at all to election templates until the final numbers are certified — but, unfortunately, there's no easy way to enforce that, short of a blanket lock on all election templates for at least two weeks. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Does Elections Canada expect to finalize results in just two weeks? I've seen it take 60 days or more for municipalities and Elections Ontario to issue "final" numbers. PKT(alk) 16:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• We should report what RSes state. With this election, there will likely be first-night numbers and that will determine preliminary standing of parties. It will be reliably published by media outlets. Final numbers will not be available for two weeks due to process, and the articles should be finalized at that time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Which sources do we go by, though? It's likely that the various national media will report different results at different times, especially given what is likely to be a close contest in many places (the aggregator 338Canada currently has a 0.3% margin between the leading parties, and 60/338 ridings rated "toss up") and the official source (Elections Canada) does not officially declare winners, and won't post official results until many days later. If votes are still being counted, any edit someone saves with a reference will likely fail verification by the time a reader clicks on it. Better to have no information than unverifiable information. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

When updating ballot counts for any election, the only source that should be used is the site of the organization that runs the election, be it Elections Canada, a provincial Elections body or a municipal website. Get the data from the source. PKT(alk) 16:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note: there's a related general discussion at the idea lab. Per my comment there, what if we add a "preliminary results" template to the header of the results templates, that will subcategorize templates with the banner in Category:2021 Canadian federal election results by riding with unofficial results? Someone could then easily scan the category for templates needing to be updated once official results are available, assuming they also remove the preliminary results banner when adding the official source. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In response to Ivanvector's squirrel's last comment: creating the category for templates with unofficial results will help, but won't completely solve the problem. For example, the article Annamie Paul has incorrect results that are hard-coded in the source, not transcluded from a template. (Though the counts in Paul's article are wrong, the correct results for the 2020 by-election in Toronto Centre are used in the article Marci Ien, except that the number of "Eligible voters" is given as 81,400 while Elections Canada lists the number of "Electors on lists" as 81,861 [6].)

In response to some uncertainty in comments above about whether final results will be expected in a couple of weeks or a couple of months: This page (from the Elections Canada website) makes a distinction between on the one hand "validated results" certified by the returning officer in each district, "generally, within a week following election day", and on the other hand "official voting results" published "generally within several months of election day". Anyone who wants to venture into the weeds on this point can look at Chapter 2 of the Returning Officer's Manual.

If preliminary numbers are used in Wikipedia, they should be rounded. For example, in the infoboxes and tables in the main article for the election, obviously there should be some indication of the total popular vote for each of the main parties. But when the numbers used are preliminary, the figures in the Popular vote parameter of the infobox should be (for example) 6,943,000 rather than 6,942,937. In each individual article for electoral districts and for candidates I see no reason to include preliminary numerical results at all, just a statement of the winner as declared by reliable sources. I acknowledge, however, the points made above in this discussion, that editors will rush to include very specific information as soon as possible, and it is hard to enforce any guideline that discourages this. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we can't perfectly solve the problem. For Annamie Paul, that article shouldn't have the results coded into the article, it should call the appropriate template. There doesn't seem to be one but there should be, it would be used in at least four articles (those two plus Kevin Clarke (politician) and Toronto Centre). That should be easy enough to fix. I think relying on the validated results as described is reliable enough, I don't think it's common for the officially published results to be significantly different from the RO's count, unless there are legal shenanigans which likely would make the news. I disagree that preliminary results should be rounded: for small ridings (i.e. PEI has about 28,000 electors in each riding) a difference of +/- 500 votes can change the result; we should publish the numbers that whichever source is cited publishes, without modification. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and created {{Canadian federal by-election, October 26, 2020/Toronto Centre}} and replaced the hard-coded results in the appropriate articles. In doing so I noticed that the linked page from Elections Canada is the validated results, and it appears that no official results have been subsequently published. Should we take that to mean that the validated results are the official results? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also, it turns out that someone already thought of the "preliminary results" thing: I went to code in a |prelim= switch in {{Canadian election result/top}} but it's already there, so if you add |prelim=yes to the header template a "preliminary results - not yet official" banner displays right below the header. It doesn't add categorization though. If there's consensus here I'll go ahead and do that, I'll just have to figure out how. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Official voting results for the October 2020 by-elections were published on February 1, 2021 ([7]). I made some corrections to the Toronto Centre by-election results template. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• As a follow-up on this, I went ahead and created Category:Canada election preliminary results, a hidden tracking category that is populated by the |prelim= switch in {{Canadian election result/top}}. It's not quite working how I intended just yet: the category contains the results templates as well as the articles that transclude them, but it's a start. It's also revealed a few articles from older elections that still have preliminary results in them, which should be updated. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Vote change with byelections

What's our standard for handling the vote change/swing in districts that have had a byelection? Do we compare to the byelection, or to the previous general election? I'm seeing it done both ways and want to be consistent. As an example, in Toronto Centre the Liberal candidate earned 50.2% last night (preliminary results), compared to 42.0% in the 2020 byelection, and 57.37% in 2019. For the 2021 results, do we say that's a gain of 8.2% (compared to 2020) or a loss of 5.37% (compared to 2019)? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In York—Simcoe, we compared the 2019 general election result to the results of the by-election that was held earlier in the year. PKT(alk) 18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Related: is the result in Fredericton (electoral district) a Liberal hold or a Liberal gain? The district voted Green in 2019 but the riding was represented by a Liberal at dissolution. And is the +/- the change in Jenica Atwin's vote or the Liberal Party's vote? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The results are compared to the previous election, so in Fredericton, it is a Liberal gain from the Greens, as the Greens won the seat in 2019. We should therefore compare to by-elections (as it's the previous election) unless there's been a redistribution, then we want to compare with the redistributed results it they're available (since it's preferable to compare the riding's results to the same geography).-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Should PPC be included in the 2021 Federal Election infobox?

They did not win any seats, but there was some discussion in the talk page that since they got 5% of the vote they should be included. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they should. The media covered them as they did the other, more electorally successful parties. This should be the primary guide regarding inclusion in the infobox of an election article.--User:Namiba 15:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they should be included. They were given broad national attention by the media, which really should be our only standard, but one might also argue that while they didn't win any seats, they gained significantly more votes than at least one party that did. Also, the box looks better as two lines of three rather than one line of three and one line of two. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they've hit the 5% threshold. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

An RFC on this matter, is being held on the talkpage of the 2021 Canadian federal election article. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Arrest of Meng Wanzhou

FTI Arrest of Meng Wanzhou has been proposed to be merged away. See Talk:Meng Wanzhou for the discussion -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

New template created to visualize National Topographic System map sheets

{{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} is a template I have created that links to a service that visualizes the extent of a National Topographic System map sheet. It draws a box on a map that corresponds to the exact extent of such a map sheet. Unfortunately, as there is no way we could cajole WikiMiniAtlas to show such an extent, I have instead had to link to an external site to implement this solution. It might prove helpful for people who would want to obtain NTS maps. I have also created {{Canada NTS Grid}} to calculate an NTS map sheet ID that contains a specified set of coordinates. I want to add {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} instances to articles that mention such map sheets. As an example, I have put it into the articles for Mount Logan and Mount Waddington. --  Denelson83  22:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Denelson83 has added two external links to the infoboxes of several Canadian cities. I have so far clicked on (and then deleted) these links on two articles. The first link is dead, and the second link is a satellite image with a huge square around the city. Infoboxes are already cluttered, and there are already links to several excellent satellite maps by clicking the Template:GeoTemplate in the infobox. Perhaps Denelson83 could just add their satellite map to that template? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That will not draw a box on the satellite map indicating the extent of the map sheet. That is what I want my template to do. You are going to have to first find a way to make that possible without me having to resort to an external web page. --  Denelson83  23:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have only checked a couple and notice the template needs tweaking. It needs to centre on the object and, ideally, have a place marker. I found this in the Whitehorse article. The city is in the top right but the map is centred on Fish Lake. The one for Innuit Mountain is here. The waterbody at the bottom right flowing out of the blue line is Nachvak Fiord / Nachvak Lake. Slightly to the northwest is a skinny lake called Chasm Lake and northwest of that is another skinny lake that I can't see a name for. Innuit Mountain according to the coordinates at Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB) is slightly southeast of Chasm Lake. Once the centring problem is fixed then it should be good. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} is to show the precise extent of a 1:50,000 scale NRCan NTS map sheet. The web page this template links to has an option to show tiles from OpenStreetMap's Carto service. What matters is that the referenced feature simply appears on that map sheet. --  Denelson83  07:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But if the thing being shown is neither tagged or centred then it serves no purpose. What is the item for this map? Is it supposed to be Hill Island or Farris Island or something else. It's not currently helping the reader. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

NTS map sheet 25N10 is named "Hill Island", in Nunavut just south of Iqaluit. When an NTS map sheet is mentioned in an article on a location, it simply indicates that that particular location is found on that particular NTS map sheet. The template I created is simply an NPOV way of showing the extent of that map sheet. Think of it as a sort of "preview". But again, that is the best I can come up with for this particular objective. If you can find a way to both visualize the extent of an NTS map sheet and plot a given feature's location on the map sheet on the same web page, I would certainly like to know about it, so I can improve the presentation. And centring a feature on an NTS map sheet has no logic to it. The boundaries of an NTS map sheet are fixed. Might you actually be suggesting to plot a location, centre it on the screen, and then draw the NTS map sheet extent around it? --  Denelson83  05:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Why did I not think to use <mapframe> with GeoJSON sooner? Maybe something like this would work? --  Denelson83  06:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of referring to paper NTS map sheets? That is so archaic. Does anyone still use this? Not really helpful to the project... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't know. Old maps are useful for historical research (it can be interesting in places like here [not Canada, in case anybody asks, but useful as matter of example]), and I assume that paper maps or digital scans thereof could still be useful to future historians too, but yeah, it's not much useful for an enyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Two types of election maps, being used in Canadian federal election articles

The 1867, 2011 to 2021 fed elections use one type of map. While the 1872 to 2008 fed elections use another type of map. Not sure how to fix this. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Reform Party of Canada - centre-right to right-wing or just right-wing?

Hi,

on the article, Reform Party of Canada, there appears to be a dispute (on the infobox) in which one group believes Reform was centre-right/right-wing while the other says it is just plain right-wing. There are only two citations that say Reform was centre-right while countless call it right-wing. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not centre-right. Centre-right is what happened after Reform merged away to create the Alliance. or the new Conservatives. Being to the right of the main conservative party means it was right-wing. Though, anything right of the absolute centre can be described as right-wing in any case. If the source is comparing the Reform party to U.S. political parties, then it would be soft-right in the U.S. context, or moderate/Rockerfeller/RINO Republican. Reform was to the right of all major parties at the time; the PC, the LIB, the BQ, the NDP, the SoCred. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reform didn't merge with anyone to create the Alliance. They merely changed their name to Alliance in 2000. Then in December 2003, Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives to create the Conservative Party. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall the merged with rebel PC senators, though my memory could be faulty. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll grant that they were "centre-right" relative to hard-right figures like Hitler or Mussolini, but they certainly weren't "centre-right" relative to centre-right figures like Joe Clark, Angela Merkel, Danny Williams, Tim Houston, David Cameron, Theresa May or Nelson Rockefeller. They weren't fascists by any means, but they certainly weren't moderate "progressive conservatives" either. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/reform-party-of-canada

https://thecanadaguide.com/government/political-parties/

Reform changed their name to Alliance in 2000, with the hopes of winning over Eastern Canadians. It didn't quite work out for them, as first they were caught off guard by a snap election in 2000 (shortly after their name change) & secondly, chose Stockwell Day as party leader, instead of Preston Manning. Kind of a backstabbing to the guy who brought them into existence. Eventually they'd replaced Day with Stephen Harper as leader. Then Alliance leader Harper & newly chosen PC leader Peter MacKay (who broke his word about no-merger & stabbed David Orchard in the back), agreed to unite the right & (depending how you look at) merged their parties to become the Conservative Party or dissolved their parties & the former members formed the Conservative Party, in December 2003. The result of the near reunified right (remember the BQ still exists), have given the Liberals a real opponent, since 1993. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Think we missed User:TheSunofman/User:QueensDivision adding this again...as an IP and now a new account ....Canadian Alliance had the same sockpuppet. Added real sources from years ago]Moxy- 02:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Which user are you accusing of being a sockpuppet? There are plenty of "real", and reliable sources stating the contrary as well. Cable10291 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What academic source?--Moxy- 20:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If you got time and are interested ... Talk:Reform Party of Canada#‎political position.--Moxy- 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Canadian Party colour templates: link to Alberta Non-Partisan League

Issue has come up about the entry for the Alberta Non-Partisan League in the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada/list of parties. The entry assigns the Non-Partisan League a pink colour, but when that code is used in an election result box, it links to the Nonpartisan League of North Dakota, rather than to the Alberta Non-Partisan League. The Alberta League nominated three candidates for the 1917 Canadian federal election. The entry for the League in the election results table showed the pink colour, but the link went to the North Dakota article. @Orangemike: has correctly fixed the entry so it links to the article on the Alberta League, but now the colour box is grey rather than pink. I have no idea how to correct the entry in the "Political parties" list so it will show the pink colour and link to the Alberta Non-partisan League. Could someone with technical skills take a look at it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks very much. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Trudeau infobox image

It appears that me and User:Angelgreat are in a dispute on which photo the Justin Trudeau infobox should have. The original photo was taken in 2019, then Angelgreat changed the photo to a 2021 image with him wearing a beard. I argue that the 2019 infobox photo should be kept.

• 
  Angelgreat's proposed infobox image (2021 with beard)
• 
  Original infobox image (2019)

Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the bearded image is the most recent and with the fact he currently has a beard seems better to use and thus is the best to use in the article. Angelgreat (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't currently have a beard. He shaved it off before the 2021 election. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Angelgreat He currently doesn't have a beard..................Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the current image is better. Beard aside, the pandemic hair he has in the newer photo isn't really representative of how he normally looks. By the way, shouldn't this discussion be at Talk:Justin Trudeau? – Anne drew 18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ak-eater06: I had a conversation with other editors two months ago about this exact thing, at Talk:Justin_Trudeau/Archive_2#Infobox_photo_change?. We came to the conclusion that the 2019 image was the highest quality image that represents Trudeau's current appearance. Also, the 2021 photo is artificially upscaled, which makes it look rather fake in my opinion. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As others have already clarified. He shaved off the mustach & beard, in preparation for the 2021 campaign. Not sure if he'll grow them back. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What was odd was his beard made international news....do a Google search .... Justin beard... BBC.Moxy- 01:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A strong resemblance to a young Fidel Castro, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

We do not have a rule that current photos are preferred over older photos in infoboxes. The rule is that the photo has to be Justin, not that it has to be recent. So "this image is more recent than that one" has nothing to do anything. And since he's shaved the beard again anyway, it isn't even reflective of his current appearance at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General) and DISPLAYTITLE woes

I can't get the title of Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General) to display properly if I also include {{Infobox SCC}}, which I'd like to do. {{DISPLAYTITLE}} works fine on its own but conflicts with some intricate parameter of {{Infobox SCC}} when I include both, with the result that (Attorney General) appears unitalicized in the title, although it should be italicized like the rest of the words in the name of the case. Any ideas? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Add an "italic_title = no" line to the infobox. That will break Infobox SCC's automatic formatting of the title, so that DISPLAYTITLE will work on its own. Essentially, the problem here is that because the final "Attorney General" is in parentheses, the infobox is automatically presuming that it's present as a disambiguator, rather than as a core part of the title — so what you want to do is shut down the title formatting function in the infobox so that DISPLAYTITLE will override it. (I ran into the same problem with the short film Biidaaban (The Dawn Comes) in 2019.) Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) Seems this infobox doesn't allow for an italic_title = no param, and I am not competent enough to edit {{Infobox SCC}} myself to provide for one, so I've gotten around it by switching on the noerror param on {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Not especially elegant, but gets the job done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the infobox coding has the "| italic title = {{{italic title|<includeonly>yes</includeonly><noinclude>no</noinclude>}}}" line in it, so it clearly does permit that. But whatever works. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it was the underscore; |italic title=no worked. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Annamie Paul

Has she already resigned as leader of the Green Party of Canada? or is she remaining leader until her successor (interim or permanent) is chosen? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

CTV News is the only source I've seen to be explicit with this: The embattled Green Party leader announced Monday that she’s started the process of withdrawing from the role … Even aside from that, though all other the sources are careful to say she is resigning rather than has resigned (which suggests she's staying on until a successor is selected or maybe just that there's a process to go through). So I think it's safe to say she's still the leader for the time being, albeit an outgoing one. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Kawnhr here - she has announced that she is going to resign, but has not yet. She may stay on until her successor is chosen, or she may leave the position vacant, but no sources are saying for certain nor really saying much of anything about it at this point. Much the same way that Wade MacLauchlan announced his resignation immediately following the 2019 Prince Edward Island general election (on April 26, 2019) but remained leader of the Liberal Party until Robert Mitchell replaced him on May 8. Then Mitchell resigned, then Sonny Gallant resigned; the party still hasn't elected a permanent successor. Given her statement it seems kind of likely that she will just walk away, but I'm sure it will become clear(er) within a few days. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe Gallant is 'still' the interim leader of the PEI Liberal Party. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Political Spectrum Clarity

Is it true that the political spectrum positions are based solely on the country's spectrum or is it worldwide? If the former, I don't see why a note shouldn't be next to all positions to make it clear to readers. I have been confused about this, and I would believe many non-registered users are too. Cable10291 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

10,000 Challenge fifth anniversary

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

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Any source of Stephen Harper's infobox political affiliation?

It says in his infobox he was a Reformer until 1997 and then left the party. Also says he joined the Canadian Alliance in 2002. Need sources please, as it would be weird if he left the party in '97 and then suddenly joined back in 2002. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

He became leader of the Alliance in 2002. Not sure of the date switches, but he certainly crossed the aisle at some point.[8] - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No need to jam infobox with sources from the article [9] MOS:CITELEAD.Moxy- 19:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Moxy I know but I'm wondering if there are any sources that says he left Reform in 1997 and he joined the Alliance in 2002. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Smith, Jordan Michael. "Reinventing Canada: Stephen Harper's conservative revolution." World Affairs, vol. 174, no. 6, Mar.-Apr. 2012, pp. 21+. Gale Academic OneFile. ". too strenuous for Harper, and he left Reform in 1997 to head a right-wing ...".Moxy- 12:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought he changed from Reform to Alliance (in 2000), when the party he was a member of, changed its name. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"In 1993 Harper became the Reform member of Parliament for Calgary West. He resigned that seat in 1997 to head up the National Citizens Coalition lobby group ( From 1998 to 2002, Stephen Harper served as NCC president).. In 2002 he succeeded Stockwell Day as the leader of the Canadian Alliance party (becoming leader of the Opposition), then resigned that post in 2004 to become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada"[10].Moxy- 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

John A. Macdonald article

On John A. Macdonald, there appears to be a dispute in the last paragraph on in the lead. It says "Macdonald has come under criticism for the Chinese Head Tax"...............the Chinese Head Tax was definitely a racist policy, however, it was considered normal at the time. I removed that sentence and kept the Residential Schools part, though my edit was reverted. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why this has been brought here. If there's going to be a general discussion about edits to a specific page, the Talk page for that article is the starting point. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reckon the Macdonald article, isn't on many editors' watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The full text you removed begins with "In the 21st century, ..." and describes modern criticism of Macdonald and the Chinese Head Tax, as the criticism is written about in the article. Whether or not it was "normal" in the 1860s is not relevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I feel as though I may have to refer to this diff, the criticism over the Chinese Head Tax was added to the lede on August 31, 2019: Special:Diff/913281914. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ya'll can figure it out for yourselves. I'll leave it both your hands. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Dollar symbol and MOS requirement to identify dollar except US dollar

MOS:CURRENCY guidance is "In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier" such as Can$. There is an exception for "articles entirely on US-related topics" that can use $. The Canadian Style (5.26 Other considerations) recommends that dollar amounts should be distinguished from one another by some easily understood marker. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Why doesn't first mention of U.S. money have to have "US" put in front of it?--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC); edited 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Jag Bhaduria

While updating election results tables I came across the biography of Jag Bhaduria, which when I found it was just a complete mess of BLP-violating content posted with no extant sources. I completely overhauled the article over a couple days, however there are some sources I can't access, and what's left is basically an entirely negative BLP. I'd appreciate if I could get some more eyes on it, and if anyone has a subscription to the Hill-Times I can give you a few more articles to review. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The article should mention some of the various court cases in which he was involved, including one at the Supreme Court of Canada ([11]). A few others: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. That's a sampling, not intended as an exhaustive list. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem with those is we can't use court cases themselves as reliable sources, and I haven't been able to find any third-party sourcing for them other than the OCT confirming that his suspension was upheld. I would like to add more detail about those, though. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

What does OCT stand for? Anyway, here are a couple of reliable sources (behind paywall, but many public libraries have free access for cardholders):

• Virginia Galt (1997-02-28). "High court upholds Bhaduria firing: Teachers held to stiffer standard of conduct inside and outside classroom". The Globe and Mail. p. A12.
• "Top court won't review Bhaduria case". The Globe and Mail. CP. 1999-12-03. p. A11.

Mathew5000 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Idlout

According to a page on peoplepill.com, a site so unreliable that I can't even provide the link here because it's blacklisted and thus I can't save any edit that actually includes it, newly elected MP Lori Idlout is the granddaughter of Inuit hunter Joseph Idlout. But I can't seem to find any better source that says the same. Additionally, if this is true it would also make her a relative of singer Lucie Idlout, but I can find no indication of whether that would make Lori and Lucie sisters or cousins either.

Can anybody help figure this out? Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Lori Idlout's mother's name is Carmen Idlout ([19]) though not sure whether that's a birth name or married name. Lucie Idlout's mother's name is Leah ([20]) so it's fair to conclude that Lucie and Lori are not sisters. I couldn't find any reliable source saying whether Lori Idlout is related to Joseph Idlout. She's pretty accomplished in her own right, so if she is related to Joseph it would just be trivia anyway. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The family connections of anybody who has a Wikipedia article are essentially always trivia, because they always have a Wikipedia article because of their own accomplishments rather than because of who they're related to per se. But that doesn't stop us from noting that notable people have notable relatives, if and when we can source the fact properly, for anybody else. Bearcat (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Louis St. Laurent

Hi, I'm looking to expand the Louis St. Laurent article, as it does seem a bit short for a guy who served as PM for eight and a half years. Any suggestions on how to expand the article? Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Go to a library and get some history books for the period. St Laurent was pre-internet by a long shot, so the resources on-line for him are not as good as for more recent PMs. Two books you might want to check out are Mr Prime Minister by Bruce Hutchison (dated, but Hutchison was writing as a contemporary of St Laurent), and Granatstein's book on ranking the Prime Ministers. Granatstein in turn may give you pointers for other texts or articles to check out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr Prime Minister is at the Internet Archive here; Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada's Leaders is here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm a techno-dinosaur.  :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• List of books about prime ministers of Canada....Patrice Dutil, ed. (1 November 2020). The Unexpected Louis St-Laurent: Politics and Policies for a Modern Canada. UBC Press. ISBN 978-0-7748-6405-3. OCLC 1244170552.
• Louis St-Laurent and Canada’s Golden Age cbc.ca/archives .--Moxy- 14:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That is one of the flaws in the Wikipedia project — people whose notability was accrued pre-internet very often have much shorter and lesser-quality articles than people who are still present in the contemporary news cycle, simply because Wikipedians tend to just search Google for sourcing, and toss up whatever they can find in a casual web search, instead of actually putting in the effort to do traditional library research. (And conversely, precisely because sourcing contemporary figures is so easy and Googly, their articles tend much more to get bogged down in trivia that doesn't really need to be in a Wikipedia article at all, such as every individual time an MP shows up at a community event to hand over a giant plastic novelty cheque representing a government funding announcement.) But there are definitely books that can be used for St. Laurent, and archived newspaper coverage from his own time that can be found on microfilms or in news databases like Newspapers.com or ProQuest — he just won't Google as well as Justin Trudeau does, simply because very little of his sourcing would be web-published contemporary news coverage from the 2010s and 2020s. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Great project, I have a history degree and have noticed the same thing but have been a bit stuck on how to improve relevant articles, because I already run into this issue of notability and sources - I have been trying to address the deficit of articles about non-profits/charities in Canada, and it is really tough. News articles about most of them are not what many editors consider "noteworthy" and in many cases what media sources did exist are no longer available because newspapers or broadcasters no longer host them. I have tried to explain that for such organizations, a hundred "little" references is very notable, because they are not celebrities or video game makers, their work doesn't get recognized with stories that feature the organizations themselves (unless we think of 80,000 charities we should only have articles about a handful of huge charities). Anyway, I digress. I know a little about PM St Laurent so I will also take a look myself. He was a unifying force, nationally, and very active internationally. He is not very well known, but objectively, could be seen as one of the greatest PMs. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

United Way East Ontario

I created Draft:United_Way_East_Ottawa which should have been published originally, but I got tagged as COI (totally not the case) and the article has been languishing for months. It is pretty straightforward. It is one of the biggest charitable organizations in the country, but because it went into the review process, I've got editors wrongfully suggesting it shouldn't be an article because it is a "branch" (untrue) or because it lacks notability. If someone could help me out by reviewing it and approving it (and changes of course if needed) that would be great. I would like to have it off my list and off my mind, if I can't successfully publish an article about an obviously notable organization, I must be totally useless. I know getting drafts approved can take time, but this is way beyond the average. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It was draftified, and since then has been declined as a draft three times. You resubmitted it just one week ago. This is certainly not "way beyond the average". As the template says, This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,724 pending submissions waiting for review.

As for a possible COI issue, you are declared as a paid editor on LiveWorkPlay, another Ottawa charity, you've declared that your "boss is a volunteer board of directors, and your paid duties include "communications work". I note that you are not following the proper procedure for editing an article ( LiveWorkPlay) in which you have a conflict of interest. I am not at all surprised if the possibility of a COI in this new topic (another Ottawa charity) was raised. Meters (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Meters Why are you talking about the LiveWorkPlay article? It was successfully published, and yes, I had to work through understanding the COI and paid editor policies. What does that have to do with what I am asking for help with here? I want help with the issue at hand - I AM NOT IN A COI with United Way East Ontario. I should NOT have been declared as such - without even an opportunity to discuss it - and your response that my concern about the article at hand and being wrongfully labeled COI has something to do with a different article is NOT what the Teahouse is supposed to be about. Your response doesn't make sense. For the record, I never tried to hide my relationship to LiveWorkPlay. I was a new user who was learning the right declarations to make. Am I to be punished forever and labeled COI forever for any article I write about a charity? I don't work for United Way, I've never been paid by United Way, and no one has explained why I am in COI - so thanks for your non-help and making this a further negative experience. I am simply trying to publish an article about a notable organization in a section of Wikipedia that has a huge deficit of articles. Iamthekanadian (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make this a negative experience. I am trying to help. You asked a question about submittals of drafts and I gave you an answer. One week since your last submittal is far from "way beyond the average". Wait for someone to review it. As I quoted, it might take seven weeks or even longer.

I did not say that you had a conflict of interest in the UnitedWay article. You appeared to be complaining about COI questions relating to this article, and I was simply explaining why such concerns might have been raised, given your COI with a closely related topic and your current lack of compliance with WP:COI. If no-one raised a COI issue with regards to the United Way article then why are you claiming that it was delayed by a COI issue? If you simply chose not work on it while you dealt with the COI issue with the other article, that was your choice, not our doing.

Perhaps you should read WP:COI again. You seem to be saying above that it only applies to paid editing. That is not correct. And you should not be directly editing LiveWorkPlay since you have declared a conflict of interest in that article. Meters (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are so many articles about Premiers of Alberta either featured or good articles?

Don't know if this belongs here, but it amazes me that there are 9 articles about 9 Premiers of Alberta that are either featured or good articles. Alexander Cameron Rutherford, Arthur Sifton, Charles Stewart, Herbert Greenfield, John Edward Brownlee, Richard Gavin Reid, Harry Strom, Don Getty and Ed Stelmach. I understand these are highly detailed and they deserve this, but I'm wondering what's behind Wikipedia crowning these as good/featured articles? Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Purely the editors that focus on those articles. I have the same scheme with road articles; the entire country has 230 articles that are B-class or higher, and 200 of them are articles that I took through the processes, all from Ontario. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you wish the FA & GA tags to be removed from those bio articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay No, just curious why. Also in my opinion Ernest Manning needs a lot work, he literally was premier for 25 years 🤣 (hopefully I can tackle that project sometime this week). Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe much of the work to get them to that state was done by User:Steve Smith (see articles authored for info). All it takes is someone with a passion for a subject and the willingness to take the articles through the GA, peer review, and FA process. Mindmatrix 18:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Input requested at Slavery in Canada

We could use some knowledgeable eyes on this to help clarify (if necessary) the long-standing wording using "Canada" (much of the content predates the formation of Canada in 1867. See Talk:Slavery_in_Canada#Supposed_confusion_over_the_use_of_"slavery_in_Canada"_in_this_article There's an ANI thread about the seeming tag teaming, but the concern with the article has some merit and needs to be discussed. We may even need to rename the article. Meters (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Responded. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet shuffles

I have a quick question I wanted to ask about 2021 Canadian cabinet reshuffle (which is not about the post-election shuffle that just happened a few minutes ago, but the minor mini-shuffle back in January when Navdeep Bains resigned from the cabinet). Namely, do we really necessarily need a standalone article about every cabinet shuffle that happens, or should we apply an importance test to distinguish cabinet shuffles that warrant articles from cabinet shuffles that don't?

The question, to me, is one of context: I can imagine a cabinet shuffle having such unusual impact that it would pass the ten year test for enduring significance as a standalone topic in its own right, but I certainly don't see how every cabinet shuffle automatically passes that sniff test. If all PMJT does is move around one or two people because of external circumstances like a cabinet minister resigning or dying in office, then I don't see how that's an important topic for us to maintain an article about — if a shuffle has more impact, such as the 2019 shuffle that moved Jody Wilson-Raybould from Attorney General to Veterans Affairs and then blew up in JT's face, then I can imagine plausible grounds for a Wikipedia article, but (a) this isn't that, and (b) that doesn't have an article at all.

So should I just nominate this and 2018 Canadian cabinet reshuffle (which still isn't the JWR one) for deletion on the grounds that they're not really notable topics, or are there valid grounds for keeping them that I'm just not seeing? Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've no objections to deleting those articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW there are articles for UK shuffles (eg: 2021 British cabinet reshuffle), so these articles aren't without precedent. Even so, I struggle to see the need for such articles; I do think it's useful to note when a shuffle happens, and to explicitly mention who joined or left, but I think it would do better to be included on 29th Canadian Ministry. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've listed them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Canadian cabinet reshuffle. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoodoo Mountain FAC

Hoodoo Mountain has been nominated for FA. Comments are needed. Volcanoguy 20:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Still looking for comments..... Volcanoguy 17:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Eskimo has an RfC

There is currently a RfC at Talk:Eskimo over the lead of the article, participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for MPs term end date

The infoboxes for retired/defeated MPs (such as Kenny Chiu and Peter Kent and Bob Saroya) show that their term ended on the dissolution of parliament date, which was August 15, 2021. However, User:Instant Comma believes that it should show September 19, or September 20, as shown for Catherine McKenna on this website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/catherine-mckenna(88892)/roles.

So should the end of term date be August 15, 2021 or September 19/20 2021? Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As I understood it. We always used the election date (in this case Sep 20, 2021), as the ending/begining of the outgoing/incoming MPs' tenures. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay okay, but Instant Comma is still not listening. He makes the case that it should say September 19 (his reasoning is because it shows on the parliament website) rather than September 20th. There is still a dispute here. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Best we call in @Bearcat: for this one. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The traditional consensus of Wikipedians was to use the writ drop, not election day. I'm not insisting that it has to stay that way, and I've explained the complexities of the situation below, but the existing consensus has been writ drop, not election day. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is that there are three different competing views out there in the world about how to denote the end of an MP's term:

1. Dissolution: Because parliament is dissolved during an election, and thus there's no sitting parliament for people to actually be members of, an MP who isn't returned to parliament (either because they were defeated or because they just didn't reoffer) in the new election ceased to be an MP at the writ drop.
2. Election day: An MP who isn't returned to parliament ceases to be an MP only on election day itself.
3. Last full day: An MP who isn't returned to parliament ceases to be an MP on the last full day before election day.

The complicating factor, of course, is that you can find sources out there following all three of these practices. Strictly speaking, there's no officially right or wrong answer to this question — there's no law that stipulates that an outgoing MP's term ends on this date or that, so you see different sources doing all three of those things depending on their own preferred interpretation of the nuances and complexities.

And by the same token, although you don't see option #1 applied to prime ministers, you do still see a slightly different version of the "2 or 3?" issue — an outgoing PM continues to hold the role in a caretaker capacity until the new PM is actually sworn in by the GG a couple of weeks after election day, and does not cease to be PM either with a writ drop or the moment the media declare that somebody else won the election, but the question still comes up as to whether to denote the outgoing PM's term as ending the same day their successor was sworn in to replace them, or the last full day before their successor was sworn in to replace them.

Accordingly the debate about how to denote the end of an outgoing MP's term has come up here in the past, and consensus at that time was to go with the dissolution date. Yet, of course, even if there was an official consensus to follow one particular practice, you'll almost certainly find some Wikipedia articles where an editor did something different and it just didn't get noticed by other editors (let's face it, Wikipedia does not have a good quality control process to ensure that all of our articles are consistent!)

So I'm certainly not wedded to the idea that we have to keep doing it that way — I don't have any strong opinions about which of those practices we should use here, other than the fact that whatever we decide to do we need to be consistent about it. But because the consensus in the past was to use the dissolution date, if there's a consensus to change to a different date there are a lot of MP's articles that would need to be gone through to have their end dates changed. If there's one thing we really shouldn't be doing, it's changing the end date on Kenny Chiu and Peter Kent but not on Adam Vaughan or Bob Bratina or Paul Lefebvre. Either we make and follow through on a commitment to comprehensively review every article we have about every historical Canadian MP to ensure that the end date is changed to whatever the new consensus date is across the board, or we shouldn't change the consensus at all — because being inconsistent and messy about this is a much more mortal and unforgivable sin than just not using the date Instant Comma prefers. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've always went with the 'election date', as the end of the term. Otherwise, we'd have re-elected MPs with gaps between their consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't start "new" offices for reelected MPs, unless their riding got redistributed so that they were reelected in a different riding than the one they'd left — if an MP is reelected to the same office, then we just treat the whole thing as one continuous term rather than breaking it up into two or three single-election offices. The issue only comes up if an MP's time in Parliament ends completely, so that they're not a member of the new parliament at all or if they were reelected but the riding changed due to a redistribution. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I will clarify my position, which seems to have been misinterpreted above. (1) There is no date that "Instant Comma prefers." It can be September 20 or September 19 or August 15 as far as I'm concerned. My only preference is that we follow the sources. I've cited sources. Some others who have contributed to this discussion have not. (2) I did not take a consistent practice and make it inconsistent. When I went through to change the dates, some said August 15, even more said September 20, and one said September 21. It was already inconsistent; I was trying to make it consistent. (3) In my view, it is better to be inconsistently right, and moving toward being consistently right, than to be consistently wrong. If the correct date is the date of the election (or the date before), we should be moving toward that, rather than insist on keeping the wrong date just because that's what we've done in the past. For Bearcat, being inconsistent is the "mortal and unforgivable sin." For me, providing wrong information is a bigger problem. Instant Comma (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern is consistency. Go with whatever we've been doing these last few years. PS: IMHO, option 2 (election day) should be used, but I'm not going to open an RFC over it. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that "date of the writ drop" is "wrong" information. You're free to have an opinion about which date we should use, but there is a genuine legal basis for the position that an MP's term ends with the writ drop — like I said, I don't even have a strong opinion one way or the other about that, and all I was doing was explaining the situation — so you're not free to just arbitrarily label it as "wrong". Stick to providing reasons why we should reconsider the existing consensus, rather than calling it "wrong" per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an "opinion about which date we should use" - and if I had an opinion, that would be irrelevant. I would like us to use the correct information (even if that correct information is that an MP's term ends when the writs are issued) and avoid using incorrect information on the specious argument that it's better to be wrong and consistent than right and inconsistent. So how do we know what is correct and what is incorrect? On Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. This should be a discussion of reliable sources, not an exchange of opinions. Instant Comma (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This topic should cover members of the provincial & territorial legislatures, as as well. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet members

A related topic. When does a cabinet member's tenure end? On election day (if they have ran for or lost re-election as MP, MLA etc) or when they actually resign. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the Interpretation Act, a minister's tenure ends the day before the next minister takes office. Ministers don't need to be MPs. Instant Comma (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose the 'day before' application to these bios. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's correct that a minister doesn't necessarily have to be an MP (remember, Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew were parachuted into cabinet from the outside, and thus were cabinet ministers before they became MPs, and I don't remember the guy's name off the top of my head but Harper also tried to appoint a senator as a cabinet member at some point although I don't think it lasted very long). There's also the concept of the caretaker government, which explains how this kind of thing can happen. So cabinet ministers work like prime ministers, not like MPs: a cabinet minister continues to hold the role until such time as their successor is sworn in to replace them, even if the person technically isn't an MP at all anymore. And even if a cabinet minister resigns or dies, the PM doesn't typically leave the role unfilled for weeks at a time, but announces their replacement within a day at most, so even that doesn't really pose much of an issue. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a style guide for Indigenous Canadian topics?

As an Australian editor, I started compiling a style guide for referring to Australian Indigenous peoples and related topics a couple of years ago (see here and here if interested to see what I'm aiming at), as I have found that many of the standard WP rules and guidelines (in particular capitalisation) don't work for what is now standard Australian usage. It has just occurred to me to consult you lot to see if you have any peculiarly Canadian style guides to follow with regard to Indigenous Canadians. I see a few discussions in your archives by searching on Aboriginal, but being a bit short of time just at the moment just thought of asking here as a shortcut. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, there's this online. In print form, there's this, and I believe the Canadian Press Stylebook also contains guidance. Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cobblet, I will have a read of those out of interest, but I am mainly interested in whether Canadian Wikipedians had developed anything for guidance on Wikipedia, relating to local usage. There are quite a lot of external online MOSes for Australian usage, but as non-Indigenous Australians, non-Australian editors and Australian editors with little familiarity with these recommended or common usages also edit, and there is nothing on the standard MOS and WP pages about, e.g. capitalisation with regard to Indigenous peoples and related terminology, I thought it would be a good idea to develop one (after discussion and consensus of course) so that it is easy to consult for all editors. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions here and there over the years, but I don't think everything's ever been collected in one place. You may have better luck searching for Indigenous rather than Aboriginal as we avoid using the latter term in Canada these days. Consider also looking through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Cobblet (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a Wikipedia-specific style guide for indigenous topics at present, although a section for indigenous issues could certainly be added to WP:CANSTYLE if anybody has any ideas for the kinds of things that could potentially be written in it. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker first paragraph leads

Notice how for these two articles, the first sentence of their first paragraphs in their leads start differently than all of the other 21 Prime Ministers.

John A. Macdonald

Sir John Alexander Macdonald[a] GCB PC QC (10 or 11 January 1815[b] – 6 June 1891) was the first prime minister of Canada (1867–1873, 1878–1891).

John Diefenbaker

John George Diefenbaker PC CH QC FRSC FRSA (/ˈdiːfənˌbeɪkər/; September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was the 13th prime minister of Canada, serving from 1957 to 1963.

As compared to all the other ones:

__________ was a Canadian politician who served as the __ prime minister of Canada.

Why is this the case? Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

By all means add "Canadian politician", to the intros of Macdonald & Diefenbaker. PS - For the Canadian prime ministers who were born in the UK? I wish we'd use "British-Canadian" & birthplace UKGB. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, well, User:Wehwalt said it's because these are featured articles (I tried to change Diefenbaker's intro to "Canadian politician" and he reverted it, citing that reasoning). Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"It's a featured article", isn't a strong enough excuse, not to conform to consistency. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

More italics woes: parentheses in title of statutes

There are several articles in the style: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (specifics). However, when the "italictitle" template is used in the article, the name of the article renders as An Act to amend the Criminal Code (specifics). Is there any way to fix this? For examples, see the articles listed at An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

For this, {{DISPLAYTITLE:''[article name]''}} works fine. See Special:Diff/1052427488 as one example. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed the articles on the dab page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Dawson Creek FAR

I have nominated Dawson Creek 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is "Anything But Conservative" a notable topic?

Is Anything But Conservative, the strategic voting tactic, a topic worthy of its own article? My gut feeling is no, since it is not really an organized campaign and just handwringing and tactical considerations by some of the electorate (with the exception of Danny Williams' ABC campaign, but that can be incorporated into the relevant page[s] easily). But I wanted to ask the project before moving to AFD, in case there is something here and it just keeps massive clean-up and expansion. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd merge it into the Canadian federal election article, it relates to. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that it's notable enough to warrant mention in the relevant other articles, but it's not notable enough to warrant its own separate article as a standalone topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Good

Hi. I'm having a problem over at Matthew Good with another editor who refuses to allow the fact that he was dropped from his label for allegations of abuse in the lead. The topic is dealt with later in the article and is heavily cited. I asked the editor to take it to the talk page, but he ignored me an reverted me. Before it escalates into an edit war, I was hoping some other eyes could weigh in on the subject. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor-in-question, has very infrequently visited the 'pedia, in the last six years. Quite likely, a different person using the account. IMHO, the editor-in-question should be 'given' a warning & then blocked, if warning isn't heeded. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, not looking at the history of the article, this seems undue to be in the lead. It's a single paragraph in the article, and everything else is covered more heavily. The lead should summarize the article's main points, and I'm not entirely sure this counts as one of the main points of the article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Having had a look at the references, I agree with Canterbury Tail and the 'other' editor. But the debate should be on the article's talk page - I will post there as well. Cheers, PKT(alk) 22:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that it's not the kind of thing that needs to be highlighted in the introduction as if it were one of the most centrally important facts in his entire career. The information is already covered and properly contextualized and referenced later in the article, and Renfreak hasn't been removing it from there — but there's no need to call undue attention to it right in the lede. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the editor-in-question has reverted again. Choosing (again) to ignore going to the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Without names (to whom we shall offend), the article should not include the allegations, lede or not, until they are proven. As per MOS:BLP, "Unless the event is highly significant and the individual's role was substantial and well-documented.", (emphasis mine), they are unsubstantiated claims. Allegations are worth the value of the paper they are written upon. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought the allegations should only be included to explain why he was dropped from his label. It did make national news. That's why I thought it should be in the lead and the article. It affected his ability to publish music, which is what he was known for, along with his advocacy of mental health, from which he was dropped. However, if the consensus is that it should be removed, let's remove it. I'm not a stickler on whether it should be in the article/lead, just the other editor refused to discuss and before I got into an edit war with the individual, I wanted clarity. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not @Renfreak:'s edit was correct, isn't my worry. It's that since his 'return?', he only focused on that 'one' article & wouldn't communicate about his changes either on the article's talkpage or his own talkpage. Note: He hasn't edited anything, since his last revert was left standing. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

2000 Election help

I made a line graph of opinion polls here. Problem is, on the x axis the dates are messed up. How to solve this?

Pinging User:GoodDay on this.

Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is your post, mis-signed? I've always viewed having polls shown in election articles (where the election has already held), as being redundant. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Can leads have five paragraphs?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On John A. Macdonald I find it weird that a bit of his early life is on the first paragraph ("Macdonald was born in Scotland..."), I'm wondering if it's okay to split that part up and make it another paragraph in the lead? The lead would now have five paragraphs rather than four. Not to mention that there are also plenty of other articles, such as Pierre Trudeau, whose leads have five. Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind I figured it out. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PET - to bold or not to bold?

On Pierre Trudeau, in the first paragraph of the lead, it says, "also referred to by the initials "PET"......" Shouldn't PET be bolded? Articles like Franklin D. Roosevelt for example have FDR bolded. I always thought initials should be bolded. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, you're an experienced editor so pinging you on this. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I bolded it, per US Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson's intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

More watchers at Meric Gertler

The page of the president of the University of Toronto could use some more eyes from active editors in related wiki projects. The short desc of this BLP was vandalized in this edit on September 14, so that when you Googled Meric Gertler the infobox scraped from Wikipedia proclaimed that he is a "Canadian academic university administrator and neoliberal shill". That's sophisticated and potentially high impact vandalism that wasn't noticed until today, almost 2 months later. The page has also been the subject of very long-simmering disputes over language related to the University of Toronto's investments in the fossil fuels industry. It would be good have more page watchers. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Goods and services tax - to capitalize or not to capitalize?

Goods and services tax (Canada)

Spelt Goods and Services Tax or goods and services tax? Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay your thoughts on this? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's often abbreviated as GST rather then Gst, so I would assume the former. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do about municipal party colours

I've been going through a lot of election pages lately, tidying up the colour codes, when I noticed something about BC and Quebec's municipal elections. In the cities that have local parties, those parties have colours assigned to them in the results tables… but those colours aren't generated with the usual {{Canadian party colour}}, but generated manually with hex codes. For example, check 2018 British Columbia municipal elections and 2017 Quebec municipal elections.

I feel this is probably not the best way to handle this; using hex codes directly is more complicated (or at least harder to remember) and opens up the possibility of inconsistencies across pages. My thought is that these colour schemes should be edited into the list that the template draws from, since they're in already use. But then I wondered if their absence was intentional, since municipal party politics can be volatile… in which case, perhaps the colours should be removed from these pages?

So I'll ask the project how these colours would be best handled:

1) Do nothing, leave them as-is;
2) Formalize these colours by coding them into {{Canadian party colour}}. New jurisdiction codes for Burnaby, Gatineau, etc.;
3) Remove these bespoke colours and use the independent colour (light grey) for all cities that don't have their own schemes;
4) Some combination of the above.

— Kawnhr (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

My vote is to either ignore them or do away with the use of branding-matched colouring. Also see this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color. --Dan Carkner (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Ignore them, the accessibility nightmare that is colour usage means its best just to leave as regular text so users can override with their own various access settings. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If the party colours are an accessibility nightmare, should they be removed project wide? For federal and provincial lists as well? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If it were me, I would just ignore them, not use them in articles I was writing, and mention that they are bad when it comes up. But I wouldn't invest time in trying to remove them, because in my experience people who like them will spend just as much time adding them back. Just my feeling about it, though. As for the accessibility, as far as I know they would not "break" screen readers or interfere with text to speech, they might cause problems visually, but as the user above has suggested the users may be able to disable them with their own settings. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who is responsible for the colours on both pages, I'm definitely in favour of just ignoring them, as I've spent quite a bit of work trying to research which colours to use. Because things are so volatile in municipal elections, I figure it's not worth while to update the Canadian party colour list, and it's also fairly time consuming. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. But as a follow-up, if these colours are 'unsanctioned' (for lack of a better word; I'm not trying to be dramatic!), then wouldn't it be better to remove them from the pages that use them? Just list the party affiliation, but with no corresponding colour? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How are they unsanctioned though? In all cases, I pull the colours directly off the party's website, facebook page, or failing that, their logo. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unsanctioned" in the sense they're not available in {{Canadian party colour}}. Sorry for the confusion. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, I'd prefer they stay, especially for the cases where I've included the council results as well. Though, in those instances you could argue they should be 'sanctioned'. If it's an issue, I can start adding the party's to the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other— and since you're the one who's been primarily managing {{Canadian party colour}}, I'm willing to defer to your judgment here. I only brought this up because I wasn't sure if others knew about the colours on these pages (ie: that they were being added with a hex code, and not generated by the template), since municipal election pages are rather obscure. If it's all good, then don't mind me. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding region order

The Federal Electoral Districts – Representation Order of 2013 Lists PEI before Nova Scotia, then the Territories from west to east. The map follows a pure east-west progression for the provinces and then follows with the Territories from east-west. I didn't notice the difference until another editor reordered PEI and Nova Scotia before the election.

Would it be more logical to change the maps and article section order to match the RO? If it were just PEI this would seem a no-brainer. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that the Representation Order of 2013 lists the Territories from west to east. In fact, the Representation Order ([21]) does not mention the territories at all. However, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act ([22]) lists the Territories twice, in subsection 2(2) and section 30, both times using the order Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut. My view is, articles such as Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding should either list provinces alphabetically (per WP:MOSCAN#Content organization) or in the same order that Elections Canada uses in reporting the results (namely, NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YT NT NU [23]). The way it's arranged now in the Wiki article (NL NS PE NB QC ON MB SK AB BC NU NT YT) does neither of those. It's not necessarily true that an "east to west" order would put Nova Scotia before P.E.I., because Nova Scotia extends both further east and further west than P.E.I., and for that matter, Newfoundland and Labrador extends both further east and further west than Nova Scotia. Does Labrador reach even further west than the westernmost point of New Brunswick? I'm not sure, but it's definitely close. Our article 2012 Canadian federal electoral redistribution uses a west-to-east order in the tables but an alphabetical order in the listing. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Perplexed, I am

If anybody can explain to me what, @207.161.86.162: is trying to accomplish on Canadian political articles? I'll be quite happy. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to talk and contribs: 207.161.86.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -M.nelson (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay I too am confused. Judging by his contributions, I'd say about three quarters of his edits are related to deleting stuff rather than adding and actually contributing. Also he kinda butchered the Canadian Alliance article (gonna revise it now :P). Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We've a major problem & it's 207.161.86.162 -- GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay He seems to be deleting a lot of credible citations too. Might be a bit over the line but should we contact an admin to give him a warning? Barely any of his edits are good faith... Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You may want to report him to WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I don't really have any legitimate reason, even though some of his edits are awful. I'll wait for other users to comment on this issue (such as User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and User:Bearcat). Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Heh, look at his talk page. Lots and lots of warnings on there. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing unregistered tends to lead to a lot of warnings – many assume one to be a vandal. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

About 5 years ago this sort of tactic was used to change the infobox positions overtime. Just need to keep an eyeout. Best we follow more stringent verification ....statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.Moxy- 03:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely my concern. About 5 years ago this sort of tactic was used to change the infobox positions overtime. I would encourage you to assume good faith here, especially in light of the explanation I provided below. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume these six edits to Canadian Alliance to be those to which you're referring. These edits changed percentage signs used in prose to words, in line with the standard referenced by MOS:%. They fixed a typo (two periods where there should have been one). They added a wikilink to the term House of Commons the first time it was used. And they made changes to the "political position" of the Canadian Alliance.

I can explain the latter in further detail. The party was described as "centre-right to right-wing" in the infobox, the lead, and the body of the article. References were only located in the body (in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and MOS:LEADCITE). I made the following edits:

• My first edit was to remove the Rayside, Sabin & Thomas citation from the centre-right statement as there does not appear to be anything in the source suggesting that the party is centre-right. (I used the edit summary I don't see anything in this source that backs up the claim.)
• The next edit removed the Grenier and Harrison citations from the same statement as they also did not suggest that the Canadian Alliance was a centre-right party. The closest they came was using the term "right-of-centre", a term that could encompass anything from the centre-right party to the far-right. (I used the edit summary "right-of-centre" ≠ centre-right.)
• The third edit removed the "Canadian Political Parties" citation from the same statement as it only described the party as "right-wing". (Edit summary: Not in citation.)
• The remaining citations for the statement were Paikin, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Carson. Nowhere in the Encyclopædia Britannica or Carson references is the party described as "centre-right". And while Paikin at least uses the term "centre-right", he uses it in the phrase "in 2002, the centre-right forces in the country were split among the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Quebecois." Here, Paikin is speaking about the parties' bases of support, not the parties themselves, which is all the more evident given that the Bloc is generally recognized as a centre-left (or maybe centrist) party. Accordingly, I removed those three citations and removed the statement from the three places it had been in the article.

What about these edits leads you to believe the article was "butchered", Ak-eater06? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What? can you see the sources? Pls do a word search for each one. Think we should review any changes to political articles .....simply not the place for beginners.Moxy- 03:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I can, in fact, see the sources (including Carson, which is paywalled but available via JSTOR) and have done keyword searches. Is there a passage you think I missed, Moxy?

Think we should review any changes to political articles .....simply not the place for beginners. I'm not sure what leads you to believe me to be a "beginner", but in any case, review is always good and should always be done in the normal course of editing. If you think "beginners" should not be allowed, that's what WP:ECP is for, but I don't see how the protection policy would allow for its application. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm more than happy to address any particular edits. Most have related to copy-editing and verification. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop blanking sources [24].....we are here because of your changes. Going to review all the IP edits tomorrow.Moxy- 04:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I removed sources that failed verification. I went through each of those sources in painstaking detail above. So as I asked above, what is it in the sources you think I missed?

Going to review all the IP edits tomorrow. Did you review the edits before reverting? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a Failed verification template that should be used. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: we need you. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

A consensus that the Canadian Alliance in centre-right to right-wing rather than right-wing

User:GoodDay and also other Canadian users, please reply to this consensus. I need to show User:Vif12vf that the Canadian Alliance is centre-right to right-wing rather than right-wing. It was centre-right to right-wing before but he changed it to right-wing without any citation. Now he's threatening to report me.

He wants a consensus about this. Can we all agree that the Canadian Alliance is centre-right to right-wing? (to show this consensus to Vif12vf) Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: we need you. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not change it to right-wing, I simply reverted your edit, which btw was done improperly by adding "right-wing to centre-right" as a singular pipe leading to the article for Right-wing politics only, and not to the article for Centre-right politics. You also removed another pipe from the infobox without giving any kind of reason as to why! Furthermore, an unsourced item being in place does not justify swapping said item out with an equally unsourced item. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf It was always "centre-right to right-wing" before November 9th. I simply reverted it back to what it originally was. Pre-Nov. 9th, nobody had an issue. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Alliance&oldid=1051777135 Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be best (for now) to leave the article in its current (longstanding) state. Wait until Bearcat takes a look at it. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be easy to source just look up unite the right. Will do so when i have more time. I think we should make an article the "Canadian political Spectrum".. there's really a lot of basic stuff people seem to miss.Moxy- 03:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If that really is the case then explain these 3 things. 1, why did you not give a proper reason for re-adding this position? 2, why do you simply re-add the position without a single source to back it up? 3, why do you not re-add it properly as its own link, something you easily could have done by reverting to the earlier version where the position was present? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf There were multiple sources to back up the centre-right claim here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Alliance&oldid=1051777135#Ideology Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I know, but you didn't exactly re-add them like you could have did you? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you both figured it out. Got too much on my plate, at the moment. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf The citations are found in the infobox :) Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wrote the following in reply to Ak-eater06 in the section above explaining my edits:

I assume these six edits to Canadian Alliance to be those to which you're referring. These edits changed percentage signs used in prose to words, in line with the standard referenced by MOS:%. They fixed a typo (two periods where there should have been one). They added a wikilink to the term House of Commons the first time it was used. And they made changes to the "political position" of the Canadian Alliance.

I can explain the latter in further detail. The party was described as "centre-right to right-wing" in the infobox, the lead, and the body of the article. References were only located in the body (in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and MOS:LEADCITE). I made the following edits:

• My first edit was to remove the Rayside, Sabin & Thomas citation from the centre-right statement as there does not appear to be anything in the source suggesting that the party is centre-right. (I used the edit summary I don't see anything in this source that backs up the claim.)
• The next edit removed the Grenier and Harrison citations from the same statement as they also did not suggest that the Canadian Alliance was a centre-right party. The closest they came was using the term "right-of-centre", a term that could encompass anything from the centre-right party to the far-right. (I used the edit summary "right-of-centre" ≠ centre-right.)
• The third edit removed the "Canadian Political Parties" citation from the same statement as it only described the party as "right-wing". (Edit summary: Not in citation.)
• The remaining citations for the statement were Paikin, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Carson. Nowhere in the Encyclopædia Britannica or Carson references is the party described as "centre-right". And while Paikin at least uses the term "centre-right", he uses it in the phrase "in 2002, the centre-right forces in the country were split among the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Quebecois." Here, Paikin is speaking about the parties' bases of support, not the parties themselves, which is all the more evident given that the Bloc is generally recognized as a centre-left (or maybe centrist) party. Accordingly, I removed those three citations and removed the statement from the three places it had been in the article.

What about these edits leads you to believe the article was "butchered", Ak-eater06?

I think we have a duty to follow the sources here. If the preponderance of reliable sources suggest the Canadian Alliance to have been a centre-right to right-wing party then the language of the article should be left as-is in that regard and the appropriate sources added. If not, then "right-wing" – the same language we use to refer to the Reform Party of Canada – is the appropriate characterization. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop blanking sources and changing political positions [25]...Moxy- 04:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC).

You say that as though it's happened more than once. And as I said before, those sources were removed because they did not support the statement being footnoted. I have discussed those sources above in painstaking detail. I will ask for a third time, what in any of those seven sources supports the existing language? I looked reasonably thoroughly at all seven (including the one that was paywalled, as I have JSTOR access), but given that I am fallible as anyone else, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that I missed something. I keep asking what you think I missed to no avail. (Note: I removed the <big> tags in the preceding comment per WP:SHOUTING.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Should not be editing these articles if your not familiar with basic terms used in the field right-of-centre......off to bed....lots to review tomorrow.Moxy- 04:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying you didn't review the edits before reverting them? And without getting into my credentials, I can assure you I'm very familiar with the terms. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(ecx3)Yes reviewed....Intro reading ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what that sentence means. You're just copying and pasting the citations I posted here? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What? sources for education ....not same as yours. All said and done net negative waste of time.Moxy- 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I mistook them for the sources I posted as I just happened to have worked with almost all of those sources on another article within the past day. In any case, I certainly don't need an introductory textbook and I think you are being rather condescending. You have yet to substantively engage with the arguments presented and just keep repeating that this is unhelpful. Do you plan to give your view of the seven sources? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the second time now that you have substantially edited your comments after someone has replied to them. Can you please respect WP:TALK#REPLIED? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The basics Canada has what is sometimes called the “two party-plus” system. This means the country is usually dominated by two large parties — one of the left (broadly favouring social reform and activist government), and one of the right (broadly favouring social tradition and limited government) Historically, the Canadian two-party plus system has been dominated by the centre-left Liberal Party and a centre-right Conservative Party (that has gone by several different names). Ideologically, the Bloc is quite left-wing, perhaps unsurprisingly considering Quebec is said to be the most left-wing region in all of North America.Moxy- 06:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lee_Maracle_and_MOS:ETHNICITY

Watchers may be interested in this discussion I just started. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The Little Canadas

A few weeks ago, I moved an article from my draft workspace to Little Canada (attraction) and nominated it for DYK. A few days later, I was about to de-orphan it when I came across Little Canada (tourist attraction). The version I created was started on 17 August 2021‎ and moved to the main namespace on 30 October 2021‎. The other article was created directly in the main namespace on 30 August 2021‎. Questions:

• Which title should this article use?
• Should the articles be merged, or a simple redirect created?

I prefer the shorter title, but I'd rather leave this to editors not involved with either article to resolve. (A quick perusal of other article titles suggests there's an almost even split between the two disambiguators, with a slight preference for the shorter version.) I'd also rather not lose the editing history for either article, but depending on the title chosen and the way they are combined, this may not be possible. (I left the same question at DYK just over a week ago, but it has yet to be addressed, so I thought I'd ask here.) Once this issue is resolved, I'll work on de-orphaning the article. 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect Little Canada (tourist attraction) to Little Canada (attraction). All the content in Little Canada (tourist attraction) is already in Little Canada (attraction), and I agree that ceteris paribus a shorter title is better than a long one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect Little Canada (tourist attraction) to Little Canada (attraction), as the latter has more content and a shorter title, but integrate the references from the "tourist attraction" article into the other. PKT(alk) 16:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The only ref not yet included is the one from BlogTO, and I'd prefer not using that as a ref. Mindmatrix

It's been about three days, so I've made the changes as noted above. I will gladly revert if there are any issues that have yet to be identified. Mindmatrix 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Something for the techno editors to figure out

Check out this Template:

When you press the view button on the (above) template? you get directed to the template (below)

Figure that out, if you can. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your confusion here. The template {{Canada topic}} when used without a parameter gives the basic view (the second example you posted), whereas with a parameter, it creates more focused versions. In addition to the parameter 'Government of', other examples include: 'Economy of', 'Politics of', 'Education in', 'Transport in', 'List of communities in', and so on. To demonstrate:

The base template will always be {{Canada topic}}. Mindmatrix 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Election result by ridings templates

I went through the by-riding articles back through the 2000 election, making corrections where necessary, adding percentages, and otherwise bringing things up to the modern standard. I initially just edited the existing templates but partway through the 2004 article an editing glitch appeared where the template would update but the information displayed in the by-riding articles would not, and I was finally forced to just code the updated tables directly into the article and abandon use of the templates. I continued that practice with the 2000 election. Initially the glitch showed itself as slow updating of the templates when viewed from the by-riding article, eventually reaching the point that one template just would not updated even though one further along did so.

Could somebody take a look at the 2004 article and see if they can find out why the display glitch was occuring? I don't want to copy all the edited info into the template files if the problem hasn't been resolved. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Goldwyn or Goldwin?

I have a weird confusion re: Goldwyn Arthur Martin. His Order of Canada citation and a finding aid for his archives at the Law Society of Ontario say "Goldwin". But his obit in the National Post; an oral history from the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, which I generally trust to be reliable; and his bio from a quasi-official history of the Court of Appeal for Ontario say "Goldwyn". Ghits for "Goldwyn Arthur Martin" are much higher than for "Goldwin", but I am wary of citogenesis. Not sure how to verify which spelling is correct outside of a birth announcement/record, which idk how to find. Ideas? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

re-name the article "G. Arthur Martin".😉 That was how he was always referred to, maybe because no-one knew how to spell it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with Goldwin Arthur Martin. Have all 'three' names in english language. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Joking aside, wouldn't the principle of Wikipedia:Article titles / WP:COMMONNAME suggest the article should be named "G. Arthur Martin"? The National Post obit and the Criminal Defence Lawyers award that are cited in the article both refer to him that way, for example. Speaking personally, that's how I always saw him referred to in law journal articles and such. When I started reading your query, I was thinking "Who's Goldwyn Martin?" Then the lightbulb went on: "Oh, AleatoryPonderings is talking about G. Arthur Martin!" Doesn't solve the spelling problem when you want to give his full name in the article itself, but I would recommend a name-change for the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)

Agree that WP:COMMONNAME supports G. Arthur Martin as a title. I am going to do some additional research to find out what spelling is right … Fwiw there are more hits for Goldwin than Goldwyn in the Internet Archive, although there are very few of either. I tend to think "Goldwin" is right, although what rightness means in this context, without a truly official source, is sort of unclear. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just did a search on CanLII for "G. Arthur Martin" and got lots of hits, both when he was counsel and when he was on the Court of Appeal: CanLII search Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

He was born May 17, 1913, in Huntsville. Any chance someone could search for the local paper for a birth announcement? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No probs with G. Arthur Martin, if for no other reason then that it would remove the Goldwyn vs Goldwin dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Huntsville Forester appears not to have published birth announcements as of 1913 (although I did learn about some wonderful kidney pills praised from coast to coast). Not so much a "dispute" over the birth name as curiosity. Probably best to drop an {{efn}} alluding to the uncertainty, which I'll do in a bit. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's spelled "Goldwin" on his birth record but my thought is that it was likely spelled both ways throughout his life and nobody bothered to correct it to the right spelling. Connormah (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Amazing, Connormah. How on earth did you find that? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"Forget it Jake. It's Wikitown." 😀 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Governor General Mary Simon's visual image

Howdy. Wed definitely need a 'better' image for Mary M. Simon's & Governor General of Canada's infoboxes. The current image is too blurry. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alberta provincial electoral districts#Requested move 8 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alberta provincial electoral districts#Requested move 8 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 00:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Légaré

Those whose French is better than mine may wish to help expand this biography. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Cynitizen (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Non-english versions in infoboxes of provinces & territories

We've inconsistency across the provinces & territories on this topic. Along with the english version (which is required, of course), we've got Manitoba's infobox, which is a nightmare. Prince Edward Island & British Columbia (for examples), include the french version. Then there's Nova Scotia's infobox. Know what I mean? GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

When the name is the same in French as in English, it doesn't need repeating. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not again.....As per previous talk....completly misleading to make it seem the provinces are officially multilingual....one of the most missused parameters Name in the official local language .....these are not offical names.....nor are all but one province's bilingual. Best leave random junk to etymology section.Moxy- 11:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Your castigating the official name of a province as "junk" is a personal opinion.

This template has nothing to do with what or may not be the official language presented within an article. Templates are templates that can be filled with info, not info themselves.

Breaking a template is not the way to resolve a naming dispute for a page like Manitoba.

And ramming through change on an article by breaking a long standing template is not productive. trackratte (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing broken simply bad parameter removed. What type of sources you have saying these places are officially multilingual...... is your intent to add 13 names to Northwest territories since they recognize French English and 11 other aboriginal languages...... Will we be adding Punjabi to British Columbia since it’s the second most spoken language? ....Once again we should not miss lead our readers right off the bat with the first thing they see in the articleMoxy- 11:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not a template issue but an issue to be discussed at the NWT page.

You are trying to implement your opinion on one or more content pages (whether valid or not has nothing to do with this Talk page) by edit warring on a template page.

If you have an issue with how a parameter is being used on a certain page, that's an issue for that page, not by removing a template parameter which serves to break the template rendering of referenced information in place .

I would offer that you undo your latest edit at the template page, cease edit warring there, respect a 10 year + consensus, and take up your content issues at those content pages. trackratte (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

discussions have already taken place.....That’s why the parameter was removed. Again I asked for some sort of source Indicates that these Provinces are multilingual. Why are we giving undue wait to certain languages?Moxy- 13:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no record of that discussion on the Template Talk, which is where consensus would be gained for overturning a longstanding template function.

Official language has nothing to do with the name of a locality and is a red herring. Baton Rouge, Montreal, Ottawa, Haida Gwai, etc. And even less to do with a template parameter which itself has nothing to do with what actual content is inserted into the template. If someone disagrees how the Manitoba page makes use of a template parameter, then gain consensus at the Manitoba page. trackratte (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We should be showing only french along with english, in New Brunswick & Quebec infoboxes. Only the 'native' language along with english, in the territories' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That may well be. As there is no "one size fits all" these issues need to be tackled at their respective pages. As what applies to Ontario might not apply to the NWT for example. And deleting paremters out of templates does not resolve these specific content issues and is not the way forward. trackratte (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's no technical way to apply my proposal? then we should be 'rid' of the 'other language' parameter & thus use 'only' english. Note, lower in the infoboxes we do already have a place for 'official languages' in each province & territory. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Place names have nothing to do with official language, places can have multiple (equally valid) names, and those names can be in a language other than an official language, or not be in any language at all. For example, Ottawa is an Aboriginal language word, which isn't an official language of Ontario or of Canada. Saint-Louis-de-Ha-Ha isn't in any language at all. Baton Rouge in the US has nothing to do with the language in use. Etc etc. Official language and place names are two completely different topics.

We also have an official national names database rooted in law, that all Provinces tie into. So what a place is named in Canada is ridiculously straightforward, as is if a place as multiple equally valid names. trackratte (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Having the province/territory name in the english version (same in the article title) at the top of the infobox, will suffice. We already have a entry lower in the infobox, listing languages. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Official language and name of a place are clearly not the same thing. Baton Rouge, Langthwaite, Salish Sea ,etc are all examples where names aren't in the official language of the area. trackratte (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We match the article title, that should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

But it doesn't, as there are places with more than one name that is equally valid/official. That is why place templates across Wikipedia have some sort of "other name" parameter, such as the infobox templates for bodies of water, infobox settlement, infobox country, etc. There is a clear need. If you don't think that that parameter applies to a certain article and think that just the article title is sufficient, then make that proposal at that page. A template parameter doesn't force any given page to use it. trackratte (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the first time, we've been in disagreement on a Canadian topic. I'll let @Moxy: decide (if he wants to) on whether or not to make any proposals (if required). GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, these infoboxes should list all the official names. If a province has an officially-recognized name in another language (French, Gaelic, an Indigenous one, etc) then it has reason to be there. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup just need sources....that are non advocacy related.Moxy- 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If non-English name is given on a province or territory's official website/letterhead, it seems reasonable to list it in the infobox.

I don't know about other provinces, but different departments of the New Brunswick government and the CGNDB can disagree on how to spell some placenames, so the CGNDB is not a definitive source. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hard to know where to place this comment in all the threads above, but I agree with the comments that there is no connection between the official administrative/services language of a province and these infoboxes, or more broadly how it the province is written about in Wikipedia. Keep in mind most people writing/reading don't even live in the province in question, this is a place for general information. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Manitoba templates

FYI {{Manitoba Interlake}} and {{Manitoba Eastern}} are nominated for deletion; -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Manitoba deputy premiers

I ask once more. Should we or should we not have numbering for Manitoba deputy premiers, in their lead and infoboxes. I do this, because it's near certain that editor Mewulwe will 'again' remove the numbering from 'at least' one of the bios & thus 'again' throw the set of bios out-of-sync. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

To me that seems a bit unnecessary for a position like deputy premier. Provincial cabinet members usually aren't numbered, afaik. Connormah (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No. That's not the practice in Manitoba. Instant Comma (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Harper government - Merge Environmental Policy with Domestic Policy?

Merge Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government with Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government? Environmental policy seems quite short so I'm wondering if we should merge it with domestic policy? Thoughts User:GoodDay? Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you know how to merge them, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The latter name. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay think you meant to post this on BTW (Preston Manning as leader of the Reform Party - succeeded by "position abolished" or by "Deborah Grey as leader of the Canadian Alliance"). Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The the environmental policy page looks decently long to me, so a merger doesn't seem so obvious IMO. There'd have to be some cuts/condensing to make it fit. What sort of edits did you have in mind? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Practice" or "practise"?

I ask this because on John Diefenbaker, there is a dispute on, for example, whether it should be spelt "practicing law" or "practising law." User:Wehwalt makes an interesting point and provided a link where it said that "when you are using the word as an adjective, it is spelled practised." On Pierre Trudeau, on the section "Marriage and Children", on the last paragraph it says "Trudeau began practising the Japanese martial art judo."

Only a few users are active on this noticeboard and I likely won't receive a reply unless I ping User:GoodDay, or User:Moxy. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There's two ways to spell it? Well, bugger me with a fishfork. Anyways, I think Moxy would have a better insight on this. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, well Wehwalt claims there are two ways...I myself thought you spell it "practice" in Canada and "practise" in America. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the same as Defence & Defense. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was relying on this and the fact it hasn't been altered in the article in years. It's being used as a verb btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree ...in "Canada," we use “practice” as a noun and “practise” as a verb, just like the Brits... Public Works and Government Services Canada.... Translation Bureau.Moxy- 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

After running "Practising Law in Canada" The first link is to the Government of Canada website. https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/italy-italie/academic_relations_academiques/practising_law-profession_avocat.aspx?lang=eng After the query, the site subsequently reverts to "practicing". I would submit that the "c" spelling to be correct. My two cents.   Aloha27  talk  16:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no easy answer here. This is one of the many instances where both the British and American spellings exist in Canadian English and are considered acceptable. I prefer "practising", but "practicing" is arguably more common. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary has "practise (also "practice") for the verb. I think they're both fine. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll let ya'll figure out what to include & exclude. Heck, I'm still peeved about the intros to the Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Green Party interim leader

We may need some input at Amita Kuttner concerning whether or not to use pronouns, etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What does Kuttner prefer? That seems simplest. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Both "he/him" & "they/them". GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Reckon it doesn't matter now. After WP:LGBT was contacted, a consensus was quickly reached. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice on a Canadian company article

Hi. Please take a look at Draft:Bridgit (company). It is a proprely stated WP:COI contribution about a Canadian software company. The article was declined at the AfC as promotional. The initial reviewer highlighted that some sources can be hidden advertising. I did some cleanup following these comments, but I don't see how the coverage at such sources as The Globe and Mail or CBC News by staff writers can be treated as advertorials. Please giver your advice. Peter. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Quebec sentiment

At the Anti-Quebec sentiment article. There appears to be (IMHO) I mistaken interpretation of the Harper government's legislation that the French-speaking people of Quebec (i.e Quebecois people), are a nation within Canada. An editor there, insists that it's Quebec (the province itself) that was declared a nation within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Canadian federal elections & provincial/territorial elections

Myself & @Joeyconnick: appear to be in dispute at 2020 British Columbia general election & the rest of the provincial/territorial elections, not to mention the federal elections. He suggests we have "(formerly formally the 42nd British Columbia general election)" in the 2020 BC election's intro. I surmise, that over theses last few years, those styles were gradually phased out of these articles. Do we want them back? which would mean adding "(formerly formally the 44th Canadian general election)" to the 2021 Canadian federal election intro? GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Given #elxn44 that doesn't seem like a bad idea. What's the argument against it? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that descriptors like 42nd British Columbia general election are conveniences we use in Wikipedia because provincial and federal elections aren't on fixed schedules. In my opinion, such descriptors can and should be dropped when election dates are set. Further points: using the word "formerly" as Joeyconnick suggests is inaccurate, because it's still the 42nd election (just not commonly referred to as such), and the article goes on to state, "to elect members of the Legislative Assembly to serve in the 42nd parliament of the Canadian province of British Columbia", so the "42nd" numeration is preserved. I now leave the soapbox. PKT(alk) 13:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"formerly" is a typo on GoodDay's end, the edits in question use "formally": [26]

Good eye. Yes, I meant "formally". GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to use the formal, nth name for future elections (eg: 43rd British Columbia general election), it makes sense to include those formal names in previous articles as well. Additionally, like Nikkimaria says above, the formal numberings aren't totally unknown; certainly more people will recognize "2021 election", but "44th election" or "election 44" do have some use amongst media sources [27] and, yes, the Twitter hashtag. — Kawnhr (talk)

But when that future election is called & we thus change the aticle title to (in this case) "Year British Columbia general election". Do we also add "(formally the 43rd British Columbia general election)" into the article's lead? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes the formal title should be included as an alternate name. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So (for example) you say we should add "(formally the 44th Canadian general election)" in the lead of 2021 Canadian federal election. Wouldn't that crowd up the article's lead? We already mention the 44th Canadian Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually didn't suggest we have it in the lead. I suggested it had been in the lead quite a while and asked what the rationale was for removing it, given WP:STATUSQUO, since no explanation had been given in the edit summaries of the changes GoodDay had made. Given MOS:BOLDSYN, it seemed weird to me. GoodDay said something like "these have been falling to the wayside for a while" and I asked if they could point me to somewhere where this had been discussed. They then reverted my restorations and stated if I wanted the alternate titles added to "every single federal & provincial/territorial election article", I'd have to come here to discuss it. That was an immediate red flag to me, as I find people who are making IDONTLIKEIT edits often point to "other stuff exists" (or doesn't) and imply a change can only be made if it's made across the entire project as a justification for their edits rather than providing an actual rationale that aligns with our guidelines.

But anyway, I wasn't asking for additions to be made either across multiple pages or even these particular two: I was just asking for a rationale for GoodDay's two removals other than their claim the "(formally the Xth...)" format was being phased out. Given BOLDSYN, I think these kinds of indicators should stay. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, whatever's decided here, I'll implement. Be it re-adding or not, the formal titles in the leads. Even though (IMHO) the additions will crowd up the intros, where the "Xth Parliament" or "Xth Legislature" (for examples) is already mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

From a COMMONNAME point of view, the nth jurisdiction election name should be used for upcoming elections, while the year jurisdiction election should be used once the name is known as that is what most media outlets would call it. Is there any guidance from other national projects without fixed election dates (such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the UK, Australia & New Zealand election articles. The don't use it in their intros, including their future election articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the pages should be titled using the year of the election, but I think it makes sense to include the formal name (nth) in the lead as well, as they are still in use (albeit not as frequently).If we're not going to include the formal name in the lead (or at all) then we should probably start putting future elections at Next… instead of nth…. AFAICT Canada is alone is using the nth format for upcoming elections: Next United Kingdom general election, Next Australian federal election, Next New Zealand general election in the first place. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the article titles? I've no objections to changing all future federal & provincial/territorial elections to "Next" form. I note that (to date) only Northwest Territories (currently a redirect) & Nova Scotia are doing so. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Next" titles lead to problems with linkrot and split histories (not limited to election articles), and should be avoided. If we know that the next election is the 45th (or whatever it is), then we should just start that article at 45th Canadian federal election. It can be moved to the MOS-standard "[year] general election" when the date is certain, and the left-behind page-move redirect will be clear and unambiguous. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• What's the source that the numeral title is the "formal" title? I don't think the numerals should be [re-]added, it leads to confusion. The articles should just read "the [year] election was held to elect the [number]th legislature": it's clear, correct, and doesn't clutter the lead with trivial numerals. There was a big discussion a few years back about the numbering of elections and general assemblies in the Maritime provinces, because those former colonies didn't establish new legislatures at Confederation and there was unsettled confusion about whether the legislatures should be counted from Confederation or from the establishment of the colony (also complicated because Nova Scotia skipped one, and PEI joined late). I guess don't assume that whatever works at the federal level will also automatically work for the provinces. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What's the source that the numeral title is the "formal" title? Both the House of Commons and Elections Canada use ordinal numerals for the general elections rather than years. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we really want to clog up the intro, though? Especially, when the ..th parliament or legislative assembly 'is' already mentioned in the intro? GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would clog up the intro— it's just one parenthetical, and plenty of articles include alternate names for the subject in the opening sentence. It may not be the most elegant look, but I think that "44th Canadian general election" is important enough to include, given that it's the official name of the election and that abbreviated forms of it ("election 44") are in regular use. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be included as well. This discussion seem to have come to a consensus more than a week ago and can probably be closed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

We already mention the # of the legislature in the intro of all these articles, so I don't see any need to 'repeat' that #. Also, the # election bit is kinda archaic. Heck, even the British aren't using it. Anyways, those who want them added, won't get any resistance from me. By all means, go for it. PS - That's gonna be hundreds of articles, as currently we don't use the 'formal #' bit, in them. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, since the discussion here seemed mildly in favour (or at least accepting of) putting "(formally the XXth election)" in the lead, I've been doing that over the last few days— slowly, to avoid the appearance of spamming and to test the waters to see if anyone objected. That happened over at 1957 Canadian federal election, with Wehwalt saying rv, still needs a citation saying that's the official name, not just what they happen to call it now. Are there any sources from 1957?. It's true that Elections Canada's relevant page only goes as far back as 1997 (the 36th election). Is this a concern? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The terminology gradually faded away (i.e edited out) years ago, on the articles-in-question. I suspect over time, the same will happen again. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to say something's the formal name, then evidence that this is the formal name is expected, such as a source. Do election documents from 1957 refer to it in that exact manner? What Elections Canada says is descriptive of the general election, but that doesn't make that a formal name.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why Elections Canada and the Library of Parliament are not sources for this, or why a contemporaneous document would be necessary to establish the name. Even if it were the case that the names were retroactively established, that doesn't mean it's not relevant. The Constitution Act, 1867 wasn't passed under that name but that's still what it's known as today. Is the objection just to the word "formal"? Would you prefer "also known as"? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

So right now, roughly the first half of Canadian federal election articles don't have the formal title in the intro, while the second half do. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I was planning to do all of them, but I paused when I encountered pushback (mentioned above). It seemed unwise to continue until resolved. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I see the "formally nth election" has recenlty been removed from the lead of many of these articles. I agree with Kawnhr that the formal name should be included in the lead. I also agree that while that format should not be the name of the articles per common name, for future elections the "nth election" is the better way to go (until an election is called and we know the date/year).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Premiers in the infoboxes of Opposition leaders

Why do we have the premier of a province, placed in the infobox section of the province's leader of the opposition? The opposition leader wasn't appointed by or works for the premier. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Electoral history in articles

Example, Tommy Douglas is ridiculously long. Not because of words, but because of tables and tables of his electoral history. Should this be in a seperate article?

You know the drill, pinging User:Bearcat, User:Moxy, and User:GoodDay. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know. Handing it over to you (Moxy & Bearcat). PS - I'm just grateful, nobody's trying to argue that the governor general is Canada's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We could put the entire electoral history into a single collapsable template, in situations like this. Just a thought. CJCurrie (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As things currently stand, every Canadian politician who has an "electoral history of [person]" splitout, separately from their main biographical article, is a past or present prime minister. I offer no opinion on whether we should start opening this up to non-PMs or not — but what I will say is that if we do decide to do that, we still need to have some kind of clear and unambiguous rule as to who should or shouldn't qualify for that treatment. This is one issue where we definitely do not want to follow the USian "absolutely any politician, no matter how minor, gets to have one of these the moment anybody thinks it's worth creating" rule, which has saddled them with hundreds of these for practically any figure who's ever been interviewed on cable news. (Seriously, somebody even tried to create one for Pete Buttigieg — and, I mean, nothing against Pete Buttigieg or anything, but he has yet to hold any political office senior enough that the existence of one of these should be automatically expected yet.)

That said, if you were to ask me to name one Canadian politician who had never been PM, but had a long and important enough career to potentially qualify for an electoral history spinoff from their biographical article nonetheless, Tommy Douglas is pretty much the first name that would come to mind. But since there's been an established consensus until now that only prime ministers warranted them, there would have to be a new consensus established to change the prior consensus — and if we do decide to go down that road, we still need some coherent and rational rule for who warrants it and who doesn't, because we definitely don't want an American-style influx of "Electoral history of Everybody Who Was Ever a Two-Term Mayor of a Midsized Canadian City" articles. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Another suggestion: we could agree that "electoral history of [person]" splitouts are permitted for provincial premiers (which would, of course, include Douglas), in addition to Canadian prime ministers. CJCurrie (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In agreement with Bearcat. Let's not go the American route. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Bearcat, User:GoodDay, we can make it a collapsable template. Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

They should not be in a collapsed template. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of The Canadian Encyclopedia

Watchers may be interested in this discussion that I just started. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this now...its very reliable so much so that we now also edit for Britannica.--Moxy- 20:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion started by AleatoryPonderings has been archived and can now be found here. PKT(alk) 20:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

IP steam rolling through political articles

2604:3d09:37f:e110:24fd:9299:48a4:b674 is making tons of edits & I'm not entirely sure they're all constructive. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Moxy, User:Bearcat... Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't have much time to look....but adding <break> codes to info boxes is the opposite of what we want.MOS:DTAB.....other then that just seeing lots of "Section" see also spam.Moxy- 00:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the federal election intros.

We still have an inconsistency with the intros of the Canadian federal election articles. 1867 to 1957 don't have the formal name, where's 1958 to 2021 does. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned this before under #Canadian federal elections & provincial/territorial elections: I was planning to do all of them, but I paused when I encountered pushback (mentioned above). It seemed unwise to continue until resolved. Wehwalt objected to the inclusion in the 1957 article, so I asked for community input to resolve the dispute; nobody replied except Wehwalt, who repeated their objection but declined to discuss it further, and it's been in the lurch since. Again I welcome input, but if nobody is interested, then sure, go ahead and remove them all. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if Wehwalt's position has changed on the matter. If it has changed, I'll complete the additions. But, if his position hasn't changed? I'll begin the deletions. We have to have consistency, one way or the other. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have asked for evidence that these are formal names. I don't question that they are referred to by those names on certain Canadian government websites, but I haven't seen evidence these are official formal names (and wouldn't there be a French version too?). That's what I'm looking for.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't see why Elections Canada and the Library of Parliament (hardly some random government websites) are not sufficient sources. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Will I need to open an RFC on this? I don't really want to, so I'll wait another 24 hrs & give other folks time to chime in. If you wish, you can ping those, who were involved in the last discussion on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

One place to look for the "official formal name" of the election is the report issued, some months after the election, by the Chief Electoral Officer. You can probably find a complete set of the old ones (either on paper or microfilm) in certain libraries. Several of them have entries in Google Books, for example:

• Twenty-second General Election, 1953: Report of the Chief Electoral Officer Pursuant to Subsection 6 of Section 56 of the Canada Elections Act
• Twelfth General Election—Douzième Election Générale
• Return on the Eighth General Election for the House of Commons in Canada / Rapport sur la Huitième Ẽlection Gënėrale pour la Chambre des Communes du Canada

The early ones were not published by the Chief Electoral Officer, because that office was not created until 1920. My view is, if the Library of Parliament, today, refers to these elections by their ordinal numbers ("First General Election" etc.) then Wikipedia ought to as well. We don't require contemporaneous sources (for example, Wikipedia has an article called World War I, even though it wasn't referred to that way when it occurred). I haven't done a complete search to find a reference for every single election. You can see by Google-searching, that for example in the 1950s the press occasionally used the ordinal numbers (e.g. [28]). It seems that in official documents the number is spelled out, e.g. in the links from Google Books above, or in this document: [29] "FORTY-FIRST GENERAL ELECTION 2011 / QUARANTE ET UNIĖME ÉLECTION GÉNĖRALE 2011" (not "41st"). Mathew5000 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well @Wehwalt: & @Kawnhr: What's to be done? Complete the additions or commence deleting. I'm not interested in getting reverted, when I start one or the other.

There being no objections. Myself & Ak-eater06 have deleted the formal election names from the 1958 to 2021 federal election intros. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I think removing the "formally the nth election" from the first sentence of the lead is problematic. I agree it shouldn't be the article title (except for future elections), but as the government (ie Elections Canada and the Library of Parliament) uses this as the formal name, and as it aligns with the sessions of Parliaments we have articles about (eg 44th Canadian Parliament), it is confusing to remove it entirely. I suggest we continue to use the common name for article titles, but note the formal name in the first sentence of the lead, as has long been done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus to add them to all the Canadian federal election articles? Then I'll (re-)add them. We don't want it half & half. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fort Carlton#Requested move 26 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fort Carlton#Requested move 26 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 03:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Polling graphs for elections

Example, in 1988 Canadian federal election#Opinion polling notice how the lines are "bundled" and curved. Shouldn't it just be straight/diagonal lines? Shouldn't we connect the dots?

Pinging User:GoodDay, User:Moxy.

Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, such polls should be deleted 'after' the election is held, as they're rendered moot. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, okay but what about 2022 Ontario general election. The poll lines are "bundled"/curved rather than being straight. The lines aren't connected to dots. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't know, what kinda graphic to replace them with. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, lol...check the 2022 opinion poll graph again now. It looks weird but I want to know your thoughts on it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, all polls should be deleted. National polling is irrelevant to our FPTP system. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable Politicians entrances and exits of Parliament on Election Pages

@WanukeX: has been going on a bit of a fast pace across the board making changes to several Canadian political articles. Now, we don't mind such bold actions, but it would be best to bring such proposed changes to 'here' WP:CANADA & get a consensus for them, first. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'll be the first to admit it was 3 am and I wasn't exactly in the best state of mind at the time. My apologies for the trouble. WanukeX (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just checking through international election articles for features we could bring over to Canadian Election Articles, noticed many countries have a paragraph in each election where they note what notable politicians (example, Future/Former PMs, Leaders of the Opposition, Party leaders, Speakers etc) entered and exited parliament at each election. This is something I think could add a bit of notable information to the election articles, particularly those that are stub length. WanukeX (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

David Chartrand

Hello - would experienced interested editors please have a look at the article for Manitoba Métis leader David Chartrand? I happened upon the article today and found it completely without references and terribly under-linked. Its history shows that a chunk of information was deleted earlier in the year due to COPYVIO and it's possible that somebody re-added something that needs to be examined in a similar light. Thanks, PKT(alk) 18:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Big additions & deletions, should be discussed.

@Rjensen: maybe it's best to get a consensus for big additions (John A. Macdonald) & big deletions (William Lyon Mackenzie King), at their respective talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Diefenbaker

Pinging User:GoodDay on this.

Which do you like better for the first paragraph of the lead?

A. John George Diefenbaker PC CH QC FRSC FRSA (/ˈdiːfənˌbeɪkər/; September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was a Canadian politician who served as the 13th prime minister of Canada from 1957 to 1963. After the 1930 election and before that of 1979, he was the only federal Progressive Conservative (PC or Tory) leader to lead his party to an election victory, doing so three times, although only once with a majority of seats in the House of Commons of Canada. - User:Wehwalt's proposal

B. John George Diefenbaker PC CH QC FRSC FRSA (/ˈdiːfənˌbeɪkər/; September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was a Canadian politician who served as the 13th prime minister of Canada from 1957 to 1963. Between 1935 and 1979, he was the only federal Progressive Conservative (PC or Tory) prime minister. He led his party to three election victories, although only once with a majority of seats in the House of Commons. - User:Ak-eater06's proposal.

Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with A due to the rise of the lamentable construction "between A and B" when both A and B are actually part of the range; B would inevitably be corrected by someone who doesn't know their idiom from the elbow. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I really prefer to have discussions dealing with an article take place on the article talk page. Certainly editors here may be pinged to it but that's why we have talk pages. Frankly, I'd prefer the long-standing language (this has been a FA for over a decade) to the effect that "between 1930 and 1979, he was the only federal Progressive Conservative leader to lead his party to an election victory, though only once with a majority in the House of Commons" and excise the unnecessary repetition of "Canada" in the first sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The B-version deals with less linkage & appears straight forward, as he was the only prime minister from the PC party, between 1935 and 1979. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. The B-version is definitely clearer, and more in align with how people general think of the "only X in Y period" scenarios. While the A-version is technically correct, it is a bit confusing for someone without prior knowledge or clicking through, since the 1930 election was a PC victory, but the 1930-1979 period is being framed as a period of PC weakness in its entirety, even though the PCs were in power until 1935. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This conversation should be moved to Talk:John Diefenbaker, as this is seeking a consensus on a specific article and not a group of articles. If someone wants to, a neutral message may be posted here to notify members of the conversation. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements in Leadership Elections

Do we have any general policy about what amounts to a notable endorsement for leadership election articles? I understand the desire to include them. Obviously, if there is a prominent person endorsing a particular candidate that can be important and relevant to readers trying to understand the realities of the race (before the election has occurred). Afterwards, they might be of less relevance. Perhaps, not. What does seem clear is that long endorsement lists tend to clog up and article, and make it more difficult to read. I am not sure this trade off is worth it. Unfortunately, my understanding is that the "endorsement table template" does not permit us to collapse them as a default (which would likely be helpful). Some have said due to MOS:COLLAPSE we should not hide this information, but that seems a weak concern with information that is of such questionable usefulness to begin with. Anyway, there is a discussion at Talk:2022 British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election about this. There is also an archived one at Talk:2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 2. I note the endorsements at 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election are particularly disruptive and include many people who are not notable enough for their own article. Anyway, it might be helpful for us to have a general guideline or rule of thumb on this, as it seems without one there is some inconsistency and that articles seem to load up during campaigns with long lists of questionably relevant endorsements, and then seem to be forgotten. Generally, how should we deal with these endorsements? Should we include them at all? Hide them in a sub article? Collapse them? Or just leave them all in?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we should only include the endorsements from Senators, MPs & MLAs. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I would include mayors as well, and city councillors of large cities. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can split hairs. Have the mayors & city councillors of large cities, for only the provincial/territorial party leadership races. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Maybe restrict mayors/councillors of large cities for federal races. If John Tory endorsed someone, it would be a big deal. An endorsement from a Vancouver or even a Mississauga city councillor would be more important than a Nunavut or even a PEI MLA, I think. And it wouldn't take up that much space anyway, as municipal politicians rarely make partisan endorsements. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO, "has their own Wikipedia page" is a decent rule of thumb. There would surely be exceptions, but those exceptions would probably be fairly easy to spot and make a case for; for example, Bea Bruske doesn't have a page right now, but since she's the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, I think there would be unanimous agreement that an endorsement from her would be noteworthy. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 PEI NDP leadership vote

The PEI NDP were supposed to have chosen a leader on October 2, 2021. But, apparently they didn't & I can't find any source mentioning the party delaying the vote. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see a source specifically mentioning a delay, but this CBC article mentions the leadership vote is currently on Nov 6. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a source specifically mentioning that the vote was rescheduled: https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/news/pei-ndp-sets-new-date-for-leadership-convention-100616103/. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the article, saying the leadership election was held on 6 November 2021. But, I'm not sure if it has been. Also, the four candidates apparently weren't announced, as they were suppose to have been. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Press release from the party referring to an AGM held November 6: [30] But no mention at all of the leader, or of any leadership race. The Elections PEI website lists the NDP with the spot for leader, blank: [31]. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the article. Noting that the leadership election was postponed. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They don't even have an interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - please note that New Democratic Party of Prince Edward Island leadership elections also has to be updated when we've got this figured out. PKT(alk) 19:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I reckon the PEI NDP haven't yet figured it out. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Preston Manning as leader of the Reform Party - succeeded by "position abolished" or by "Deborah Grey as leader of the Canadian Alliance"

On the infobox of Preston Manning, it says he was succeeded by "Deborah Grey as interim leader of the Canadian Alliance." Shouldn't it just say "position abolished" as Reform was dissolved in March 2000? Thoughts User:GoodDay? Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be "position abolished", as the Reform party was abolished. The Reform party 'deregistered' with Elections Canada & then the CA registered with Elections Canada, thus making them separate political parties. Otherwise, the CA wouldn't have bothered registering with Elections Canada & have a leadership vote in 2000, if it was just Reform renamed & Preston Manning was already their leader. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, it makes sense to me. The Canadian Alliance may have been a legally-distinct entity, but it was (and is) widely regarded as a successor to the Reform Party; in fact the Wikipedia articles for the two even refer to the other predecessor/successor (I know Wikipedia isn't a source; I'm just pointing out that it's a widespread and unchallenged belief). Perhaps the infobox should use both? "Position abolished", linebreak, "Deborah Grey (Canadian Alliance; interim)"? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

They're different political parties, not a party merely renamed. If it were the latter? Preston Manning's tenure as party leader would've continued under the CA banner. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that they were separate legal entities. But the Reform Party dissolved itself in anticipation of the Canadian Alliance's launch, the Canadian Alliance's full name has the word "reform" in it, the Reform caucus dutifully became the Alliance caucus, Reform's deputy leader (Grey) became its interim leader, and the leader of Reform may not have won the leadership but he did run for it. The Alliance was clearly positioned as a successor, if not a continuation, of the Reform Party. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Manning had 'no' successor as a party leader & Grey had 'no predecessor' as a party leader. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

​​ Do either of you have a source for the statement that the two parties were "different political parties" and "separate legal entities"? Elections Canada in April 2000 considered the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance to be the new name of the Reform Party of Canada (not a new party). Mathew5000 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I originally believed they were distinct parties, but looking at the Elections Canada website, I see that Mathew5000 is right. From the point of view of Elections Canada, the Alliance was just a renaming of the Reform Party. See [32]. Instant Comma (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you proposing that they be merged into on page? Then, merged in the Conservative Party of Canada article? GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not merged with Conservative Party of Canada, which most certainly was a different legal entity. Instant Comma (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I learned something today. Thanks for the correction! — Kawnhr (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kawnhr You're welcome! @GoodDay I have not proposed that the articles be merged. I did list some refs at Talk:Canadian Alliance#The Canadian Alliance was the new name of the Reform Party. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In a way, should we consider that Reform/CA are the same party & a splinter group from the PC & thus dividing the right? in theory, the original Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform Party & the CA could all be merged into the current Conservative Party. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I edited the articles Reform Party of Canada and Canadian Alliance to clarify that the Canadian Alliance was not technically a newly created party, but rather a new name (rebranding) of the Reform Party in 2000. However, in both articles it said that the Reform Party "voted to dissolve" in 2000. I know that the Reform Party did not actually dissolve at that time, but I'm unsure whether it's true that there was a vote to dissolve, so I left that language in both articles and inserted a citation-needed tag. Through wikiblame, I found that the phrase "voted to dissolve" was added to the Canadian Alliance article in 2007 [33] by HangingCurve; previously that article said that the Reform Party voted to adopt a new name in 2000. As for the Reform Party of Canada article, the "voted to dissolve" phrase was added there in 2011 [34] by a user who is no longer active. Has anyone searched for a source about what actually was voted on by the Reform Party membership in 2000? I am wondering whether, perhaps there was a motion to dissolve that the membership approved, and then the party executive determined that for technical or financial reasons it would be preferable to apply for a change of name of the party, rather than dissolving and registering an entirely new party. Hopefully someone can nail down the details of that vote, so we can get rid of the citation-needed tags I inserted. In any event, the Reform Party article still needs work (whether or not it is merged with the Canadian Alliance article). It is overly repetitive and portions of it have barely any inline citations. Mathew5000 (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

​ Has anyone searched for a source about what actually was voted on by the Reform Party membership in 2000? You've got me curious about this whole situation so I had a look (albeit just via Google). Here's what I found:

• The CBC has "decide the direction of the Reform party", [35], which is a bit vague but certainly doesn't sound like a proposal to dissolve, as well as "fold[ing] their 12-year-old party into the United Alternative" [36].
• Meanwhile, the Globe calls it a "merger" [37] and "a referendum on whether to join the new party" [38].
• The Canadian Encyclopedia has "The Reform Party membership subsequently voted to adopt the constitution, policies and name of the Alliance". [39]
• The only references I could find to Reform ceasing to exist came from opinion pieces, both opposed to the UA: Jeffrey Simpson calls it a vote to "dissolve their party" [40], and Gee Tsang describes the question as about a merger, but "the reality is that it will disband … [the] Reform Party"[41].

So there isn't any consistency on how the vote was described, which is a bit irritating. But reading between the lines, it seems to me that Reform's membership was asked something to the effect of "do you agree that Reform should align itself with the United Alternative proposal"— about some sort of merger, fusion or otherwise transformation of their party, not dissolving it per se. So I think saying the members "voted to dissolve" is incorrect, or at least a very specific interpretation of the proposal. I think we should use something vaguer and more neutral instead, like "voted to endorse the United Alternative". — Kawnhr (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: the Reform Party merging with a political activist group to found the Canadian Alliance seems analogous to the CCF "merging" with the Canadian Labour Congress and "New Party" clubs to found the NDP. And on that note, I see that Hazen Argue's infobox has, for the office of CCF leader, "Succeeded by: Tommy Douglas (as leader of the NDP)". Something to follow for the Manning/Grey situation?

We did (weeks ago) had the CA interim leader shown as the Reform leader's successor & of course, the Reform leader shown as the CA interim leader's predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will restore that, then. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that research, Kawnhr. I found the text of the question in the Calgary Herald, 2000-MAR-26: "'Shall the Reform party of Canada adopt the new constitution and the party policy declaration of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.' Yes or No." Looking at the coverage that day in both the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal, there are various statements that the Reform Party is "dead" or "dissolved" or words of that nature. For example, a photo caption on page 3 of the Herald reads: "Preston Manning signs the official papers Saturday in Calgary that will dissolve the Reform Party, while his executive assistant Ian Todd, centre, watches" [42]. The news article on that page begins: "The Reform Party is dead. Long live Canadian Alliance." Similarly the newspapers on that day do refer to Canadian Alliance as a "new" party. The headline on page 1 of the Calgary Herald is: "Canadian Alliance is born: Reform party members vote 91.9 per cent in favour of new right-wing political party". The Edmonton Journal headline that day is: "New political party born: Reformers vote 92 per cent to let their party die for Canadian Alliance". Despite that phrasing, it's clear from the text of the question voted on, that it was not in fact a vote to disband/dissolve/pull-the-plug-on the Reform Party, but rather a vote for the Party to adopt a new constitution and policy declaration. Despite how it may have been reported on the day after the vote was announced, it's clear from the Elections Canada website, and from the news media reporting in April 2000, that the party was not dissolved but rather changed its name, logo, and constitution; the Canadian Alliance was legally not a newly created party but a rebranding of the Reform Party. Information for Reform Party members about the referendum can be found in the Wayback Machine here: [43]. The Canadian Alliance's earliest press releases can be found here: [44] and in particular the press release immediately after the announcement of the Reform Party vote, but before the name change application was made to Elections Canada, is here: [45]. Mathew5000 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

So.... Reform & Canadian Alliance should be merged as one article. GoodDay (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW

IMHO, Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942) & Progressive Conservative Party of Canada should be merged, as they 'are' the same political party. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I couldn't agree more. The party changed names many times during its lifetime but remained the same party. When it changed names on other occasions, we haven't treated the renamed party as a separate entity by giving it a separate article. (And in case someone asks, today's Conservative Party of Canada is not the same party and should have a distinct entry.) Instant Comma (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay good idea. But what would the article be called though? Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Best to go with the PC name, so as to not get confused with the current Conservative party. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Would support a merger. Using the PC name would be best IMO, because it's the best natural disambiguator. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"as Interim leader" - to capitalize or not to capitalize?

On Preston Manning, GoodDay put a capital I on the infobox ("succeeded by Deborah Grey as Interim leader of the Canadian Alliance"). Shouldn't it be lowercase? I'm confused here. Pinging User:Moxy. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Should "Leader of the Reform Party" be lower-cased, in Deborah Grey's infobox, mentioning Preston Manning as her predecessor? Doesn't matter to me, whether we capitalise or not, as long we're consistent. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay In Preston Manning, I capitalized "Leader" in "succeeded by Deborah Grey as Inteirm Leader of the Reform Party".

I love that word Refooooooorm.

Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES would have lowercase as interim would be a modifier on leader. I'd also note MOS:SMALL - small text should be avoided in infoboxes. Maybe change it to a footnote instead. —WildComet ^talk 05:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:WildComet heh, interesting, because GoodDay just referred to WP:JOBTITLES as the reason he capitalized interim in the infobox.

P.S. also do I have to ping people every time I write on this notice board? I'm just worried that people won't see my responses...Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No - I mentioned WP:JOBTITLES for lower-casing in article main space, not the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay my bad, I mixed up the edit summaries. Also going to a more unrelated question, do I have to ping people every time I write on this notice board? I'm concerned that people won't see my responses if they are not notified. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to ping me, as I have the noticeboard on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Loi sur la laïcité de l'État→Act respecting the laicity of the State

Please see Talk:Act respecting the laicity of the State#Regarding the recent move. I was pinged on this by Notbrev regarding the move. This is not a subject matter I am familiar with, and believe the issue needs discussion there from members of this project. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

First one to ping. I think it should be something like "Quebec's Bill 21" or "Quebec's ban on religious symbols" Notbrev (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"Trudeau's personality dominated the political scene to an extent never before seen in Canadian political life."

Yes, this perhaps belongs on the talk page of Pierre Trudeau, but anyways, is this technically not true? Mackenzie King and John A. served longer than him. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with political longevity. It is saying that external attention with respect to (federal) politics in Canada was increasingly focused on the prime minister and less so on other ministers. Mindmatrix 17:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say he took the job from administrator to celebrity. But yes, this belongs on the P.E. Trudeau Talk page, not here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The statement isn't sourced, and it runs against recent research that suggests that many former prime ministers have dominated the political scene in their era. Instant Comma (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Proper use of this page

Pursuant to the discussion in the section above, I'd like to remind fellow editors that it is not appropriate to have discussions here that deal with proposed changes to individual articles. That per WP:TALK is the purpose of article talk pages. Certainly discussions that impact Canadian articles broadly can be noticed here, but coming here to seek consensus on a change one would like to make to one article blindsides the editors who have the article watched, since they have no way of knowing that the discussion is taking place. In addition, when the person who begins the discussion asks for the input of specific editors, it may be WP:CANVASSING. This is a very useful page and I see good discussions on it, but I would not naturally come here since I am not Canadian and would not expect article discussions to take place here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If I get pinged, I respond. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No fault in that, by itself. But this page is not an article talk page, and many topics on this page are the result of a specific editor starting discussions as if it were an article talk page. Further, that editor is treating responses to his pings as if they carried consensus on matters relating to the article. That's not proper for the reasons stated above. Wikiproject talk pages are not article talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but the potential exists that the subset of editors pinged in this way have a similar viewpoint to the editor who solicited their input, skewing the discussion in favour of one option. It inherently creates a bias, or opportunity for bias, that should not exist. Mindmatrix 17:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A notification here about an on going talk is best. But as a project we should never discourage the attempt to garner more interest to a topic here or at the article talk page. Can tell you one thing about editors here....they hate being told what to do where especially when it's in good faith. The reason the project is so active is that we assume good faith by most and try to resolve things without telling people what they can and can't do. The death of hundreds of projects has been the result of editors being bureaucratic over helpful.Moxy- 23:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll agree about soliciting wider input, but that solicitation should be a straightforward explanation of the issue (or simply "there's a discussion at X that needs more input") and should not solicit specific individuals. Mindmatrix 17:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I concur. A discussion about changes to a specific article should take place on that article's talk page rather than here. Of course, it's appropriate to briefly post a notice here advising that the other discussion is taking place, so that people who might have something to contribute to it are aware of it, but the primary discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Centrist Party Canada

We should start an article before the party does. Centrist Party Canada making the news again...https://centristpartycanada.ca/ .Moxy- 02:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

They may have already had one before the election that got deleted as not notable; it's hard to keep track with the newer minor parties. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ontario municipal elections, 2003

Hello - can somebody with the necessary authority please move Ontario municipal elections, 2003 to 2003 Ontario municipal elections, and vice versa? This article/list is out of sync with the others of its kind (eg: 2000 Ontario municipal elections, 2006 Ontario municipal elections, etc.) Thanks in advance ............ PKT(alk) 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Eexxxxcelllllenttt! My evil plan is working perfectly........thanx, PKT(alk) 01:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.

List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.

There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.

01:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen^💬

Tara Henley

I recently created a draft for Tara Henley, a CBC Radio producer who resigned recently. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You're going to need much more reliable source coverage about her, and a much more significant notability claim. The truth is, Tara Henley was never actually a true CBC employee, but only ever a freelancer, and her record of content created for the CBC consisted almost entirely of listicles about Vancouver hiking and biking trails. So "quitting" a CBC job she never really had isn't a notability claim, starting her own Substack newsletter isn't a notability claim, and even having published a book isn't an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of distinctions such as noteworthy literary awards and/or critical analysis of the significance of her book. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Updating of Federal ridings to note the most recent (2021) federal election, is completed.

A gnome's work is never done. I've just completed updating the 'last contested' sections of infoboxes of the federal ridings. AFAIK, the 44th Canadian Parliament currently has no vacancies in the House of Commons, so we've no pending by-elections. Most of the federal ridings weren't updated (until now), including some as far back to 2015. Tomorrow, I'll check through the provincial/territorial districts & see how many of those need updating, since their last provincial/territorial general elections or by-elections. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Did John A. Macdonald found the Conservative Party?

I know he was involved in the creation, but did he actually found the Conservative Party? In the infobox of the Conservative Party article it says he was the founder. I need a reliable source that says he was actually the founder. Pinging User:GoodDay. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not think he should be identified as the sole founder. Page 777 of this article concisely explains the structure of the coalition that Macdonald led, which was a Liberal-Conservative merger between the mid-1850s and late 1860s. Wiseman's book on the history of Canadian political parties does mention Macdonald as the "dominant political figure" [p. 13], and as a party builder. But the history that created the early Liberal/Conservative divide is one of Liberals splintering away from the dominant Conservatives, not a founding moment where Macdonald proclaimed that he was at the head of a Conservative Party. It doesn't seem correct to say that there was one founder and that founder was John A. Macdonald. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am hesitant to get involved in this discussion, because User:Ak-eater06 has initiated it to find support in his dispute with me, but I think this is exactly the wrong way to do history. As you learn in university history courses, you should go to the sources with an open mind, to find out what happened. You shouldn't try to find sources to prove a conclusion you have already reached. If you do the latter, you will always find what you are looking for, and often it won't be accurate. We just had a case of this recently on the Arthur Meighen page, where an editor was able to provide a source saying that the former prime minister had attended Osgoode Hall Law School, when in fact he hadn't. Instant Comma (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be the same issue as raised earlier in the section entitled "Proper use of this page". When it's a discussion about a particular issue relating to an article, it should be on the Talk page of that article, since that's the page that is intended to be used for discussions about that article. That's where comments should go about how to resolve the issue. A note on this page that there is an interesting discusion on the Talk page is very helpful, but that's where the discussion should be. Especially if there is a discussion on the Talk page that isn't going the way someone wants, there's an element of "running to teacher" in coming here to discuss the issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have absolutely no dog in whatever fight was going on, I spent 15 minutes looking for an answer and summarized what I read. - Astrophobe (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I ping them mainly because there is almost no one to comment on this noticeboard. If I don't ping, I don't get responses/opinions. Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion poll pages and charts - External links versus references

I have noticed that across election poll related wikipedia pages there is a habit of using external links on opinion poll pages, including Canadian pages. The habit seems to be contrary to the spirit of WP:EL, where links should give the user an idea of where the URL will take them, and increases the risk of Wikipedia:Link rot. For Canada this system is in place for all of the federal election polling (Current session, 2021, 2019, 2015, 2022 Ontario, etc.). The older election pages have a number of links which are now dead, making the data not easily verifiable (basically need to find old news articles to confirm the information). As a note, this is not present in 2019 Alberta general election or 31st Alberta general election because I previous updated the 2019 page to use references rather than external links and other users continued the practice forward. For a quick US example, the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election uses references instead of external links, however the Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election does not.

Is there any objection to me/others working to transition these external links to references? I would generally follow the 2019 Alberta general election model where there are two reference lists, one for article references and one for opinion polls to keep the main references from getting crowded. Thoughts? Caddyshack01 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and reformatted all of the provincial polling pages/tables to align with Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election, specifically the order of information (Polling firm, date, source, parties, ME, sample, lead) and the use of the citation template instead of inline links. I also updated a few years back for federal opinion polling. More work needs to be done to name all of the citations on the older pages, but they are at least not susceptible to linkrot. Caddyshack01 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Member" in Member of Parliament - to capitalize or not to capitalize?

Editing dispute on Tom Mulcair (check revision history). In articles, should we capitalize the "Member" in Member of Parliament? Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's "member of Parliament" when in a sentence form. Not sure. PS - Side note: I've always found the terminology to be annoying, when describing members of the House of Commons. After all, the senators are members of Parliament, too. Same thing occurs in the United States, where members of the US House of Representatives 'tend' to be call Congressmen or Congresswomen, even though US Senators are also Congressmen & Congresswomen, as they're all members of the US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly the official Parliament website is inconsistent. The pages that explain how Parliament works capitalizes "Member". The public website for the House of Commons does not capitalize it. I'm sure we can find other inconsistencies throughout official government documents and websites. My inclination is to use some other similar MOS policies in Wikipedia: neither is more preferable over the other, and whichever is first used in the article is what it will stay as (rather any stupid potential edit wars over it). Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not our call. The MOS says that job titles are not capitalized unless they are directly in front of the person's name (e.g., "President Joe Biden," but "Joe Biden is president"). Instant Comma (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

New Page on Commons Speaker Election, or Redirect

I was about to tackle creation of a new page for the Election of the Speaker of the House of Commons, per a request on the Wikiproject page. Before doing so, I visited the Speaker's page, and found that the election measure already had a pretty substantial section in it on election. A little bit of detail could be added (when it switched to being elected by MPs instead of handpicked by the Prime Minister), but I felt it might not be worthy of a full separate page and could instead be handled by a redirect. I figured a short discussion here might illuminate if I should go forward. --Kwkintegrator (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A new article is not necessary. Speaker of the House of Commons (Canada)#Election is a perfectly good place to provide the information. PKT(alk) 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that a separate standalone article isn't really needed, and instead the existing election section in the existing article is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Next PEI Liberal Party leadership election's infobox

Howdy. Does anybody know how to update the infobox at Next Prince Edward Island Liberal Party leadership election? At the bottom of the infobox, "2021" should be re-named "Next". GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Done.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I know, I already did it. Was in the process of reverting my message, but got edit-conflicted by you :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Surge in vandals?

Is it just me or am I seeing a surge in vandals/trolls editing politician articles these days? Today I think I had to revert at least ten bad-faith edits... Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the same and seems to correspond with the self-proclaimed Freedom Convoy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 census and updating featured articles

The 2021 census data is being released throughout 2022, and I encourage editors to update our featured articles with this information. While updating articles, I would appreciate it if editors could also check the rest of the text to ensure that it still meets the featured article criteria. In particular, articles about cities and towns tend to become outdated, are missing recent events in their history section or have unnecessary and promotional text added. If the article does not meet FA standards, please follow the first step at WP:FAR and post your concerns on the article's talk page. If the article does meet the FA criteria, please mark it as "satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020. Please ping me if you have any questions.

Here's a list of featured articles in WPCANADA that will need to be updated with census data. Please strike the article if the updates are complete:

• Canada
• Manitoba
• Winnipeg
• Hamilton, Ontario
• Lethbridge

Census data can be found here. Don't forget to cite! Thanks for your help. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Electoral district disambiguation

Relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Electoral district disambiguation jnestorius^(talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The mystery around Andrew Scheer's birthdate

Maybe I'm missing something. @Toddst1:, Why were you deleting Andrew Scheer's birthdate from his BLP? GoodDay (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Until the most recent edit the information was not sourced in the article, so the removal was technically correct. Personal data in BLPs requires sourcing. Now that it's been provided hopefully the matter is resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet Pages

Grouping the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet Pages by Parliament mostly just serves to overcomplicate them (EG, infoboxes with one photo but multiple leaders of the opposition listed). As with the Canadian Ministry pages being divided based on the term of the Prime Minister, the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet Pages should simply be divided by the terms of the Leader of the Official Opposition. This is also how they handle it for most other westminster countries, (UK, Australia, New Zealand).

Just for some quick examples for implementing this

- Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of the 43rd Parliament of Canada should be split into Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of Andrew Scheer and Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of Erin O'Toole

- Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of the 42nd Parliament of Canada should be split into Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of Rona Ambrose and Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet of Andrew Scheer

...ect WanukeX (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Was never much of a fan of the Shadow cabinet concept, itself. Best for me to let others weigh in on this. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Greens have also claimed a Shadow Cabinet, as I'm sure the Bloc has done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To note, I'm just talking about the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet, we've never had as far as I know pages for other opposition shadow cabinet, and I really don't think the green shadow cabinet meets Wikipedia:Notability.WanukeX (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Statue of John Deighton in the news...

• Statue of John Deighton

---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Madoc, Ontario

Could you help to disambiguate the links to Madoc, Ontario shown at Disambig fix list for Madoc, Ontario? It is often unclear whether township or village is intended in the article.— Rod ^talk 12:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Is one allowed to request for consensus for merge proposals?

I would like to get input from Canadians who know the subject well rather than just posting it to everyone on Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers.

Am I allowed to add an RfC on this board for a consensus for a merge? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: The RfC should be on the article's talk page. An RfC or merge request under a Wikiproject Canada article should automatically appear at WP:WikiProject Canada/Article alerts which might catch some additional participants. If you need further additional input, I think your first place should be adding it to WP:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, but if that doesn't work then a neutral message and link to the RfC here should be OK. -M.nelson (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Who owns a crown corporation

Discussion started at Talk:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation#Ownership of the CBC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A merger consensus

Need input here in the discussion of Talk:Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government#Merger proposal.

Merge Economic policy of the Stephen Harper government and Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government into Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government.

Please fill out! Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Reform Act

If I'm understanding the Reform Act correctly. A party leader doesn't have to resign, if they've already been removed. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unorganized area

FYI Unorganized area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a Canadian topic) has been proposed to be merged away. See the discussion at talk:unincorporated area -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:British Columbia

Your input is welcome at Talk:British Columbia#Request for comment on first sentence of lead. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me or are images from Library and Archives Canada not loading?

https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/Home/Search

I'm trying to add images from that site to Wikimedia Commons but unfortunately, I can't because whenever I click on the image results, it's just a grey square. Am I th only one experiencing this? Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine for me. Could be an issue with your setup - try different browser, clearing cookies, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Use "main article" template for electoral history among prime ministers?

Just a thought. Right now, on some PM articles such as Justin Trudeau, his electoral history is in full display in his article. Can't we just link to the main article and not post his electoral history in his biography? Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be my preference. Some of the electoral histories are very long (eg Macdonald and King). I think it would be best to take the electoral history out of each PM article, with a link to the electoral history page. (Full disclosure: I created all of the PM electoral history pages, so I might be a bit biased.  ;) )Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

For consistency, we could put an "electoral history" section in each PM article, with a very brief summary: "X was elected ## to the House of Commons, and led the ## Party in ## general elections, wining ## and losing ##. For details, see: "Electoral history of X" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That would contradict MOS:BODY which argues against very short sections. Better to do a headnote at the start of the political career, or when the person in question becomes prime minister.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Old Crow, Yukon

Old Crow, Yukon had a traditional name of Teechik sourced to Alaska Native Place Names (it seems to have Canadian places as well). However, according to the source Old Crow is Van Tat. But that seems to be the name for the Old Crow Flats, here. Does anyone know the traditional name of Old Crow? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think one of the volumes of Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada had numerous maps with place names using various indigenous languages, but it's been a while since I perused a copy so I can't say with certainty that it'll contain the information you're seeking. Many libraries have copies of this encyclopedia. Mindmatrix 14:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt ours does. Plus, due to politics I have to boycott the library. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamara Lich: Notability?

Somebody's put a lot of work into creating her page in the past two days. Does she actually meet notability guidelines? She seems a fringe character enjoying fleeting fame. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say so. She's well known enough that they made fun of her on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Not that that is the bar for notability or anything. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately she's had enough coverage in WP:RS. PKT(alk) 12:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamara Lich (for those who don't want to search). Certainly no objection from a WP:ONEEVENT standpoint, but she has been a player in a lot events. There's not a lot that can be written about her, but at least it's all sourced. I wonder if it can, or even should, be fleshed-out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A merger consensus

Need input here in the discussion of Talk:Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government#Merger proposal. Merge Economic policy of the Stephen Harper government and Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government into Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government.

I know I posted this a few weeks ago but I barely got any more responses and this is my second attempt.

Please fill out! Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Radisson Heights, Calgary#Requested move 3 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Radisson Heights, Calgary#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ts'il?os Provincial Park#Requested move 25 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ts'il?os Provincial Park#Requested move 25 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Encounter (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 7 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Encounter (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 7 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LAV (armoured vehicle)#Requested move 22 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LAV (armoured vehicle)#Requested move 22 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

RBC Group

Currently, there is a proposal to move RBK Group to RBC Group. Though I keep thinking of Royal Bank of Canada, and RBC Group emblazoned over various ads. Is "RBC Group" used for the bank actually, or am I misremembering things? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Blue Jays Way?

Is "Blue Jays Way", the street in Toronto, notable enough to receive an article? I noticed several articles reference it. As I am not a Torontonian, I'm unfamiliar with which streets are relatively notable in Toronto, unless it's a major street like Bloor. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, no it's not. It's the part of Peter Street south of King St that happens to run past the Rogers Centre (SkyDome). It's only about 2/3rds of a kilometre long. PKT(alk) 22:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with PKT. Just because a street gets mentioned in other articles doesn't automatically mean it's notable enough to have its own — the notability test for streets is the ability to write and reliably sources some meaningful political, historical or social context for what makes the street significant, not just the ability to write that the street exists and has things on it (a bar that every single street in the world could pass). Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Another comment for no. As others have said it's a renamed street that isn't particularly significant. It doesn't even run that much by the Rogers Centre, just a very small corner portion clips the NW corner of it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

While it may not be notable for a standalone article, it certainly could warrant an entry in List of north–south roads in Toronto. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Templates of Canadian federal election articles

The templates at the top of the Canadian federal elections articles are 'not' showing the start & end dates of the parliament's existence. A template techno issue, I assume. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

False statement sat on "High-importance" article for 17 years.

From 2 February 2005‎ until 30 March 2022, the Electoral district (Canada) article included a claim in its present formula section that "A third protection clause exists, under which a province may not lose more than 15 per cent of its seats in a single adjustment,[8] but specific application of this rule has never been needed.", citing the Constitution, although it was reworded over the years. A section to this effect did exist under the British North America Act, 1952, but was repealed in 1974 by the British North America Act, 1974 (Now known as the Constitution Act, 1974).

Normally I would just remove it and move on, but given just how long it sat on a "High Importance" article it's worth being noted on here so people are aware.

I assume it was added as still being a rule as a mistake or in good faith, but, I think this is a good reminder to always check claims made in articles, no matter how long they've been there. WanukeX (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree, it should be removed Mkevlar (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Quebec or Québécois?

An editor changed the title of Cuisine of Quebec to Québécois cuisine. Not sure which title is more appropriate. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The original title was more appropriate as it is not simply Quebecois who are involved; Anglophones are also present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

An editor has changed the title back. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Second time in under four hours you decided to do it your own way instead of discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that is called being bold, which we often encourage. The first move was baseless, now it's reverted. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)