Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::::Concentrate on responding to points raised and questions asked in the dispute resolution instead of deflecting with refusals, "]", red herrings, and non-squiturs. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Concentrate on responding to points raised and questions asked in the dispute resolution instead of deflecting with refusals, "]", red herrings, and non-squiturs. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 16:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: This has long passed the point if belongs here. Shoo! ] (]) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: This has long passed the point if belongs here. Shoo! ] (]) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::This battle has been persisting for over a decade. Similarly prefer to keep it raging elsewhere. 20:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 61 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
"Negotiated" or "successfully negotiated"?
Would like some input here on William Lyon Mackenzie King. I'm talking about the fourth paragraph of his lead; there is a sentence that says, "...and successfully negotiated Newfoundland's entry into Confederation". Should we omit the "successfully" part or does it make it clearer to understand? Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, it is possible to negotiate something that still doesn't actually happen, either because the negotiations collapsed or because the proposal was agreed to in principle but then not actually implemented for some other reason. So there might be ways to phrase it differently if the wording irks you, but the question of whether the negotiations actually led to the desired result actually happening or not is the distinction people generally intend when they say "successfully negotiated". Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation nation
Wanted to ask for some input because we're about to run into a multiple-article renaming mess.
In the process of creating redlinks for the newly elected MPPs in last night's 2022 Ontario general election so that their new articles could be started, I temporarily disambiguated the new rep for Scarborough Centre as David Smith (Ontario MPP) for lack of an immediate better idea — but this isn't an ideal title, as there are also David William Smith and Dave Smith (politician) to consider. And even worse, Dave is an incumbent MPP who will be sitting alongside David-from-Scarborough-Centre in the new legislature.
I don't think the Dave vs. David distinction is sufficient, because some people might very well assume that Dave's article was at David too and thus erroneously link to the "Ontario MPP" title — but I don't think disambiguating them by riding is the best option either, because that would require Dave's article to be disambiguated as the em-dashed "Peterborough—Kawartha MPP". Obviously we can do that if we absolutely have to, but it's better avoided if at all possible. David William is probably fine, but I think the other two need clearer and more unambiguous titles to minimize any possible confusion.
So I wanted to ask for some opinions about how we can improve their disambiguation. Are we stuck with dabbing them by riding, or does anybody have a viable alternative to suggest? Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
In these situations, I prefer to disambiguate by geography. Perhaps using "Toronto politician" (he was a trustee on the TDSB after all, not just an MPP) vs. "Peterborough, Ontario politician" would suffice? -- Earl Andrew - talk18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
We don't have the birthdates of either politician, plus I think they should be avoided as much as possible. People are more likely to differentiate by geography than year of birth, as people aren't going to know someone's year of birth as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, since there hasn't been any new input in almost a week, would it be fair to say that we have a consensus to go ahead with "Toronto" vs. "Peterborough" as their new disambiguators? Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, done. Thanks for the input, y'all, both pages have now been moved and I'm cleaning up the inbounds. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Taleeb Noormohamed - many new edits
We are once again seeing the Taleeb Noormohamed page being bombarded with edits from accounts that seem to only focus on him, adding claims with dubious or non-existent sources. This seems to happen at this page every couple of months. I've tried to edit it in line with the MOS as best I can, however, I thought other editors may want to review recent activity or keep an eye on it as well. —WildComet02:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Recognition of aboriginal title
This article Port of Saint John has a statement "The Port of Saint John lies within Mi'gma'gi, the Mikmaw Nation ancestral stewardship region and greater Wabanaki Confederacy ancestral governance area", which has lived happily on the page since 2019. A week or so an IP address removed it, claiming it was filler. Not so. It is the new reality. I reverted it, but the anon editor has returned (slightly different IP address). Would like some guidance, assistance. Do I allow the revert to stand? I would like to stop an edit war before it escalates. Verne Equinox (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I would have an issue with the statement because it is (was) unreferenced. If a solid citation can be found, then it can be reinstated. PKT(alk)19:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. There are well-referenced Indigenous claims, and... less well-referenced claims. I think there needs some independent reliable sources for a statement like that in the article. IP challenged it, and the response now is to provide sources. Singularity42 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The statement looks just plain wrong, given that the Saint John River basin was the territory of the Wəlastəkwewiyik. Maybe whoever first added it confused it with St. John's, to which the Mi'kmaq do have (or had) a land claim. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
It would be fine if supported by proper sourcing, but is not acceptable without sources — especially given the point that it's much more likely to be Wəlastəkwewiyik than Mi'kmaq territory. Land acknowledgement is an issue that can impact how we write about topics, obviously, but even a land acknowledgement still has to be written neutrally and sourced reliably, as opposed to just sitting there as an unsourced and contextless assertion. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
So I guess we have some work to do. Instead of taking the time to merger or improve the articles they were simply redirected. So what we are stuck with is redirects to a title that has not been used by us since 2007 as since then its called "Latin, Central and South American origins". Do we go back and do the articles over again? Odd no Canadian content editors involved. Anyhone else see this bundled or did it sneak by us all? odd out of 200 pages they just picked Central and South American peoples.Moxy-13:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't remember any notice here, which is one of the places it should be. Does Misplaced Pages have any guidelines for reversing deletions when appropriate project pages aren't notified of the discussion? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It was listed in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada for the entire duration of the time it was open, per this diff in that page's edit history. No special notice is required to be given about a deletion discussion on this talk page beyond a deletion discussion already being listed in the Canadian deletion sorting log — it's your responsibility to monitor the AFD sortlogs from time to time (which you can easily do by clicking on the "Deletion talks" tab at the top of this page, so it's not even hard to find). But it isn't anybody else's responsibility to give out special notifications above and beyond standard process, and there's no evidence at all that standard process wasn't followed. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
They were all batched into the same discussion. The "bundle of others" was there, because "Guatemalan" was the bundle. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I intend to recreate at least the articles on Mexican, Colombian, and Salvadoran Canadians, the three largest groups whose articles were redirected. In my opinion, it was a very strange discussion and close: it only focused on whether Guatemalan Canadians should have their own article, but the rough consensus they did not was then used as a reason to redirect all the other articles as well, even though Guatemalan Canadians are one of the smaller subgroups of Latin American Canadians. Reliable sources certainly exist for the three subgroups I've mentioned. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, but do make sure you're actually citing real sources, and not just recreating articles as poorly sourced as the deleted versions were. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The Template Jihad continues. Could somebody with the proper technical knowledge see if there are actually any pages using these results templates other than the election articles? I'd like to move the info into the articles and get it over with. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Harper being the second longest prime minister from a right-of-centre party - notable or not notable?
There's an old edit request at Talk:Canadian Institute of Actuaries from 2019 that was made an IP who declared WP:PAID that doesn't ever appear to have been answered. The edit request was not really formatted as such which might partly explain why nobody ever responded. Perhaps over the years, the changes requested were incorporated, but no corroborating sources were cited in the request. There's also been another recent expansion made by another PAID-declared editor as well that probably also need some assessing. This time, sources were cited in support but they seem to be mostly to the subject of the article's official website. The editor who made the expansion does seem to be trying to do things in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but it still might be good for others to take a look at the changes that they made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Harper government
I am thinking of creating a brand-new article of Harper's tenure. I've just realized that ~80% of the content from Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government, Foreign policy of the Stephen Harper government, and Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government cover the first three years (2006-2008) of Harper's tenure. This is highly embarrassing and imagine being a reader wanting to find info on what he did in his second and third terms only to realize there is barely any content. My plan is to copy and paste a small amount of stuff from the three articles, add it to my new article, and add a load of content relating to his second and third term. After, I'll redirect the three articles to sections of my article. It will also be more organized to have everything in his tenure in one article (and I'll ensure it won't be extremely long as I'm taking out the excessive detail from the domestic, foreign, and environmental articles). What do you guys think? Ak-eater06 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Question: Should the "government type" & "government body" parameters be included in or excluded from the infoboxes of the provinces and territories. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Survey
Neutral - As long as we're consistent across all the provinces & territories on this matter? I've no preference for either inclusion or exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
(Invited by the bot). I think that it's best to have it in, but that doesn't mean mandate it. It's important, succinct info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Permitted but not mandated, per North. This effort by the OP to make changes solely for the sake of consistency without rationale as to why edits are actually improvements is not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with GoodDay that we need to be consistent across all provinces and I agree with Peter Ormond that it's an important piece of info that should be included. Masterhatch (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per Masterhatch. Removing application of informative parameter that is consistently implemented across all other jurisdictions without rationale is disruptive. "Previous was sufficient" is not rationale to exclude whatsoever. It is subjective "I don't like it" opinion of an article owner. Hwy43 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
A change was imposed across multiple articles and edit-warred in during an ongoing RfC - that's disruptive. In the absence of a rationale as to why this ought to be considered a key fact and mandated, we fall back to excluding unnecessary content and determining appropriate parameters at the article level. If other commenters are able to do what the OP explicitly would not and provide a justification as to why the proposed change improves these articles, great. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
|government_type= has been applied to all provinces butManitoba since the end of 2020 at minimum. If you felt so strongly about these parameters being unnecessary, then why has no fuss been raised by you at the other provincial articles? Your edit summaries are routinely useless and absent of rationale, especially on articles that you own. Despite others including rationale in their edit summaries at Manitoba for parameter inclusion, why must it come to this to finally get the rationale that you hang your hat on? You have battlegrounded others in the past on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE or MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which IIRC have been previously interpreting incorrectly or farfetchedly stretched to match your own position to maintain control of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and the like. You narrowly avoided a topic ban on infoboxes in 2014 by desysopping yourself as an admin and pleading to be given a chance to take corrective actions in your habits. Alas many of your habits persist eight years later. Hwy43 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Concise and relevant information. Consistency across provincial and territorial infoboxes is helpful to the reader, who is likely to move from article to article, and may misinterpret arbitrary differences in how the information is displayed as having some significance. There is no reason to adopt a different standard for some provinces and territories than for others.--Trystan (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
I've deleted the "government type" & "government body" parameters from the rest of the provinces articles, per @Nikkimaria:'s deletion at Manitoba. Makes no sense to have 'one' province being different from the other nine. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleting it from every provincial article’s infobox template because one editor in Manitoba doesn’t like it there is about the lamest rationale I have ever witnessed. Hwy43 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, having a quick summary of the type of government strikes me as exactly what is normally found in the infoboxes. I've poked around on this page and the Manitoba page you refer to, but I've not found any discussion of the issue, so I'm going to add it back to the Saskatchewan infobox, which is where I noticed a deletion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I recommend that you add it back to all of them & not just Saskatchewan. Furthermore, I recommend that you open an RFC on the matter here as to whether or not to include/exclude for all the provinces. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It was on all9 of 10 provincial articles so a consensus to include existed so the onus is on the dissenter to open that discussion on whether to exclude. Hwy43 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I've opened an RFC on that matter. In the meantime, I hope we can keep all the provinces consistent. Now, everyone has a platform to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
(Invited by the bot). I think that it's best to have it in. It's important, succinct info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm female, and you need to self-revert. If you want to have an RfC, let the RfC run rather than edit-warring your proposal in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It's up to Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, since he's the individual who made the additions to all the provinces & territories infoboxes. PS - Glad you finally decided to participate in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I had a small hesitation over whether everyone would agree with this (thinking Quebec, indigenous territories...) but c’mon, it’s an infobox entry, which should reflect the simplest enunciation of the de jure situation. I say this as someone who once argued that Quebec does indeed have a national anthem. This is a silly argument and I cannot think of a good reason to delete the attribute for any province. Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The infobox at Monarchy in Saskatchewan has a formatting error that I don't know how to fix. Under the coat of arms in the infobox, the caption is: "Arms of Her Majesty of the Queen in right Saskatchewan". Grammatically, it should read "Arms of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan". However, I can't find where that caption is located; I think it's tied to a template somehow, but I don't know where. Could someone more knowledgeable in wiki-mark-up than me (admittedly, that's a pretty low bar to jump) take a look at it? Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
For now, I've updated this use of the template to just use the title of the arms article (based on looking at how the equivalent articles for Canada and Alberta do it). There does appear to be an error with a misplaced 'of' in the Infobox Monarchy template; I will follow up on that when I get a chance.--Trystan (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
An issue has come up about the short description for Prime Ministers. Since it affects all of the PM pages, I thought I would raise it here. The other editors involved are @Thrakkx: and @Ak-eater06:. There are two issues. One is, should the order of the PM be in the short description? For at least a year now, we've had "1st Prime Minister of Canada", "2nd PM", "3rd PM", and so on, up to the current PM, who just has "Prime Minister of Canada". The second issue is whether the dates should be in this format "(1867–1873)", or "from 1867 to 1873".
My preference on the first issue is to keep the order of PM in the short description, as I think it is helpful and relevant for a short description, providing quick context.
My preference on the second issue is to use the parentheses, because it is shorter, which is one of the goals of the Short Description. The SD Guidelines recommend around 40 characters. With the order number and the parenthetical dates, the first 9 PM Short descriptions (except for Macdonald and Meighen, with two terms) come in precisely at 40 characters. For the rest, starting with the 10th PM, it's normally 41 characters, except for King and Trudeau Sr because they had more than one term.
I edit short descriptions quite a lot on Misplaced Pages. Dates defining the term in office should not be specified with parentheses per WP:SDDATES: In biographies, care should be taken to distinguish between dates defining a lifespan and those defining a period in office: lifespans should normally be specified by '(birthyear–deathyear)', and periods in office by 'from startyear to endyear'. The phrase "Prime minster from Canada from #### to ####" only violates the 40-character principle on brevity by 2 characters in the case for Canadian PMs. On the ordinal is where I believe the brevity guideline comes into play. Adding 11th to a description, for example, adds an additional 5 characters (more than 12% of the recommended 40) to the length, bringing us to 7 over for the 11th prime minister. I also seriously doubt the usefulness of counting, especially when countries have their own systems (double-dipping PMs in Canada are not counted twice, but double-dipping US presidents are. Finally, someone on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's talk page made a great point about ordinals in short descriptions: would indicate there have been five other presidents since 2019, and Zelenskyy is the sixth. The short description "11th prime minister of Canada from 1930 to 1935" could be interpreted that there were 11 different prime ministers during that period. To summarize, respect SDDATES and don't use ordinals.Thrakkx (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deletion sorting for each province/territory
Not long ago, there was only separate Deletion Sorting for 3 or 4 bigger provinces - though they were hardly necessary given that Canada isn't a particularly busy area. Then some more were added which seemed excessive - but almost never used. Now there are 13 - some created by User:Curbon7 - some of which have never been used in the year they have been around. Why do we need all these sublists? It only makes it more difficult to check. I think we should roll ALL of these back into the Canada sorting - with the possible exception of Quebec and Ontario, which usually have at least some traffic (though they'd hardly overwhelm the main Canada list). Currently most of these are empty, and all but one of the others has only one entry (one has two). Thoughts? Explanations? Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I certainly never thought it was necessary for all thirteen Canadian provinces and territories to have their own dedicated deletion sorts — yet again, that seems like it was most likely motivated by "if the US has separate deletion sorts for each state, then Canada automatically has to do it the same way on principle", but yet again, it hangs up on the question of whether Canada needs that or not, because we're a smaller country with fewer Misplaced Pages articles to begin with, and there are just never so many Canadian-related articles at AFD at any one time as to overwhelm the utility of a single Canadawide list. As noted, many of them have never been used at all, and even before the set was completed last year even some of the ones that already existed (e.g. Nova Scotia) already weren't all that widely used to begin with. Across all 13 of them combined, there are just five articles being listed on them right now, of which one is double-sorted as both Canada and Quebec simultaneously, meaning that merging them all into one national list would only add four discussions to the national list rather than five.
I'd agree that they're mostly unnecessary, and should mostly be rolled back up to the Canada-wide list. Ontario and Quebec are more defensible on past traffic than most of the others, though I'm not convinced that they're needed; there still just aren't enough articles involved to make splitting them off an urgent necessity either. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Zap 'em, for all reasons outlined above. The subcategories were created by a well-meaning editor in Florida, but they're not useful in our context. PKT(alk)17:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I support zapping, as the "well-meaning editor from Florida". Didn't realize how useless it would be lol. Curbon7 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Would anyone like to help me work on the article Waterloo, Ontario? Some sections are in bad shapes, but I've been cleaning it up. The main issues were a bunch of lists that should be prose: only ones left are in the Attractions and Economy sections. Another issues is lack of due weight. For example, the Recreation and Library sections were previously lacking before I added to them. Currently, the sections Media, Post-Secondary, Ion rapid transit, Sports, Attractions and 20th and 21st centuries need expansion. The sections Geography and Economy need c/e, structure and sourcing. I need to look at Services and Education more closely. The dream would be bringing the article to GA: I think it's doable.
There is a common error throughout Misplaced Pages which needs to be corrected. It should even be made standard when writing articles about Canada. When people make reference to a geographic location they forget to put in the Province. I repeatedly see things like, "Toronto, Canada" or "Calgary, Canada." The irony of this is that no one would ever say "Chicago, United States" or "Los Angeles, USA." But for some reason everything seems to be "city, Canada." We have Provinces!!! Therefore it is "Toronto, Ontario" and "Calgary, Alberta." These errors are geographically, typographically end politically incorrect. And of course it's the Americans that do it most of the time. Drsrwatkins1956 (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
No, that goes against WP:EASTEREGG. Links should be as transparent as possible and not require users to click (or hover over) them to understand what is being referenced. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I know it. Ohhh boy, I know it. Heck forbid, if it's put next to "England", "Scotland", "Wales" or "Northern Ireland". GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I have added some background and an overview of today's events. Thanks for creating the article and bringing it to our attention. Yeeno (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
May need some additional input at Monarchy of Canada, concerning whether the country's royal family should be described within the article, as "Canadian royal family" or "Royal family". GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Already here you are falsely presenting the Supreme Court's indifference toward an appeal as relevant to whether or not Misplaced Pages readers should have direct access to more information on a subject that's broader than one act of parliament. As noted at Talk:Monarchy of Canada, you haven't even read the section you're trying to disconnect the "Succession and regency" section from. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Did you? Because you were asked twice and you didn't reply either time. If you have read the section, you must be aware it contains historical facts, other court cases, opinions and observations from a decade or more ago, and the like, all related to the broad topic of royal succession in Canada. Not the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. To the broader topic of succession to the Canadian throne. Since you say you're aware of that, you can now explain why that information should be cut off from the royal succession section of Monarchy of Canada. You've been asked to explain that, too, and, similarly, have evaded answering. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
