Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 28

A number of high ranking military members have recently resigned in light of sexual misconduct allegations, including Jonathan Vance, his successor Art McDonald, and Dany Fortin. I haven't really looked into all the details, but given widespread and enduring news coverage,^[1][2][3][4] with outlets even describing it as an "institutional crisis"^[5], its clear that this should be covered on Wikipedia. There already exists an article on Sexual assault in the Canadian Forces, but in its more of an outdated essay in its current state. Should we expand that article or create a new one? Any help or suggestions would be appreciated, as I am not very familiar with this topic. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the discussion above, I think the fact that land acknowledgements as a practice are common^[1] in some cities but not others is relevant to the individual city pages as a Canadian/municipal cultural practice. When a city, all of its municipally-funded organizations, and even independent entities will include an identical (or nearly-identical) land acknowledgement statement on every website and in-person at all of their events, it seems like it would be relevant to a visitor or reader who is reading a Wikipedia article to learn more about what the city is like. It would also be relevant for someone visiting a city from a location within Canada where the practice is less common. However, citation is an issue because most news sources don't report on this cultural practice. Michaeltyu (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Michaeltyu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headings in complience with WP:CCSG and WP:CITSTRUCT

Toponymy or Etymology

Brampton missing section

Toronto missing section

Winnipeg heading misspelled

History

Geography

Cityscape

Brampton missing section

Mississauga missing section, content is in other headings

Montreal combine Arcitecture and Neigbourhoods section See: Toronto

Ottawa missing section, content in other headings

Demographics

Mississauga heading out of order

Economy

Government

Winnipeg combined with crime which should be its own heading

Culture

Brampton section in wrong place

Infrastructure - Contains transportation as a subheading

Transportation

Crime

Sustainability

Vancouver streamline content and improving references

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

Brampton missing section

Calgary add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

Edmonton add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

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

Hamilton add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

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

Mississauga missing section

Montreal add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

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

Ottawa missing section, content in other headings

Toronto add Sustainability heading, adding content with references

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

Winnipeg missing section

Education

Notable people

International relations

See also

References

Further reading

External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Edmonton has been investing in Sustainability^[2]. The City has an active policy that is also noteworthy^[3], furthermore there is more noteworthy content which belongs in a sustainability section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article titled Census in Canada said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll just open by strongly stating that pages should recognize "Premier Designate" or "Prime Minister-Designate" when that individual is formally invited to form a Ministry, not by when the Media (The CBC or Otherwise) calls an election for one party or another. It has been explicitly stated in multiple Cases when Lieutenant Governor's invited new Premier's that the Title is Dependent on that.^[1][2][3]WanukeX (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In Canada, the governor-general is not the head of state in Canada, the monarch of Canada is (currently Elizabeth II). The GG is appointed by the monarch, and fulfils the roles and duties of the head of state, but is not considered Canada's head of state.^[1] Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • ...and so it's the same with the lieutenant governors & commissioners? GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    • In general, it would be the same as lieutenant governors fulfill the same functions of the GG in provinces,^[2] although there's the added layer that provinces are generally not considered states, so can you have a head of state for something that is not a state? My response would be no, and LGs are not considered head of state in Canada regardless. Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
      • In the three territories the commissioner is a representative of the federal government. They used to wield quite a bit of power but the position has become much more ceremonial. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
        • What Z1720 said. Canada's head of state is the Queen of Canada. The Governor General of Canada and the lieutanant governors of the provinces are the Queen's viceroys within their respective jurisdictions (I believe the GG is viceroy in the territories) but they are not heads of state. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension.

More information Election, Leader ...

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

Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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