Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

French Canadian

A consensus was loosely reached on the Denis Villeneuve article several years ago that his nationality should be listed as "French Canadian". Why there and no other articles, I do now know. There has been the occasional removal of it in the past, but a bit of an edit war started over this term a week ago and hence, Talk:Denis Villeneuve#French Canadian is not an ethnicity was created. I find myself supporting the former consensus despite disagreeing with the idea of it Please weigh-in there.. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, it should be "Canadian". I'd be quite content, if we done away with "French Canadian, English Canadian, Native Canadian, Inuit Canadian, Italian Canadian", etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, these nationalist (usually Quebec-related) pushing edits on Canadian bios are annoying & probably disruptive. For 'bleeps' sake, if the individual was born & lives in Canada? Then call them Canadian & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If there's a previous consensus, link it or people will declare that it doesn't exist or doesn't apply. If that discussion can't be found, then an RfD might be called for. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

From MOS:ETHNICITY:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Based on the above, we shouldn't be using French Canadian to refer to nationality of francophone Canadians, we should just be using Canada. We can also use "from Quebec, Canada" if appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

In the footnote of MOS:ETHNICITY, it says:

"There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by. A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most. For guidelines on naming conventions and sourcing Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities, see Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities."

Building on this, we should consider how reliable sources describe the subject of an article, and how they personally identify.

For example, Gilles Vigneault is a Quebecois nationalist and obviously identifies more as Quebecois then Canadian. Jean Chrétien, while also Quebecois, is more commonly identified as Canadian. —WildComet ^talk 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see Quebecois (rather than French Canadian) if that made sense in the circumstances of the particular subject and the reliable sources. That pretty much flows from Quebec, Canada being appropriate in some cases. Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Vigneault's intro should be changed to Canadian. But, I'm not going through all that headache again. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing Merger Discussion - Member of Provincial Parliament (Canada) and Member of Provincial Parliament (Western Cape) into a generic Member of Provincial Parliament Page

Hi all. This may be of interest to the project. Someone has proposed merging the MPP (Canada) article with the MPP (Western Cape) article into a generic MPP page. You can find the merger discussion here if you want to participate. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"ranks in rankings of Canadian prime ministers" or "ranks "?

I have decided to find a solution for this dispute here rather than open an RfC (because I'd get a lot of non-Canadian responses, after all, an RfC is open to everyone).

On Jean Chrétien, it used to be "Chretien ranks highly among scholars and the public" until three editors changed it to "places highly in rankings of Canadian prime ministers"; two editors argued that it should mention "rankings of Canadian prime ministers" because people will know what article they're being linked to and that it may not be clear that "ranks" means "historical rankings of Canadian prime ministers.

This got me thinking. On all PM articles, should we mention "rankings of Canadian prime ministers" rather than simply "ranks ___ among scholars and the public"? Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As discussed previously on this page, the place to discuss wording of a particular article is to start on the Talk page of that article. That's what it's there for. But apparently when you're on the losing side of a 3-1 debate on the article, you come running here. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Maybe read again. I'm talking in general; that's why the title of this section doesn't refer to the Chretien article. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

New map link in infobox

User:Denelson83 has added--to the infobox of about 80 Canadian communities--a link to a National Topographic System map. The linked maps are frequently of little benefit. For example, at Fergus, Ontario, the linked map shows Fergus up in the left corner. At Glen Williams, Ontario, the linked map doesn't even show Glen Williams until the user zooms in (but if they knew where Glen Williams was, they probably wouldn't be looking for it on a map). Was there a consensus to add these links to the infoboxes of so many articles? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that this morning as well. I don't think it's especially useful, but as long as the info added isn't wrong, I don't have a problem with it. PK T(alk) 17:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This was done because those articles mention the NTS maps those communities can be found on. The links were added to show that those are the correct NTS maps. In doing this, I discovered that the NTS map originally specified for Dawson City in Yukon was actually the map for Whitehorse, and I ended up correcting it. -- Denelson 83 19:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

~~@Denelson83: Can you comment on the usefulness of the link from Glen Williams, Ontario? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)~~

@Denelson83: If all you're doing is adding a link to a topographic map, there's no need to clog the infobox with an NTS map link. Just add a link to the GNBC parameter, which is right beneath it in the infobox. Doing this provides readers with additional information about the geographic location, and also provides a topographic map centred right over the community. Here is a link for Glen Williams, Ontario. More for less. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I tried that, with {{CGNDB link}}, but that template is now in the process of being deleted. I will have to use {{cite cgndb}} instead if I want to take that approach again. However, I would rather see the entire CGNDB added to Wikidata, and use Wikidata to fetch the five-letter key for each such feature. -- Denelson 83 01:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Given how often CGNDB is down that's probably not feasible. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are data dumps of the CGNDB available, and I can certainly work through those. But mind you, if I was to do this, it would probably take me several months or even a couple of years to get through, as the CGNDB probably has upwards of a million entries in it. In Newfoundland and Labrador alone, the CGNDB has over 33,000 entries. -- Denelson 83 04:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

GNBC works fine; it was down for one day. There's no benefit to readers sending them to the NTS map site; it should not be in the infobox. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We already have so many map tools and links. This is superfluous overkill. Moreover, the NTS map info is so archaic: it refers to the hardcopy paper maps. What is the value of that? IMO, the entire reference to NTS maps should be removed from the infobox. BTW, we had a similar discussion just a few months ago, see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 29#New template created to visualize National Topographic System map sheets. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Accurate News and Information Act

I have nominated Accurate News and Information Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion - University of Windsor Students' Alliance and University of Windsor

Hi all. I proposed merging University of Windsor Students' Alliance with University of Windsor, the latter of which is mid-importance on our project quality scale. It's been 6 days, no feedback. You can join the discussion here: Merger proposal - University of Windsor Students' Alliance. I'll keep it open a bit past the 7 day mark, but if there isn't any additional discussion in the next few days I will proceed with WP:Merge due to no discussion. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Assistance for the page on ICBC? (Insurance Corp of British Columbia)

Hi all,

If anyone has some time, can you please take a look at the article for ICBC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia)? I've added some entries to it, updated the financial information, but I'd like to seperate some of the information into sections. Maybe a history section and one other section? I'm not sure; fairly new to this, but I wanted to improve the article a bit.

Also; there's an entry on there stating that ICBC planned to ban luxury vehicles from being insured with ICBC. I added an entry about what ICBC actually did with that (they just increased the premiums, they didn't ban them). Just looking for some feedback on how to make that section flow better.

Thanks!

Chuckstablers (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Chuckstablers

I made a few small edits to help you along including filling in reference details (WP:BAREURLS), adjusted the layout (MOS:LAYOUT), and added a photo. If you are looking to add details on the history of the ICBC, you can find scholarly articles through Google Scholar, or through the Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/). You may also have access to scholarly databases through a university or public library. Make sure you cite/reference (WP:CITE) the articles you source information from. I have contributed to some Crown Corporation articles such as ATB Financial and the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund if you want to use those as a jumping off point. Caddyshack01 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-direct no longer relevant

I think it's time we have 2021 Prince Edward Island Liberal Party leadership election deleted as a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I recommend people to comment on the discussion below

Talk:2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election#Should Erin O'Toole be in the infobox? Please state whether you oppose or are in favour of changing the infobox format in 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election.

It goes against the rules a bit to post a random article on this noticeboard however I feel this is the best way to attract Canadian editors for consensus. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Provinces with conservative party-based governments

Keeping in mind that Saskatchewan would likely be an exception. Should we abbreviate the conservative-based gov't parties, in each province's infobox, next to the premier's name? For example, many of such provinces show "PC", Quebec shows "CAQ" & Alberta shows "UCP". Or should we spell the party's name out. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't seen any advantage to doing so. All the Conservative parties have some adjective in their name and are commonly known by their acronym. I could be wrong about Alberta usage, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I had an objector at Manitoba, so figured I'd bring the matter here. PS - I agree, the acronyms are more familiar. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:, rather then keep removing the acronym at Manitoba, it would help if you'd join the discussion here. Still not certain why you're singling out Manitoba, among the provinces that have PC governments. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your BOLD edit at Manitoba because I saw it on my watchlist and noted that it was not an improvement. I'm not sure why you're insisting on edit-warring to restore it. As I've already noted, stylistic consistency between articles is not a requirement, and there are good reasons not to use abbreviations here, namely MOS and WP:AUDIENCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We shall see what consensus is reached here, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually digging a bit deeper into this... your consistency argument also makes no sense, because you're applying this rationale only to some of the Conservative governments. So if we want to pursue cross-article consistency, that is also in favour of not abbreviating. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If we adopt your argument to (for example) all 50 US states, 5 territories & DC? There'd be a tone of "(D)" & "(R)" acronyms being expanded. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

As already noted, between-article consistency is not a requirement per MOS, so potential poor practices elsewhere are not relevant to what is the appropriate solution here. And as already noted, if you were to argue on the basis of between-article consistency, that supports unabbreviation in the articles you mention to match what is done with non-conservative govts + Saskatchewan. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We're in disagreement. Therefore this will require other editors, to decide the issue. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would favour taking party affiliation out of that field. The premiers are listed there in their official role of Head of Government, which is notionally distinct from the party they belong to. Aside from the US, party affiliation doesn't appear in any of the country articles I checked. If it has to be there, it should be abbreviated where possible to avoid clutter (see e.g., Amazonas (Brazilian state), Victoria (Australia)).--Trystan (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Omit the party affiliation or spell out the name. The articles are aimed at general readers who might not know what PC or UCP are. Instant Comma (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Spelling out the names makes for an unpleasant aesthetic. If affiliation must appear, there are tooltips or status bar text showing the name of the page acronyms link to.

Removing affiliation entirely would get around the question of whether the Saskatchewan Party even has an acronym in common use. That does seem the better solution. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Trystan; the party affiliation should be removed entirely, because the person is listed in their capacity as a government official. It's not really a place, IMO, that we should be getting into the "politics" behind that. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert Borden and "the government passes laws"

Is it incorrect to say that "the government passes laws", rather than "the parliament passes laws"?Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Not incorrect, particularly if there is a reliable source to support the claim, but the latter is what actually occurs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz I'm talking about this Canadian Encylopedia article in the first paragraph under the section "First World War", it says, "the Canadian government quickly passed the War Measures Act..." What do you think of this wording? Should it be used when editing Wikipedia? Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No need to ping me, this is on my watch list.

It was not only the government, in this case. If I recall, there were Quebec members of the sitting government who objected to Canada being brought into a British war, and members of the opposition who supported the decision to enter the war. So, the parliament did pass it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It's well accepted practice to ask for further input on Wikiproject talkpages for low-traffic pages. No need to waste time on this side-tracking procedural discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some useful guidance from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject.
Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone questions one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.
Avoid starting the same discussion on multiple pages, which fragments discussion. Instead, start the discussion in one location and, if appropriate, advertise it elsewhere via a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, consider moving all posts to one location and linking from the old locations to the new. State clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. (See Wikipedia:Content forking/Internal § Discussion forks.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz no point in posting Robert Borden's talk page as it is highly unlikely anyone will comment. Better to bring it up here. Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that, without first posting the question on the relevant Talk page, and waiting to see if people comment? So you can just decide to ignore the guidelines posted for all of the Wikipedia community? The guidelines don't apply to you, I guess, especially if the editing on the page is going against what you want. And, even if it is the case that no-one there will comment, if you bring it here, you should tell people what has triggered the discussion, and where, and that you've been reverted, rather than just pose it as a general "what if...?" question without any context. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

And without leaving a note to tell the editors who have reverted you that you're going to raise the issue somewhere else on WP? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Serjeant, you are in the minority here. As RandomCanadian wrote, it is common practice to bring it up on WikiProject talk pages. I've never seen anyone get so triggered by a question. Please reflect on your arrogance. Thank you.

P.S. also my original title for this section wasn't necessarily about Borden, it was in general too. Avoid jumping to the conclusion and reflect on your behaviour. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When the government has a majority (or in this case, with the urgency of suddenly being at war), the difference between the legal fact the act is actually passed by Parliament and the practical fact that a government which has control of Parliament can pass the acts it wants is in effect almost purely academic. Looking at the Hansard for the time period in question, first reading was (I think, as usual) without controversy (it's Bill no. 2, "to confer certain powers upon the Governor in Council and to amend the Immigration Act").^[1] Second reading was similarly unopposed.^[2] The bill was considered in front of the whole House the next day.^[3] There is not much report of any debate over it; a few technical questions here and there, but third reading is reported on later in the day without objections.^[4] There are no reports of any divisions over it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Saying the government passed a law is commonly understood in Canadian politics to mean “the government introduced a bill and successfully shepherded it through Parliament”. However, as we are writing for a general audience, I would support being more accurate and less colloquial. No reason not to say that Parliament passed the Act.--Trystan (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

In Canada, it becomes law if the bill is passed by the House of Commons & the Senate & signed by the governor general (on behalf of the monarch). Don't know if this helps any. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: As I was hinting at above, the difference between the legal fact the act is actually passed by Parliament and the practical fact that a government which has control of Parliament can pass the acts it wants is in effect almost purely academic. The Senate rarely rejects bills from the lower house, particularly in the period we're talking of; the governor general by convention almost never vetoes any bill (this has never happened in Canadian history); and of course this particular act seems to have been passed with all the urgency of wartime (and very little time was indeed spent reviewing it by Parliament, as the extracts from the Hansard quoted above show), so... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)

Just chiming in to agree that writing that the "government passed a law" in a Canadian context seems like a very natural plain language way to write it and I don't think we need to overthink the procedural details. Dan Carkner (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

University of Toronto/Université Laval copyright?

Courtesy pings @Nikkimaria: - @Diannaa:, -@Sphilbrick:

Today saw copyright alert on many prime ministers bios.starting around a year ago.....is the Dictionary of Canadian biography published by University of Toronto/Laval University copying our content or is it the other way around? Louis St. Laurent, - Robert Borden, - Wilfrid LaurierMoxy- 13:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick peek at Louis St. Laurent, and it looks like the longest pieces of similar text are quotations, at least some of which are from biographi.ca with suitable referencing. There does appear to be some copied text, such as "...program of economic reconstruction and more social welfare..." which are clearly copied from biograpi.ca, as Internet Archive has a copy of that page as of 6 September 2015 with the text, whereas the 22 August 2015 version of the Wikipedia file (ie - the latest version before the first archived copy of the biographi.ca page) does not contain the text. Mind matrix 14:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty common for universities, libraries and archives to stick generic copyright tags on their pages and photos. They're often meaningless. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

DCB isn't a generic university page - there is a valid copyright claim on the publication, and if we're copying from it inappropriately, we need to fix that. (I haven't checked to what extent we are). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright tags are almost always meaningless - in Berne Convention countries, works are automatically copyrighted upon creation without the need for any copyright tag or registration. -M.nelson (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

thinking the main concern here is that we have an editor copy and pasting that we're not aware of. ..... If there is copyright vios we need to determine how prevalent this is and by whom.Moxy-

19:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Moxy interestingly enough I greatly expanded those three articles (as it says on my user page). Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a fast look.... anyway you can go back and add summaries instead of mass copy pasting of quotes as per MOS:QUOTATIONS...non encyclopedic writing style? But is this the main problem....getting copyvio problems on many more then just these 3 artciles.Moxy-

20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Moxy (sorry if I'm pinging you unnecessarily as you might have this board on your watchlist) I will modify the St. Laurent article in a couple of weeks...also keep in mind when I expanded that article in October/November 2021 my editing skills weren't that sharp. However, per Laurier and Borden, I see no problems; I never "copy and pasted" word-by-word (rather I modified the wording and wrote in my own words) and I would never plagiarize. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem goes back further then 2021..... but I see on your user page you just had this copy paste problem? Am I missing something because you seem to indicate that you can copy and paste at will from encyclopedias?There might be a lot to review here Moxy-

00:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I literally said I never "copy and pasted" word-by-word in my above response...:P Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

True North News - Reliable or not reliable?

Redirects in Ontario

Concerning edits

Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Woohoo

Possible paid editing at Taleeb Noormohamed

Discussion which could benefit from Canadian input: Primary topic for Mount Royal station

Images for Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II

Anyone know if it's allowed to cite Canadian Encyclopedia on Wiki?

I recently got my edit reverted after I cited Canadian Encylopedia...then I found out Canadian Encylopedia says here: "Canadian Encyclopedia says: © COPYRIGHT OF THIS WEB SITE BELONGS TO HISTORICA CANADA. The use for study and research by students and teachers is encouraged. The commercial reproduction, storage or transmittal of any part of this site is forbidden, without the permission and proper acknowledgement of the copyright owner. Copyright of visual materials resides with the copyright owners described in the credits."

I don't understand. I've been citing this source a lot and never once got reverted for copyright reasons. Has anyone else cited Canadian Encyclopedia and got this problem before? Does anyone know if it's allowed to be cited? Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is fine to use. Copyright doesn't mean we can't cite a souce. Most sources are copyrighted. It just means you can not reproduce or plagerize its contents.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't ban citing the Canadian Encyclopedia; it bans copying and pasting the Canadian Encylopedia's text directly into a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Darryl Kerrigan and User:Bearcat I recommend you check out User talk:Ak-eater06#Recent edit reversion and Sphilbrick's take for why you can't cite it as a source. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: Sphilbrick didn't say that it can't be used as a source - they allege that you committed a copyright violation by copying or closely paraphrasing it (WP:Close paraphrasing can still be a copyright violation). Editors raised a similar concern just above at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#University_of_Toronto/Université_Laval_copyright?. Please see WP:FIXCLOSEPARA for instructions on how to paraphrase properly. -M.nelson (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User:M.nelson He said "The short answer is that means we cannot use it." Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The context makes it clear that "use" means copy or closely paraphrase. Instant Comma (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The thing I would be mindful of in the WP context is- are you taking text exactly as written in an overly generous huge chunk. I've used that source for example to expand upon the National Capital Region article, (under Further reading) and have not had the issue you've explained. CaribDigita (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 3

File:Canadiens Francais. Venez avec nous dans le 150ieme Bataillon C.M.R. Aider a la victoire du coq Gaulois sur l'aigle Prussien, 1915. (50186381413).jpg

Kimble Ainslie

Photo request: Fountainhead Pub in Vancouver, BC

Requested move at Talk:Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto)#Requested move 17 May 2022

Taleeb Noormohamed - many new edits

Inuit or the Inuit

Recognition of aboriginal title

Disambiguation nation

Wanted to ask for some input because we're about to run into a multiple-article renaming mess.

In the process of creating redlinks for the newly elected MPPs in last night's 2022 Ontario general election so that their new articles could be started, I temporarily disambiguated the new rep for Scarborough Centre as David Smith (Ontario MPP) for lack of an immediate better idea — but this isn't an ideal title, as there are also David William Smith and Dave Smith (politician) to consider. And even worse, Dave is an incumbent MPP who will be sitting alongside David-from-Scarborough-Centre in the new legislature.

I don't think the Dave vs. David distinction is sufficient, because some people might very well assume that Dave's article was at David too and thus erroneously link to the "Ontario MPP" title — but I don't think disambiguating them by riding is the best option either, because that would require Dave's article to be disambiguated as the em-dashed "Peterborough—Kawartha MPP". Obviously we can do that if we absolutely have to, but it's better avoided if at all possible. David William is probably fine, but I think the other two need clearer and more unambiguous titles to minimize any possible confusion.

So I wanted to ask for some opinions about how we can improve their disambiguation. Are we stuck with dabbing them by riding, or does anybody have a viable alternative to suggest? Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

In these situations, I prefer to disambiguate by geography. Perhaps using "Toronto politician" (he was a trustee on the TDSB after all, not just an MPP) vs. "Peterborough, Ontario politician" would suffice? -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NCPDAB, birthdate is also an option. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't have the birthdates of either politician, plus I think they should be avoided as much as possible. People are more likely to differentiate by geography than year of birth, as people aren't going to know someone's year of birth as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Earl Andrew's suggestion is pretty good. I thought about disambiguating using birthdates, but they appear to be of similar ages, and we only have the birthdate of the one in Peterborough—Kawartha and not the other. PK T(alk) 15:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, since there hasn't been any new input in almost a week, would it be fair to say that we have a consensus to go ahead with "Toronto" vs. "Peterborough" as their new disambiguators? Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Toronto vs Peterborough sounds good to me. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks for the input, y'all, both pages have now been moved and I'm cleaning up the inbounds. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"Negotiated" or "successfully negotiated"?

Monkeypox

Harry Crerar

Not sure what happened

So I guess we have some work to do. Instead of taking the time to merger or improve the articles they were simply redirected. So what we are stuck with is redirects to a title that has not been used by us since 2007 as since then its called "Latin, Central and South American origins". Do we go back and do the articles over again? Odd no Canadian content editors involved. Anyhone else see this bundled or did it sneak by us all? odd out of 200 pages they just picked Central and South American peoples.Moxy- 13:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guatemalan Canadians

I don't remember any notice here, which is one of the places it should be. Does Wikipedia have any guidelines for reversing deletions when appropriate project pages aren't notified of the discussion? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why it was not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada..some sort of tec error I guess. A notice would have been nice considering it was a bundle after the fact. This articles can easily be expanded WP:DEL-CONTENT...was just lazy deletion over fixing the small problem....not even a move of data with section redirects WP:ATD-M. Notability is not a problem. I say we simply go one article at a time and expand them. What I find odd is that is was just this subset of pages...as in South Americans....That said side talk at Talk:Hispanic and Latin American Canadians#‎Move to proper nameMoxy-

18:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada for the entire duration of the time it was open, per this diff in that page's edit history. No special notice is required to be given about a deletion discussion on this talk page beyond a deletion discussion already being listed in the Canadian deletion sorting log — it's your responsibility to monitor the AFD sortlogs from time to time (which you can easily do by clicking on the "Deletion talks" tab at the top of this page, so it's not even hard to find). But it isn't anybody else's responsibility to give out special notifications above and beyond standard process, and there's no evidence at all that standard process wasn't followed. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct only Guatemalan was there ...not the bundle of others.Moxy-

11:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

They were all batched into the same discussion. The "bundle of others" was there, because "Guatemalan" was the bundle. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I intend to recreate at least the articles on Mexican, Colombian, and Salvadoran Canadians, the three largest groups whose articles were redirected. In my opinion, it was a very strange discussion and close: it only focused on whether Guatemalan Canadians should have their own article, but the rough consensus they did not was then used as a reason to redirect all the other articles as well, even though Guatemalan Canadians are one of the smaller subgroups of Latin American Canadians. Reliable sources certainly exist for the three subgroups I've mentioned. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, but do make sure you're actually citing real sources, and not just recreating articles as poorly sourced as the deleted versions were. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Canadian federal election, 2021

Harper being the second longest prime minister from a right-of-centre party - notable or not notable?

Canadian Institute of Actuaries

Harper government

Formatting problem at Monarchy in Saskatchewan

Short Description of Prime Ministers

An issue has come up about the short description for Prime Ministers. Since it affects all of the PM pages, I thought I would raise it here. The other editors involved are @Thrakkx: and @Ak-eater06:. There are two issues. One is, should the order of the PM be in the short description? For at least a year now, we've had "1st Prime Minister of Canada", "2nd PM", "3rd PM", and so on, up to the current PM, who just has "Prime Minister of Canada". The second issue is whether the dates should be in this format "(1867–1873)", or "from 1867 to 1873".

My preference on the first issue is to keep the order of PM in the short description, as I think it is helpful and relevant for a short description, providing quick context.
My preference on the second issue is to use the parentheses, because it is shorter, which is one of the goals of the Short Description. The SD Guidelines recommend around 40 characters. With the order number and the parenthetical dates, the first 9 PM Short descriptions (except for Macdonald and Meighen, with two terms) come in precisely at 40 characters. For the rest, starting with the 10th PM, it's normally 41 characters, except for King and Trudeau Sr because they had more than one term.

Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I've no preferences. All I ask, is that they're all consistent. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I edit short descriptions quite a lot on Wikipedia. Dates defining the term in office should not be specified with parentheses per WP:SDDATES: In biographies, care should be taken to distinguish between dates defining a lifespan and those defining a period in office: lifespans should normally be specified by '(birthyear–deathyear)', and periods in office by 'from startyear to endyear'. The phrase "Prime minster from Canada from #### to ####" only violates the 40-character principle on brevity by 2 characters in the case for Canadian PMs. On the ordinal is where I believe the brevity guideline comes into play. Adding 11th to a description, for example, adds an additional 5 characters (more than 12% of the recommended 40) to the length, bringing us to 7 over for the 11th prime minister. I also seriously doubt the usefulness of counting, especially when countries have their own systems (double-dipping PMs in Canada are not counted twice, but double-dipping US presidents are. Finally, someone on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's talk page made a great point about ordinals in short descriptions: [The phrasing '6th president of Ukraine since 2019'] would indicate there have been five other presidents since 2019, and Zelenskyy is the sixth. The short description "11th prime minister of Canada from 1930 to 1935" could be interpreted that there were 11 different prime ministers during that period. To summarize, respect SDDATES and don't use ordinals. Thrakkx (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Waterloo, Ontario

Deletion sorting for each province/territory

Not long ago, there was only separate Deletion Sorting for 3 or 4 bigger provinces - though they were hardly necessary given that Canada isn't a particularly busy area. Then some more were added which seemed excessive - but almost never used. Now there are 13 - some created by User:Curbon7 - some of which have never been used in the year they have been around. Why do we need all these sublists? It only makes it more difficult to check. I think we should roll ALL of these back into the Canada sorting - with the possible exception of Quebec and Ontario, which usually have at least some traffic (though they'd hardly overwhelm the main Canada list). Currently most of these are empty, and all but one of the others has only one entry (one has two). Thoughts? Explanations? Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I certainly never thought it was necessary for all thirteen Canadian provinces and territories to have their own dedicated deletion sorts — yet again, that seems like it was most likely motivated by "if the US has separate deletion sorts for each state, then Canada automatically has to do it the same way on principle", but yet again, it hangs up on the question of whether Canada needs that or not, because we're a smaller country with fewer Wikipedia articles to begin with, and there are just never so many Canadian-related articles at AFD at any one time as to overwhelm the utility of a single Canadawide list. As noted, many of them have never been used at all, and even before the set was completed last year even some of the ones that already existed (e.g. Nova Scotia) already weren't all that widely used to begin with. Across all 13 of them combined, there are just five articles being listed on them right now, of which one is double-sorted as both Canada and Quebec simultaneously, meaning that merging them all into one national list would only add four discussions to the national list rather than five.

I'd agree that they're mostly unnecessary, and should mostly be rolled back up to the Canada-wide list. Ontario and Quebec are more defensible on past traffic than most of the others, though I'm not convinced that they're needed; there still just aren't enough articles involved to make splitting them off an urgent necessity either. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Zap 'em, for all reasons outlined above. The subcategories were created by a well-meaning editor in Florida, but they're not useful in our context. PK T(alk) 17:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I support zapping, as the "well-meaning editor from Florida". Didn't realize how useless it would be lol. Curbon7 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Zap 'em. Masterhatch (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've zapped them, per this discussion; they all now exist solely as redirects back to the main Canadian list. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Bloc Quebecois

Geographic typo errors in reference to Canada

There is a common error throughout Wikipedia which needs to be corrected. It should even be made standard when writing articles about Canada. When people make reference to a geographic location they forget to put in the Province. I repeatedly see things like, "Toronto, Canada" or "Calgary, Canada." The irony of this is that no one would ever say "Chicago, United States" or "Los Angeles, USA." But for some reason everything seems to be "city, Canada." We have Provinces!!! Therefore it is "Toronto, Ontario" and "Calgary, Alberta." These errors are geographically, typographically end politically incorrect. And of course it's the Americans that do it most of the time. Drsrwatkins1956 (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried it with Kingston, Ontario, but somebody changed it back. Short of hunting down every instance, there's not much we can do. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"City, sovereign state" is best. Wish the American & British place pages would adopt the same. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Canada has Kingstons in five different provinces. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A link will direct a reader there. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that goes against WP:EASTEREGG. Links should be as transparent as possible and not require users to click (or hover over) them to understand what is being referenced. — Kawnhr (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well if we're going to add a province/territory, to clarify a place. May we still include "Canada"? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Plenty of times I've heard even Canadian sources refer to [place], [province], Canada even for major cities. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If only I could convince the British editors to do the same, with the "United Kingdom" ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The English do seem to excel at linguistic atrocities. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I know it. Ohhh boy, I know it. Heck forbid, if it's put next to "England", "Scotland", "Wales" or "Northern Ireland". GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) suggests that both "City, Province" and "City, Province, Canada" are valid formats (see #5 under General guidelines). WP:CANPLACE says to default to "City, Province, Canada", though in some international listings "City, Canada" may be used.--Trystan (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 visit by Pope Francis to Canada

Monarchy of Canada

May need some additional input at Monarchy of Canada, concerning whether the country's royal family should be described within the article, as "Canadian royal family" or "Royal family". GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

PS: Would appreciate additional input, concerning how the "Monarchy of Canada" page, should link to Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court of Canada's dismissal of appeals. Here is the discussion-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Already here you are falsely presenting the Supreme Court's indifference toward an appeal as relevant to whether or not Wikipedia readers should have direct access to more information on a subject that's broader than one act of parliament. As noted at Talk:Monarchy of Canada, you haven't even read the section you're trying to disconnect the "Succession and regency" section from. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I did read the section. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you? Because you were asked twice and you didn't reply either time. If you have read the section, you must be aware it contains historical facts, other court cases, opinions and observations from a decade or more ago, and the like, all related to the broad topic of royal succession in Canada. Not the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. To the broader topic of succession to the Canadian throne. Since you say you're aware of that, you can now explain why that information should be cut off from the royal succession section of Monarchy of Canada. You've been asked to explain that, too, and, similarly, have evaded answering. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss the page linkage with you 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Evidently you're not going to discuss it anywhere. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is at the "Monarchy of Canada"'s talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Not any discussion you're a participant in. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Concentrate on the content dispute at the page-in-question, please. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Concentrate on responding to points raised and questions asked in the dispute resolution instead of deflecting with refusals, "I didn't hear that", red herrings, and non-squiturs. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This has long passed the point it belongs here. Shoo! G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This battle has been persisting for over a decade. Similarly prefer to keep it raging elsewhere. 20:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Formal request

Would WP:CANADA members, please give their input at the discussion-in-question, at the Monarchy of Canada page? Concerning the page's link to the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 page. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A new page, covering the challenges to the 2013 succession act

What would be the views on creating a page, that deals with the constitutional issues, concerning the succession to the Canadian throne? Having looked over the Perth Agreement & its enactment in March 2015. Canada was the only realm (AFAIK), where significant challenges were made to 'how' its parliament handled the issue. In this case, challenges were made that the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 was unconstitutional. It's an option that's been brought up at the Monarchy of Canada page. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The page Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 does talk about the issue already. If you're planning to add a lot of content, you'll eventually hit a point where splitting off a sub-article would be warranted. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

True, it's covered in the Act page. But recently, some of the info was removed from that page, while info was recently added to the Monarchy page. I figured a page, concentrating only on the challenges to it, would cut down the size of the two related pages. If required, we could include info going back to 1936, which is kinda a background for those challenges. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You continue to confuse two different topics. Constitutional "issues" (you mean debate and events) concerning succession to the Canadian throne include the challenges to the Succession to the Throne Act 2013, but the challenges to the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 are not themselves the only constitutional "issues" concerning succession to the Canadian throne. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, include all background info on the matter, which goes back to 1936. Had the Supreme Court of Canada 'ruled' the 2013 Act as unconstitutional? It would've held up the enactment of succession changes in the United Kingdom and the rest of Commonwealth realms. The events of 1926 in Canada, caused a ripple effect across the British Empire, which led to big changes in 1931. Our country came 'very close' to causing another ripple effect, again. It deserves its own page, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are trying to say. Your header to this section proposes the creation of a separate article that deals with the challenges to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. The challenges to that act are not the entirety of the history of succession law in Canada. Why would the full history of succession law in Canada be moved to a sub-article specifically on the challenges to one act of parliament? You are, again, confusing challenges specifically to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 with the entire topic of succession law in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We can name such a page "Challenges to the succession to the Canadian throne" or any other name. It doesn't have to be limited to the 2013 Act & would cut down the size of the Monarchy page. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether or not there's enough content to warrant a stand-alone article on challenges to succession law in Canada, you said right at the top here that this proposed article would "[deal] with the constitutional issues, [sic] concerning the succession to the Canadian throne." Let me try this way to put the third time I'm saying this: the challenges to the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 are included in all the debate and actions concerning succession to the Canadian throne, not the other way around. It thus makes zero sense to put all the debate and actions concerning royal succession since at least 1936 in an article specifically on the handful of legal challenges mounted against two or three laws over the past 15 or so years. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made my suggestion, which can be fleshed out by anyone. It will either be accepted or rejected. Better to know now, then go ahead & make such a page, which could end up being deleted or re-directed. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryerson University

User:Horatio Bumblebee has changed all categories and links to "Ryerson University" to "Toronto Metropolitan University", on hundreds of articles, mostly biographies. This is problematic because most of the people associated with the university attended "Ryerson", and the sources in their articles state they attended Ryerson. There was a discussion at User talk:IJBall#Ryerson is now Toronto Metropolitan University. Should these edits be reverted? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like User:Gilgul Kaful has already reverted. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic and needs to be reverted. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Horatio Bumblebee made a point at User talk:Geraldo Perez#Response to your comment at IJBall's talk page, stating that the university has had several names through the years. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is actually the institution's fifth name. It began as the Ryerson Institute of Technology and has subsequently been the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Ryerson Polytechnic University, Ryerson University, and now Toronto Metropolitan University. This means that previously, people who were alumni of Ryerson Institute of Technology or Ryerson Polytechnical Institute were still listed under Category:Ryerson University alumni (despite the fact that the institution only became a university in 1993). Presumably because it's the same institution but has just changed its name. If the argument is that alumni should be listed specifically under the name the institution had at the time they graduated then you need five categories: Category:Ryerson Institute of Technology alumni, Category:Ryerson Polytechnical Institute alumni, Category:Ryerson Polytechnic University alumni, Category:Ryerson University alumni, and Category:Toronto Metropolitan University alumni.

However, please see this article: "Once the university lands on a new name, all alumni can have their parchments and records reissued, the school said.

The university said that while the process for reissuing documents has not yet been finalized, it will likely resemble the procedures established in 2002 when Ryerson Polytechnic University became Ryerson University.

According to the school’s website, the fee to reissue a graduate document is $70, although officials tell CTV News Toronto that final decisions for reissuing have yet to be made." So this means not only do you have to research when someone graduated and what the institution was called at the time - but you also have to determine whether the individual received a reissued diploma that made them a graduate of Ryerson University instead of Ryerson Polytechnic University or TMU instead of Ryerson University etc.

It makes more sense to simply recognize the name as part of a continuum of names. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, why was Maple Leaf Gardens removed from Category:Toronto Metropolitan University buildings when it is partly owned by TMU and is the site of its athletic facility? Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

All the previous names were Ryerson XXXXX, with XXXX evolving as the descriptive status of the university grew or when they dropped Polytechnic from "Polytechnic University" to just "University". There is absolutely no need to change the name on past graduates. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryerson was only given university status in 1993. Certainly becoming a university is a more significant transition than changing a name in that a post-1993 alumni would have earned a full-fledged university degree and a pre-1993 alumni would have only been entitled to a certificate or diploma. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I added TMU buildings to Maple Leaf Gardens, so it now has both. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What sense does it make to have both Category:Toronto Metropolitan University buildings and Category:Ryerson University buildings when, at least until TMU builds a new building, they are the exact same thing? Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, as quoted above, the university is reissuing its degrees under its new name so this means individuals who graduated from Ryerson University or Ryerson Polytechnic University etc may have Toronto Metropolitan University degrees and thus, if you opt for having discrete categories, would be TMU alumni even if they graduated prior to the name change. Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gilgul Kaful: I see you are removing current faculty members of Toronto Metropolitan University from the category Category:Toronto Metropolitan University faculty. What is the reason for doing that? Horatio Bumblebee (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Stan Dragland

Inconsistencies in pages

Provincial infoboxes content

INCLUSION

In this request for comment, editors discussed if the "government type" & "government body" parameters should be contained in the infoboxes of Canada's provinces and territories. Editors generally agreed that the parameter should be permitted, but there was some disagreement about whether or not to mandate it. Those who favored mandating the information argued that this constitutes succinct and important information that can and should be appropriately conveyed in the infobox, while some were hesitant to mandate it and prefer to take an article-by-article approach. One editor expressed indifference with respect to the parameter's inclusion, but argued that the parameters should be consistent among the provinces and territories. Overall, there is a rough consensus among editors that the provinces and territories of Canada should consistently include the parameters as a matter of best practice. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Question: Should the "government type" & "government body" parameters be included in or excluded from the infoboxes of the provinces and territories. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Neutral - As long as we're consistent across all the provinces & territories on this matter? I've no preference for either inclusion or exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
(Invited by the bot). I think that it's best to have it in, but that doesn't mean mandate it. It's important, succinct info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Next what? Should we remove the capital city, or the whole infobox? Peter Ormond 💬 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Permitted but not mandated, per North. This effort by the OP to make changes solely for the sake of consistency without rationale as to why edits are actually improvements is not appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with GoodDay that we need to be consistent across all provinces and I agree with Peter Ormond that it's an important piece of info that should be included. Masterhatch (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep, per Masterhatch. Removing application of informative parameter that is consistently implemented across all other jurisdictions without rationale is disruptive. "Previous was sufficient" is not rationale to exclude whatsoever. It is subjective "I don't like it" opinion of an article owner. Hwy43 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
A change was imposed across multiple articles and edit-warred in during an ongoing RfC - that's disruptive. In the absence of a rationale as to why this ought to be considered a key fact and mandated, we fall back to excluding unnecessary content and determining appropriate parameters at the article level. If other commenters are able to do what the OP explicitly would not and provide a justification as to why the proposed change improves these articles, great. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
|government_type= has been applied to all provinces but Manitoba since the end of 2020 at minimum. If you felt so strongly about these parameters being unnecessary, then why has no fuss been raised by you at the other provincial articles? Your edit summaries are routinely useless and absent of rationale, especially on articles that you own. Despite others including rationale in their edit summaries at Manitoba for parameter inclusion, why must it come to this to finally get the rationale that you hang your hat on? You have battlegrounded others in the past on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE or MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which IIRC have been previously interpreting incorrectly or farfetchedly stretched to match your own position to maintain control of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and the like. You narrowly avoided a topic ban on infoboxes in 2014 by desysopping yourself as an admin and pleading to be given a chance to take corrective actions in your habits. Alas many of your habits persist eight years later. Hwy43 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Concise and relevant information. Consistency across provincial and territorial infoboxes is helpful to the reader, who is likely to move from article to article, and may misinterpret arbitrary differences in how the information is displayed as having some significance. There is no reason to adopt a different standard for some provinces and territories than for others.--Trystan (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I've deleted the "government type" & "government body" parameters from the rest of the provinces articles, per @Nikkimaria:'s deletion at Manitoba. Makes no sense to have 'one' province being different from the other nine. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Moments ago @Patachonica: attempted to 'restore' those parameters at (only) British Columbia. Why can't we have all the provinces (there's only 10 of them) in sync, on this matter? GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I forgot to check the Manitoba article. Patachonica (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, are you wondering about 'this' topic? GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleting it from every provincial article’s infobox template because one editor in Manitoba doesn’t like it there is about the lamest rationale I have ever witnessed. Hwy43 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, having a quick summary of the type of government strikes me as exactly what is normally found in the infoboxes. I've poked around on this page and the Manitoba page you refer to, but I've not found any discussion of the issue, so I'm going to add it back to the Saskatchewan infobox, which is where I noticed a deletion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I recommend that you add it back to all of them & not just Saskatchewan. Furthermore, I recommend that you open an RFC on the matter here as to whether or not to include/exclude for all the provinces. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It was on ~~all~~9 of 10 provincial articles so a consensus to include existed so the onus is on the dissenter to open that discussion on whether to exclude. Hwy43 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC on that matter. In the meantime, I hope we can keep all the provinces consistent. Now, everyone has a platform to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot). I think that it's best to have it in. It's important, succinct info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @North8000: Would you place your position above, in the survey :) GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Well @Hwy43: & @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, I told ya he was gonna ignore you both & revert back to his version at Manitoba. He's not gonna stop 'reverting'. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm female, and you need to self-revert. If you want to have an RfC, let the RfC run rather than edit-warring your proposal in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's up to Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, since he's the individual who made the additions to all the provinces & territories infoboxes. PS - Glad you finally decided to participate in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a small hesitation over whether everyone would agree with this (thinking Quebec, indigenous territories...) but c’mon, it’s an infobox entry, which should reflect the simplest enunciation of the de jure situation. I say this as someone who once argued that Quebec does indeed have a national anthem. This is a silly argument and I cannot think of a good reason to delete the attribute for any province. Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Elinruby:. Would you state your position in the 'survey', too? GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Ottawa Good Article Nomination

Infobox of the Prime Minister

List of waterfalls of Canada listed at Requested moves

Scott Moe's birthdate

Requested move at Talk:List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#Requested move 1 August 2022

Issue with Mario988

Requested move at Talk:CKBY-FM#Requested move 9 September 2022

QC vs KC

I suspect there is going to be an upcoming conflict about this, so I'd like to get some thoughts here. Members of the Queen's Council hold the post-nominal letters of QC in Canada. Now that Canada has a King, new members of the now-King's Council will receive the post-nominal letters KC.

Is it expected that those who currently hold the letters QC will now have to change and use KC, or is KC only going to apply to new appointments to the King's Council? I suspect those appointed during the Queen's Council will continue to hold QC. This will impact many articles. – Handoto (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confusing two different things: the Queen's / King's Privy Council for Canada, the name of the formal body composed of federal Cabinet ministers (past and current), and the honorific of QC / KC, for members of the legal profession. Members of the Privy Council receive the postnominal "PC", for "Privy Counsellor". That will not change. The honorific "QC", short for "Queen's Counsel", is given to some lawyers and does change automatically to "KC" for "King's Counsel". See for example this media release from the Government of Saskatchewan: Public Notice: Effects of Succession on Saskatchewan Courts, September 8, 2022:

The term "Queen's Counsel" changes automatically to "King's Counsel," and the abbreviation "K.C" replaces "Q.C." The succession does not affect existing appointments as Queen's Counsel or seniority at the bar. There is no need for existing patents of appointment to be re-issued. There is no change to the French abbreviation - the title "conseiller du roi" remains correct, as does the abbreviation "c.r."

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I definitely don't think I'm confusing the Queen's/King's Council and the Privy Council. I understand those are two different things and the Privy Councillors always uses the letters "PC", but I didn't ask about that. Lawyers that receive the honour from this point on will receive the letters "KC" instead of "QC". My question was simply those who currently hold "QC", will they continue to do so or does it now change to "KC" for everyone? The public notice linked just mentions the name and its abbreviation changes, but that current appointments are not affected. – Handoto (talk)

Then I don't understand your post at all. You linked to "Members of the Queen's Council". There is no such thing as "the Queen's Council". If you're not referring to the Privy Council, I don't know what you're referring to. You also referred to "new members of the now-King's Council", which also does not exist in Canada; there is no "King's Council". And, the media release answers your question, will those who currently hold "QC" continue to do so? The media release states: "The term "Queen's Counsel" changes automatically to "King's Counsel," ". The term changes, so the abbreviation changes. There is no need to re-appoint anyone. The name of the honorific has changed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no "council", in the sense of an organized body, for QCs or KCs to be members of — they're counsel as in a person who gives (legal) guidance and advice, in a similar sense to how you might go see a counsellor (rather than a councillor) when you're struggling with depression. The designation does just automatically change from QC to KC, but it's just a qualification (like "M.A." or "Ph.D.") rather than a membership. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing from "Her Majesty" to "His Majesty"

Requested move at Roger Charles Bell

Requested move at Talk:BDI Bridge#Requested move 29 August 2022

Mount Garibaldi FAC

Hurricane Juan Featured article review

Requested move at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested move 25 September 2022

List of members of Canada's Sports Hall of Fame

FAR notice

Discussion of a proposed name change re Halifax

Category:People of United Empire Loyalist descent has been nominated for discussion

GA reassessment of 1995 Quebec referendum

Canadian Indian residential school system

Mass charts being added all over

We getting copy pasting of data in chart spam all over rmaking articles non accessible ..., overloading articles with tables that have too much detailed statistical data and no context is against policy. We need to get a handle on the mass chart additions all over see if we can turn some into WP:Prose. ie European Canadians and Immigration to Canada and South Asian Canadians.Moxy- 14:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Who's making these mass additions? GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

opps for got to ping @Van00220:...my screen reader just cant do it on these pages..making them a huge accessibility problem. Basically a scrolling nightmare to get to any prose text.. Should just link to these charts that are being copied from stats Canada...as they are overwleming articles Moxy-

14:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That is some serious overkill on the charts. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Duplicating the same charts from stats can in my view falls under Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources.Moxy-

15:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Which specific charts have been copied from Statistics Canada? On the immigration page specifically, I just added in all the numbers and percentages based on the text data from Statistics Canada on the sourced pages. For the proportion one, it was based on annual immigration numbers and the Statistics Canada annual population estimates. If the images being too big is the main problem, I can shrink them.

Edit: Additionally (whether it be on the immigration or ethnic group pages), if the charts and tables are too overwhelming for one page, perhaps it could be solved by creating other page(s) dedicated specifically to statistics? Van00220 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That's how it's done with the election articles, which also generate large numbers of charts and tables. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good idea then. Was planning on making future expansions to the "sources of immigration" section which will add a ton more tables on top of what there already is. New page title could be "Canada Immigration Statistics" (as suggested by @Moxy:), or something similar. Van00220 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this level of detail is useful - we should be providing an encyclopedic summary of important information, but we don't have to provide the readers with every bit of information that we find (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). We can leave an external link to StatsCan if readers desire statistics. -M.nelson (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the trouble is a lot of the old Statistics Canada data (ex. censuses) is extremely hard to read and/or not very accessible... all the info is still on very long photocopied documents, of which nothing has been transferred online, onto a webpage yet as the modern data is. It that case, I think it is useful to source and show the stats since they are greatly more accessible and easier to read on a wiki page. Van00220 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (policy) "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables (guideline) "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."....Moxy-

22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an easy fix then... data on all the graph charts can be transferred over into a table to conform with the policy -- with Statistics Canada (or any other) sources at the top of the table. Will fix this on the immigration page sometime within the next few days. Should I also create a new page and transfer all the statistics over? Van00220 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

?? So your plan is to covert to prose? Or just move the uncontextual data spam? Not sure your understanding what is being said here by all. I am thinking mass removal of the data spam that is making these articles unaccessible..... as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information..... that said the policy does state "the statistics can be split into a separate article" like our junk statistics dumping article Demographics of Canada that is like a index for all the main articles on the topic despite it being unaccessible and a data overload page.Moxy-

23:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Following this: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." -- Specifically referring to the Immigration to Canada page here: Stats that are currently represented in the graph charts can be moved to a new article, and transferred into a table. Furthermore, the section you have put a note on can also be in the new page. Context and explanation will be the title of the table(s). Van00220 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore: regarding all the ethnic group pages that have graph charts --- should I proceed and remove them? Van00220 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy:, following your recommendation on the Immigration to Canada page, I have proceeded to remove the charts and transfer all remaining statistical data into a new page -- Canada immigration statistics.Van00220 (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Would be best to undo all the mass additions of these charts. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. They should not have more than a handful of charts with a relatively limited amount of data. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

02:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

New Page Suggestion: David Mulroney (Former Canadian Ambassador to China)

French translation for federal department

Premierships of Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau

What do you all think of having an article for Stephen Harper titled "Premiership of Stephen Harper, first and second terms", and another one for "Premiership of Stephen Harper, third term". Also I propose doing the same for Trudeau, having an article titled "Premiership of Justin Trudeau, first term" and "Premiership of Justin Trudeau, second and third terms".

I believe this way is more organized, rather than having a separate article for domestic policy, foreign policy, etc. Also, it meets Wikipedia:Article size. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd named them "Prime Ministership...", to avoid confusion with the provincial/territorial premiers. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That was my reaction as well, but I googled the phrase and realized there are already Premiership of Stephen Harper articles and Ak-eater06 may be talking about how to reorganize them and not so much about the use of that title. I searched it in google books and it is indeed a phrase used in some Polisci books. But personally as someone who has followed Canadian politics closely for years it's not a phrase I have ever encountered until now; is it really the Common Name way to describe it? --Dan Carkner (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, premier and prime minister are strictly interchangeable terms for the head of a parliamentary government. Canadian English follows a usage convention of reserving the title prime minister for the federal leader while referring to provincial leaders as premiers to minimize confusion — but that's a specifically Canadian way of using those words, not a standard feature of their basic definitions. For instance, you can refer to Rishi Sunak as the "premier" of England, and Élisabeth Borne as the "premier" of France, and François Legault as the "prime minister" of Quebec (and, in fact, in French you have to refer to François Legault as the premier ministre of Quebec, not because Quebec is getting any special treatment but because the French language doesn't have separate terms for those positions at all, and every Canadian provincial or territorial premier is always a premier ministre in French.)
And the other added complication is that there isn't any such word as "prime ministership" at all — if you want to talk about the person's term in office as a thing, the word for that is always "premiership" regardless of whether it would be more normative to have used "premier" or "prime minister" as their job title. So, yeah, it sounds a bit odd to the Canadian ear, and it's true that it isn't a term we would encounter every day, but it's not an error. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to add another data point to the interchangability of premier and prime minister, many provincial leaders styled themselves "prime minister" in the past. Ontario only started using premier in the 70s. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"...of England"??? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Do prime ministers really have terms? They are sworn in just once and stay in office regardless of elections until someone else takes over. I think year ranges would be better. Indefatigable (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

They don't have a term. They're appointed & remain in office, until they resign, die or are dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Concur with Indefatigable and GoodDay; a PM only has more than one term if they are defeated and come back: Macdonald, Meighen, King and Pierre Trudeau. Better to use year ranges. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

CBC Television

Party name change

Notability of Political Spouses

An article was recently created for Anaida Poilievre. She is a political staffer, and also happens to be the wife of Pierre Poilievre. I note that we have an article about Sophie Grégoire Trudeau but not about the spouse of Jagmeet Singh for what that is worth. Perhaps some one should create one. Perhaps not. I am aware of WP:POLITICIAN, and that we require "significant press coverage" for politicians. Usually, we ignore "routine" coverage. How should we apply this to political spouses, if at all? Anyway, I have started a conversation on the talk page. For what it is worth, we have articles about many past prime-ministerial spouses (eg. Laureen Harper, Sheila Martin, Aline Chrétien). It seems less common to have an article about the spouse of a leader of the opposition. There are no articles about the spouses of many leaders of the opposition like Erin O'Toole, Andrew Scheer, and Michael Ignatieff. It seems there is an article about Janine Krieber spouse of Stéphane Dion but that seems to be due to her notability as a political scientist or perhaps her run for local council. Anyway, if anyone has any insight into how we have/should deal with the notability of Canadian political spouses it would be appreciated.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd limit it to spouses of the governors general & the prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd limit it to only those people notable in their own right, per WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. Sophie Trudeau is a notable media personality and philanthropist in her own right, and was before she and Justin started dating. There's nothing in Anaida Poilievre's bio that establishes notability - she's a run-of-the-mill political staffer and has a blog that doesn't even merit a redlink, and the link we have for it leads to a page that doesn't load. That's a long way off from meriting an article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I created the article. She meets WP:GNG due to the multiple sources with significant coverage about her. If someone passes WP:GNG that's all that is needed, no specific guideline places a higher bar. WP:NOTINHERITED is misunderstood here, it just says not to create an article just because of someone's status, but it doesn't prohibit it. Every member of the royal family's notability is inherited, they are not excluded, they just need to pass the bar from significant coverage, not because of their role alone. CT55555(talk) 00:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources used in the article are quite poor despite their provenance. For example, Who is Pierre Poilievre's wife? What you should know about Anaida Poilievre at CTV News literally regurgitates claims by the subject without any shred of fact-checking (eg - "According to her speech on Sept. 10, Poilievre was born...", "According to Poilievre’s unverified LinkedIn profile, she studied..." etc.). The National Post article is a little better, but does the same thing at times. The CBC article exists only because she is a politician's wife (she was targetted by Jeremy MacKenzie); most women threatened in this way would barely get a mention in local papers, if at all. The second CTV News article also exists solely because she is a politician's wife. And the Penticton Herald piece is local journalism sourced from New Canadian Media (is that an RS?). I don't know if these collectively constitute the subject to be notable, but the WP article is bereft of any personal accomplishments other than being a political staffer who owns property and has a family, none of which generally convey notability. She may technically qualify for an article, but only as a loophole in GNG. I personally think she does not currently merit an article, but may in the future. Mind matrix 01:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not notable. The spouse of the prime minister is one thing, the spouse of an opposition leader is another. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The spouse of the prime minister is notable because she has a public role; the spouse of any other politician, party leader or not, is notable only if she has done notable things on her own, such as Janine Krieber being independently notable in her own right as a political scientist. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Office holder RFC

Infobox legislation

I've updated the infoboxes at Civil Marriage Act and An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code so that they no longer contain fields stating "Enacted by: House of Commons" and "Enacted by: Senate", but instead correctly state that they were enacted by the Parliament of Canada. In order to keep the first/second/third reading dates in each chamber, it is necessary to manually add the chamber name to the reading date. If anyone has a more elegant solution, it would be appreciated. I've raised the issue at Template talk:Infobox legislation. So far other articles I have checked that use the infobox correctly state "Enacted by: Parliament of Canada", but I've only checked a small fraction.--Trystan (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Trystan. I noticed that the template wasn't working properly yesterday and tried to fix the display, without success. You're quite right; only Parliament enacts a law; the Houses each pass a bill. I think we need a Canadian legislation infobox, instead of trying to fit it into the current one. For example, the committee always shows as coming after 3rd reading. That is not correct. Committee is normally between 2nd and 3rd reading, and in some cases, committee can come before second reading. The template seems designed for the US usage, where committee is the reconciliation process between the different versions of bills passed by the Representatives and the Senate. As well, the infobox should be flexible enough to accomodate legislative stages for Quebec legislation: the National Assembly does not use the "reading" terminology. As far as I know, the other provinces and territories all still use the "reading" terminology. I lack the technical skills to create a new template, but I could certainly assist in deciding what fields should be in the template, and the terminology to be used. I will leave a similar comment at the "Template Talk". Is there also a place where we could post a request for a completely new template, which works accurately for Canadian legislation? A template wiki-factory? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Infobox legislation template template has now been updated to resolve this issue, so long as the date_passed field is completed (and, for federal legislation, the date_passed2 field). For provincial legislation, if the legislature field specifies the legislature (e.g., Manitoba Legislature), the enacted_by field contains the legislative assembly (e.g., Legislative Assembly of Manitoba), and the date_passed field is completed with the date of third reading, it should display correctly.--Trystan (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A tad off-topic, but 'sometimes' having two pages that are quite similar, can be confusing. Examples: 66th General Assembly of Prince Edward Island & Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. This (I suppose) is mostly do to the provincial legislatures having changed from bicameral to unicameral, over time. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous start/end date for ministry — which to use?

Bit of an odd situation with the transition period between the Horgan ministry and the Eby ministry, and I was hoping for community input on what to do.

So, John Horgan formally stepped down as premier on November 18, and David Eby was sworn-in that day. However, Eby's cabinet wasn't sworn-in until December 7.

Now, when a party changes its leaders mid-parliament, it's not unusual for the premier to be sworn-in days before their new cabinet, with their predecessor's cabinet remaining in place, and for the gap is simply ignored. For example, Ujjal Dosanjh was sworn in as premier on February 24, and his new cabinet was unveiled on February 29; which means that, for those five days, Dan Miller's cabinet appointees were serving under Dosanjh. But look at the Legislative Library's publications: it counts Feb 24 as the date the Miller ministry ended,(1) and, while noting that Dosanjh briefly retained Miller's cabinet in the introduction section, it does not include them in the actual list of Dosanjh's cabinet ministers. (2)

Simple enough. But the situation with Horgan and Eby is awkward, due to the unusually long time between Eby being sworn in and unveiling his cabinet (three weeks). Here, the Legislative Library publications use Dec 7 as the end date for the Horgan ministry — even though the man himself had stepped down by that point!(3) Meanwhile, the Eby ministry's publication follows the lead of Dosanjh ministry, but uniquely, also includes an appendix that lists those holdovers.(4)

So which date should Wikipedia use for when the Horgan ministry ended and the Eby ministry began: Nov 18 or Dec 7? Dec 7 seems to be 'official', but as it is unambiguous that Horgan ceased to be premier on Nov 18 (and thus part of cabinet), it creates the oddity of the Horgan ministry existing longer than the man himself was part of it. Nov 18 thus makes more sense to me, on the basis that a ministry ought to end on the resignation of its leader and begin on the ascension of a new one, but of course that does create a large gap that we'd have to maintain (ie: make sure well-meaning editors don't add the holdovers to the page, or say that a minister held a post under both Horgan and Eby, etc) Obviously, either way there should be something in the article to explain the situation, but which date should be paramount? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend Nov 18, as that's when the cabinet head was sworn in. The ministry is named after the premier. PS - I do understand the confusion, though. Usually, a new cabinet is sworn in on the same day as the new premier. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. The new ministry starts when the new First Minister is sworn in. The new First Minister may keep the ministers from the former Cabinet for a while, but they hold office on sufferance from the new First Minister. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)

RFC Metis Ontario

18 Canadians Who Made Us Feel Better About The World In 2022 - Chatelaine

Additions to infoboxes of lieutenant governors

dit name

Do MPs retire or resign, when they chose not to complete their term

@Instant Comma: & myself seem to be in disagreement on whether MP Dave MacKenzie is retiring or resigning. I explained to him that senators retire, where as members of the House of Commons resign. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the legal, political, or constitutional issue. I note only that the cited source on the relevant page says that he is retiring. GoodDay pointed me to another Wikipedia page to support the argument that McKenzie is resigning. The sources cited on that page also say that he is retiring. I ask only that the material in the article reflect the cited sources. Instant Comma (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The other Wikipedia page I've pointed to is By-elections to the 44th Canadian Parliament, which (like the other by-election to parliament pages) sites death or resignation, as the cause of a vacancy. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The second paragraph of that article cites one source on MacKenzie's situation (note 5). It says that he's retiring. I would add that it is particularly important that material reflects the sources in biographies of living persons. Instant Comma (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes doing some basic research. There is a piece of legislation called the "Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act." So, at least from the point of view of the Parliament of Canada, MPs can retire. Instant Comma (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But they have to resign to collect that pension. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But they are retired. As the sources say. So there's no reason to change "retired" (what the sources say) to "resigned" (which the sources do not say). Instant Comma (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You & I disagree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We do indeed. Instant Comma (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Technically, everyone that retires resigns in some way; this seems like an argument against using normal language simply because someone's an MP.

If they're leaving working life, they're retiring. If they're off to another job, they're resigning. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Still have to resign, in either situation. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We should follow the sources - doing otherwise is original research. -M.nelson (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation page King's Bench

Watchlisting request

Shroom House, Vancouver

Iglunga

Rogers Monday Night Hockey

Disambiguation of links to Woodland caribou

Requested move at Talk:TVOntario#Requested move 5 January 2023

Premierships of Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau (II)

GAR notice

Graham Farquharson article up for deletion discussion

Lieutenant Governors in Legislature Infoboxes

This infoboxes for provincial legislatures were recently updated (Arctic.gnome) to include a field for (eg) "Sovereign: Monarch of Canada in right of Alberta". I think it is a good addition to recognize that the Crown is a constituent part of the legislatures, but would suggest we use the wording "Vicegeral representative: Lieutenant Governor of Alberta", or something similar. Practically, the specific LG article is a much more relevant target than an article on the monarchy in Canada generally. More fundamentally, we should reflect specifically how the Constitution Act, 1867 and other acts that established provincial legislatures defined them: (eg) "There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of One House, styled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." (By contrast, Parliament consists of "the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.")--Trystan (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point, we should follow the language used in the constitution. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Except the courts have interpreted the language of the Constitution as meaning that the monarch is just as much part of the provincial legislatures as the federal Parliament. The Lt Govs are the monarch’s representatives, just like the Gov Gen is the monarch’s rep in Parliament. In both cases, the monarch’s representative gives Royal Assent in the name of the monarch, not as a power of their own office. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather we deleted the monarch from the provincial infoboxes, as the provinces are not sovereign states. Wish the same would be done to the Australian states, United Kingdom's constituent countries & territories, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If we don't mention the crown-in-parliament, those infoboxes describe the legislatures as simply unicameral or bicameral, and omits the fact that the constitution specifically says there are three bodies of Parliament and two bodies in provincial legislatures.

I'd also recommend 'removing' the monarch from the infoboxes of the Canadian provincial premiers. As well as the Australian state premiers, the UK's three first ministers (Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales), etc. I just find it 'might' be a tad confusing for less familiar readers, having the monarch in infoboxes of non-sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid I disagree. The job of an encyclopedia is to explain as accurately as possible the state of affairs. We shouldn’t be dumbing down articles. We should be doing our best to make the articles as accurate and informative as possible, especially for difficult subjects. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Confederation nationality question

GAR for Montreal

Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act

Edit war at Template:Conservatism in Canada

Shaughnessy Golf & Country Club

Proposed change to Canadian communities structure guideline

Request for comment on a relevant article to this WikiProject

Good article reassessment for 39th Canadian Parliament

Good article reassessment for John Edward Brownlee

FAR for Ed Stelmach

AFD on ship built 1822 in Quebec

Seeking clarification on status of PQ members, concerning the Quebec national assembly

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Park, Toronto

Template:Edmonton–Drumheller train map

Jennifer McKelvie

Requested move at Talk:Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park#Requested move 21 February 2023

Canada's grand railway hotels

Translation needed at René Lévesque

Identifying a mountain

Saskatchewan Air Ambulance

Statue of John Deighton

Prime Ministers & Opposition leaders

Can anything be done about the formatting of this page?

WP:CIII "task force"

RFC concerning general & party elections

Template talk:Canada topic

Good article reassessment for Curtis Joseph

fairly recent move of King Street (Toronto) to King Street, Toronto

Ketchup chips

"President of Canada" listed at Redirects for discussion

Can any talented editor do an image for the coat-of-arms of the Province of Canada?

POV at David Johnston

Chinese Election Interference

high schools or secondary schools?

past mayor election information

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Conflicting styles for names of laws (which concerns MOS:CANLAW)

Content dispute over at David Eby

Should the article on George Prévost be re-named?

I don't know if this requires a formal RFC or not, so I thought I'd bring it here. George Prévost was the Governor-in-Chief of British North America from 1811 onwards, and Lt Governor of Lower Canada.

When the article was begun in 2005, there was no accent on the e:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Pr%C3%A9vost&oldid=3093007

On May 17, 2005, the name was edited in the lead line to be "Prévost", by editor A. Lafontaine, who was eventually blocked as a sock-puppet of banned editor DW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Pr%C3%A9vost&direction=next&oldid=13840197https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A._Lafontaine

On June 5, 2008, the page was moved to "George Prévost", and a redirect created to "George Prevost" by editor Commuood, apparently to comply with the use of "Prévost" in the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Pr%C3%A9vost&oldid=217313744

The difficulty is that I can't find any references other than in Wikipedia that refer to Prevost with an é:

Dictionary Canadian Biography: http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/prevost_george_5E.html

Encyclopedia Canadiana: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-george-prevost#:~:text=Sir%20George%20Prevost%2C%20soldier%2C%20administrator,siege%20of%20Qu%C3%A9bec%20in%201759

Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sir-George-Prevost-1st-Baronet

London Gazette, 1805, even though diacriticals are used for other names on the page: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/15874/page/1597

Dictionary of National Biography: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Prevost,_George_(1767-1816)

Canada, Federal Heritage Designations: "Prevost, Sir George National Historic Person": https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=14255

It's true that according the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, his father, of Swiss descent, did spell his name "Prévost", but absent any reference to George Prevost spelling his name that way, I think the article should be re-named "George Prevost" and the link to "George Prévost" should be changed to a re-direct. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be renamed without the accent per WP:COMMONNAME. If the sources spell it George Prevost, then Wikipedia should too. Masterhatch (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google check shows the accent mostly (entirely?) showing up on pages that plagiarise from Wikipedia. I expect whoever changed it to Prévost made an assumption. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove the accent. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with removing the accent. This is, of course, a common tension when it comes to French-language names — should we spell the name the "traditional" French way on first principle, or should we check the sources to find out which spelling the person actually used? — but Wikipedia consensus per WP:CANFRENCH has long been the latter rather than the former. It's quite clear in this case that the anglicized (i.e. unaccented) form is the one that is actually used in reference to George, who was a US-born British Army officer rather than a québécois, so the fact that it's technically spelled with an accent in French takes a back seat here. Of course, the accented form should be retained as a redirect, however. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Either way, the resulting article should mention the other spelling in its first sentence (eg, "George Prévost (also spelled "George Prevost")", should it be decided to keep the diacritic). FWIW, I see a lot of articles in several languages that use diacritics, and in this case I have no opinion either way. Regards, PK T(alk) 19:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about including the accented spelling in the first sentence of the article because it isn't also spelt that way in the sources. If it was a mix--say 30% of sources use the accent and 70% don't-- I could agree about including the accented spelling in the first line but that's not the case. Simply put, the accented spelling is not an alternate spelling for his name. Masterhatch (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Masterhatch on this point. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Finally got around to fixing this. Removed the é from the article, except the reference to his father. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

St. Jean de Brebeuf Catholic High School

Project-independent quality assessments

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Irving Family cluster of articles

Category:Anglophone Canadian people

RfC input request

New article: 2023 Old Montreal fire

BC United

Recall and Initiative Act (British Columbia)

Should this page be part of the wikiproject ? (Caribou herds and populations in Canada)

Another attempt at deletion of Duncan Cameron images

RfC at Charles III

Freedom Party of British Columbia

"Native name" in infobox

Unreferenced BLPs

Ontario Legislature videos

Template for Reasons of the Supreme Court - comments requested

Where is the Talk page for this template?

Vancouver municipal elections

The pages for Vancouver's municipal elections (2022, 2018, 2014, etc) are awkward, because the election infobox combines the results of the mayoral race with the council race: the candidates, vote total and percentages all match the mayor's election, but then there's also seat counts reflecting the party's seats on council. True, the mayor is an ex officio member of city council, but I think this is just confusing. The 2022 page actually goes on to include tables that lay out the council standings, which makes you wonder why the mayor results is doing double-duty to begin with, and the 2014 page is even weirder: Adriane Carr, as de facto leader of the Greens, shows up in the infobox even though she didn't run for mayor, on the basis that her party has council seats. It's a mess.

Obviously this should be untangled, but there's a few ways to do it. One is to make the infoboxes explicitly about the mayoral election specifically: removing the seat counts, removing the notices about how many seats are up on the council, school board and park board. Or, since these pages are containing the results of all the municipal elections in Vancouver, we could switch to a layout like on the 2022 page — putting the mayor race in a table too. Or, maybe it's time to have separate pages for mayor and the rest of the municipal elections, a la Toronto (2022 mayor, 2022 municipal). What does everyone else think? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

One of the key problems is that historically, Wikipedians have never put nearly as much effort into adding very much substance to Vancouver municipal election articles beyond tabling the election results themselves. The main reason that Toronto started spinning off separate sets of "mayoral" and "city council" election articles was that merged Toronto municipal election articles were starting to get too long and needed that for size control — but I'm hard pressed to identify any of the Vancouver municipal election articles as being "too long" at all. For instance, of the three articles you listed, 2022 is the only one that gives the mayoral election anything more than two lines of text and a results table, and even then it still doesn't give the mayoral election enough space that splitting would become the obvious solution to a size issue. So the basis for splitting off separate mayoral election articles would be if people were prepared to start putting a lot more work into making Vancouver municipal election articles longer and more substantial than they are — if that isn't the case, then establishing a consensus standard for what should or shouldn't be covered in the infobox, and applying it across the board, would have to be the preferred solution. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Maybe one day we'll do something more for the mayoral races, but at least for me, today is not that day. So with that in mind, I saw that the 2023 Paraguayan general election uses an infobox similar set-up to the 2022 and 2018 pages but with greater care at keeping everything separate. Would anybody object if I were to reformat Vancouver's pages to follow this? — Kawnhr (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Slow edit warring

Wanted to ask for some input on a situation. Our article on musician and actor Maxwell McCabe-Lokos has been repeatedly edited by an WP:SPA who persistently removes the statement that he was known by the stage name "Age of Danger" when he was in the band The Deadly Snakes, with the edit summary that he's "removing incorrect information". But it isn't incorrect, it's properly sourced and can be reinforced by literally dozens of other sources calling him "Age of Danger" in that era, and I can't even conceive of any reason why it would be remotely controversial to anybody since there's nothing negative or BLP-sensitive about a simple acknowledgement of a musician's stage name.

For the moment, I've had to place the page under full protection, but obviously this isn't ideal, and I should lift it as soon as feasibly possible — but since this has happened repeatedly over the course of two years, and the editor in question has already passed autoconfirmed status and wouldn't be stopped by lower levels of protection, I'm not sure how else to make it stop. Does anybody else have any ideas? Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat - You should use the vandalism templates (personally, I'd start this guy at level 2, but it's up to your judgement) and go to the higher levels the next time(s) he does what he does. Swearing at him in the edit summaries does nothing, as you've seen. PK T(alk) 12:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think indefinite full protection was overkill, especially as you are Involved admins|involved in that article. I blocked Douglas Cavendish Fairbanks from that page and removed the protection. If they use socks to edit then let me, or another admin, know and I'll protect it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way they are not extended confirmed so you could have used extended confirmed protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

For an extra set of eyes, I have added the page to my watchlist. Aloha27 talk 18:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated language in honours lists

Discussion started at Category: Canadian King's Counsel

Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories

Does the Liberal Party of Canada endorse CANZUK as party policy?

DYKs

Main Deli Steak House

Mass renames of Hamilton Ontario elections by User:JamesLucas-A

Someone had renamed quite a bunch of pages of election pages related to Hamilton Ontario. Idk if this is really necessary or best use of adding a comma, but I thought I put it here for others to look at because there were a lot of pages renamed. I dont know if it is appropriate. Ebbedlila (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

anyone can tell me if these moves are appropriate? Ebbedlila (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

They were moved back. Apparently this has come up before. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ebbedlila—as noted in the edit summaries, the comma is required by grammar as outlined at MOS:GEOCOMMA. With that said, no one really likes having article titles chock full of commas—myself included. Whenever possible I favor other approaches. One recent example I rather like is my move of 1835 New Brunswick, New Jersey tornado to 1835 Middlesex County tornado, which is shorter and more accurate in addtion to removing the MOS:GEOCOMMA violation.

I’ve been mulling the Hamilton election articles for something like seven years, and I’ve never come up with something better than the double-comma. Dropping ‘Ontario’ would be simplest, but Hamilton is not sufficiently well known for that to be appropriate. Reordering the titles (e.g., 2010 municipal election in Hamilton, Ontario) would be my personal preference, but that would require a larger discussion since it bucks the 2018 consensus and arguably introduces a tiny but non-zero amount of ambiguity. If you think that line is worth perusing, though, I’d certainly be game for such a conversation. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

looking at the history of multiple of the pages, you got reverted multiple times for renaming the pages, by citing MOS:Comma. Does the MOS apply to titles of pages? Ebbedlila (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ebbedlila—yes, MOS:GEOCOMMA applies to titles as a consequence of WP:CRITERIA. As for reverts…I’ve made well over 20,000 edits including a significant number of moves enforcing MOS:DATECOMMA and MOS:GEOCOMMA, so of course some get reverted. Most reverts are done in passing by editors who didn’t bother consult the MOS links and never respond, but a handful have lead to constructive conversations and alternate solutions such as the one I floated above. In the case of these particular articles, there’s actually a mix of two things going on. Some of the pages were indeed moved back when an anonymous editor improperly requested the action as a non-controversial technical move, but some of the pages (more, I think) were moved as part of an unrelated (and much needed) effort to apply consistent naming across the set of related articles, and the commas were lost incidentally.

As I said last time, there are multiple ways to avoid MOS:GEOCOMMA violations, and while I don’t see any as being viable for this set of articles without greater discussion, I remain open to to such a course. On that note, I’m not a regular at this notice board, so if you would kindly use {{re}} or {{u}} to alert me to any future replies, that would be helpful. Cheers. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Statue of Egerton Ryerson (again...)

National Post

Maryanne Oketch nominated for deletion

Why are there three very short articles about the wildfires?

The Maple Leaf Award

Is Christopher Ingvaldson notable?

CCGS John Cabot

HBC, the HBC or The HBC?

I am finishing up an FAC for Abishabis, and a question has come up about how to use the acronym of HBC (to shorten the Hudson's Bay Company). Should it be HBC, the HBC, or The HBC? Wikipedia's article uses them interchangebly, so does Canadian Encyclopedia, and I couldn't find a history section on The Bay's website where HBC would be referred to. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Define the acronym within the article - that is, where it says "the Hudson's Bay Company" in the second sentence of the article, add (HBC) immediately afterwards, so that a reader can realize that all following appearances of "HBC" refer to the company. Personally I would avoid "the HBC" in either form. PK T(alk) 18:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That was removed in the FAC because HBC did not appear again in the lede. However, HBC is introduced in the first paragraph of the body. Z1720 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I find that the HBC is natural for me. Definitely not The with a capital. Generally, company initialisms created before roughly WW2 are more likely to include the, and later creations have no article: "the CPR" but "CP" (with no the). "the CBC" but "CTV". Indefatigable (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought was that either way is fine, but after looking at the page in question, just "HBC" (eg an officer with HBC, to signal HBC's support of his group) hits my ear as odd. I think "the HBC" sounds much more natural (definitely don't capitalize the, though). — Kawnhr (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Using "the HBC" seems better. For most of its history the company was known as The Hudson's Bay Company, and then until very recently it was "The Bay". HBC is a very, very recent development (particularly when considering the long history of the company). Also a bit confusing with the legacy of HSBC/HBC, ie Hongkong Bank of Canada, not that there is anything we can do about that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for their opinions. I've changed most instances to "the HBC" unless grammatically incorrect to do so. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"HBC" has a long history as the logo for the Company. It was used on their company flags at their posts, on a defaced Red Ensign. Peter Newman, in his history of the Company, mentions that in the 19th century, "HBC" was jokingly explained as meaning "Here Before Christ", referring to the longevity of the Company in the north-west. I think "HBC" and "the HBC" are both completely appropriate, depending on the sentence context. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Formal request

Survey

Discussion

Provincial/territorial premiers, etc