Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:34, 27 April 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,009 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 20) (bot← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:02, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,009 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 31) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:

	{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada/Tab header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada/Tab header}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- Added this magic word as a result of MediaWiki version being 1.7 or newer -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/TOC}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/TOC}}
	<!-- NOTE the "archive=" parameter must be manually incremented each 6 months, a new archive page manually created, and the archive index manually updated too. (by Franamax 11Oct2012) -->		<!-- NOTE the "archive=" parameter must be manually incremented each 6 months, a new archive page manually created, and the archive index manually updated too. (by Franamax 11Oct2012) -->
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|algo = old(21d)
			\|counter = 31
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 20
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(61d)
			\|archive =Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

	== ~~FLRC~~ ==		== ] ==

	{{#if:\|] has\|I have}} nominated ] for ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].

	== Port Hope Simpson ==

	Port Hope Simpson historic logging town - fishing, pottery, retail & public services, timber products, transportation - for full listing? llewelynpritchard

	== should unincorporated communities be subject to CANSTYLE re no-comma-province dab is unique? ==

	I've launched RMs on all but two of the items in the various municipal categories which are primaryuse and/or already redirects to themselves to strip the comma-province dab from them for consistency.

	Should this be applied to unincorporated settlements also? The two I've avoided are ] and ], the first because of two failed RMs decided from people from elsewhere who didn't have any clue about the town on ] and ] (thanks for showing up and flying the flag, folks...) and there is a still-open RM on ] which includes the de-dabbing of ] (which hopefully will be more well-attended by Canadians as so far a lot of BC-related RMs are deluged by people not from BC who are unfamiliar with the town and insist that the people are the primary topic, despite the extant examples of ], ], ], etc... Lillooet I may file an RM of the same kind on because of the items on the ] dab page, the primary topic is the town (open to debate but in wiki terms the people title is ] and the Lillooet Indian Band is the ].] (]) 12:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
	*I've moved the dab page to ] and made the ] redirect point to the town as primary topic. An RM has been launched at ].] (]) 12:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

	Yes it applies to unincorporated communities as well. There are at least three unincorporated communities in Alberta at their undisambiguated titles. ] (]) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

	*K thanks. I'll do the BC ones now, then.] (]) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

	**] and ] were just closed as "no consensus" and "not moved", in both cases invalid points were counted in the course of not-determining the "no consensus"...... I was already going to take ] to MoveReview, now I'm thinking the whole cluster of Squamish articles should be taken to somewhere like ARBCOM or RFC as the Move Review process is extremely limited in scope (and is biased towards wikiquette instead of points of content). Comox was an open and shut case, as Skeezix also observed; those disputing it as a primary topic were not from Canada and not in a position to judge "primary topic" or not; the notion that the electoral district, named for the town (actually for the ], which was named for the town), is equal enough to be construed as a parallel primary topic is ''ridiculous''. Don't any of these people read ] and, well, I know from experience they have no clue about PRIMARYTOPIC and MOSTCOMMON when it comes to places and things in Canada. I know a lot you give me a wide berth for whatever reasons you may have, but these are all important RMs and are the babies that shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. I myself started those titles as dab pages long ago before I understood CANSTYLE and the implications of PRIMARYTOPIC. Before all the rest are closed by "votes" by similarly uninformed contrarians and "no consensus" declared by someone else who doesn't have a clue, please have a look at the rest; I'll list them all here shortly.] (]) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
	===list of remaining open RMs===
	*<s>] → ]</s> (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
	**closed/moved by Cuchalainn
	*] → ] (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
	**closed/no consensus/not moved by ] despite ample sources/stats vs. unsubstantiated and undefined PRIMARYTOPIC claims.
	*], all participants want ] to move to ], even though that dual RM was closed last week on alleged PRIMARYTOPIC disputes and ] has been listed again right away as part of the new one.
	*] → ] (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
	**despite ample googles and view stats, and treating ''ridiculous'' primarytopic alternatives as valid, this was closed "No consensus/not moved" by non-admin ] who, like so many who feel compelled to close such RMs, has no knowledge of BC....and disregarded qualitative evidence with respect to off-the-wall obstructive "oppose" votes.] (]) 05:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
	*] → ] (dual RM re adding "(dismabiguation)" to the dab page dab
	**again, despite obvious facts and mass of evidence, this was today by BrownHairedGirl, who is in Ireland and has no knowledge of BC (nor did the oppose votes).
	*] → ] - PRIMARYTOPIC dispute by Vegaswikian because of minor items on the dab page; I've already done exhaustive googlesearches on Lillooet, Saanich, Bella Coola, and Bella Bella; the same will bear out on this title but I've wasted enough time on wild goose chases when the goose is already in the pen, as demonstrated by the googlesearches listed. That a long-time editor with obvious local expertise is so persistently challenged in knee-jerk fashion is becoming tiresome and is needless disputatious.
	**This was ], who btw used the "shouting" all-caps "NO CONSENSUS" in the edit comments here and on Bella Bella and also ]. That she is hostile to me and is among those participating in the ANI against me in hostile fashion, and has made TLDR her reason for one of the Squamish closes, makes this bad-call all the more dubious, as also with Bella Bella. She has also closed "NO CONSENSUS" on ] and other indigenous topics (], ]...I'm thinking that she views the ample stats and google searches as "TLDR", and also hasn't read PRIMARYTOPIC fully, as ] was posited as a primarytopic, which by definition it ''is not''. Closures like this are against guidelines, and though she doesn't say it (other than shouting "NO CONSENSUS"), I believe these closures of RMs I started and which are needed to be invalid and tendentious; all such RMs should be revisited, or overturned by Canadian admins who "know better" than closers from distant countries with no respect or regard for CANENGL or ENGVAR, or me for that matter.] (]) 05:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
	*] → ] - PRIMARYTOPIC dispute by Vegaswikian
	The listings below are all simple redirects to the current title and someone here with admin powers can please move them without further fuss, though the formality of the RMs means they need to be closed first.
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*] → ] - relisted by Victor falk, who also cast a support vote
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*] → ] - relisted by Victor falk, who also cast a support vote
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*<s>] → ]</s> - close/moved by EdJohnston
	*] → ] - relisted by Victor falk, who also cast a support vote
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*<s>] → ]</s> - closed/moved
	*] → ] - still open, with some rather strange objections to ] - relisted just now by Victor falk, who also cast a support vote
	*] → ] - relisted by Victor falk, who also cast a support vote

	There are going to be many more more now once the populated places in regional district categories are investigated. By the time I/we are done covering the country there will be maybe "thousands" of RMs....I wonder if I'll be dressed down for being "disruptive" like I have been on the indigenous names titles, which are in similar number.] (]) 06:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

	:For those that you've moved to their undisambiguated titles, and for those you are about to do, please add them to the BC list at ] to keep it up to date and useful. ] (]) 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::I've been updating that on the fly, though it's still not fully covered re new successful RMs and some moves that CambridgeBayWeather did with his admin powers.
	::Much later, I've been up since 8:45 am and it's 2:18 now and though I had a light breakfast I haven't had lunch yet. I'm aware of the need to update "what links here" items.] (]) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::I'll also add a list of the new RMs here for perusal/input by WP:Canada community.] (]) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

	Other items:
	*] → ], the latter is a TWODABS page including the eponymous provincial park; could someone just please move it so no RM is met by a PRIMARYTOPIC dispute for no good reason?
	*] → ] (withdrawn as the region was named long before the town came into existence)
	**] → ]

	*There are still lots out there, ] (where Port Simpson redirects, I never get that spelling right), ] and other native names often have comma-province on them, though not all.
	*One that occurred to me last night is ] but - there is in other words no ] page but ] would seem to be the proper way to deal with the other search items.
	*] is a candidate, even though that is no longer its own municipality.] (]) 06:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

	===Recently closed===
	] was just closed by non-admin closure as "no consensus, not moved" because of Vegaswikian's "trouting" there (as Floydian describes such objections in his comment on the Lillooet item). The same non-admin user closed ] similarly even though that is now back on the table, informally, by all four support votes in ] though no action has been taken, as I requested on the RM talkpage, to relist it as part of that new RM - which is irregular as it re-opened an RM on ] even though the town-closure was less than a week before. I didn't have time to do similar searches such as I have fielded on Bella Coola, Lillooet and Saanich and have not yet had time to do on Bella Bella. IMO Vegaswikian is out of line with all his objections, and "ironic" is a soft word for his own failure to properly address the town-as-primary-topic issue at the first RM on ] which moved the long-standing ] title to "]", which resulted in the bot-instigated speedy of the ethno category to ] and has since required two, now failed RMs in which I was made the target of the close instead of the decision, and IMO were improper closures.

	All Squamish RMs and CfDs need to be revisited as a group, at some higher level now apparently than where my forthright, frank and detailed analysis will be treated with TLDR complaints and shoved aside. Local expertise is being too consistently derided and anti-AGFd by such oppositional activities; Atlin like others is a clearly open and shut case but because of Vegaswikian's interloping, which I believe to be partisan/POV in origin, and ill-informed about Canada to boot, we are seeing undesirable results that fly in teh face of precedents for town-name-with-no-dab RMs elsewhere. "Something must be done" but as I am personally being made the reason to attack RMs I file, or to close based on my alleged lack of cogency or manners (by people who do not take the time to read what I have to say, after asking for PRIMARYTOPIC proofs that are dismissed as "verbose response" and "Excessive text", per Vegaswikian's sniping at me on the Lillooet RM. To me, those constitute worse than AGF and are NPA but, because he is an admin, it is pointless to take him on at an ANI where I will, once again, be made a target, just as he has been targeting my RMs wantonly.

	Having been blocked summarily for 48 hours for "criticizing other editors and not addressing content" even though others persistently criticize/NPA me, including him, I find this whole matter to be coming something of a farce. Atlin, Comox BC and the Squamish RMs/CFDs need overturning and reopening so that they are congruent with the way other RMs have been being closed in recognition of both PRIMARYTOPIC and ]. How to reopen and relist them I am at a loss as to where to start and where to go. As can be seen at the Lillooet, Saanich, Bella Coola and other still-open RMs, I have put a lot of time and energy in answer to the repetitive PRIMARYTOPIC challenges from Vegaswikian, but because I have not had time to do the same for Atlin "we" have lost that one and "he" has won. But it is Misplaced Pages that is losing because of such activities; Atlin should have been, if anything, relisted, as also should have been with Comox and, last year, and this year, with ]/], not summarily closed as they have so rudely been, by people who don't even know about the subject matter, or downplay the importance of such places based on their low populations, despite their being regional centres and towns of historical importance in Canada.] (]) 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

	===Listing of remaining comma-province dabs solvable by overwriting redirects===
	For lack of a better place, though maybe a sandbox in ] can be made, I'll start listing items that are solvable by overwriting redirects, to avoid the hassles of the RM process; some may involve minor dabs that can be resolved by two-item hatnotes or transformation into "FOO (disambiguation)"; I'll do the same for ethno and language RMs that do not need their current "people" or "language" dabs later...some are already at RM....
	{{Collapse top\|title=towns/places needing undabbing}}
	{{Div col}}
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**unlikely the bay could/should have a separate article?
	*<s>]</s>
	**possible the bay should have its own article?
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**obvious to us, but RM means PRIMARYTOPIC dispute?
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**lake could have its own article, the town is the PT
	*<s>]</s>
	**small dab page, the town is the PT
	*]
	**] redirect goes to ]?
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**small dab page involved, all connected to this PT
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**TWODABS page incl ]
	*<s>]</s>
	*]
	**lake is debatable as PT? ] is smalldab
	*<s>]</s>
	*]
	**] - ]
	**town is PT
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**TWODAB with ] in Oz;
	**hatnote is solution
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**Designated Place, Robson and Raspberry have own articles
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**debatable bc of Quilchena neighbourhood in Vancouver?
	*]
	**PT debatable with ], the lake?
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*]
	**debatable? ] goes to ]
	**latter is not standalone name, maybe muni should be PT?
	*<s>]</s>
	**only recently added to the expanded city
	*<s>]</s>
	*] -?
	**] is a village in Tunisia, also ]
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**] -> ]
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	*<s>]</s>
	**lake has no article yet, can be parenthetical dab
	*<s>]</s>
	*]
	**debatable; see ] dab page
	{{collapse bottom}}
	{{ping\|Hwy43}} I'm not clear on what it says on CANLIST about unincorporated settlements; I've just been adding them there; is there a different list for non-municipal items?
	*''"Articles on unincorporated settlements (e.g. neighbourhoods, hamlets, former municipalities, etc.) can be listed here if they were subject to a move proposal and discussion pursuant to ]; otherwise, articles on such unincorporated communities should be referenced in the section below (preferably through inclusion in the relevant neighbourhoods category)"
	Please advise.] (]) 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
	::The above quote on CANLIST is out of date as the section it refers to has been removed. I'll correct it on CANLIST. ] (]) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::CoughCough CSD G6 goes a long way CoughCough Might solve a good percentage of the articles where an admin is required for the move. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Let's just say I haven't had too much luck with admins lately ("CoughCough), a few certain ones in particular, (CoughCough) including one who throws down PRIMARYTOPIC disputes even in cases where the redirect goes to the current title; about his own failure to address PRIMARYTOPIC properly in one particular case (the ] RM was closed by him y'see) I must remain silent, as I have been threatened with a semi-permanent block for criticizing the actions and wikilawyering and similar activities; claiming those as NPA which to me is an abuse of that policy; AGF I have not been given by him and others, rather I have received belligerent commentary and derision.

	:::::Trying to place PRODs on the redirects, if I do them, I believe would be met by dispute and needless and time-consuming challenge by editors who don't care about CSG (even disparage it as subordinate to "global" PT even though searches for these names overwhelmingly are from ''Canadian sites'' and refer to the towns rather than anything else (the imputation of those PT disputes is always, though, unstated, the premise that an archaic term for languages/peoples is still globally more common and relevant than anything published in Canada and are equally PRIMARYTOPICS (which sources show in various cases where I have searched show is very, very wrong).
	:::::Hwy43 had asked me to compile the above list per CSG#Places so that action can be taken by people empowered to overwrite/bypass redirects. Again, due to the persistent opposition and even hostility I have encountered in such cases, I feel it better for someone else to take the necessary admin-power action; me trying CSD G6 is not going to get us anywhere, I fear. I have, when I encounter a redlink available for the no-comma province title, moved those myself; if you look at the history of ] you will see which ones. British Columbia has pretty much been finished now, in terms of listing here or on CANLIST or on the open RMs list above. Williams Lake and Campbell River are still not-RMd though I believe googlesearches should at least confirm that Campbell River should be undabbed as PRIMARYTOPIC. All those in the collapsed list above, other than those noted as having dabs and possible PT issues, are simple redirects that can be admin-moved without need of the wait, and possible needless dispute, by using PROD.] (]) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I didn't ask you to compile the above list. I that ] be updated with those moves that have been executed so that list remains current, which it appears you have been doing. ] (]) 17:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Sorry, I meant that you'd asked/agreed that I should move them; that list on this page I started before I was made aware of ] which, yes, I have been regularly updating. This list here was an attempt to draw admin help to the unmoved items; since that was ignored, I wound up having to file the now-infamous group of RMs, 90% of which have passed successfully, and rightly so. The others, well....my advice from others that I should have kept them in-Canada matters is borne out by teh oppose votes and the resulting no-consensus moves by non-Canadians and the dispute against CANSTYLE and ENGVAR and dubious and undefined PRIMARYTOPIC claims from the dissenting votes.] (]) 06:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

	As an example of aforementioned resistance and AGF towards my moves and RMs, here's a very good example. I was the principal author of this page and yet am being told that my extensive googles are irrelevant to the claims of equal PRIMARYTOPIC for the (archaic and in disuse) name of the people/language; I'll yourself. I'm actually ''from the place'', am a respected local historical researcher and commentator and even speak a little St'at'imcets, and yet being told that in spite of CANSTYLE#Places and a good dozen other parallel cases, I am wrong and people who've never been to the place, or heard of it before in fact, and don't realize that it was the TOWN's creation that's why the name is where it is (it was originally and still is associated with the ] at ], 60 miles away.] (]) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

	:Well I moved some and crossed them off the list above. I didn't update ] as that looks to be out of date based on the NWT and NU listings. And looking at ] and ] I think you could both do with a ]. ] (]) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
	::] is more like it......about CANLIST, I've only been updating the BC section so far, as I haven't moved on to the rest of the country yet; thanks to your move I'll add the strike-outs above to that list. Oh, I just noticed I missed ] but like ] that name is associated with a group of Nuu-chah-nulth also, like the difference between ], the spelling for the location and ], the article for the group, and ] and ], also. Yuquot is no longer a people name; the group from there are the famous ]. ]'s people, who now live with the ] at ], but the Kyuquot are still a known name and are jointly incorporated as a band government with the ] as the ], however the latter is spelt (one of those names that's hard to get right). ] is of similar origin but the band government uses a "more Nuu-chah-nulth" spelling.] (]) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::Finished the first column. Didn't do Pinchie but did add a redirect at . Will update the ] next before starting on the second column. ] (]) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::Did most of the rest except a few I wasn't sure about. Updated the list but I still think it is missing a lot. ] (]) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

	== Consensus at CfD? ==
	{{archive top\|result=this isn't going anywhere fast and it's the wrong board to boot. Ottawahitech is welcome to continue the discussion at the categorization project or CFD talk page. This is way off topic for this board, having nothing to do with canada.--] (]) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	All it takes to delete a catergory is to nominate it at ]. No discussion necessary and no need to state what policy/guideline the nominator is relying on. See for example: ].

	Am I mising something? X] (]) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

	:The nominator did leave a message on your talk page, but neither you nor anybody else left a comment in the deletion discussion, so the closing admin rightly assumed there was no objection to the deletion nomination. As an aside, this isn't specifically relevant to WikiProject Canada; you'd probably get more insightful responses from those that deal with these issues frequently at ]. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\| Mindmatrix}} <small> I posted my comment here in the hope of informing those who are interested in wiki-categories and participate here but not in ‘’’Categories for discussion’’’. I was also hoping for a less toxic environment here than there.</small>
	::No objection does not mean agreement — many editors avoid commenting at CfD discussions. The example I used is only one of many, and closing discussions just because no one objects, is not my understanding of how consensus is reached. Those discussions should be re-listed just as the practice is elsewhere at Misplaced Pages. Just my $.02. X] (]) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{U\|Ottawahitech}}, this concept is discussed in the essay at ]. Short answer, yes - if no one objects that is interpreted as no one disagrees. ] (]) 07:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{reply to\|VQuakr}} Thanks for joining this discussion. If I understand it correctly ] talks about reversions which are not at all the same as deletions. ] is an established process that gives administrators the permission of the community to delete content that editors have previously contributed. Consensus building in this context should be much more robust since its sets precedents that others rely on. Am I making sense? X] (]) 11:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::You actually need a "''robust'' precedent" to tell you that it's not helpful or valuable to create a category that's literally just a duplication of another category that already exists, and then make absolutely ''no'' effort to actually explain how it might constitute a distinction of value instead of a duplication? Yeah, rules and guidelines are important — but so is having and using a modicum of ]. ] (]) 15:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::{{reply to\|Bearcat}} Yes I do need a robust explanation of how '''Food industry''' is equivalent to '''food and agriculture occupations'''. X] (]) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Well, all it takes to '''create''' a category is a few keystrokes; no discussion necessary and no need to state what policy/guidelines the category creator is relying on. Ottawa, you seem to be annoyed that some of your categories are deleted, although I have no idea why you are using this noticeboard instead of a more appropriate one. That said, the cost in terms of time for editors and admins who nominate, close, and delete duplicative categories that you and others create is likely much greater than the time you spend building the categories, and you seem rather devoid of concern for that. Deleting duplicative and unworkable categories is GOOD for wikipedia. My suggestions to you to avoid such issues in the future are:
	::#take CARE before creating a new category
	::#think carefully about whether it is truly needed and useful
	::#consider and search for whether an existing category might cover the same scope
	::#consider what the potential contents could be and whether it could be sufficiently populated
	::#check to see if there is a head article for the category, or if one could reasonably be created
	::#if creating a new scheme, consider what that might imply for the rest of the tree (for example, your {{cl\|Women by organization}} scheme)
	::#Add inclusion criteria at the top of the category to ensure people know what is supposed to go in it
	::#if it's a gendered or ethnic category, make sure it follows the precepts of ] and past consensus on gendered categories, and that it doesn't violate last rung rules, and that, most importantly, you can demonstrate with sources a strong and special connection of gender to the topic
	:::Esp. for gendered cats, you should seriously consider whether your concept of a valid "women" category is aligned in any way with current WP consensus.
	::#If your category is nominated for deletion, show up at CFD and tell us why it should be kept. I have often changed my mind on deletion of a category after the creator showed up to explain their reasoning.
	:You have maintained a lovely long list of duplicate categories, or categories that violate WP:EGRS, that you've created - so rather than complaining that your duplicative cats are deleted, you should consider being more careful before you create them in the first place.--] (]) 15:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
	:You do appear to be missing something, or a couple of somethings. Firstly, the fact that your new category wasn't substantively different from another category that already existed and had been much more actively populated. And secondly, the fact that if you had a ''real'' reason why your category was genuinely needed and ''not'' just an unnecessary duplicate of another category that already existed, you had a whole entire week in which you could have posted to the discussion to provide a real reason why the category was actually needed. And finally, the fact that the category in question has almost nothing whatsoever to do with ], and you should take your issue to a more relevant venue if you want to continue discussing it. ] (]) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\|Bearcat}} I have already responded to your first and last points. As far as having an entire week to participate in this sham discussion board called CfD please check my talk page which can supply a full time job to editors who prefer to spend their wiki-time in circular non-productive talk. Please ] me if you would like me to respond. Thanks in advance, X] (]) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::If those editors who you claim spend their time "with circular non-productive talk" did not do this it would be the wild wild west of non-notable articles, the categories would be a mess and Misplaced Pages would be a bloated spammy mess. Please watch this talk page if you would like to respond, not everyone uses Echo, knows how to use Echo or cares to use Echo. The onus is on you to participate in this discussion, not be summoned by others. <span style="font-size:smaller; background:GreenYellow; padding:3px; padding-left:3px; border-radius:10px; border:1px black">] (])</span> 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

	== Canadian folklore and myths article? ==

	I have noticed we seem to be lacking a parent article for Canadian folklore and myths. There is lots at ] to build a parent article from.

	What do others think here is this a topic worth its own parent article? )and is anyone willing to help?) If so what are the main ones we should talk about? We have things ranging from the ] all the way to ] with characters like ] and ]. We also have the famous and elusive ] and ].

	Anyone have a copy of {{cite book\|author1=Edith Fowke\|author2=Carole Henderson Carpenter\|title=A Bibliography of Canadian Folklore in English\|year=1981\|publisher=University of Toronto Press}} - or the one by Edith Fowke called A pioneering anthology, Folklore of Canada There is but its so old.-- ] (]) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
	:Note that there are articles such as ] and categories like ] (both names which I dislike but never mind that for now) which presume to cover the native folklore traditions; in some cases like Sasquatch and Ogopogo there is considerable overlap with non-native traditions; there's also cases like ] and ] where a native individual is the subject of folklore. Also in many cases Canadian folklore is about real people and real stories, whether expanded into apocrypha or not. The ] was also, for example, a real person much transformed in the folklore tradition.] (]) 03:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	::About the sasquatch, I found today concerning indigenous stories and knowledge about them, some by the Government Agent at Chehalis BC in 1929, including articles published in ''Macleans'' and other magazines. Integrating them into ethnographic articles may be dubious, dunno, but when is a native belief/legend or folklore ''not'' admissible? Where to draw the line between native oral traditions and non-indigenous folklore and, indigenous peoples being Canadian, is it possible or even correct to draw such a line? One rider to this is that, as with the Sts'Ailes, as the people at Chehalis call themselves today, they keep their knowledge to themselves so as to not be ridiculed by white men; yet are also outraged, per that one story from Harrison Hot Springs, when someone says sasquatch are only legendary.....that's such a good compendium of "bigfoot stories" I'm tempted to add it to ] which has an omnibus title but is very thing on the ground for Salishan-wide coverage; and no doubt these stories, being relatively modern in origin, would have someone object that they are not "traditional tradition".....and again, where do we draw the line, since there is a continuity to native culture and beliefs that these stories and knowledge are an expression of??] (]) 14:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The European convention of "folklore studies" and the concept of "folk" aren't a good fit for native culture, which I think I should state up front in discussing native oral traditions in any Canadian folklore article. A standalone article on Aboriginal Canadian traditions (or a similar title) is one that I also would like to create to provide a survey of the topic, and it can discuss cultural issues and approaches to studying native mythology and so on. There are already a handful of articles on specific groups like Inuit mythology, etc. ] (]) 00:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Yep lots can be said over a few articles - what if we set it up for a few articles - parent article ] with sub articles for the other big topics like ] and ]. -- ] (])
	:::::I recently created ]. I can get a start on a Canadian folklore article in the next few days. Anyone looking to contribute can join in, or you could post suggestions here.] (]) 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

	:While you're discussing folklore, would it be advisable to merge ] into ]? ] (]) 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Let me recommend the long bibliography in {{cite book\|author1=Pauline Greenhill\|author2=Diane Tye\|title=Undisciplined Women: Tradition and Culture in Canada\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NPh_Uy4fl9sC&pg=PA280\|year=1997\|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP\|pages=273–95}} note especially the works by Edith Fowke. ] (]) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	I put in a decent start to the new article ]. If anyone else wants to add material to it, please feel free. ] (]) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

	== {{tl\|Canadian English}} needed on many, many talkpages ==

	Because of derisions towards Canadian English and CANSTYLE and Canadian lexicon/endonym/toponymy usages and PRIMARYTOPIC disputes on various RMs, I have begun adding them to native-ethno and town talkpages and related dabs. There are simply too many in need of it for me to do it all by myself, if others would remember to add it to talkpages that they come across in the course of their editing and commenting that would helpe out a lot.] (]) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

	: I find this a problem with some British editors who seem to "know" what Canadian English is about, and use British terminology (also seem to assume that Australian and Kiwi English is also the same as British; and Indian and Pakistani, etc.). -- ] (]) 23:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

	== Recent font change - type face ==

	See ] for more info.

	To change back to the old style (sans-serif style in Vector).....
	:Go to {{myprefs\|9\|Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)}}
	: -- ] (]) 02:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

	:*Thanks! Just what I was looking for! I think the new font is too large. -- '''<font color="#199199">]</font>'''  <big>]</big> 12:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

	Thank you Moxy! ''']]''' 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Quick question - to me the new font is blurry and all text is bold ...is this what others see? -- ] (]) 00:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I find the new font to be blurry and it makes it really hard to focus. Wish there was Reddit Gold on Misplaced Pages (ok well "Misplaced Pages Gold") for times like this! Thanks! <span style="font-size:smaller; background:GreenYellow; padding:3px; padding-left:3px; border-radius:10px; border:1px black">] (])</span> 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

	== Drafts about Canadian topics ==

	Dear Canadians: Here are some old Afc submissions that will soon be deleted as stale drafts unless someone takes an interest. Feel free to improved these, or please comment if you know of a reason why one of them shouldn't become an article. —] (]) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

	*]
	*]
	*]
	—] (]) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


	*] - This one has now been redirected to ] —] (]) 04:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

			I just created a draft for ], a news website that covers arts and culture in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I’d appreciate any help finding sources. I expected to find some from a quick search, but didn’t immediately find any. ] (]) 23:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	==]==
	I don't know who Hallows AG is or where they're from, but declining Chateau Haldimand as "not notable" is very wrong.....] (]) 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Well, non-notable just means it needs better sources. There's an article in the French language Misplaced Pages (), but it is basically unsourced, so no help there. Any one know where to find some good history sources about early Quebec? —] (]) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
	@] - see below (should be able to see them). I have more if need be -- ] (]) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
	;New France
	*{{cite book\|author=Allan Greer\|title=The People of New France\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uKJAUqpAolQC&pg=PP1\|year=1997\|publisher=University of Toronto Press\|isbn=978-0-8020-7816-2}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Ronald J. Dale\|title=The Fall of New France: How the French Lost a North American Empire 1754-1763\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pZmpn3g3UFQC&pg=PP1\|year=2004\|publisher=James Lorimer & Company\|isbn=978-1-55028-840-7}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Bill Marshall\|title=The French Atlantic: Travels in Culture and History\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=fXZaLhmVt2IC&pg=PP1\|year=2009\|publisher=Liverpool University Press\|isbn=978-1-84631-051-5}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Frank Murray Greenwood\|title=Legacies of Fear: Law and Politics in Quebec in the Era of the French Revolution\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=biZff8hNzHgC&pg=PP1\|year=1993\|publisher=University of Toronto Press\|isbn=978-0-8020-6974-0}}
	;Quebec and New France
	*{{cite book\|author1=John A. Dickinson\|author2=Brian Young\|title=A Short History of Quebec\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=M4xttSld0noC\|year=2008\|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press\|isbn=978-0-7735-7726-8}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Susan Mann\|title=The Dream of Nation: A Social and Intellectual History of Quebec\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3wLR3p7zqewC&pg=PP1\|year=2002\|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press\|isbn=978-0-7735-2410-1}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Ronald Rudin\|title=Making History in Twentieth-century - Quebec\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Bh5dDMnmFdQC&pg=PP1\|year=1997\|publisher=University of Toronto Press\|isbn=978-0-8020-7838-4}}
	*Very Old - {{cite book\|author=Sir James MacPherson Le Moine\|title=Quebec, Past and Present: A History of Quebec, 1608-1876\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=16sOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1\|year=1876\|publisher=A. Coté & c,̊}}
	*{{cite book\|author1=Paul-André Linteau\|author2=René Durocher\|author3=Jean-Claude Robert\|title=Quebec: A History 1867-1929\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_vA0o0e0PdgC&pg=PP1\|year=1983\|publisher=James Lorimer & Company\|isbn=978-0-88862-604-2}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Robert Bothwell\|title=Canada and Quebec: One Country, Two Histories\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=IftRWNt_0bcC&pg=PP1\|year=1998\|publisher=UBC Press\|isbn=978-0-7748-0653-4}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Anne Griffin\|title=Quebec, the Challenge of Independence\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=QtJsEoJIugYC&pg=PP1\|year=1984\|publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press\|isbn=978-0-8386-3135-5}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Jocelyn Maclure\|title=Quebec Identity: The Challenge of Pluralism\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rDq-VVN4XtcC&pg=PP1\|year=2003\|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press\|isbn=978-0-7735-2598-6}}
	*{{cite book\|author=Serge Courville\|title=Quebec: A Historical Geography\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=NDDs1HJWfOQC&pg=PP1\|year=2008\|publisher=UBC Press\|isbn=978-0-7748-5847-2}}

			== Requested move at ] ==
	::Okay, thanks; with these sources someone could improve fifty or sixty articles! I have ] of old Afc submissions that I am working through, so it may be a while before I get to it; if anyone else is interested and wants to do it now, please go ahead. —] (]) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🎃]🎃 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
	::On second thought, maybe this Chateau isn't all that notable - I checked all of those books and found one (1) reference to the this building . —] (]) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

			== Leader of the Opposition - beginning and end of term ==
	:::Not much out there in English - Lots out there in French. - There happens to be an image for you that is in French ..it says - There is also that is translate. As for english we have only {{cite book\|author=Various\|title=The Makers of Canada: Index and Dictionary of Canadian History\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdcDECgcf8C&pg=PT181\|publisher=Library of Alexandria\|isbn=978-1-4655-7197-7\|page=181}} -- ] (]) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

			Following the recent BC election, when exactly does BC United leader ] cease being the Leader of the Opposition in that province? (See ) and when does Conservative leader ] become Leader of the Opposition? Do both events occur on the same date and are one or both of the dates: a) September 21, when the previous legislature dissolved b) October 19, when the subsequent election occurred c) upcoming date when the new legislature is reconvened d) some other date in between? ] (]) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
	{{quotation\| Here stood the Old Castle or Chateau Haldimand, established on the curtains of the old Fort St. Louis. Started in 1784, opened in 1787, this building was demolished in 1892 to make room at the Château Frontenac.
			:Being leader of the opposition ends when the legislature dissolves, so September 21 is the correct end date for Falcon. But since a person can't ''lead'' the opposition until the legislature is in session, Rustad's time doesn't ''start'' until the new legislature reconvenes — because the leader of the opposition's entire job takes place in the legislature, and doesn't have outside-of-the-legislature duties at all, being an ''officer'' of the legislature doesn't work the same way as being a ''member'' of the legislature in that regard. The legislature doesn't have to be in session to be a ''member'', but it ''does'' have to be in session to establish ''officers''.<br>However, since we ''know'' that ] will be the new leader of the opposition, you were entirely correct that Rustad's name doesn't need to be entirely commented out of the successor field in Falcon's article — visible name with "pending" after it is indeed the correct way to handle that. In the extremely unlikely event that something changes in the interim, so that Rustad ''doesn't'' actually get installed as leader of the opposition and some other Conservative MLA gets that job instead, then we can just change the name in Falcon's successor field if and when that happens. But the legislature does have to ''convene'' before there can be a leader of the opposition, so the ''start'' date on that job is the date of the legislature ''convening''. ] (]) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Now I'm wondering if we have the correct dates in the transition of Leader of the Opposition in Alberta from Notley to Gray. Currently our articles say it happened in June, when the NDP leader Nenshi announced it to the media, but although the legislature was in session, it was during the long summer adjournment. Should it be dated to when the fall sitting began in late October? ] (]) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::The Alberta legislature was adjourned, not dissolved as it would be leading into an election. ] (]) 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			We keep the successor in an office infobox ''hidden'', until they've taken office. An RFC on this matter was held a few years ago & the result was to "hide". ] (]) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Where and when was this RFC held? I'm aware of no such thing. ] (]) 16:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|GoodDay}} It's somewhat pedantic to not allow an incoming LOO to be included in LOO lists or as the successor in an infobox. If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. Given that we have the LOO position included in the infobox of the person in question as "succeeding" on a future date TBD it's absurd not to have them named in their predecessor's infobox or in general lists of LOOs. ] (]) 16:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::It isn't pedantic, its what the RFC on the topic called for. But you're free to re-open that topic, as the 2024 US prez election is soon be take place. There, it'll be argued over whether or not to have "Kamala Harris (elect)" or "Donald Trump (elect)" shown in ]'s infobox, for roughly six weeks. ] (]) 17:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

			::::This is how it's pedantic: the infobox in ] indicates he is "assuming office" as NB LOO on a TBD date but the ] infobox lists no successor for her as LOO and the list of LOOs at ] has had Savoie's entry commented out. This is inconsistent and makes no sense. If the next LOO is known they should be listed in both articles, with a qualification that their appointment is pending or starts at a future date. ] (]) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	Here Stood Château Haldimand or Vieux Château, Occupying share of the outworks of Fort St Louis. Begun in 1784, completed in 1787, this edifice WAS Displaced by the erection of the present Château Frontenac in 1892.}}
			::::{{ping\|GoodDay}} "its what the RFC on the topic called". I reiterate Bearcat's request that you provide a link to that RFC. ] (]) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I can't find it at the moment. But if you don't like it, then open up a ''new'' RFC. The matter covers all political office/positions. ] (]) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I'm sorry but if you're going to cite an RFC for your actions you need to provide a link rather than expect people to rely on your recollection and interpretation. ] (]) 17:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Why is it usually ''you'', who can't leave well enough alone? Anyways, I'm gonna have to go through my edit history to find it, now. ] (]) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Because the position your are enforcing is inconsistent, as explained above, and you have reverted multiple editors claiming in edit summaries that this is how "we" do things- but when you're the only one who has voiced the position, it looks like "we" may just be "you". ] (]) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Will you ''please'' wait. I can't go through my edit history that quick. ] (]) 17:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Also the fact that it's you, alone, vs multiple editors tells me that your edits are actually against consensus. ] (]) 17:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::In the meantime. I've brought your complaint to the ] board. ] (]) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Sorry for getting a tad annoyed, earlier. I tend to get grumpy, when I think my honesty is being questioned. ] (]) 18:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I should have been clearer. I wasn't questioning your honesty or good faith. I just prefer to see the discussion or RFC being relied upon for myself rather than rely on anyone's recollection or interpretation of a discussion that occurred years ago, including my own recollection. 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			Here's the ], opened by {{ping\|Mandruss}} who should be notified. -- ] (]) 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:The discussion in the RFC is almost entirely about elected officials, in particular the President of the United States, rather than parliamentary officers or officials. The LOO is the leader (interim or other) of the largest opposition party provided that individual is a sitting member of the legislature. The incoming LOOs we are talking about are their party's leader and are also MLAs. That they are not "officially" LOO yet is a purely pro forma issue as the legislatures have not yet been recalled. I think this is an area where we can have a Canadian consensus rather than automatically apply a much broader RFC. ] (]) 18:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			::It's about all offices. Bring your objections there & see if you can get an exception for Westminster system-based political positions. ] (]) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's about the ''presidency of the United States'', not about all offices in general. A consensus around the presidency doesn't map to a Westminster system at all — no matter who wins the presidential election on Tuesday, ''Joe Biden'' will ''still'' be the ''incumbent'' president until late ''January 2025'', while there is absolutely no valid argument that Kevin Falcon was "still" the incumbent ''anything'' one minute after the BC election writ was dropped in September. And admittely we're not quite as quick about it as the UK is, but Keir Starmer became officially the prime minister of the United Kingdom — not just a presumed "prime minister designate", but the actual honest to god real thing — within a few ''hours'' of the UK election results being finalized back in July, because Westminster politics just ''doesn't'' work like US presidential politics does ''at all''.<br>Kevin Falcon simply ''isn't'' "still" the "incumbent" Leader of the Opposition as of right now, ''regardless'' of whether John Rustad's been sworn in yet or not, so there's no reason for us to follow a USian practice that doesn't fit how Canadian politics works. So a consensus about how to handle ''US presidential'' successions has ''nothing'' to do with ''Canada'', and nothing in that discussion says it does — the system in the US works ''very'' differently than the system in Canada does, so absolutely nothing that Americans do on American political articles ever has any relevance to Canadian political articles at all. ] (]) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's about all political offices. If you disagree, you're free to open that argument at the WikiProject mentioned, about what's covered & what isn't. ] (]) 01:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The discussion is ''very'' incredibly ''crystal clear'' that ''only'' American politics was considered or discussed at all, and there's ''absolutely zero'' evidence that even one person in the entire discussion raised even one single solitary Canadian example for consideration at all. So no, playing the "my way or the highway" card doesn't get you the win — especially not playing it against ''me'', the guy who's quite famously been around here pretty much forever and knows every last nook and cranny of absolutely everything WikiProject Canada has ever done for both good and ill — so until there's a consensus of ''Canadian'' editors that such a practice fits the ''Canadian'' situation, '''nothing that American editors decide about American politics is applicable to us at all'''.<br>Again, American politics works very differently than Canadian politics does, so we would need to see a consensus of ''Canadians'' that American practice was ''relevant'' as a model for us to follow, not just a consensus of Americans discussing their presidency and nothing else. ] (]) 01:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Go to the WikiProject mentioned (it's not a pro-USA WikiProject) & make your argument there. ] (]) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The discussion was ''here'', not somewhere else, so I commented ''here'' because ''this is where the discussion is taking place''. I didn't say it was a "pro-USA WikiProject", I said only American politics was ''considered'' in that other discussion, and that other discussion doesn't feature even ''one'' person offering even ''one word'' of consideration to the fact that different countries have different political systems that work differently. ] (]) 02:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The RFC covers all politics. Disagree? Bring it up with the RFC closer & all those who participated in that RFC. ] (]) 02:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do.}} From a process standpoint, that's just a ''terrible'' argument. We don't have to recall all of the RfC participants to ask them if they have changed their minds. Settled is settled, and consensuses don't require periodic "refresh". If we're talking about {{tlx\|Infobox officeholder}}, the RfC consensus applies. ―] ] 18:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
			::At the time, what I thought was being referred to was a specific RFC for Canadian Leaders of the Opposition, not a broader RFC for officeholders in general. ] (]) 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

			Notifying the RFC closer {{ping\|Just Step Sideways}}, too. ] (]) 01:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::Sources in French are fine. I have added what I could from the items that you've provided, and move the article to mainspace. It's a little skimpy, but it's a start. Thanks for your help, ]. —] (]) 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
			*The previous RFC was about the use of the infobox parameter during the period between being elected and actually taking office. Although obviosuly a reaction to events in the US, it was not limited to the US or excluding of any other country. While consensus can change, absent solid evidence that it already has, the consensus there ought to be respected, to avoid prolonged avoidable arguments exactly like this one. ] ] 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			**{{ping\|Just Step Sideways}} could you please comment in how consensus is applied in this situation: the infobox for ] indicates he will be "assuming office" as leader of the opposition on a date that's TBD while the infobox for his predecessor, ] indicates he vacated the office of leader of the opposition on September 21, 2024 but gives no indication that ] will be his successor despite the fact that Rustad's infobox indicates that he is. ] (]) 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			I would be in favour of opening an RFC on the issue of Canadian federal and provincial Leaders of the Official Opposition at ]. ] (]) 13:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:If you do. I'll have to notified those who participated in the aforementioned RFC. ] (]) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			Incidentally, since we are talking about Westminster systems, what is Misplaced Pages's convention for ]? ] (]) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:They too, shouldn't show the next holder in the predecessor's infobox, until next holder takes office. That too occurs, only when the next parliamentary session convenes. ] (]) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			::It showed Sunak as LOO prior to parliament having been summoned. ] (]) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::That was a mistake. There seems to be inaccuracies in start/end dates for opposition leaders. Over at ] (for example), the end date as opposition leader is shown to be 4 November 2015, rather than the 2015 election date or the 41st parliament's dissolved date. ] (]) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::: I think we have to be careful about assuming the post is tied to the term of the Assembly in any particular jurisdiction. Sometimes the Rules or Standing Orders may provide that officers continue to hold their position even though the assembly has been dissolved. The most common example is the Speaker, since the Speaker is responsible for running the Assembly building and legislative precincts, and it’s not good to have a vacancy in that post during the election. I think we should check the Rules/Standing orders/Legislative Assembly statute on a case-by-case basis for each officer. ] (]) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			Back to the original question. Do we have a consensus on what the start/end dates should be? ] (]) 19:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			== ] article missing content? ==
	== COI/SPA edits on ] ==

			There's quite a few things that are mentioned to be missing from the Doug Ford article on his ] and its ]. I can try to fill in some of the stuff, but I don't think I have the time to finish everything on my own. Examples include the bike lane legislature (which I have previously commented on), and the Ontario Science Center stuff, both of which are well covered by reliable sources. ] (] • ]) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
	As often happens, municipal SPA has edited the McBride article, , though an infobox was added on the last edit at least; the COIs of this kind are tricky, as like FN communities quite often the best source of info, but also of POV, is from COI sources. I'm up to my eyeballs and don't have time to integrate what was deleted with what was added, so posting this here hoping that someone else will take it on.] (]) 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
			: Those sorts of things are better suited for ], rather than the Doug Ford article itself. ''']]''' 17:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
			: I'd have to agree with PKT. Those things have a lot more to do with Doug Ford's ''government'' than they do with his ''biography'', so they should be discussed in the more appropriate spinoff article so as to avoid overloading the BLP. ] (]) 16:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Human Rights Act, Nunavut - need move and disambiguation? ==
	== Proposed addition or amendment to {{tl\|Canadian English}} ==

			Hi, I've got a question on the article on the Nunavut human rights act, currently named: ]. The first issue is that this is not the correct name; "2003" is not part of the name, as shown here: https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/laws/astat/snu-2003-c-12/latest/snu-2003-c-12.html . The act is just "Human Rights Act", which suggests that "2003" should be deleted. However, if we were to move it to "Human Rights Act", that is very general; there are a number of articles about human rights acts, with a disambiguation page: ]. That suggests moving it to a new name, with the jurisdiction in the title: "''Human Rights Act'' (Nunavut)". Does that make sense? If we do that, is there a way to italicise it the way I've shown here, so that the title is italicised, but not the disambiguation in parentheses? ] (]) 15:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	Please see ] re adding passage from TITLE to {{tl:Canadian English}} to make it stronger/more explicit.] (]) 15:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
			:That makes sense to me. You can use ] to get the new title to display right. — ] (]) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. No-one else commented, so I went ahead and moved it. Took two tries; I shouldn't do heavy page lifting too early in the morning. ] (]) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

			== All SCC cites before 1968 are now 404s ==
	:Perhaps a flag should be added to {{tl\|WPCANADA}} to activate Canadian English as well? ({{tlx\|WPCANADA\|CanadianEnglish=yes}}) -- ] (]) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

			The Chief Justice of Canada and a francophone rights group have got into a dispute over the fact that the SCC judgments before the Official Languages Act in 1968 were published in English only, and were on the SCC webpages. Net result is that the SCC has taken down all the pre-1968 decisions until they can be translated. That means that links in a Misplaced Pages article directly to the pre-1968 SCC cases are returning 404s. However, all is not lost. The SCC shared the pre-1968 English versions with other online reporters, so they are still available. I would recommend using CanLII as a substitute, since it’s open access. ] (]) 03:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	== undiscussed move of ] to "in British Columbia]] ==

			ETA: news article on point:
	Please see ] where I have asked Eelamstylez77, if his intent is to merge the Vancouver-area list into this one? My own impression is that he doesn't understand that the British Columbia Interior and Coast are two different places, and t hat "British Columbia Interior" is not synonymous with "British Columbia". I note he also move ] to ]....Hamilton, Ste Catherines, Belleville are "Toronto"??] (]) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
			] (]) 03:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:Personally I don't see an issue with it other than Vancouver should be listed as a heading with a link to the article (not the entire list), rather than in the see also section. A section on Vancouver Island included, unless you intend to create a new article based on areas that are not interior or Vancouver. I don't see the need to have three separate lists. As for Toronto, where do you see locations on that list that are not within Toronto? --]<sup>(]) </sup> 16:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
	"Interior" is capitalized as a proper name. And yes, ] and ] or "Vancouver Island and the British Columbia Coast]] are needed. The Interior is a separate list because of the marked distinction and distance between the Lower Mainland and the Interior. "Vancouver area" was used because locations such as Squamish and Whistler and Pemberton and the Sunshine Coast are not part of the Lower Mainland. I see no reason to merge any of these; the Vancouver area one grows regularly and will continue to do so; the use of Greater Victoria locations is growing also. Locations in the Interior are of a different order and are, for now, much rarer; merging these would be like merging the Alberta list into BC - the Interior is very much a distinct region and filming milieu. In any case, the person who moved the title has moved it back, per my explanation that "British Columbia Interior" and "British Columbia" are not synonymous.] (]) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Do we really need ''separate'' lists for each ''individual'' region ''within'' the province? I strongly doubt that somehow. ] (]) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

			== New article ] ==
	== Reif Estate Winery ==

			Please help expand this article.--] 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	Reif Estate ] is located in ] in Ontario, Canada. Reif Estate is primarily known for playing an important in role pioneering the Ontario wine Industry, as well as planting some of the first Vitis vinifera vines in the Niagara region. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Copy edit quick review ==
	== bot-adding {{tl\|Canadian English}} to talkpages - ? ==

			Think i am done with ].....can we get a quick copy edit and quick review make sure its points are clear. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
	the onslaught of negative and rather hostile comments to ENGVAR and CANSTYLE - dismissive comments or re-fieldings of old complaints/issue long since resolved within WPCANADA - leads me to think/suggest that the CE template should go on all important talkpages; maybe this could be done by bot? Selection would go "if has WPCANADA template, and no other from WPUS or WPUK etc, add it". This couldn't be a blanket "botting"....but a targeted selective one somehow. I've been adding some by hand where RMs are going on where these issues have raised, but there's too many for one person to do...or even for twenty of us to do.] (]) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

			== Requested Article: Cascade Institute ==
	== ] ==

			Hi there,
	A ], X = USA, Brazil, Canada, UK.

			Apologies if this is in the wrong place--I was directed here by the article request page--but I was hoping that an article could be created for the Cascade Institute, a Canadian research centre addressing urgent and entangled global problems, located in Victoria, BC and founded by Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon.
	Please refer to ] and ancillary policies & guidelines.

	All input welcome. Thank you. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">]</font></small></sup> 01:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

			I've disclosed this on my user page, but I am an employee of the Cascade Institute and therefore want to avoid trying to draft the page myself so that we can avoid any potential COIs and biases (and because I'm fairly new to the editing side of Misplaced Pages). I've read through the COI-related help pages and I understand that Misplaced Pages is not intended to promote, but I do believe that our organization is notable enough to merit a page of its own. With this in mind, I have located several, high-quality, reliable secondary sources that I am happy to provide links to upon request, if need be.
	== Russell Mills (publisher) ==

			There is currently a request for the Cascade Institute submitted to the general Misplaced Pages Article Request page, but it's over a year old at this point and I'm hoping that by making this request here, I can at least generate some interest.
	For those around here too young to remember, ] was the publisher of the ] who was fired back in 2002 after controversy surrounding our prime minister ]. Misplaced Pages used to have an article about him but it was tagged as an attack page and speedily deleted in 2010. I am attempting to revive this piece of Canadian history, but it looks like my days of Misplaced Pages are numbered since I am actively being pursued by an admin who has been gunning for me for some weeks now, and who is (indirectly?) helped by participants of this board who are of the opinion that I am a crackpot and who have posted here openly expressing this opinion over the years.

			Happy to discuss further and answer any questions. Thank you!
	Back to Russell Mills that no one participating on this board has expressed any interest in, now or in the past, and who is now in danger of being deleted once again, this time for being not-notable. How is it that no one here has the guts to remove this ridiculous notability-tag from the the article? How can an American admin openly state that ] and no one dares oppose this view? X] (]) 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Notability is clear. He's received important awards and significant coverage in reliable sources. I've added some info, and am watching the article. ] (]) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::{{reply to\| Pburka }}Thank you - you have restored my faith in this project. X] (]) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:At the time that user came across the article, it . A reader unfamiliar with the subject matter would rightfully assume ] applies, and tag the article accordingly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with . Quit assuming other editors are pursuing you, and instead consider the reasons why an article may be tagged, for example that not everyone has the same interests as you and may not have your knowledge about the articles that interest you. The onus is on you to add enough information to articles about subjects that interest you to prevent the addition of tags, or to have them prodded or AfD'd. (By way of example, should I complain that you did nothing about the copyvio text on Canadian banknote series articles? Stop saying things like "that no one participating on this board has expressed any interest in, now or in the past"; nobody is required to hold the same interests as you.) Oh, and the original article was deleted because it had existed for over four years without single reference being added to support it, a clear violation of ]. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 14:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{Anchor\|Mindmatrix}}
	::{{reply to\| Mindmatrix}} You are putting words in my mouth:
	::* I am not "assuming other editors are pursuing" me - I know for a fact that there is one admin who has been gunning for me for weeks.
	::*I did not say I expect everyone to think like me, but I would be surprised if there are no editors at all on Misplaced Pages who have an interest in a publisher of a major news paper who was fired when he allegedly refused to tow the editorial line set by the owners of the paper.
	::* I did not complain about the tagging of the new article - I expressed surprise that no one here had removed the tag 5 days after its creation even though the article is clearly marked with ].
	::By the way I disagree with your statement: “The onus is on article creators to add enough information to articles …” - Can you provide a link to a Policy or guideline that supports this assertion? X] (]) 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::In order to be kept, an article has to make a strong and credible claim that the topic passes one of our ] rules, sourced to enough ] to demonstrate that they have been the ''subject'' of enough coverage to warrant an encyclopedia article. A biographical article about a person is ''not'' automatically entitled to be kept just because the person ''exists'' — rather, the onus ''is'' on you to ensure that the article's notability claim, and the presence of sourcing, are sufficient to pass our inclusion rules. It's certainly clear to those of us who are familiar with Canadian politics that a properly written and referenced article Mills would indeed be keepable — but a single sentence asserting that he ''exists'', sourced only to a ''single'' newspaper article, does ''not'' cut it. So yes, the onus ''is'' on you to ensure that a new article you create is living up to our minimum inclusion standards. ] (]) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Ottawa, I'm really surprised that you ask such questions having been here so long. See ] - namely "A particularly common special case of this is pages about people, companies, or groups of people, that do not substantiate the notability or importance of their subject with reliable sources, so we have decided that such pages may be speedily deleted under our WP:SPEEDY policy. This can offend – so please consider whether your chosen topic is notable enough for Misplaced Pages, '''and then substantiate the notability or importance of your subject by citing those reliable sources in the process of creating your article.'''" Also see ], specifically "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." from ] - these are core policies and guidelines and content rules. I would never create an article and then hope someone else would come along and buffer it into notability - if I don't have enough of a case I keep it in draft, or I ask for help, but I don't stick it into article space unless I'm confident it won't be prodded. Finally I am completely gobsmacked that you seem to be complaining about editors from WikiProject Canada not rushing to the defense of this article just because you tagged it a few days back. Do you think editors here, and at any other project, are at your beck and call to rescue forlorn articles? This project has around 27,000 start-class articles in its purview, and another 27,000+ stub-class articles ] - why should people rush to the rescue of this particular one? ] is quite apt here - if you think an article needs rescuing, rescue it, but please don't complain that a project isn't backing you up. If you ask for help, and someone comes to your aid, then THANK them, but don't critique the whole project en-masse since they didn't drop everything to save this bio. It's offensive - as you well know, we are ALL volunteers here, not just you.--] (]) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::''I expressed surprise that no one here had removed the tag 5 days after its creation'' - so you expected someone from this project to deal with an article they may not have known existed. The fact it was tagged with {{tl\|WikiProject Canada}} does not imply editors will know about it. This WikiProject has tens of thousands of articles associated with it, not all of them of interest to all (or any) Wikipedian that frequents this board. You can disagree with the statement "The onus is on article creators to add enough information to articles..." all you want, but it seems to amount to you complaining that other people aren't editing articles of interest to you. So whose responsibility is it to add this information? Do you expect other editors to expand these articles for you? Did you expect the tag to be removed without addressing the underlying issue? I'll also note that you failed to remove the tag; it was removed by Pburka (three days after it was added), who also added enough information to ensure the subject's notability was suitably stated. Canuckle then greatly expanded the article. Neither of them had to invest their time doing so, and if they hadn't, I suspect the article would still be in its original state, on the cusp of deletion because its creator didn't invest enough effort to establish the subject's notability. (I'll thus paraphrase my original statement: The only person you can guarantee will invest time in an article about which you care is you.) <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 19:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:For the record, nobody here thinks you're a crackpot — but quite a few people here ''do'' think you need to drop the chip on your shoulder, and start devoting a bit more attention to understanding how Misplaced Pages actually works. You do have a really unfortunate tendency of jumping to conclusions that aren't actually borne out by any investigation of the facts, or by any understanding of the actual state of Misplaced Pages policy and procedure — if you're feeling persecuted, you'd do well to understand that there are actual ''reasons'' (lack of proper referencing, violations of policy, etc.) why stuff gets deleted. You've gone to battle over stuff that was completely ], or sourced to ]; you've gone to battle over categories that were explicitly in violation of our categorization rules; you've gone to battle over content that didn't even vaguely resemble what you ''assumed'' it was; you've gone to battle over stuff that explicitly failed our inclusion rules — but I have ''yet'' to see you raise even a single issue where your "going to battle" attitude was ''justified'' at all.
	:Our rule is ''not'' that any class of topic gets an automatic ''presumption'' of notability even in the ''absence'' of any ]; if you want an article to be kept, then yes, the onus ''is'' on ''you'' to actually add enough sourcing to get it kept, and ''not'' on anybody else to grant you the benefit of the doubt.
	:If it helps at all, consider that you should ''always'' write an article from the position that your primary audience is not people who already have the background knowledge of the situation, but people who ''don't'' already know anything about the topic. So yes, that American editor who didn't think Mills sounded notable at all ''is'' who you need to write for — the primary purpose of an article is to educate and inform people who ''don't'' already know very much (or anything at all) about the Mills dismissal controversy, not those of us who do. So if you want an article about Mills to be seen as valuable and keepable, then putting the effort into writing and sourcing an article that's strong enough to convince ''him'' to change his mind about Mills' notability is much likelier to succeed than just writing two sentences which barely get beyond the level of asserting that Mills ''exists''. ] (]) 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

	=== Thoughts on article ===
	I'm not convinced that this article is needed. It seems that the ] of his firing is what's notable, not the fact that it was Mills; moreover, he does not seem ] for any other reason ] he has maintained a low profile in the decade since the event. Since the article on the ] already mentions the firing, the information in this article would be better included there and this article deleted.

			] (]) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	Additionally, this article isn't especially ] in that it only discusses Mills' side and does not mention the newspaper's rationale for firing him. Wherever this content ends up, both sides need to be told. ] (]) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Rainwood13}} Hi! It would probably be better if you wrote the article yourself and submitted it through ]. Unlike you, we are not being paid to edit articles so unless an editor is interested in this topic, most would not write an article just because you asked. Instead, you can start a draft through by clicking on the following link: ]. Once it is ready, click submit and an editor will review it. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

			] (])
	== Jim Gordon ==
			:{{ping\|ARandomName123}} Hi there--thank you for the heads-up/advice! I'll try drafting the article myself and see how that goes. ] (]) 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Railway historical raw data charts ==
	I'd like to request some assistance at ] (a former mayor of ].) Earlier this year, a user replaced the article with a new, much longer version which did represent an improvement in some respects, but also pushed significantly into ] territory in others (e.g. going into extensive tangential detail about the ], ] violations about how uniquely accomplished he was, the addition of an extensive linkfarm directory of city press releases which named him even if they weren't about anything more notable than his attendance at a community luncheon, etc.) So I revised the article a few weeks ago to tone down the marketing bumf, the irrelevant digressions and the policy noncompliant sections while trying to maintain the quality additions — but the same user reverted it back to her own preferred version again this morning. (There's also some evidence that the editor in question may be a professional public relations consultant who's violating Misplaced Pages's ] rules to present a version that Gordon has been directly involved in creating and maintaining, but that's a matter for the COI noticeboard rather than CWNB.)

			Not sure what or why we are getting these old railway charts that info ends in the 60s in BC articles as seen at ] Does anyone else think these are odd additions with no value in explaining the topic of the articles? I have removed a few as seen .....but asking because they have been added all overonly being removed by a few editors.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	So I'd also like some assistance, if possible, in ensuring that the article is properly compliant with our content policies. Some content may still need to be rewritten for neutrality or removed for unverifiability, some of it is still sourced to ] rather than ], some may still be ] addition of excessive detail about tangential topics, and on and so forth. I've done some toning down already, but (a) I'm not sufficiently confident that I've been able to catch everything, since some stuff that seems obvious and straightforward to me as a former Sudburian might seem less so to a person who has less firsthand familiarity with Gordon, (b) while some recent '']'' coverage is available in the ] database that I have access to via the ], it doesn't go far back enough for me to be able to comprehensively improve the article sourcing all by myself without assistance from other editors, and (c) I don't really have the time to stay on top of this all by myself without some further assistance. So would somebody (or a few somebodies) be willing to assist in reviewing the article for content and policy issues? Thanks. ] (]) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			:I have also been removing these enormous railway timetables added to city articles. They are out-of-scope with the ], they unbalance articles, and violate ]. --] (]) 16:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
			:: {{ping\|Moxy}} Tables are commonly listings of raw data. The info ends in the 1960s, because this was when passenger service ceased as stated in the respective tables. The "stop" table outlines variations in the relative significance of the place over time in relation to other more immediate places. This provides a clearer and more accurate understanding than the "preceding and following station template", which is widely used. The table also clarifies the geographic context of these other places when they are mentioned in the article. The infrastructure table will ultimately be an essential subset of a broader picture, but also helps explain the significance of the specific location. For those familiar with such places in the BC interior, the key historic identity of the place required the existence of the railway station. A WP article should not just be a snapshot of recent times. Various tables, such as demographic or climate ones are not of interest to all readers, but for those seeking such information, they serve some purpose. The objective of any table should be to help tell the whole story of a location. If there is a better way to achieve this aim, I am happy to be enlightened. ] (]) 17:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Then write a draft about railway timetables and see if it's accepted. Don't just dump this highly-specific, out-of-scope raw data into multiple city articles. ] (]) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::: {{ping\|Moxy}} You appear to have missed the whole point of the above discussion. It seems a very odd conclusion to reach that it has anything to do with the topic of railway timetables. Please provide actual advice on how best to handle the issues raised. ] (]) 18:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::: I'm simply not seeing any value in them.... Data chart letting me know that you had to raise your hand to stop a train in 1910 in a specific location.... is that what this is about? The whole thing is odd and convoluted. Let's see what others have to say.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: {{ping\|Moxy}} Sorry, I addressed the last comment to the wrong user. These tables in the various articles have nothing to do with raising ones hand. A regular stop indicated a place of sufficient importance to always stop, usually because of a larger industrial enterprise. A flag stop was of much lesser significance. The table reveals the chronological periods of significance of these isolated communities. Over time, places rose and diminished, often associated with the presence or departure of the principal employer. Consequently, the table provides an easily understood overview. ] (]) 19:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: I don't see the value to them either. Just clutters up the article on the town of Coalmount. No need for all that data. Just say that there was train service and it gradually declined until it ended. And I don't agree that the "table provides an easily understood overview". Far too much data that the reader needs to try to analyse to get any conclusions out of it. ] (]) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

			::::::::Have to agree - these should be removed. ] (]) 06:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	== World city rankings ==
			{{od}} OMG...have a look at ], an unincorporated community that has been bombarded with irrelevant train info about derailments and boulders falling on tracks...and so many train schedules. Someone needs to have a conversation. ] (]) 14:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
			: Yeah, the table is basically a data dump, and old, obsolete data at that. It's not worth keeping. ..... PKT
			:: .... How are things like this relevant to our readers. {{red\|"In 1974, 99-year-old Euphemia Rabbitt, the matriarch of Tulameen, died. Her late husband Thomas is remembered in the names of Rabbitt Creek and Mount Rabbitt"}}.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	It has been sometime since I have seen a section called World rankings on city pages. I remember a talk long ago on this topic with the result that we removed them all over and is an FA guidelines not to have them. A few factors were involved leading to the removal - notability of some stats - only positive reviews get mentioned leading to unbalance etc.. I bring all this up because of ] do we want to see the section being added to other the major city with good reviews ? At ] the lede has a few of this as well. What do others think should the section be deleted at Calgary with the info interrogated into the article and/or removed all together? --] (]) 21:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Canada Post Strike ==
	==Metric conversion in Canada==
	] has been proposed to be renamed to ], see ] -- ] (]) 09:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

			Given the ongoing nature of it and how important it is to the Canadian economy, more eyes would be welcome at ]. ] ] 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			== Image fields have been removed from the template for legislation infoboxes, other than US, UK and EU ==
	During 1831-1834 who was the speaker of the above assembly? Ewan Cameron or William McNeill. The above page says it was Ewan but I have got a which says William McNeill was the speaker. Please clarify.--] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:There isn't a reference in the article (external links has a broken link). I say change and add this as a reference since it is a reliable source. <span style="font-size:smaller; background:GreenYellow; padding:3px; padding-left:3px; border-radius:10px; border:1px black">] (])</span> 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

			Please see this discussion: ] ] (]) 15:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	== CfD on ] etc ==
	(Also posted in the Geography of Canada WikiProject talkpage)
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*and various others by-region

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	See ] on the ] page.
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	==Canadian Forces Air Transport Command==
	]'s ~~article name~~ is ~~being~~ ~~discussed~~ at ] -- ] (]) 06:09, 19 ~~April~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 02:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Question re article on Progressive Conservativism ==
	== ] ==

			There is an article on ], which until an edit today by an IP editor was linked in the article on the ]. On the ] page, there is a note that there was a discussion in 2014 which resulted in a consensus to delete the article. It looks as if the deletion was never carried through, but it's not that simple, and as a result I don't think that consensus still applies:
	Hi, I wanted to ask for your help in creating articles about the politicians listed on the above page. These articles may prove to be a great asset to your project.--] (]) 13:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
			:*the version in 2014 was blanked and turned into a redirect page, consistent with the Delete consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=612447999
			:*the article was recreated in 2018, with different content: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Progressive_conservatism&oldid=833441246
			:*that version was then expanded in 2023, which is the basis for the current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Progressive_conservatism&oldid=1162249320.
			The net result is that the current version of the article is not what was blanked in 2014 as a result of the deletion discussion. However, the Talk page for the current article still has the deletion tag, making it look like it should now be deleted. It strikes me that the deletion consensus from 2014 is no longer valid, since it was for a different article. The new article has broader scope than the version that existed in 2014, and better references. I don't know what the rules are for a case like this, but I think the Deletion tag should itself be deleted, since it applied to a much different version, that was blanked 10 years ago. Or, if the old deletion consensus is retained, as part of the history, there should be some explanation of the subsequent history and recreation of the article. Thoughts? ] (]) 16:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The page should be deleted, as it never should've been created. ] (]) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::So the 2014 consenus on a prior version decides the issue for a new version, 10 years later? ] (]) 18:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Very well, don't delete. ] (]) 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::A user showed me this link to come here, I would recommend that the article as it currently exists be evaluated for whether its content merits an article titled "Progressive conservatism". There is an article that addresses what has been claimed to be "progressive" conservative ideas, and that is ]. In British conservative politics such paternalistic conservatism since Benjamin Disraeli's government has been called ] and in Canada as ]. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

			The article looks like it's largely original research and synthesis. It's not the same article that was AFD'd before, except in name, so I'd suggest a new AFD if editors think it should be deleted or merged with ]. ] (]) 04:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Blair McCreadie ==
			::Could you or someone else arrange for this to be done, I don't know how to do this.
			::: I would concur an AfD would be appropriate. ] (]) 19:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The AfD is created . ] (]) 20:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	{{U\|Grumpy Midget}} has reinserted defamatory information into the article ], see my reversion . The comment regarding Nazis, I have not been able to find anything reliable, and the reference template does not have a URL. The closest I could find was something on a website called Ottawa Punk (or something to that effect), which seemed far from a reliable source, in particular when talking about a BLP. The second part regarding links to faciast groups is sourced , and while not unreliable is not actually an article about McCreadie, but rather about Tory (so if it was suitable for inclusion it should be in the article John Tory article, not McCreadie). There is merely a reference to him at the end of the article. GM seems to be trying to get negative information about the Tories inserted McCreadies article as sort of a guild by association, by including it in articles about lesser-known politicians. Would someone please keep an eye on the McCreadie article (I am not particularly active for the next week and a half), and maybe have a word with GM if there is an issue. Note that he also nominated for deletion, ], claiming I was using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, where I have a feeling (just looking at his edit contributions) it is the other way around.--]<sup>(]) </sup> 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Note I do agree with GM on the point that a lot of these politician articles are written like resumes, but dumping unsourced, information linking them to Nazis and faciasts is not the way to deal with it. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	Controversies regarding the subject is said to be involved with either indirectly or directly should not be summarily deleted. It should have been moved to the talk page.
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Re-directs ==
	The controversy regarding the Now Magazine source is directly related to an invited guest of the Tories under his oversight as party president not about John Tory. Political parties invite controversial guests from time to time, on the left and the right.

			I've re-created ] & ], but as ''re-directs''. But now I'm ''not'' certain if I should have. Seeing as they were deleted (as pages) weeks ago. ] (]) 23:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	You seem to be getting your stories mixed up though.
			:Where were they deleted? I'm not seeing anything in AFD, RFD, or the page logs. ---- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I believe they were deleted via personal request. ] (]) 23:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Do you know who made the request? Were the pages under a different name? There is nothing in the logs at the current titles. ---- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I've forgotten & the history was wiped out, once I recreated the page into a re-direct. ] (]) 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	Given the subject's involvement in party training<ref>http://www.clftraining.com/CLF05%20Jan%208%20Bio%20summary.pdf</ref>, this is valid information regarding the subject being discussed. The material in question gives insight to what goes on behind the scenes that parties don't want you to know about. Does the acronym CLF stand for "Conservative Leadership Foundation(s)." Difficult to tell, as the link appears to be broken but it does go into great detail some of the sessions he's chaired. It is conceivable that since the initial entry, other sessions have taken place on various matters of business and various subjects.

			Your input at ] would be appreciated. Thanks. ] (]) 17:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	As for the Canadian Press article about the John Tory gaffe, it is described as a "Real-time news wire feed for newspapers; radio/TV stations; websites; magazines; others." This is a media industry feed that wouldn't necessarily have a link to pull.

			==Postnominal letters and infoboxes==
	John Tory himself has a history of gaffes going back to Kim Campbell's 1993 campaign and religious school funding controversy. The information gives further insight and some striking similarities in how the subject reacts to deflect the issue at hand.
			See ] for discussion. -- ] (]) 15:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			== NDP: infobox ==
	As for Lisa MacLeod's baking cookies article, it is self promotion. "Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal." It also should not be used as a politician's personal cookbook to aide in re-election.

			Hello. In August 2024, {{ping\|RedBlueGreen93}} added provincial & territorial seat totals & premiers (all of which, I've since deleted) to the infobox of the ]. As I understood it, we've chosen to ''exclude'' provincial/territorial branches. Has this changed? ] (]) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Let's use the talk page.
			: In the United States, United Kingdom, and many other countries, the political parties have their status in subnational legislatures or other offices included in the main articles' infoboxes. I was under the impression that articles on Canadian political parties did not follow suit because in most cases, the provincial and territorial political parties of Canada are not wings or official affiliates of federal political parties. However, this is not the case with the NDP, as their constitution clarifies that the NDP in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon are legally the same entity. In that case, the NDP does have representation in provincial and territorial legislatures, and that should be represented in the infobox. The Liberal Party is the same, although they only have affiliates in the Atlantic provinces. ]] 21:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 02:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)GrumpyMidget
			::We exclude the provincial/territory branches, because we have separate provincial/territory NDP pages. ] (]) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Could you point me in the direction of the discussion where this standard was established? Because that is inconsistent with basically every article about a political party in the world. ]] 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's done differently with Canadian political parties. Here's ]. Now ''please'' stop re-adding your non-consensus changes to the infobox. ] (]) 03:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That's a fairly small and informal discussion to be cited as lasting consensus 6 years later, just saying. If that's the only prior conversation about it, I'd say {{ping\|RedBlueGreen93}} wouldn't be out of line if they wanted to start an RfC on the question. ] (]) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::An RFC? I wouldn't object to that. ] (]) 05:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm all for revisiting this, although I'm not entirely sure how to get that started. I don't see how showing a party's status in legislatures in which they are rperesented is somehow giving them special treatment. ]] 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::It's inappropriate in the case of the Liberal and Conservative parties, as the provincial parties are their own standalone things and ''not'' chapters or affiliates of the federal parties — but it's also inappropriate to single out the NDP for ''different'' treatment than the Liberals and Conservatives are getting. It's the kind of thing where either we do it to ''all'' parties across the board ''despite'' the "provincial Liberal/Conservative parties are ''not'' affiliated with the federal parties" problem, or we don't do it ''at all'' for ''any'' parties, and there's no "do it for some parties but not for others" option. There's never, ever any rule that we have to do everything the same way as some other country even if the other country's system is completely different — the rule is that we make our ''own'' decisions based on Canada's ''own'' situation, and what the US does is ''irrelevant''. ] (]) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			I also had to delete provincial/territorial election results. We have separate provincial & territorial NDP pages, for such info. ] (]) 20:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Yes let's keep provincial and federal party separated as they are in real life. Perhaps time to review these articles and see what can be moved to the main articles.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			I've also deleted the current & best seat counts, concerning provinces & territory. ] (]) 03:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			I think adding these stats to the infobox is potentially confusing, due to how each of the federal parties has a different relationship to their provincial counterparts. That is to say, if we list the NDP's provincial seats in the infobox, but not the Conservatives', I expect that many won't understand there's an organizational difference there, and well-meaning editors will try to add something for the Tories. Or look at the Liberal seats and go "huh, looks like they forgot a few provinces" and adjust the numbers. Yeah, we can add notes in the code to warn people off… but anybody who's ever watched these pages knows that the notes urging caution about changing the political position or ideology are widely ignored. It's much better to just leave it out and explain these things, if relevant, in the prose.
	:My sentiments exactly about "a politician's personal cookbook to aide in re-election"; I've de-watchlisted most living-Canadian-politician bios for various reasons, includng general annoyance; but trying to deal with the salting of countless Stephen Harper blurbs on various town/etc articles "Stephen Harper opened a new...." etc, and addressing the little cluster of "FOO Policy of the Harper government" series during the last election campaign saw me get blocked by someone without any knowledge of the political environment/terminology and where commentors on the AfD openly declared their COI as conservative/right-wing; most of those were from other countries. Politicians using Misplaced Pages for advertising has its apposite side too; hostile POV edits on politician pages are also common cf ], and censor edits on some e.g. ] are/were rife; I just don't look now as I got "blamed" for "censorship" by IPs and SPAs etc....and outed in the press, too. How to patrol and deal with this when discussions can include (a) the uninformed or those lacking political acumen (b) people not familiar with the Canadian political environment and its word-games and (c) people who pretend that obviously POV material is NPOV and (d) the disingenuous, for whom equivocation and deflection are an art form - how to deal with that, and issues like the one you've raised on "fringe" elements (not all are politicians is not easily solvable by regular Misplaced Pages procedure; ] and his supporters/followers are also a problem.....that many such political-party/politician edits may also be COI in the paid-consultant sense, particularly SPA and IP users, is another factor. ] (]) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

			The other thing is that even when federal and provincial parties are formally affiliated, they are still ''de facto'' independent. The provincial parties aren't an extension of the federal party, can pursue a slightly different ideological position, and even clash with other branches (most famously, in recent memory, was the tense relationship between the BC NDP and AB NDP over the question of pipelines). It's also often the case that a province will vote for one party provincially, then turn around and vote for another federally (Ontario is famous for this), so the provincial seat count doesn't speak to the strength of the party federally (one way or the other). This in stark contrast to UK politics, for example, where the local elections are often seen (by voters and pundits both) as a gauge on how people are feeling about the national government. Canadian parties just don't have that relationship. — ] (]) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:GrumpyMidget, you're wrong about one thing: unsourced controversial information does ''not'' get to stay in Misplaced Pages pending discussion; it stays ''out'' of Misplaced Pages (inclusive of talk pages) until you can source it properly. And if you don't like the article about the cookbook, you always have the option of taking it to ] for a wider discussion — I don't think it's notable enough to really warrant an article either, but there's clearly enough disagreement on that point to make it ineligible for a unilateral prod. ] (]) 01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

			===Liberal Party===
	::GrumpyMidget, I have no idea why you think that the article on the cookbook is being used for promotion on Misplaced Pages. I wrote it, along with {{u\|Drmies\|a guy from Alabama}}. I don't live in Ontario, I have never lived in her riding, I have never voted for Ms. MacLeod, I don't own a copy of the book. I wrote it because I heard a story about it on the news and thought it sounded interesting. That is how I come up with ideas on what articles to write. You should try it some time, actually writing articles. It is much more satisfying than filling low-level politician articles with defamatory BLP information, and it is actually in line with Misplaced Pages's policies. Thank you for your due diligence Bearcat, an AfD nomination will ''hopefully'' bring about the discussion required to bring this subject to a close (one way or another). --]<sup>(]) </sup> 10:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			I just deleted RedBlueGreen93's addition of graphics concerning the NB, NL, NS & PEI Liberal parties current & best seat counts, in the ] article. ] (]) 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Also GM, a "gaffe" (as you put it) as significant as that would surely have been picked up by a media outlet that has it's own website, claiming there is no link to pull doesn't cut it for something like that. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 11:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			: This edit is not relevant to this discussion, and is an unjustified reversion. The table gives a small summary and clarifies which parties are currently affiliated. More detailed information can be found on their own articles. Your ] does not apply here. ]] 08:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Ah, so the Canadians have their own chatroom now? Cultural fascism I call that, and I'll prod this imminently. That McCreadie article, that's a gem: <blockquote>McCreadie defended a 2003 party organizing session that included a prominent British Conservative MP ] as key note speaker, who's invitation was considered controversial for his links to a European political group said to have ties a youth wing of ], the party that descended from Mussolini’s Fascists.</blockquote> So, the smear here is that one upon a time a guy was said to be controversial because the group he was with was said to have ties with a party supposedly descended from a fascist group, and your guy defended that guy's presence at some function. That doesn't even hold up in a conversation over beer, hockey, and maple syrup, let alone in a BLP. Or, no way, per {{U\|Bearcat}} and K-stick. As for the cookbook, meh. I don't even know what a riding is, and I don't have voting rights west of Europe. ] (]) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			::We have separate pages for the NS, NB, NL & PEI Liberal parties. That where those graphics belong, respectively. ] (]) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Canadian~~ ~~Encyclopedia~~ ==		== President of Canada ==

			I think we should re-consider having ] re-directed to another article, other than ]. The PM isn't Canada's head of state. ] (]) 19:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Dear editors: Some time ago the Canadian encyclopedia reorganized all of its articles, causing a lot of dead links here on Misplaced Pages. At the time I made a list of the affected pages (]). There was some talk of automating at least some of the needed updates. Did this happen, and if so, is there a way to see which pages were fixed automatically so that I can remove them from my list? Please also feel free to remove any that you happen to know have been fixed. —] (]) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
			:I would rather keep it redirected to Prime Minister. When people think of Canada's President, they're probably thinking of the PM, not the monarchy. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 19:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	: It appears that sometime after we identified the problem, The Canadian Encyclopedia reinstituted their old "params=" URLs as redirects to the new-format versions — I haven't comprehensively checked ''every'' link to TCE that exists on Misplaced Pages, but certainly whenever I've come across one recently (e.g. on ]), we still had the old-style URL but it got me to the right article on TCE anyway. So the project lost much of its urgency. It is still a worthwhile project in principle, and people should still update the links if and when we come across them — but also, since it no longer requires active editor involvement to actively track down the new location of the articles, it's now a project that could be even more easily automated if anybody with bot-programming experience wants to write a bot to handle it. ] (]) 17:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
			::Why encourage such misinformed opinions, with such a re-direct? We're suppose to help readers. ] (]) 20:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Same problem for formerly-BCGNIS links; though I guess not for the same reason as the CE, because the "params=" function isn't on their site; but all URLs have been reorganized on different server-names. Some {{tl\|bcgnis}} and {{tl\|cite bcgnis}} links still work, but not all; not sure why. Both those templates are "deprecated" as the latter is too cumbersome to bother with, and I've gone back for a long while now to using URL brackets. The name of BCGNIS has changed to, it's now the BC Geographic Names Office and is under (see , which also hosts BC Basemap and other resources; in URL links I've been using "BC Names/GeoBC entry "FOO"", on coord source: fields I've been using BCNames.] (]) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			::: Isn't that the point...that is to redirect people who are mistaken to the right information?<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::The other day I started checking some of the pages on my list above, and of the ones I checked about 1/3 of the links worked. If that's a representative sample, there are still thousands of bad links. Is there a way to use the search engine to separate those which still need repair from those which don't? —] (]) 12:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			::::A re-direct to ], would be more accurate. ] (]) 20:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Maybe next time you find a bad one, copy the URL and leave off the field/page off the end; that should find all of them if you search for it; I'll try it myself next time I see one; can't recall which ones didn't work just now, could go back in their histories maybe.....other thing is once t hat's located, the unique identifier numbers are the same, running a bot to change the URLs seems like a good idea, given the volume there'll be.] (]) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			::::: I'm thinking more of international precedents and usage over theoretical Canadian republicanism.. Something akin to ] who is actually called the president and is also only head of government and not head of state.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If we're going the "head of state" route, I'd rather we redirect to ], not ]. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Agreed, that would be a more accurate re-direct. ] (]) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Disagree being president doesn't always mean you're head of state..... Many presidents are simply headz of government and not heads of state. ]<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: I have taken the liberty of employing WP: Bold. ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Uh, why ]? ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 20:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: Be cause that explains things in neutral languge. A possible alternatives could be ] or maybe ]. ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			*Was unaware there was just a and an ongoing edit war now. Have restored to the RFC version..... Just need to start a new talk as there is here I guess? See also ]<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	==HMCS==
	~~See~~ ] ~~where~~ a discussion on ~~the~~ ~~use~~ of ~~HMCS~~ in ~~infoboxes~~ is ~~underway~~ -- ] (]) 04:46, 26 ~~April~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		::Maybe we should have another 'redirect for discussion', as that would likely be the appropriate place. I don't know. ] (]) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::(ec) Agree that may be best.... Do the RFC right below this discussion. This way I think more people will be involved. I was unaware of the two previous discussions if they were here I would have participated.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			::I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it as a disambiguation page with the multiple possible interpretations, which it was until a 2022 AfD found otherwise. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] turns out to have been prodded long ago ==
			:::Well, after realizing that the mobile editor wasn't pulling my leg about the 'consensus', I undid my revert. ] (]) 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: I guess if we have another RFC.... We should have four or five selections not sure. prime minister of Canada, monarchy of Canada, republicanism in Canada, constitution of Canada, government of Canada?<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Would appear so. ] (]) 21:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Rwood128 suggested on my talk page we should just delete the damn thing.... Page protection from creation perhaps? This could also be an option in an RFC. If delete and the page is protected from recreation I think it would help a lot with edit wars in the future. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Agreed. ] (]) 21:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			I was about to suggest thsat this idiotic re-direct was a joke or maybe Chinese interference, when the above comicall suggestions about protecting the page appeared. Only a senior editor would be able to remove the original. Hope there is one with the gumption to do so. Do something more than chatter!! ] (]) 21:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Actually the article is called ]. ] (]) 22:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sorry to be sowing confusion but there ''are'' two re-direct pages, one correct and one with the lower case "c" and .] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: Neither are correct. I don’t understand why we have a redirect for a completely non-existant office. ] (]) 01:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Yes!] (]) 12:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This seems like a plausible search term someone might have, and redirects from incorrect names are valid. If you asked me to identify the office that is head of state and head of government for every country in the world, I am certain I would get many wrong. The goal of an encyclopedia is to connect readers with the article they are likely searching for, not to judge them for being “misinformed” or “illiterate”. We should strive to be as accessible as possible to a wide range of readers of different levels of education and cultural backgrounds.
			:At any rate, ] is the proper venue for opening a discussion to delete or change these redirects.--] (])
			:{{ping\|Rwood128}} Please do not simply blank pages as an attempt to delete them, as you did {{diff2\|1264776654\|here}}. As for the redirect itself, it was redirected there as the result of ], which included both ] and ]. As for those who have tried to change the target ({{ping\|GoodDay\|Rwood128\|p=}}), it would be best to start another RfD about the target that makes the most sense instead of making any further changes. While I did not participate in the previous RfC, held in March of 2023, I do actually support the current target. We obviously don't have a president, but I think those who are searching for a president of Canada are actually looking for the prime minister's page. ] (]) 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Anyone searching for this topic should be directed to the Canadian constitution. Why this tedious commentary? ] (]) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Tedious commentary? Well that's certainly not a helpful way to dismiss someone's input on a subject. Keep it simple then and end this discussion, nominate it at RfD {{u\|Rwood128}}. Note that I'll be voting keep. ] (]) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Aaaand Rwood128 blanked it again... I expect someone with over 28k edits to know better than to {{diff2\|1264791525\|blank a redirect}} ({{diff2\|1264776654\|twice}}). I've left a warning at your talk page. ] (]) 15:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			I would indeed bring this to "Redirect for discussion", but I find their instructions on how to do it, too confusing. ] (]) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: if it is to be kept, I would suggest « Republicanism in Canada » to flag that there is no such position at present. Alternatively, it should go to the Gov Gen page, because in a parliamentary system, the president is the formal head of state. A redirect should refer to the closest analogue, which is the Gov Gen, who fulfills the same role in Canada as the president of Ireland and the President of Germany, to give two other parliamentary examples. We should not base the redirect on a misguided comparison to a presidential-congressional system, as that would be misleading. ] (]) 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I would oppose re-directing to the governor general's page, as the governor general isn't the head of state. ] (]) 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}Ok so let's redirect to ]. ] (]) 17:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The office would be more appropriate than the individual. ] redirects to ].--] (]) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Any target risks some level of confusion for the reader, depending on what they are looking for. It could be a reader who is unaware of Canada's system of government and is looking for the political leader generally, in which case they want ]. They could be looking for information about the head of state, in which case the best response would be ], or ] for the individual who carries out those roles. They could be looking for proposals for Canada to have a presdient, in which case ] is best.
			::::::While being redirected to a different page than what they searched for should flag for the reader that the specific target of their search doesn't exist, I think the best option would be a DAB to make that explicit. This would be quite different to ]. This would say: "As a parliamentary democracy, Canada does not have a president. For the head of state see..., for the head of government see..." (similar to ] linked below).--] (]) 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since Canada can't be the only country where people confuse title of the political leader, I thought I'd have a look at where other "President of…" pages redirected to, so that we could use that as a prececent. Instead, what I found is that none of them exist: ], ], ], ], ], ]. That even Australia is a redlink surprised me, since ] is a big subject. So since it seems like editors haven't felt the need to clarify any misconceptions or provide reading (on the constitution or the republicanism debate), I don't see why Canada and Canada alone needs this redirect.

			The only page I found that isn't red is ], which is a disambig page. We could do the same, I suppose. Note that the ] is the ''président'' in French. — ] (])
	I'll pen up a new one when I get a chance, unless someone else gets to it first, with cites from the BC government usages; there's no specific citation on the Government of Canada site. The deleter said:
			:] is a longstanding redirect that has survived several attempts to delete it as an {{t\|R from incorrect name}}.--] (]) 17:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*; I don't recall the rough article there as being "patent nonsense", though it needed some work; reminds me of the attempt to prod ] as "nonsense" and because the prodder had "never heard of it". Some kind of template ] would be an apt thing to have in such situations.] (]) 06:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
			:Good point, those ''should'' probably be created and tagged as "r from incorrect name". ] (]) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Unshake that head. The exact text of the article at the time of deletion was {{cquote\|Government agents are all over the place. They are were you work, eat, sleep and were your children play with their toys!!!!!!. They cannot be trusted for a second while canada is obviously the best country ever they are also very sneaky.}} And just for the record, that's the ''only'' version of the article that has ''ever'' existed at that title — I don't know what you're remembering, but it ain't that. ] (]) 06:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Oh, OK, I ~~thought~~ ~~there~~ ~~was~~ ~~one~~ ~~more~~ ~~legitimate~~ ~~one;~~ that ~~position~~ in ~~early~~ BC ~~was~~ ~~one~~ of ~~the~~ ~~capacities~~ of ~~]s,~~ that ~~must~~ be what I ~~was~~ ~~thinking~~ of.] (]) 07:08, 26 ~~April~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		::Well, if we're going to make pages all of these, I would prefer the ] dab approach that actually clarifies things for the reader rather than a simple redirect that has to guess at what they were looking for. — ] (]) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{ping\|Kawnhr}} Not really an option in this particular case. If we look at the {{oldid2\|1109926691\|old version of the page}} you'd see most of the suggestions were already included there, but the ] resulted in retargeting to ]. ] (]) 18:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I think the key thing the ] dab has that the previous ] dab didn’t is a brief explanation that the title being searched for is an office that does not exist. I think it would be worth revisiting the dab option in an RfD, as it counters the common argument that any potential redirect would be confusing. A dab that explicitly and concisely clarifies the situation seems like it would have the least potential for confusion of all possible options.--] (]) 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Whether we like it or not, there has, historically, been consensus against deleting redirects which are the incorrect usage of president and prime minister:
			* ] (kept)
			* ] (kept)
			* ] (kept)
			* ] (keep, add hatnote to ]
			* ] (retargeted and tagged as incorrect name)
			* ] (kept / 1 entry re-targeted to PM that was pointed elsewhere)
			A discussion here regarding changing the target also holds no weight (]) considering the outcome of the relevant RfD ended in pointing both ] and ] to ]. My perspective is that this is pretty much one of the reasons that {{tl\|r from incorrect name}} exists, and I'd vote keep if we someone sends this to RfD. ] (]) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*no brainer to me...we should simply guide our readers (an editors) to an article that educates them on what position is equivalent to president in Canada.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tquote\|Whether we like it or not, there has, historically, been consensus against deleting redirects which are the incorrect usage of president and prime minister}}
			:Is there? Click the redlinks I provided and you'll see several of them went through AfD in 2022 (and were all deleted): ], ], ]. Meanwhile, President of Belgium went through G7… and you just created President of Sweden. — ] (]) 18:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Kawnhr}} I clicked them. There were 3 AfD discussions about DABs, not redirects. Did you see ], which resulted in redirect to ]? I've given you a number of instances where relevant redirect discussions have ended in keep or, in one circumstance, retarget while keeping a hatnote to the incorrect name. G7s are contextually irrelevant for what it's worth, and just because other entries don't exist doesn't invalidate the idea that someone might mistakenly search for the wrong title. ] (]) 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			]''' Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 19:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC) ]]

Latest revision as of 15:02, 24 December 2024

Main
page

Draft:Apt613

I just created a draft for Apt613, a news website that covers arts and culture in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I’d appreciate any help finding sources. I expected to find some from a quick search, but didn’t immediately find any. Thriley (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Superstack#Requested move 23 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Superstack#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🎃 ASUKITE🎃 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition - beginning and end of term

Following the recent BC election, when exactly does BC United leader Kevin Falcon cease being the Leader of the Opposition in that province? (See ) and when does Conservative leader John Rustad become Leader of the Opposition? Do both events occur on the same date and are one or both of the dates: a) September 21, when the previous legislature dissolved b) October 19, when the subsequent election occurred c) upcoming date when the new legislature is reconvened d) some other date in between? Wellington Bay (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Being leader of the opposition ends when the legislature dissolves, so September 21 is the correct end date for Falcon. But since a person can't lead the opposition until the legislature is in session, Rustad's time doesn't start until the new legislature reconvenes — because the leader of the opposition's entire job takes place in the legislature, and doesn't have outside-of-the-legislature duties at all, being an officer of the legislature doesn't work the same way as being a member of the legislature in that regard. The legislature doesn't have to be in session to be a member, but it does have to be in session to establish officers.
However, since we know that John Rustad will be the new leader of the opposition, you were entirely correct that Rustad's name doesn't need to be entirely commented out of the successor field in Falcon's article — visible name with "pending" after it is indeed the correct way to handle that. In the extremely unlikely event that something changes in the interim, so that Rustad doesn't actually get installed as leader of the opposition and some other Conservative MLA gets that job instead, then we can just change the name in Falcon's successor field if and when that happens. But the legislature does have to convene before there can be a leader of the opposition, so the start date on that job is the date of the legislature convening. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering if we have the correct dates in the transition of Leader of the Opposition in Alberta from Notley to Gray. Currently our articles say it happened in June, when the NDP leader Nenshi announced it to the media, but although the legislature was in session, it was during the long summer adjournment. Should it be dated to when the fall sitting began in late October? Indefatigable (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Alberta legislature was adjourned, not dissolved as it would be leading into an election. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We keep the successor in an office infobox hidden, until they've taken office. An RFC on this matter was held a few years ago & the result was to "hide". GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Where and when was this RFC held? I'm aware of no such thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It's somewhat pedantic to not allow an incoming LOO to be included in LOO lists or as the successor in an infobox. If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. Given that we have the LOO position included in the infobox of the person in question as "succeeding" on a future date TBD it's absurd not to have them named in their predecessor's infobox or in general lists of LOOs. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't pedantic, its what the RFC on the topic called for. But you're free to re-open that topic, as the 2024 US prez election is soon be take place. There, it'll be argued over whether or not to have "Kamala Harris (elect)" or "Donald Trump (elect)" shown in Joe Biden's infobox, for roughly six weeks. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is how it's pedantic: the infobox in Glen Savoie indicates he is "assuming office" as NB LOO on a TBD date but the Susan Holt infobox lists no successor for her as LOO and the list of LOOs at Leader of the Opposition (New Brunswick) has had Savoie's entry commented out. This is inconsistent and makes no sense. If the next LOO is known they should be listed in both articles, with a qualification that their appointment is pending or starts at a future date. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: "its what the RFC on the topic called". I reiterate Bearcat's request that you provide a link to that RFC. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find it at the moment. But if you don't like it, then open up a new RFC. The matter covers all political office/positions. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you're going to cite an RFC for your actions you need to provide a link rather than expect people to rely on your recollection and interpretation. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is it usually you, who can't leave well enough alone? Anyways, I'm gonna have to go through my edit history to find it, now. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Because the position your are enforcing is inconsistent, as explained above, and you have reverted multiple editors claiming in edit summaries that this is how "we" do things- but when you're the only one who has voiced the position, it looks like "we" may just be "you". Wellington Bay (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Will you please wait. I can't go through my edit history that quick. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also the fact that it's you, alone, vs multiple editors tells me that your edits are actually against consensus. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime. I've brought your complaint to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Elections and Referendums board. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for getting a tad annoyed, earlier. I tend to get grumpy, when I think my honesty is being questioned. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I wasn't questioning your honesty or good faith. I just prefer to see the discussion or RFC being relied upon for myself rather than rely on anyone's recollection or interpretation of a discussion that occurred years ago, including my own recollection. 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the RFC-in-question, opened by @Mandruss: who should be notified. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion in the RFC is almost entirely about elected officials, in particular the President of the United States, rather than parliamentary officers or officials. The LOO is the leader (interim or other) of the largest opposition party provided that individual is a sitting member of the legislature. The incoming LOOs we are talking about are their party's leader and are also MLAs. That they are not "officially" LOO yet is a purely pro forma issue as the legislatures have not yet been recalled. I think this is an area where we can have a Canadian consensus rather than automatically apply a much broader RFC. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's about all offices. Bring your objections there & see if you can get an exception for Westminster system-based political positions. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's about the presidency of the United States, not about all offices in general. A consensus around the presidency doesn't map to a Westminster system at all — no matter who wins the presidential election on Tuesday, Joe Biden will still be the incumbent president until late January 2025, while there is absolutely no valid argument that Kevin Falcon was "still" the incumbent anything one minute after the BC election writ was dropped in September. And admittely we're not quite as quick about it as the UK is, but Keir Starmer became officially the prime minister of the United Kingdom — not just a presumed "prime minister designate", but the actual honest to god real thing — within a few hours of the UK election results being finalized back in July, because Westminster politics just doesn't work like US presidential politics does at all.
Kevin Falcon simply isn't "still" the "incumbent" Leader of the Opposition as of right now, regardless of whether John Rustad's been sworn in yet or not, so there's no reason for us to follow a USian practice that doesn't fit how Canadian politics works. So a consensus about how to handle US presidential successions has nothing to do with Canada, and nothing in that discussion says it does — the system in the US works very differently than the system in Canada does, so absolutely nothing that Americans do on American political articles ever has any relevance to Canadian political articles at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's about all political offices. If you disagree, you're free to open that argument at the WikiProject mentioned, about what's covered & what isn't. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is very incredibly crystal clear that only American politics was considered or discussed at all, and there's absolutely zero evidence that even one person in the entire discussion raised even one single solitary Canadian example for consideration at all. So no, playing the "my way or the highway" card doesn't get you the win — especially not playing it against me, the guy who's quite famously been around here pretty much forever and knows every last nook and cranny of absolutely everything WikiProject Canada has ever done for both good and ill — so until there's a consensus of Canadian editors that such a practice fits the Canadian situation, nothing that American editors decide about American politics is applicable to us at all.
Again, American politics works very differently than Canadian politics does, so we would need to see a consensus of Canadians that American practice was relevant as a model for us to follow, not just a consensus of Americans discussing their presidency and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Go to the WikiProject mentioned (it's not a pro-USA WikiProject) & make your argument there. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was here, not somewhere else, so I commented here because this is where the discussion is taking place. I didn't say it was a "pro-USA WikiProject", I said only American politics was considered in that other discussion, and that other discussion doesn't feature even one person offering even one word of consideration to the fact that different countries have different political systems that work differently. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The RFC covers all politics. Disagree? Bring it up with the RFC closer & all those who participated in that RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. From a process standpoint, that's just a terrible argument. We don't have to recall all of the RfC participants to ask them if they have changed their minds. Settled is settled, and consensuses don't require periodic "refresh". If we're talking about {{Infobox officeholder}}, the RfC consensus applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

At the time, what I thought was being referred to was a specific RFC for Canadian Leaders of the Opposition, not a broader RFC for officeholders in general. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Notifying the RFC closer @Just Step Sideways:, too. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The previous RFC was about the use of the infobox parameter during the period between being elected and actually taking office. Although obviosuly a reaction to events in the US, it was not limited to the US or excluding of any other country. While consensus can change, absent solid evidence that it already has, the consensus there ought to be respected, to avoid prolonged avoidable arguments exactly like this one. Just Step Sideways 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Just Step Sideways: could you please comment in how consensus is applied in this situation: the infobox for John Rustad indicates he will be "assuming office" as leader of the opposition on a date that's TBD while the infobox for his predecessor, Kevin Falcon indicates he vacated the office of leader of the opposition on September 21, 2024 but gives no indication that John Rustad will be his successor despite the fact that Rustad's infobox indicates that he is. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favour of opening an RFC on the issue of Canadian federal and provincial Leaders of the Official Opposition at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If you do. I'll have to notified those who participated in the aforementioned RFC. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, since we are talking about Westminster systems, what is Misplaced Pages's convention for Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)? Wellington Bay (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

They too, shouldn't show the next holder in the predecessor's infobox, until next holder takes office. That too occurs, only when the next parliamentary session convenes. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It showed Sunak as LOO prior to parliament having been summoned. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That was a mistake. There seems to be inaccuracies in start/end dates for opposition leaders. Over at Tom Mulcair (for example), the end date as opposition leader is shown to be 4 November 2015, rather than the 2015 election date or the 41st parliament's dissolved date. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful about assuming the post is tied to the term of the Assembly in any particular jurisdiction. Sometimes the Rules or Standing Orders may provide that officers continue to hold their position even though the assembly has been dissolved. The most common example is the Speaker, since the Speaker is responsible for running the Assembly building and legislative precincts, and it’s not good to have a vacancy in that post during the election. I think we should check the Rules/Standing orders/Legislative Assembly statute on a case-by-case basis for each officer. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Do we have a consensus on what the start/end dates should be? GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Doug Ford article missing content?

There's quite a few things that are mentioned to be missing from the Doug Ford article on his talk page and its archives. I can try to fill in some of the stuff, but I don't think I have the time to finish everything on my own. Examples include the bike lane legislature (which I have previously commented on), and the Ontario Science Center stuff, both of which are well covered by reliable sources. 137a (talk • edits) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Those sorts of things are better suited for Premiership of Doug Ford, rather than the Doug Ford article itself. PK T(alk) 17:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with PKT. Those things have a lot more to do with Doug Ford's government than they do with his biography, so they should be discussed in the more appropriate spinoff article so as to avoid overloading the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Act, Nunavut - need move and disambiguation?

Hi, I've got a question on the article on the Nunavut human rights act, currently named: Human Rights Act 2003. The first issue is that this is not the correct name; "2003" is not part of the name, as shown here: https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/laws/astat/snu-2003-c-12/latest/snu-2003-c-12.html . The act is just "Human Rights Act", which suggests that "2003" should be deleted. However, if we were to move it to "Human Rights Act", that is very general; there are a number of articles about human rights acts, with a disambiguation page: Human Rights Act. That suggests moving it to a new name, with the jurisdiction in the title: "Human Rights Act (Nunavut)". Does that make sense? If we do that, is there a way to italicise it the way I've shown here, so that the title is italicised, but not the disambiguation in parentheses? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. You can use Template:Italic title to get the new title to display right. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. No-one else commented, so I went ahead and moved it. Took two tries; I shouldn't do heavy page lifting too early in the morning. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

All SCC cites before 1968 are now 404s

The Chief Justice of Canada and a francophone rights group have got into a dispute over the fact that the SCC judgments before the Official Languages Act in 1968 were published in English only, and were on the SCC webpages. Net result is that the SCC has taken down all the pre-1968 decisions until they can be translated. That means that links in a Misplaced Pages article directly to the pre-1968 SCC cases are returning 404s. However, all is not lost. The SCC shared the pre-1968 English versions with other online reporters, so they are still available. I would recommend using CanLII as a substitute, since it’s open access. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ETA: news article on point: Supreme Court removes all unilingual decisions from its website Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

New article 2024 Canada Post strike

Please help expand this article.--User:Namiba 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Copy edit quick review

Think i am done with Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples.....can we get a quick copy edit and quick review make sure its points are clear. Moxy🍁 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested Article: Cascade Institute

Hi there,

Apologies if this is in the wrong place--I was directed here by the article request page--but I was hoping that an article could be created for the Cascade Institute, a Canadian research centre addressing urgent and entangled global problems, located in Victoria, BC and founded by Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon.

I've disclosed this on my user page, but I am an employee of the Cascade Institute and therefore want to avoid trying to draft the page myself so that we can avoid any potential COIs and biases (and because I'm fairly new to the editing side of Misplaced Pages). I've read through the COI-related help pages and I understand that Misplaced Pages is not intended to promote, but I do believe that our organization is notable enough to merit a page of its own. With this in mind, I have located several, high-quality, reliable secondary sources that I am happy to provide links to upon request, if need be.

There is currently a request for the Cascade Institute submitted to the general Misplaced Pages Article Request page, but it's over a year old at this point and I'm hoping that by making this request here, I can at least generate some interest.

Happy to discuss further and answer any questions. Thank you!

Rainwood13 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rainwood13: Hi! It would probably be better if you wrote the article yourself and submitted it through WP:AfC. Unlike you, we are not being paid to edit articles so unless an editor is interested in this topic, most would not write an article just because you asked. Instead, you can start a draft through by clicking on the following link: Misplaced Pages:Article Wizard. Once it is ready, click submit and an editor will review it. ARandomName123 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

ARandomName123 (talk)

@ARandomName123: Hi there--thank you for the heads-up/advice! I'll try drafting the article myself and see how that goes. Rainwood13 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Railway historical raw data charts

Not sure what or why we are getting these old railway charts that info ends in the 60s in BC articles as seen at Coalmont, British Columbia#Railway Does anyone else think these are odd additions with no value in explaining the topic of the articles? I have removed a few as seen here.....but asking because they have been added all overonly being removed by a few editors.Moxy🍁 15:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also been removing these enormous railway timetables added to city articles. They are out-of-scope with the Canadian article guidelines, they unbalance articles, and violate WP:NOTCATALOG. --Magnolia677 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Tables are commonly listings of raw data. The info ends in the 1960s, because this was when passenger service ceased as stated in the respective tables. The "stop" table outlines variations in the relative significance of the place over time in relation to other more immediate places. This provides a clearer and more accurate understanding than the "preceding and following station template", which is widely used. The table also clarifies the geographic context of these other places when they are mentioned in the article. The infrastructure table will ultimately be an essential subset of a broader picture, but also helps explain the significance of the specific location. For those familiar with such places in the BC interior, the key historic identity of the place required the existence of the railway station. A WP article should not just be a snapshot of recent times. Various tables, such as demographic or climate ones are not of interest to all readers, but for those seeking such information, they serve some purpose. The objective of any table should be to help tell the whole story of a location. If there is a better way to achieve this aim, I am happy to be enlightened. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Then write a draft about railway timetables and see if it's accepted. Don't just dump this highly-specific, out-of-scope raw data into multiple city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: You appear to have missed the whole point of the above discussion. It seems a very odd conclusion to reach that it has anything to do with the topic of railway timetables. Please provide actual advice on how best to handle the issues raised. DMBanks1 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply not seeing any value in them.... Data chart letting me know that you had to raise your hand to stop a train in 1910 in a specific location.... is that what this is about? The whole thing is odd and convoluted. Let's see what others have to say.Moxy🍁 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Sorry, I addressed the last comment to the wrong user. These tables in the various articles have nothing to do with raising ones hand. A regular stop indicated a place of sufficient importance to always stop, usually because of a larger industrial enterprise. A flag stop was of much lesser significance. The table reveals the chronological periods of significance of these isolated communities. Over time, places rose and diminished, often associated with the presence or departure of the principal employer. Consequently, the table provides an easily understood overview. DMBanks1 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the value to them either. Just clutters up the article on the town of Coalmount. No need for all that data. Just say that there was train service and it gradually declined until it ended. And I don't agree that the "table provides an easily understood overview". Far too much data that the reader needs to try to analyse to get any conclusions out of it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree - these should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OMG...have a look at Spences Bridge, an unincorporated community that has been bombarded with irrelevant train info about derailments and boulders falling on tracks...and so many train schedules. Someone needs to have a conversation. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the table is basically a data dump, and old, obsolete data at that. It's not worth keeping. ..... PKT

Wondering overall about some additions .... How are things like this relevant to our readers. "In 1974, 99-year-old Euphemia Rabbitt, the matriarch of Tulameen, died. Her late husband Thomas is remembered in the names of Rabbitt Creek and Mount Rabbitt".Moxy🍁 20:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kamloops Airport

Kamloops Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Canada Post Strike

Given the ongoing nature of it and how important it is to the Canadian economy, more eyes would be welcome at 2024 Canada Post strike. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Image fields have been removed from the template for legislation infoboxes, other than US, UK and EU

Please see this discussion: Template talk:Infobox legislation Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ujjal Dosanjh

Ujjal Dosanjh has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of census divisions of Ontario#Requested move 21 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of census divisions of Ontario#Requested move 21 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Question re article on Progressive Conservativism

There is an article on Progressive conservatism, which until an edit today by an IP editor was linked in the article on the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. On the Talk:Progressive conservatism page, there is a note that there was a discussion in 2014 which resulted in a consensus to delete the article. It looks as if the deletion was never carried through, but it's not that simple, and as a result I don't think that consensus still applies:

the version in 2014 was blanked and turned into a redirect page, consistent with the Delete consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=612447999
the article was recreated in 2018, with different content: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Progressive_conservatism&oldid=833441246
that version was then expanded in 2023, which is the basis for the current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Progressive_conservatism&oldid=1162249320.

The net result is that the current version of the article is not what was blanked in 2014 as a result of the deletion discussion. However, the Talk page for the current article still has the deletion tag, making it look like it should now be deleted. It strikes me that the deletion consensus from 2014 is no longer valid, since it was for a different article. The new article has broader scope than the version that existed in 2014, and better references. I don't know what the rules are for a case like this, but I think the Deletion tag should itself be deleted, since it applied to a much different version, that was blanked 10 years ago. Or, if the old deletion consensus is retained, as part of the history, there should be some explanation of the subsequent history and recreation of the article. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The page should be deleted, as it never should've been created. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So the 2014 consenus on a prior version decides the issue for a new version, 10 years later? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Very well, don't delete. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A user showed me this link to come here, I would recommend that the article as it currently exists be evaluated for whether its content merits an article titled "Progressive conservatism". There is an article that addresses what has been claimed to be "progressive" conservative ideas, and that is Paternalistic conservatism. In British conservative politics such paternalistic conservatism since Benjamin Disraeli's government has been called One-nation conservatism and in Canada as Red Tory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.60.200 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The article looks like it's largely original research and synthesis. It's not the same article that was AFD'd before, except in name, so I'd suggest a new AFD if editors think it should be deleted or merged with Red Tory. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you or someone else arrange for this to be done, I don't know how to do this.

I would concur an AfD would be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfD is created here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Banff, Alberta#Requested move 6 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Banff, Alberta#Requested move 6 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Canadas#Requested move 6 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Canadas#Requested move 6 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Re-directs

I've re-created 44th British Columbia general election & 42nd New Brunswick general election, but as re-directs. But now I'm not certain if I should have. Seeing as they were deleted (as pages) weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Where were they deleted? I'm not seeing anything in AFD, RFD, or the page logs. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe they were deleted via personal request. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you know who made the request? Were the pages under a different name? There is nothing in the logs at the current titles. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 01:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I've forgotten & the history was wiped out, once I recreated the page into a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Your input at Talk:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador#Content dispute about "trails" section would be appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Postnominal letters and infoboxes

See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

NDP: infobox

Hello. In August 2024, @RedBlueGreen93: added provincial & territorial seat totals & premiers (all of which, I've since deleted) to the infobox of the New Democratic Party. As I understood it, we've chosen to exclude provincial/territorial branches. Has this changed? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In the United States, United Kingdom, and many other countries, the political parties have their status in subnational legislatures or other offices included in the main articles' infoboxes. I was under the impression that articles on Canadian political parties did not follow suit because in most cases, the provincial and territorial political parties of Canada are not wings or official affiliates of federal political parties. However, this is not the case with the NDP, as their constitution clarifies that the NDP in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon are legally the same entity. In that case, the NDP does have representation in provincial and territorial legislatures, and that should be represented in the infobox. The Liberal Party is the same, although they only have affiliates in the Atlantic provinces. RedBlueGreen93 21:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We exclude the provincial/territory branches, because we have separate provincial/territory NDP pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you point me in the direction of the discussion where this standard was established? Because that is inconsistent with basically every article about a political party in the world. RedBlueGreen93 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's done differently with Canadian political parties. Here's the discussion. Now please stop re-adding your non-consensus changes to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a fairly small and informal discussion to be cited as lasting consensus 6 years later, just saying. If that's the only prior conversation about it, I'd say @RedBlueGreen93: wouldn't be out of line if they wanted to start an RfC on the question. Safrolic (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

An RFC? I wouldn't object to that. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for revisiting this, although I'm not entirely sure how to get that started. I don't see how showing a party's status in legislatures in which they are rperesented is somehow giving them special treatment. RedBlueGreen93 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's inappropriate in the case of the Liberal and Conservative parties, as the provincial parties are their own standalone things and not chapters or affiliates of the federal parties — but it's also inappropriate to single out the NDP for different treatment than the Liberals and Conservatives are getting. It's the kind of thing where either we do it to all parties across the board despite the "provincial Liberal/Conservative parties are not affiliated with the federal parties" problem, or we don't do it at all for any parties, and there's no "do it for some parties but not for others" option. There's never, ever any rule that we have to do everything the same way as some other country even if the other country's system is completely different — the rule is that we make our own decisions based on Canada's own situation, and what the US does is irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I also had to delete provincial/territorial election results. We have separate provincial & territorial NDP pages, for such info. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes let's keep provincial and federal party separated as they are in real life. Perhaps time to review these articles and see what can be moved to the main articles.Moxy🍁 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've also deleted the current & best seat counts, concerning provinces & territory. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think adding these stats to the infobox is potentially confusing, due to how each of the federal parties has a different relationship to their provincial counterparts. That is to say, if we list the NDP's provincial seats in the infobox, but not the Conservatives', I expect that many won't understand there's an organizational difference there, and well-meaning editors will try to add something for the Tories. Or look at the Liberal seats and go "huh, looks like they forgot a few provinces" and adjust the numbers. Yeah, we can add notes in the code to warn people off… but anybody who's ever watched these pages knows that the notes urging caution about changing the political position or ideology are widely ignored. It's much better to just leave it out and explain these things, if relevant, in the prose.

The other thing is that even when federal and provincial parties are formally affiliated, they are still de facto independent. The provincial parties aren't an extension of the federal party, can pursue a slightly different ideological position, and even clash with other branches (most famously, in recent memory, was the tense relationship between the BC NDP and AB NDP over the question of pipelines). It's also often the case that a province will vote for one party provincially, then turn around and vote for another federally (Ontario is famous for this), so the provincial seat count doesn't speak to the strength of the party federally (one way or the other). This in stark contrast to UK politics, for example, where the local elections are often seen (by voters and pundits both) as a gauge on how people are feeling about the national government. Canadian parties just don't have that relationship. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Party

I just deleted RedBlueGreen93's addition of graphics concerning the NB, NL, NS & PEI Liberal parties current & best seat counts, in the Liberal Party of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit is not relevant to this discussion, and is an unjustified reversion. The table gives a small summary and clarifies which parties are currently affiliated. More detailed information can be found on their own articles. Your example of consensus about the infoboxes does not apply here. RedBlueGreen93 08:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

We have separate pages for the NS, NB, NL & PEI Liberal parties. That where those graphics belong, respectively. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

President of Canada

I think we should re-consider having President of Canada re-directed to another article, other than Prime Minister of Canada. The PM isn't Canada's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I would rather keep it redirected to Prime Minister. When people think of Canada's President, they're probably thinking of the PM, not the monarchy. ARandomName123 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Why encourage such misinformed opinions, with such a re-direct? We're suppose to help readers. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that the point...that is to redirect people who are mistaken to the right information?Moxy🍁 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

A re-direct to Republicanism in Canada, would be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of international precedents and usage over theoretical Canadian republicanism.. Something akin to Prime Minister of Spain who is actually called the president and is also only head of government and not head of state.Moxy🍁 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If we're going the "head of state" route, I'd rather we redirect to Monarchy of Canada, not Republicanism in Canada. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be a more accurate re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree being president doesn't always mean you're head of state..... Many presidents are simply headz of government and not heads of state. President (government title)Moxy🍁 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of employing WP: Bold. Rwood128 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Uh, why Constitution of Canada? ARandomName123 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Be cause that explains things in neutral languge. A possible alternatives could be Head of State or maybe Constitutional monarchy. Rwood128 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Was unaware there was just a recent RFC about this and an ongoing edit war now. Have restored to the RFC version..... Just need to start a new talk as there is here I guess? See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/President of Canada Moxy🍁 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should have another 'redirect for discussion', as that would likely be the appropriate place. I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Agree that may be best.... Do the RFC right below this discussion. This way I think more people will be involved. I was unaware of the two previous discussions if they were here I would have participated.Moxy🍁 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it as a disambiguation page with the multiple possible interpretations, which it was until a 2022 AfD found otherwise. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, after realizing that the mobile editor wasn't pulling my leg about the 'consensus', I undid my revert. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess if we have another RFC.... We should have four or five selections not sure. prime minister of Canada, monarchy of Canada, republicanism in Canada, constitution of Canada, government of Canada?Moxy🍁 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Would appear so. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Rwood128 suggested on my talk page we should just delete the damn thing.... Page protection from creation perhaps? This could also be an option in an RFC. If delete and the page is protected from recreation I think it would help a lot with edit wars in the future. Moxy🍁 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I was about to suggest thsat this idiotic re-direct was a joke or maybe Chinese interference, when the above comicall suggestions about protecting the page appeared. Only a senior editor would be able to remove the original. Hope there is one with the gumption to do so. Do something more than chatter!! Rwood128 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually the article is called President of canada. Rwood128 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be sowing confusion but there are two re-direct pages, one correct and one with the lower case "c" and Prime minister of canada.Rwood128 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither are correct. I don’t understand why we have a redirect for a completely non-existant office. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes!Rwood128 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a plausible search term someone might have, and redirects from incorrect names are valid. If you asked me to identify the office that is head of state and head of government for every country in the world, I am certain I would get many wrong. The goal of an encyclopedia is to connect readers with the article they are likely searching for, not to judge them for being “misinformed” or “illiterate”. We should strive to be as accessible as possible to a wide range of readers of different levels of education and cultural backgrounds.

At any rate, WP:RfD is the proper venue for opening a discussion to delete or change these redirects.--Trystan (talk)

@Rwood128: Please do not simply blank pages as an attempt to delete them, as you did here. As for the redirect itself, it was redirected there as the result of this RfD, which included both President of Canada and President of canada. As for those who have tried to change the target (@GoodDay and Rwood128), it would be best to start another RfD about the target that makes the most sense instead of making any further changes. While I did not participate in the previous RfC, held in March of 2023, I do actually support the current target. We obviously don't have a president, but I think those who are searching for a president of Canada are actually looking for the prime minister's page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone searching for this topic should be directed to the Canadian constitution. Why this tedious commentary? Rwood128 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Tedious commentary? Well that's certainly not a helpful way to dismiss someone's input on a subject. Keep it simple then and end this discussion, nominate it at RfD Rwood128. Note that I'll be voting keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand Rwood128 blanked it again... I expect someone with over 28k edits to know better than to blank a redirect (twice). I've left a warning at your talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I would indeed bring this to "Redirect for discussion", but I find their instructions on how to do it, too confusing. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

if it is to be kept, I would suggest « Republicanism in Canada » to flag that there is no such position at present. Alternatively, it should go to the Gov Gen page, because in a parliamentary system, the president is the formal head of state. A redirect should refer to the closest analogue, which is the Gov Gen, who fulfills the same role in Canada as the president of Ireland and the President of Germany, to give two other parliamentary examples. We should not base the redirect on a misguided comparison to a presidential-congressional system, as that would be misleading. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose re-directing to the governor general's page, as the governor general isn't the head of state. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok so let's redirect to Charles III. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The office would be more appropriate than the individual. King of Canada redirects to Monarchy in Canada.--Trystan (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Any target risks some level of confusion for the reader, depending on what they are looking for. It could be a reader who is unaware of Canada's system of government and is looking for the political leader generally, in which case they want Prime Minister of Canada. They could be looking for information about the head of state, in which case the best response would be Monarchy of Canada, or Governor General of Canada for the individual who carries out those roles. They could be looking for proposals for Canada to have a presdient, in which case Republicanism in Canada is best.

While being redirected to a different page than what they searched for should flag for the reader that the specific target of their search doesn't exist, I think the best option would be a DAB to make that explicit. This would be quite different to the one that previously existed. This would say: "As a parliamentary democracy, Canada does not have a president. For the head of state see..., for the head of government see..." (similar to President of Japan linked below).--Trystan (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since Canada can't be the only country where people confuse title of the political leader, I thought I'd have a look at where other "President of…" pages redirected to, so that we could use that as a prececent. Instead, what I found is that none of them exist: President of the United Kingdom, President of Jamaica, President of Australia, President of New Zealand, President of Belgium, President of Sweden. That even Australia is a redlink surprised me, since Republicanism in Australia is a big subject. So since it seems like editors haven't felt the need to clarify any misconceptions or provide reading (on the constitution or the republicanism debate), I don't see why Canada and Canada alone needs this redirect.

The only page I found that isn't red is President of Japan, which is a disambig page. We could do the same, I suppose. Note that the Speaker of the House of Commons is the président in French. — Kawnhr (talk)

Prime Minister of the United States is a longstanding redirect that has survived several attempts to delete it as an {{R from incorrect name}}.--Trystan (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point, those should probably be created and tagged as "r from incorrect name". Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to make pages all of these, I would prefer the President of Japan dab approach that actually clarifies things for the reader rather than a simple redirect that has to guess at what they were looking for. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: Not really an option in this particular case. If we look at the old version of the page you'd see most of the suggestions were already included there, but the relevant AfD resulted in retargeting to Prime Minister of Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the key thing the President of Japan dab has that the previous President of Canada dab didn’t is a brief explanation that the title being searched for is an office that does not exist. I think it would be worth revisiting the dab option in an RfD, as it counters the common argument that any potential redirect would be confusing. A dab that explicitly and concisely clarifies the situation seems like it would have the least potential for confusion of all possible options.--Trystan (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, there has, historically, been consensus against deleting redirects which are the incorrect usage of president and prime minister:

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 28#Prime Minister of the United States (kept)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 24#President of Australia (kept)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6#Prime Minister of the United States (kept)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Prime Minister of Argentina (keep, add hatnote to President of Argentina
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5#President of malaysia (retargeted and tagged as incorrect name)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#President of Canada (kept / 1 entry re-targeted to PM that was pointed elsewhere)

A discussion here regarding changing the target also holds no weight (WP:LOCALCON) considering the outcome of the relevant RfD ended in pointing both President of Canada and President of canada to Prime Minister of Canada. My perspective is that this is pretty much one of the reasons that {{r from incorrect name}} exists, and I'd vote keep if we someone sends this to RfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

no brainer to me...we should simply guide our readers (an editors) to an article that educates them on what position is equivalent to president in Canada.Moxy🍁 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, there has, historically, been consensus against deleting redirects which are the incorrect usage of president and prime minister

Is there? Click the redlinks I provided and you'll see several of them went through AfD in 2022 (and were all deleted): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/President of Australia, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/President of the United Kingdom (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/President of New Zealand. Meanwhile, President of Belgium went through G7… and you just created President of Sweden. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: I clicked them. There were 3 AfD discussions about DABs, not redirects. Did you see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/President of Canada, which resulted in redirect to Prime Minister of Canada? I've given you a number of instances where relevant redirect discussions have ended in keep or, in one circumstance, retarget while keeping a hatnote to the incorrect name. G7s are contextually irrelevant for what it's worth, and just because other entries don't exist doesn't invalidate the idea that someone might mistakenly search for the wrong title. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)