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

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:38, 8 August 2005 editZscout370 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users59,497 edits →Federal electoral districts template ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:58, 8 August 2005 edit undoZhatt (talk \| contribs)2,429 edits ArchivingNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	<div style="background-color: clear;border:2px solid green;padding:10px;text-align:center"><font color=green>'''Archives: '''</font>] ~ ] ~ ]</div>		<div style="background-color: clear;border:2px solid green;padding:10px;text-align:center"><font color=green>'''Archives: '''</font>] ~ ] ~ ]</div>
	<br>		<br>

	==] and other provinces==

	Oh, I also wanted to seek opinions about another issue. ] contains almost all Ontario communities, but excludes those that may be categorized elsewhere (eg - ]). I think this would be a good example of allowing exceptions to the rule (see ] for details, fourth paragraph). Most people won't find ], for example, if they don't know it's part of Greater Sudbury. I think we should list all communities in the provincial category, including those in sub-categories. ] 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
	:My first concern with this is that ''no'' other category for "Communities in X" exists on Misplaced Pages; we really need to find an entirely different way to structure and categorize these kinds of articles (eg. separating them into "Towns in Ontario", "Villages in Ontario", etc., but there may be other ways.) One example of why this is a problem is that the "Communities in Canada" category has been filed for ''months'' in a nonexistent (redlinked) "Communities by country" category (which is ''never'' going to exist.) ] 21:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

	::Every country seems to have its own standards; for the US, there are ''Locations in X'' categories (for example: ]). I don't object to ''Villages in'' etc, since we already have the equivalent ''Cities in'' and ''Towns in'' categories, but how do you handle the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated communities? For example, ] consists of a number of communities (see ) - how do you classify them? Words like ''communities'' or ''locations'' are generic enough to capture all those places. ] 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

	::Hmm, I should have inspected more categories for US states. They've created ] etc. for some states. For the larger states, they also have ''Villages in'' and ''Hamlets in'' categories (see ]). I wouldn't object to using similar categories for Canadian locations. ] 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

	==Canada geography stubs==
	] has just split the Canada geography stub category. With nearly 1500 stubs, it was becoming too large to be of practical use to editors, so separate subcategories have been made for the four provinces with the most stubs (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta). We've only split these top four because none of the other provinces had a very large number of stubs, so it would have been unprofitable to split off the rest (if they get too big at a later date, they may also be split, but there's no point at the moment in making a separate stub category for eight PEI stubs, for instance). The new categories are all subcategories of ], and use the following templates:
	*{{tl\|Alberta-geo-stub}} (with redirect at {{tl\|Canada-AB-geo-stub}})
	*{{tl\|BrColumbia-geo-stub}} (with redirect at {{tl\|Canada-BC-geo-stub}})
	*{{tl\|Ontario-geo-stub}} (with redirect at {{tl\|Canada-ON-geo-stub}})
	*{{tl\|Quebec-geo-stub}} (with redirect at {{tl\|Canada-QC-geo-stub}}).
	At the moment the areticles are yet to be sorted into these new categories, but hopefully they will be in the next week or so.
	We hope this will make it easier for you 9and other editors) to find Canadian geography items to expand! ]...<font color=green><small>''] 08:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	*Is there a precedence for using '''BrColumbia'''? I have never seen this abbreviation before and don't think it is useful. It should either be '''British Columbia''' or '''BC'''. I would argue for BC since it is the most used way to refer to the province even in speech. ] (] 14:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:*This British Columbian has never seen/heard "Br. Columbia" before, and so I'll second that request to use "BC" instead. It seems analogous to using "{{tl\|UtdStates-geo-stub}}, which would be clearly weird. -] 19:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::*For those who have an opinion one way or the other, the discussion is at: ] ] (] 05:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	::Apologies about Br. Columbia - it's what most of the world calls it, and it never crossed anyone's minds at the Stub sorting project that it wouldn't be known as that in Canada (a fairer analogy might be USA-stub - widely used outside the US, but rarely used there). Still, BritishColumbia-geo-stub can also be used, since one redirect to the other. BC is a bit too ambiguous though - other parts of the world call themselves BC. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 09:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	I re-stubbed most of the Canada-related geographical stubs; for BC, I used <nowiki>{{BritishColumbia-geo-stub}}</nowiki> since it was the most descriptive and least ambiguous. It currently redirects to <nowiki>{{BrColumbia-geo-stub}}</nowiki>, though I hope the former will eventually replace the latter. ] 6 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

	BTW: here are the current counts for those stub categories:
	* ]: 463 articles
	* ]: 149 articles
	* ]: 203 articles
	* ]: 618 articles
	* ]: 321 articles

	The Ontario category is growing very quickly; an extra 100+ stubs have been added in the past week, after the re-categorization was done. ] 6 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

	...And there's been yet more growth in some of the provnces which didn't have separate stubs, so WP:WSS has created two more:
	* ] and
	* ]

	The first of these is for geography stubs from NS, NB and PEI - currently there are about 125 of these, and uses {{tl\|maritimes-geo-stub}}. The second is for what it says, Newfoundland and Labreador geography stubs. To avoid having a huge template name - and also to hopefully stave off any claims of neglect from Goose Bay et al if the obvious shortening was used - this can use either {{tl\|Newfoundland-geo-stub}} ''or'' {{tl\|Labrador-geo-stub}} (the latter redirects to the former, and the wording of the template names both!). ]...<font color=green><small>''] 09:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	== Department of Marine and Fisheries ==

	The article ] seems redundant to the article ]. It's the same department, but under the original name. There has been some confusion with naming as the ''Department of Fisheries and Oceans'' is also known as ''Fisheries and Oceans Canada'' (I know the confusion first hand, as I'm currently working with the Governemnt.) I suggest merging ] into ], but I'd like to hear what others have to say before I flag it for VfD. ] July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

	:First of all, if you do merge them, you should '''not''' VfD. The correct ] is to create a redirect at the old article pointing to the merged one. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the problem. ] redirects to ] as it should and ] clearly states it is a '''former''' department. It may be desirable to keep an article about the former department as a history of the ministry or it might be better to keep the history with the current department article. I haven't decided yet. ] (] 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

	::OK, no VfD. Didn't know that. Thanks. Does anyone else have an opinion on if ] should be merged into and redirected to ]? If you notice, on ], there is a list of departmental name changes at the bottom. What gives DMF the right to have an article but not these other variations on the name? ] July 8, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

	:::Go for the '''merge''' and '''redirect''' like DoubleBlue suggested. It's interesting stuff that should be under a history section in the main DFO article. I would argue that it should be in the same article because the function of the former department are very similar to the current DFO. At a minimum, there should be a "See also" link in both articles. See ] for instructions. — ] 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

	Article merged. Thanks for your help and comments. ] July 8, 2005 22:44 (UTC)

	:Yes, you were right Zhatt. It's better merged. Well done. ] (] 8 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

	Generally, my rule is that if something merely changes name but is essentially the same thing other than the name change, then the old name should just be a redirect to the new one and the history should go in the current name's article. However, if two or three or four things ''merged'' to create one new thing, or one thing got ''taken over'' by another thing that already existed, then I'd do separate articles. ] 17:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

	: Thanks. That seems like a reasonable ]. ] (] 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

	== Canada geo stub redirects listed for deletion ==

	Some redirects to the four canada geography stub types are up for deletion on ]. Please comment if you think these redirects are useful, or if the main stub names suffice. --<span style="font-family:monospace"> ] </span>] 19:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

	==New Provincial geo-stubs names up for discussion==
	] Should Newfoundland and Labrador be <nowiki>{{NewfoundlandandLabrador-geo-stub}} or just {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}</nowiki> or something else? ] (] 10:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
	:I'd go with {{tl\|Newfoundland-geo-stub}}. I'll add comments to the proposal page. ] 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
	::Created as {{tl\|Newfoundland-geo-stub}}, with redirect at {{tl\|Labrador-geo-stub}}. In the end, NovaScotia-geo-stub wasn't created - but {{tl\|Maritimes-geo-stub}} was in its place, to cover NS, NB and PEI. If that gets to be too big a category, it may be split further in the future. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 09:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
	:::Re-stubbing of the articles is complete. ] 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
	::::Wow, that was quick. I ''was'' going to help. :-) Good work all. ] (] 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	==Ever wondered why there are so many of us?==
	I'm sure that I am not the only one to have felt that there are an awful lot of Canadians on Misplaced Pages. Jimbo just released ranking countries by Misplaced Pages page views per capita. Among English speaking nations Canada was first with 0.26 page views per person during the period studied (believed to be one day). 4.10% of Misplaced Pages traffic came from Canada, placing us fourth in total traffic after the United States, Germany, and Japan. Most surprising is that Canada is ahead of the larger UK by a significant margin, and has almost double the per capita page view rate of Australia. Of course this jsut raises the question of why Misplaced Pages is so popular in Canada. - ] 14:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

	:Canada has the highest internet penetration among anglophone nations. We also have a healthy distrust of experts, and a traditional citizen participation in public life. Put the two together, and voila. For example, see ].--] 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

	==New Article Notification==

	I'm a new user to Misplaced Pages and I think it's great. A suggestion would be to have a method whereby an individual can be advised when a new article is created concerning a topic of interest. I have a watchlist, it only advises me of changes. ] 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

	:You could put a page on your watchlist. ] 17:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

	:You can watch articles that don't yet exist. For example, visit ] and click watch. When someone creates it, it'll pop up on your watchlist. You can also do this with templates, categories etc. You can do it even more quickly by adding an action to the URL, (note: clicking that link will add ''This_non-existent_article'' to your watchlist). You can simply paste that URL into your browser's location bar, and change the title to the article you want to watch. I hope that helps. ] 18:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

	== Citadel of Quebec ==

	User Montréalais has recently changed ] to Citadelle of Quebec. I am puzzled by his claim that Citadelle is used in both English and French. If you consult many of the gc.ca sites including http://www.pc.gc.ca/voyage-travel/pv-vp/itm5-/page5_E.asp you will see that the government continues to use the correct English word "citadel". Halifax also has an impressive British-built citadel ]. A capital letter is not really required since citadels were built all over the place and the word is in every English dictionary. Understandably in Quebec the complex known as the Fortifications of Quebec will be referred to as a citadelle, but not elsewhere in the English speaking world when a perfectly good English word exists. This complex was built by the British and it is more than ironic that it should be presented to the rest of the world outside Quebec as somehow French. By this reasoning, every powder magazine in Quebec will have to be termed a poudrière in English. French Misplaced Pages should correctly use Citadelle de Québec but English Misplaced Pages should use Citadel of Quebec. Can we have some opinon on whether it is wise to frenchify an historic English word?--] 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

	: To be honest, I don't actually see a contradiction between saying that "Citadel of Quebec" is a common term for the thing and saying that "La Citadelle" is its ''actual proper name''. And yes, I ''would'' take the Governor General's website as a higher authority on this matter than a government tourism site; a tourist profile isn't bound by protocol to refer to the thing by its formal and proper name, while the GG more or less ''is''. ] 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

	==Geo-stub sorting==
	The new templates for {{tl\|Newfoundland-geo-stub}} and {{tl\|Maritimes-geo-stub}} have been implemented, and articles have been sorted into their respective categories. Here's the current tally:

	* ]: 265 articles
	* ]: 156 articles
	* ]: 208 articles
	* ]: 95 articles
	* ]: 138 articles
	* ]: 738 articles
	* ]: 341 articles

	We need to work on expanding those articles - that's nearly 2000 stubs, and the list is growing rapidly. ] 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 21:58, 8 August 2005

Notice: This page is for discussion about Canadian-related topics and articles. For discussion about the notice board, such as formatting discussions, see Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board.

Archives: Archive 1 ~ Archive 2 ~ Archive 3

Fraser Institute

Hey folks. I'm in the middle of a dispute with an anonymous user at the fraser institute article. The person keeps inserting material that is found on the fraser institute website. I just reverted the text for a third time and I was hoping that someone might like to weigh in on this problem. Thanks. --PullUpYourSocks 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The user has been copying direct off of this page. The best you can do is ask the user to stop in their talk page (I can see that you did) and if the user presists, list them at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism_in_progress. (By the way, that page is taking a very long time to load). I'll keep an eye on the article in question too.

Zhatt 22:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

L. P. Fisher Public Library

Hi, I stumbled across this library. I was wondering if anyone knows what makes it notable? I'm afraid Misplaced Pages will now start having articles about every library in Canada.

--YUL89YYZ 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Its primary notablilty comes from being a handsome and fairly old public building. It's also linked to Lewis P. Fisher. --NormanEinstein 15:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's not encyclopedic. It should likely be merged into Woodstock, New Brunswick and Lewis P. Fisher. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have a notability standard. The content of this article seems quite verifiable, which is all that is important. - SimonP 15:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

My goodness you're right. (Misplaced Pages:Notability) Since everyone has always used this as a reason for deletion, I always thought it was policy.

Zhatt 18:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's quite true that Verifiable and NPOV are all that is required but there have been guidelines developed, more or less by consensus, to try and establish what is that fuzzy term, "encyclopedic". You may wish to consult: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Precedents, Jimbo's No vote for Fame & Importance policy, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NOR, WP:FICT, WP:SCH, and WP:VAIN. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Government Departments

SimonP and I have been talking about Canadian Government department names. Many of the names are formated Department of TOPIC (Canada). The discussion was prompted when SimonP removed (Canada) from Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) for the fact that disambiguation was not needed. My arguement was that it was not a disambiguation but the fact that mand departments are commonly known as TOPIC of Canada. We were wondering what the names on Misplaced Pages should be? The common name or the official name? I'm not even sure what the official name is anymore: Department of TOPIC or Department of TOPIC Canada? I work at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and I remember someone saying that the government made a change a while ago saying that all departpents should have Canada in the name now. INAC (as its commonly called) used to be known as DIAND. Fisheries and Oceans is still known as DFO because no one here likes saying "foc".
Zhatt 17:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I like the TOPIC Canada naming but I suspect the official name is still Department of TOPIC. I do not strongly favour one over the other at Misplaced Pages but redirects at the other should, of course, be done.

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) actually wisely suggests that "pre-disambiguation" be done for instances such as Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) to leave no chance of ambiguity, even if there are currently no other articles with that name. I suggest, therefore, that if there are to be any articles named in that format that the "(Canada)" be added. Obviously, if the TOPIC Canada format is used, the disambiguity is built in nicely.

The general rule for article names is to use the most commonly used and recognisable name rather than the official name. There is a bit of a mix, as you point out, between the popularity of different names: i.e., Department of National Defence vs. Environment Canada and some with equal popularity: Department of Fisheries and Oceans vs. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I think a good argument could be raised here for using "Dept. of" for consistency with other departments within and outside of Canada. My vote, however, is to use the name given on the official website. For example, although Fisheries and Oceans Canada's website is dfo.gc.ca the name on that site is Fisheries and Oceans Canada and I would go with that. http://canada.justice.gc.ca on the other hand, is titled Department of Justice, and I would go with that. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The Federal Identity Programme: Titles of federal organizations page is an interesting resource for this topic but a bit out of date. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DoubleBlue. I'm going to start doing some renameing accordingly. Zhatt 19:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is actually the second time this issue has come up. I had all the articles at their conventional FIP location initially, and then someone insisted on putting them all to their legal Department of XXXX name, which is relatively silly considering how ubitiquous Health Canada and Environment Canada and so on are. The template still has them all linked to the appropriate place, which is XXXX Canada except for Justice, Finance, Canadian Heritage and Defence, I think. -The Tom 14:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

They wont be easy to move back. It's been telling me "the page allready exists". Does that mean copy-paste, or Requests for move? Zhatt 16:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Means admin move. If someone here would be inclined to do it, it would allow us to bypass WP:RM. -The Tom 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Northwest Territories Electoral History

Hi everyone, I have really been working hard, on cleaning up and detaling Northwest Territories electoral history,

My work, is going to take me away for at least a month, and I won't have time to continue with N.W.T. elections, and related.

If someone out there wants to take on the more recent elections, I am still looking for a comprehensive source of members elected from 1951 on, still looking for a source for the period of appointed members between 1905 and 1951, and looking for a source of members appointed to the temporary council prior to 1876.

My free time lately has mostly been consumed on the Northwest Territories party politics from 1898 - 1905, I have nearly completed the list of members elected in 1902, scanning through microfilm of Newspaper from the late 1890's on, but I am at a loss as to when Party politics actually began in the Northwest Territories.

According to a Calgary Herald editorial from November 17th 1898, it talks about the pro's and con's of the possible introduction of "Dominion Party Lines" into the Northwest Territories legislature. And I was quite shocked to learn that the 1898 election was not along party lines, as some on-line sources seemed to have indicated. I will update the 1898 election to reflect that.

In news paper articles close to the 1902 election it does talk about the "Government and Opposition" , but I was able to find no indications of what date in the 1898 - 1902 period party politics sprang up, but they were clearly active in the 4th North-West Legislative Assembly even though it was not elected on party lines.

I also found somthing interesting, perhaps more related to journalist neutrality more then anything, in the articles of the day that refered to Candidates affiliations as simply "Government" or "Opposition" and "Indepedent", or "Independent Opposition or Indpendent Government, It was only in a couple editorials that Liberal or Liberal-Conservative was mentioned. When an article would talk about who a candidate is running for, it would say John Smith pledges loyalty to the Governing Party etc.

Aside from the birth of party politics, the end before the period of Alberta and Saskatchewan being carved out seems intriguing and needs researching, most of the Liberal-Conservatives switched to Liberal, and some Liberals switched to the Conservatives, when the new parties were formed in Alberta and Saskatchewan, there doesn't seem to have been any loyalty, in the short time party politics formed in the territories.

--Cloveious 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Canada Collaboration of the Week

So what is the next CCOTW? On the page it says "The August 2005 CCOTW article will be selected on Sunday, July 24, 18:00 (UTC)."
Zhatt 00:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Celebration of Light

As those in Vancouver know, the Celebration of Light starts today. I'm asking those who are attending and are interested, to take pictures and gather information for the new Celebration of Light article I'm working on. I'm also looking for results before 2000 when it was sponsored by Benson & Hedges. Thanks.
Zhatt 21:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The more I look into Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire, the more I realize how sparse information is with the disappearance of its original sponsor. There is a Symphony of Fire in Capetown, South Africa, but I'm not sure if its related or under the same sponsor. It stopped in 2000, the same year Benson & Hedges pulled out.

Zhatt 23:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Federal electoral districts template

Hi, I noticed that the riding Don Valley East has an interesting table in it. This should be made into a template and added to all the ridings. However, I am not sure this is universal for every province since Ontario has the same ridings both federally and provincially. Should we have unique ones per province or a general one for the country. Also what should be the columns? The current ones are:

MP
Party
MPP
Party
Province
Census division(s)
Census subdivision(s)
Federal district created

I am not sure the value of the Census division and sub-division. Any other comments? --YUL89YYZ 18:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's done as a table with the coding copied and pasted directly into the article, rather than as a true template. Which means that you can use it for any riding, and just remove the sections (like provincial representation) that don't apply. Bearcat 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Image request

Can anyone either find a photo or take a photo of the lapel pins the members of the House of Commons gives out to their constituents? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)