Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
**] says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. " Cites exist or are available for each article in question as to why they are in the given categories, ''there is nothing in the guideline'' saying that the the category "system" has to be citable. The demand, implied here and made at that discussion and by the nom of the CfD, that ''one'' system must be produced is purely fiction and yet more ] that has little relation to actual reality. There is no ''one'' "official" system in BC, what there is is ''history'' and names that are COMMONNAMES to be found on various maps and books about BC, and are implicit in the many differing kinds of official regionalization systems where those names form the basis of those different regions/regionalization systems. The ongoing premise that the titles are OR made by people who know nothing about the geography and places in question is genuinely boring and is itself OR....] (]) 05:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
**] says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. " Cites exist or are available for each article in question as to why they are in the given categories, ''there is nothing in the guideline'' saying that the the category "system" has to be citable. The demand, implied here and made at that discussion and by the nom of the CfD, that ''one'' system must be produced is purely fiction and yet more ] that has little relation to actual reality. There is no ''one'' "official" system in BC, what there is is ''history'' and names that are COMMONNAMES to be found on various maps and books about BC, and are implicit in the many differing kinds of official regionalization systems where those names form the basis of those different regions/regionalization systems. The ongoing premise that the titles are OR made by people who know nothing about the geography and places in question is genuinely boring and is itself OR....] (]) 05:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
*The further premise/extrapolation being made from " If a region isn't well defined (as supported by reliable sources) then it will be impossible to add articles to it in a reliable manner" is that the regions are not cited/citable, which is just not true. What's impossible is discussing this with people who don't want it to be possible, or who dispute that cites exist at all ''when they do''. The regions are well-known in British Columbia. Add on top of this the already-observed extrapolation that there must be ''an official system'' cited is just more wikilawyering and "contrary to the spirit of the guidelines".] (]) 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
*The further premise/extrapolation being made from " If a region isn't well defined (as supported by reliable sources) then it will be impossible to add articles to it in a reliable manner" is that the regions are not cited/citable, which is just not true. What's impossible is discussing this with people who don't want it to be possible, or who dispute that cites exist at all ''when they do''. The regions are well-known in British Columbia. Add on top of this the already-observed extrapolation that there must be ''an official system'' cited is just more wikilawyering and "contrary to the spirit of the guidelines".] (]) 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
== Skookum1 again ==
Would someone ''please'' explain to {{u|Skookum1}} that of mine did not do what he is accusing me of doing. Perhaps he doesn't speak ]. I cannot think of any other reason he has been making the comments accusing me of doing something which was never actually done and . — ] ] 15:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
Yes it applies to unincorporated communities as well. There are at least three unincorporated communities in Alberta at their undisambiguated titles. Hwy43 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Comox and Squamish 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 Squamish people 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 Comox Land District, 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 WP:UNDAB 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.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
despite ample googles and view stats, and treating ridiculous primarytopic alternatives as valid, this was closed "No consensus/not moved" by non-admin User:DavidLeighEllis 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.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
again, despite obvious facts and mass of evidence, this was closed "not moved/no consensus today by BrownHairedGirl, who is in Ireland and has no knowledge of BC (nor did the oppose votes).
Fort Fraser, British Columbia → Fort Fraser - 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 closed today "not consensus/not moved" by BrownHairedGirl], who btw used the "shouting" all-caps "NO CONSENSUS" in the edit comments here and on Bella Bella and also Sts'Ailes people. 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 Haida people and other indigenous topics (Sanpoil tribe, Spokane people...I'm thinking that she views the ample stats and google searches as "TLDR", and also hasn't read PRIMARYTOPIC fully, as Haida Gwaii 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.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.Skookum1 (talk) 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 WP:CANLIST to keep it up to date and useful. Hwy43 (talk) 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.Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Bamberton, British Columbia → Bamberton, 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?
Cassiar, British Columbia → ] (withdrawn as the region was named long before the town came into existence)
There are still lots out there, Lax Kwa'alaams (where Port Simpson redirects, I never get that spelling right), Gitwinshilkw and other native names often have comma-province on them, though not all.
Atlin, British Columbia 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 Comox, British Columbia similarly even though that is now back on the table, informally, by all four support votes in Talk:Comox people#Requested move 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 Comox 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 Talk:Squamish people#Requested move which moved the long-standing Skwxwu7mesh title to "Squamish", which resulted in the bot-instigated speedy of the ethno category to Category:Squamish 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 WP:CSG#Places. 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 Squamish people/Squamish, British Columbia, 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.Skookum1 (talk) 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 WP:CANLIST 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....
@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 WP:CANSTYLE; otherwise, articles on such unincorporated communities should be referenced in the section below (preferably through inclusion in the relevant neighbourhoods category)"
The above quote on CANLIST is out of date as the section it refers to has been removed. I'll correct it on CANLIST. Hwy43 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Cough**Cough* CSD G6 goes a long way *Cough**Cough* Might solve a good percentage of the articles where an admin is required for the move. - Floydian¢08:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's just say I haven't had too much luck with admins lately ("*Cough**Cough*), a few certain ones in particular, (*Cough**Cough*) 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 Squamish 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 WP:CANLIST 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.Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to compile the above list. I asked that WP:CANLIST be updated with those moves that have been executed so that list remains current, which it appears you have been doing. Hwy43 (talk) 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 WP:CANLIST 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.Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This 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 Yuquot, British Columbia but like Kyuquot, British Columbia that name is associated with a group of Nuu-chah-nulth also, like the difference between Hesquiat, the spelling for the location and Hesquiaht, the article for the group, and Ahousat and Ahousaht, also. Yuquot is no longer a people name; the group from there are the famous Mowachaht. Maquinna's people, who now live with the Muchalaht at Gold River, British Columbia, but the Kyuquot are still a known name and are jointly incorporated as a band government with the Checklesaht as the Kyuquot/Checklesaht First Nation, however the latter is spelt (one of those names that's hard to get right). Ucluelet is of similar origin but the band government uses a "more Nuu-chah-nulth" spelling.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion. Mindmatrix14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: 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.
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. XOttawahitech (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Thanks for joining this discussion. If I understand it correctly WP:SILENCE talks about reversions which are not at all the same as deletions. wp:CfD 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? XOttawahitech (talk) 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 common sense. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 5 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 Category: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 WP:EGRS 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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 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 WP:CWNB, and you should take your issue to a more relevant venue if you want to continue discussing it. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@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 notify me if you would like me to respond. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Category:Canadian folklore 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 Black Donnellys all the way to Bluenose Ghosts with characters like Big Joe Mufferaw and Johnny Canuck. We also have the famous and elusive Sasquatch and Ogopogo.
Anyone have a copy of Edith Fowke; Carole Henderson Carpenter (1981). A Bibliography of Canadian Folklore in English. University of Toronto Press. - or the one by Edith Fowke called A pioneering anthology, Folklore of Canada There is Canadian folk-life and folk-lore (1897) but its so old.-- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that there are articles such as Salishan oral literature and categories like Kwakwaka'wakw mythology (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 Simon Gunanoot and Slumach 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 Mad Trapper was also, for example, a real person much transformed in the folklore tradition.Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
About the sasquatch, I found today this collection of stories 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 Salishan oral literature 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??Skookum1 (talk) 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. OttawaAC (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently created Quebec folklore. 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.OttawaAC (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
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.Skookum1 (talk) 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.). -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Quick question - to me the new font is blurry and all text is bold ...is this what others see? -- Moxy (talk) 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! Mrfrobinson (talk) 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. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who Hallows AG is or where they're from, but declining Chateau Haldimand as "not notable" is very wrong.....Skookum1 (talk) 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? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks; with these sources someone could improve fifty or sixty articles! I have THIS LIST 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. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (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 HERE. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.
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, Moxy. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
As often happens, municipal SPA has edited the McBride article, deleting cited material and in this case even the weather box, 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.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see here 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 List of filming locations in the Toronto area to List of filming locations in Toronto....Hamilton, Ste Catherines, Belleville are "Toronto"??Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2014 (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? --kelapstick16:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"Interior" is capitalized as a proper name. And yes, List of filming locations on Vancouver Island and List of filming locations on the British Columbia Coast 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.Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need separate lists for each individual region within the province? I strongly doubt that somehow. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Reif Estate Winery
Reif Estate Winery is located in Niagara-on-the-Lake 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaksr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 April 2014 (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.Skookum1 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
For those around here too young to remember, Russell Andrew Mills was the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen who was fired back in 2002 after controversy surrounding our prime minister Jean Chrétien. 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.
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 Mr. Mills is not notable and no one dares oppose this view? XOttawahitech (talk) 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. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
At the time that user came across the article, it looked like this. A reader unfamiliar with the subject matter would rightfully assume WP:ONEEVENT applies, and tag the article accordingly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this edit. 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 WP:BLP. Mindmatrix14:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
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 WikiProject Canada.
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? XOttawahitech (talk) 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 notability rules, sourced to enough reliable sources 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. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, I'm really surprised that you ask such questions having been here so long. See Misplaced Pages:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid - 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability, 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 WP:WHYN - 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? WP:SOFIXIT 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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 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 {{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.) Mindmatrix19:46, 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 unreferenced, or sourced to unreliable sources; 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 reliable sourcing; 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts on article
I'm not convinced that this article is needed. It seems that the WP:SINGLEEVENT of his firing is what's notable, not the fact that it was Mills; moreover, he does not seem notable for any other reason in that he has maintained a low profile in the decade since the event. Since the article on the Ottawa Citizen already mentions the firing, the information in this article would be better included there and this article deleted.
Additionally, this article isn't especially neutral 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. Ca2james (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Jim Gordon
I'd like to request some assistance at Jim Gordon (a former mayor of Sudbury.) 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 public relations territory in others (e.g. going into extensive tangential detail about the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, WP:NPOV 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 conflict of interest 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.)
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 primary sources rather than reliable ones, some may still be coatracked 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 Sudbury Star coverage is available in the ProQuest database that I have access to via the Toronto Public Library, 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
World city rankings
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 Calgary#World city rankings do we want to see the section being added to other the major city with good reviews ? At Ottawa 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? --Moxy (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
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 source which says William McNeill was the speaker. Please clarify.--Skr15081997 (talk) 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
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.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Blair McCreadie
Grumpy Midget has reinserted defamatory information into the article Blair McCreadie, see my reversion here. 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 here, 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, I'd Rather Be Baking Cookies: A Collection of Recipes from Lisa MacLeod and Friends, 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.--kelapstick10:12, 23 April 2014 (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. --kelapstick10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
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.
You seem to be getting your stories mixed up though.
Given the subject's involvement in party training, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Talk:Adrian Dix, and censor edits on some e.g. Christy Clark 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; Kevin Annett 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. Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (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 WP:AFD 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
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 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). --kelapstick10:37, 26 April 2014 (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. --kelapstick11:05, 26 April 2014 (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:
McCreadie defended a 2003 party organizing session that included a prominent British Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell 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 Alleanza Nazionale, the party that descended from Mussolini’s Fascists.
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 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. Drmies (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Canadian Encyclopedia
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 (User:Anne Delong/CE links needing update). 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. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (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 Alistair MacLeod), 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2014 (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 {{bcgnis}} and {{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 GeoBC (see about who they are, 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.Skookum1 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (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? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2014 (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.Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
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:
Unshake that head. The exact text of the article at the time of deletion was
“
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. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the "support" voters for the CfD which attempted to delete or merge all subcats in Category:Rivers of British Columbia by region, who also joined the nom there in challenging all all British Columbia region titles/articles, has demanded cites as somehow mandatory for BC regions, claiming there has to be a citation for diffusing categories; I have yet to get an answer for any such guideline or policy and had intended on starting a discussion myself. Input from people actually familiar with BC's geography and regions is needed.
NB in areas of the province that are barely populated I'd begun using major mountain range-groupings like Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges and Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains in lieu of the usual and conventional subdivisions of the province i.e. Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland, Okanagan, Cariboo etc. The Rocky Mountains and Pacific/Kitimat Ranges are regions in their own right; there are parts of them where, respectively, East Kootenay or North/Central Coast or Chilcotin and Nechako Country do not readily apply. Such category challenges being made on the basis of unspecified guidelines as if they were rules and an ignorance of BC's geography are, to me, a nuisance and a waste of time. But since the discussion has been launched, I am announcing it here, since the creator/perpetrator of that discussion did not see fit to.Skookum1 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:CAT decrees that Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. If a region isn't well defined (as supported by reliable sources) then it will be impossible to add articles to it in a reliable manner. More generally, the policies of WP:V and WP:N apply to categories as much as they do to articles. If reliable sources can't be found to support the diffusing scheme, I would argue that it is WP:OR and should be removed. Pburka (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And replaced with WHAT? There will ultimately be 1000+ rivers in Category:Rivers of British Columbia if it is not broken up by region. If WP:CAT "decrees" that (never mind "there are no rules", which rule-tossers seem to never pay attention to) then that should be amended; guidelines derived for places that are not a "sea of mountains" the size of three European countries are not readily applicable to British Columbia; IMO instruction creep is becoming dominant in Misplaced Pages, at the expense of navigable content/titles/categories, with "rules" being imposed/demanded on topic areas by people who have no knowledge of same (I just looked at your usercontributions, you don't seem to have any previous exposure to these rivers or regions or mountain ranges).Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:CAT says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. " Cites exist or are available for each article in question as to why they are in the given categories, there is nothing in the guideline saying that the the category "system" has to be citable. The demand, implied here and made at that discussion and by the nom of the CfD, that one system must be produced is purely fiction and yet more instruction creep that has little relation to actual reality. There is no one "official" system in BC, what there is is history and names that are COMMONNAMES to be found on various maps and books about BC, and are implicit in the many differing kinds of official regionalization systems where those names form the basis of those different regions/regionalization systems. The ongoing premise that the titles are OR made by people who know nothing about the geography and places in question is genuinely boring and is itself OR....Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The further premise/extrapolation being made from " If a region isn't well defined (as supported by reliable sources) then it will be impossible to add articles to it in a reliable manner" is that the regions are not cited/citable, which is just not true. What's impossible is discussing this with people who don't want it to be possible, or who dispute that cites exist at all when they do. The regions are well-known in British Columbia. Add on top of this the already-observed extrapolation that there must be an official system cited is just more wikilawyering and "contrary to the spirit of the guidelines".Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Skookum1 again
Would someone please explain to Skookum1 that this edit of mine did not do what he is accusing me of doing. Perhaps he doesn't speak American English. I cannot think of any other reason he has been making the comments accusing me of doing something which was never actually done and . — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
