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.
Port Hope Simpson historic logging town - fishing, pottery, retail & public services, timber products, transportation - for full listing? llewelynpritchard
demographics again (in general but here also about RD articles including IR populations in EA listings)
In the papers , TV, and Radio they only show (4) four candidates untill today, but looking in your site I see that there are 33 names listed in the running, why are the not mentioned in any of the media. and why would so many people want to run in this election
Hi Ray. This is actually pretty typical for such elections in some cities. If the nomination process has low bars to clear, then you end up with several people who run just because they can, because they think it makes a good platform to preach a message, because they do want to make a difference but are otherwise unknown, or who are simply crazy. The media will of course only focus on the legitimate contenders. We include the full lists out of a desire for completeness. Cheers! Resolute14:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The mayoral race in Toronto always attracts a large list of "fringe" candidates who (a) don't really have a chance in hell of actually winning, and (b) don't really garner that much in the way of substantive coverage because they don't really have a chance in hell of actually winning. As long as I've lived in Toronto, there have always been at least 20 or so candidates in every mayoral race — but only four or five, and sometimes even fewer than that, who were actually treated as genuine contenders by the media. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
True dat. The 2000 election was a special case, though — the result was such a foregone "we all know who's going to win" conclusion right from the start that no other mainstream "contenders" even tried. So Enza and Tooker Gomberg got a lot more coverage than "fringe" candidates usually get, in part just because there was no other way for there to even be much of a story to cover. And let us never forget the distinguished Ben Kerr (RIP), either. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Help with a Canadian film
I need some help with looking for sources on the article Walter's Christmas. It looks like this film is part of an overall series called Walter & Tandoori, but I have a very strong suspicion that coverage will be primarily in French since the earliest title I could find for the film was Le Noël De Walter Et Tandoori. Can anyone help look for sources for the film? I'm thinking that it might be better to have an article for the series as a whole and redirect there, but I'm coming up with a dead end as far as sources go- partially due to language barriers and also because well, most of the search engines I use tend to primarily reference English language papers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)11:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The series is very likely to be notable enough to qualify for an article, as it aired on Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec and Vrak.TV — but for that very reason, you're right in guessing that the bulk of the available sources are going to be in French. That said, even the article about it on fr:, fr:Walter (série télévisée), doesn't actually cite any sources either. I'd agree that probably the best course of action here would be an article about the series, with the Christmas special in place as a redirect to that instead of a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
I work for the College of Family Physicians of Canada and would like to see this page expanded with helpful basic information. I understand there is a conflict of interest if I post content and the guidelines say to suggest changes on the talk page. Could someone review the following information and post what is appropriate? I have included third-party references at the end of each paragraph:
The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) is a professional association and the legal certifying body for family medicine in Canada. This national organization of family physicians was founded in 1954 and currently numbers over 30,000 members. Members of the CFPC belong to the national College as well as to their provincial chapters. As a national organization, the CFPC offers services in both English and French.
The CFPC establishes the standards for the training, certification, and lifelong education of family physicians. It accredits postgraduate family medicine training in Canada's 17 medical schools, conducts the certification examination in family medicine, and grants the CCFP and FCFP designations.
Hehepps (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In 2013, the CFPC collaborated with the Medical Council of Canada (MCC) to deliver a new certification examination in family medicine. Those who pass the new exam, and who meet all other qualifications of both organizations, are awarded both the Licentiate of the MCC (LMCC)—the medical license to practise in Canada—and certification in family medicine designation (CCFP).
The CFPC runs a program designed to support the continuous professional development of its members called MAINPRO® (Maintenance of Proficiency). This program assesses proposed learning modules and seminars against established standards and awards various types and numbers of credits learners can earn by participating in these learning opportunities. Credits are recorded and physicians must meet a standard number and type of credits in order to maintain their CCFP and FCFP designations.
Each year the CFPC hosts Family Medicine Forum (FMF), a national family medicine conference. The conference offers hundreds of clinical and professional development sessions for family physicians over three days in November. The conference is held at varying host cities and provinces each year.
The Research and Education Foundation (REF) of the CFPC was established to provide funding for honours, awards, scholarships, and grants bestowed by the College to its members. It is a registered charity with the Government of Canada.
The CFPC is a member of the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA).
The CFPC’s official journal is Canadian Family Physician.
History
The CFPC was founded in 1954 as the College of General Practice of Canada out of a need to ensure family physicians were dedicated to continuing medical education. At inception, it had 400 members. Dr Victor L. Johnston was the first Executive Director and remained in office for ten years. The first College Executive Committee and Board of Representatives consisted of 17 members. In 1964, the College changed its name to the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
The CFPC is governed by the Executive Committee and the Board, who meet times per year. The current Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer is Dr Francine Lemire.
Mission:
To support family physicians through certification, advocacy, leadership, research, and learning opportunities that enable them to provide high-quality health care for their patients and their communities.
Vision:
The people of Canada have timely access to quality care provided by family physicians committed to the CFPC’s lifelong learning requirements.
Summary of Goals
• Quality patient-centred care
• Rewarding and valued careers
• Relevant and progressive educational standards
• Research capacity
• Organizational effectiveness
• Social accountability and equity
Hehepps (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear fellow Canadians: Here's an abandoned Afc draft that someone put some work into and then never got around to sourcing and submitting. Is this something worth improving, or is this already covered under some other title? Or maybe its unnecessary to sort our politicians by gender? It will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, 117Avenue, for taking time to check this out. Can you be a little clearer? Does your post mean (1) articles like this are acceptable and the draft should be kept, or (2) the topic is already well covered and the draft should be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't really giving any indication on what to do with the draft, I was expecting other users, like Bearcat and Arctic.gnome, to join the conversation. I saw your comment before I wanted to log off, and just wanted to make you aware of the other articles. I since remembered there's the Category:Female Canadian political party leaders. Now that I've had the time to think about I'll try to give a clear reply. I think that Women in Canadian politics does a good job of covering the topic, and my first thought is that a "list of female Canadian party leaders" article would duplicate this article. However, Women in Canadian politics does not mention everyone that would be on the list, so it is a valid idea. Women in Canadian politics is also a long article, one could argue that a split is possible. However, I do not feel this way, and my opinion is that this is too broad of a qualification (not a notable enough position) for a list article, and Category:Female Canadian political party leaders fulfills this role. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We already have a category for Category:Female Canadian political party leaders — and as noted, there are other lists and articles that already cover more specific accomplishments of note. Per WP:CLN, further, not every category has to be matched with a corresponding list — and this seems to me like a case where we don't need both. I'd say that the list should probably just be deleted, since it isn't serving any useful purpose that we aren't already meeting equally well or better in other places. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have been trying to fix up this old Afc submission, but I could use some help from someone who has attended this fashion festival or who at least knows where to find references for the Ottawa area. It sounds like an interesting event. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
RMs on the Comox and Squamish disambiguation (and town) pages.
Those Canadians who did weigh in at the CfD on Category:Squamish are being ignored and their views buried under more than my attempts to explain what people do not have the patience to learn what they do not want to know that gets in the way of their imposition of guidelines without any larger context. The name-conflict problem between aboriginal topics and primarytopic geographic names is not going to go away; these new RMs are a bit WP:POINTy, but to me so are the hide-bound invocations of COMMONNAME without any respect at all for PRIMARYTOPIC or the larger context of indigenous-titles conventions (conventions which are being swept aside by piecemeal applications of COMMONNAME and UE by those resistant to "unpronounceable" names). These RMs may muddy those waters further, but since indigenous preferences and cultural sensitivities/realities are not being respected, it stands to follow that, if that is the case, then the Comox and Squamish articles should not have comma-province on them...nor should Chemainus if it is disambiguated (Tzu'menus is the "new" spelling for the First Nations people there); tons of other examples. I know a lot of you have come to "keep away" from things I propose, but what's happening is that non-Canadians are running roughshod over Canadian titles and category structures who don't know what theyre talking about, and are creating name-conflict problems beyond their understanding (or concern). The chauvinism underlying their WP:POINTyness re COMMONNAME and UE is often shocking/glaring......when not just plainly parochial in attitude. As usual, rathre than address the points I raise (or that other Canadians raise) I'm being made the primary topic of t he discussion; in last year's CfD I had made a good case for Category:Skwxwu7mesh but the closer decided against it because I'd had to spend so much time responding critically to bad ideas and mis-suppositions by the other participants I was construed as engaging in personal attacks. But I'm the one being attacked by way of evading answering to very bad logics and mis-taken "evidence" and the ongoing blinkers-on mentality of those in the RM and CfD cabals/turfs....apparently criticizing what someone says is tantamount to criticizing them but it's OK to attack ME (as Ottawahitech has observed at the Cfd or Rm can't remember which)Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, it seems that Jean Chrétien's article could use plenty more images as it seems to be an unsightly wall of text at the moment after an editor added a substantial amount of content. --Connormah (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Misplaced Pages community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
Portal:Canada at FPOC
I just wanted to come by and let you know about the FPOC going on for Portal:Canada here. If you have any comments concerning the Portal, feel free to bring them there. Achowat (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Historical information removed by a wikipedia admin
That Arthur Rubin is an admin is completely irrelevant to his editorial decision to remove the passage. I have no opinion on the question of whether the material belongs, but I would side with Arthur in believing that that was most likely a letter or an editorial published in the Globe. Newspapers don't publish papers in the context you have presented there. Resolute16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Simple logic. Newspapers don't publish papers in the context you suggested in the article. It isn't a case of siding with anyone - as I said, I have no opinion on whether this piece should be mentioned. But I do believe that it should be accurately presented. And as Bearcat notes on the article talk page, it is in fact what I expected it would be - an editorial. Resolute15:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Resolute: Yes you are siding with user:Arthur Rubin – your words (above), not mine. You agree that it was published in the Globe&Mail – so why can’t this be mentioned in Alasdair_Roberts_(academic)? If you want to remove the word paper and replace it with op-ed be my guest, but having four Misplaced Pages admins dictating what can&cannot be included in Wikpedia articles is pure censorship.
Please don’t forget that the paragraph in question has been in the article since 2010 and was only recently removed with this edit summary: There is no evidence that it was published! XOttawahitech (talk)
If you tried making a case for why it's important to mention in the article — relating it to an important issue, for instance, or making a case that it's genuinely representative of the kind of work he generally publishes — then people might be more willing to consider your position carefully. But as of right now, you haven't even really tried to present a cogent argument for why it should be there — all you've offered is unsubstantiated assertions of administrator malfeasance, and misrepresentations of what the piece even was in the first place. Try giving an actual, substantive and productive reason why the information should be in the article, and the discussion might go differently. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Why do I need to make a case...? it was removed with this edit summary: There is no evidence that it was published. Now we know this was incorrect.
Ottawahitech, I don't know that it was published. The only evidence provided is that someone, on a newsgroup, said it was published. Even if it were published, it might be a "letter to the editor" or possibly even an "Op-ed"; in neither case, should the Globe & Mail be mentioned in the text. Only if it were published as an article should the text be accepted, and that is extremely implausible. — Arthur Rubin(talk)19:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, as nice as it would be if everybody always used an accurate edit summary, not everybody actually uses edit summaries at all; some people write confusing ones; some people write ones that misrepresent what they actually did; some people have good intentions but sometimes make mistakes (e.g. accidentally selecting the wrong one when performing an automated edit). So you need to judge an edit by its substance, not its edit summary.
Accordingly, the reason you need to make a case for inclusion is that you're the one arguing that the information should be included, in a disagreement with someone who's said that it isn't noteworthy enough to warrant mention. The rule on Misplaced Pages is not that absolutely anything that could possibly be written about a person belongs in our article about them — there are many kinds of information that could be added to an article but aren't actually worthy of inclusion here, such as an article topic's favourite cheese or the name of their great-grandmother's neighbour's nephew or insider gossip about their private sex lives. (Every single one of those things has actually been tried on here many times, trust me.) So if somebody disputes whether a piece of information belongs in an article or not, as long as they're acting in good faith you need to make a case for why it does belong there, rather than relying solely on "it used to be there". "I like cows" used to be present in supermom too, as you may remember from one of your past attempts at campaigning against administrator "malfeasance" — but that doesn't mean it belongs there. So the fact that somebody added it at one time doesn't mean it has to stay there forever — if you think it belongs there and somebody else doesn't, then you need to provide a substantive reason why it belongs there and cannot just assert that removing it was a bad faith action.
And finally, as nice as it is to get a courtesy echo/ping when somebody replies to you in a discussion, that's not a requirement that all editors are obliged to follow in every discussion. Some editors do it, some don't, some would if they knew how, some do sometimes but forget other times, some just resent the expectation, and some actually dislike all the pings cluttering up their notifications queue and thus don't want to get pinged. Appreciate it when people do it, sure, but if you're interested in an ongoing discussion then it's your responsibility to monitor that discussion for new posts when you have a chance, regardless of whether you've gotten pinged or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't read the comment that the op-ed was found in ProQuest; I may have made a mistake in my edit summary, but at the time, I could accurately have said that there was no reliable evidence presented that it was published. I shouldn't have escalated my edit comment without additional evidence. — Arthur Rubin(talk)19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I am really not sure what cows, cheese, great-grandmother's neighbour's nephew and malfeasance have to do with this topic. However, I would like to note that you (and the other 3 admins who have opined on this issue) have still not addressed my statement: "it is a paper nonetheless, complete with bibliography." XOttawahitech (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Your statement has been addressed but you refuse to accept it and are using your usual "rephrase and push" approach. The paper may have been published and may even have had a bibliography, that is not the problem. It is a opinion article published as an op-ed article. It does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards as a reliable source. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Let me clarify this for you. Not that it was really all that unclear the first time, but since you obviously need the clarification:
I raised cheese and great-grandmother's neighbour's nephew as examples of the kinds of information that it is possible to add to a Misplaced Pages article, but are not actually important or relevant enough to belong there. You have yet, however, to demonstrate that this particular op-ed isn't in the same class of trivial information; you have yet to demonstrate that it's important enough to warrant mention. All you've demonstrated is that the op-ed existed, which is no different than cheese and the nephew — yes, somebody might have a favourite cheese, but why should we care? Yes, the nephew existed, but why should we care? Yes, the op-ed existed, but why should we care?
Rather, instead of providing any actual evidence as to why or how the piece might actually be important enough to warrant mention in his article, your entire argument so far has boiled down to two points: "it used to be there, and thus it has to stay forever", hence the cows as an example of why that argument doesn't wash, and "it was a paper", which has been refuted repeatedly but you keep asserting it anyway.
And every time you raise one of these campaigns against something that happened on here which you don't like, you always adopt a pose of "campaigning against administrator malfeasance", even when you're actually deeply misunderstanding what actually happened and what can or can't be done about it. Which ties into the cows again, to boot: as you may or may not remember, what actually happened was that you raised the "ADMINISTRATOR MALFEASANCE!" alarm because somebody had deleted the original iteration of supermom. You assumed that a real article had been written at that topic and somebody had arbitrarily deemed it non-notable — so I looked at the deleted article and informed you of what it actually contained, which was the aforementioned "I like cows". And again, you're doing almost exactly the same thing here — you're simply asserting that the editor who removed the content was acting in bad faith, and have done nothing at all to answer any of the numerous editors who have asked you to explain why the information even belongs in the article in the first place. You just keep reasserting the "bad faith" claim without responding at all to the actual crux of the matter. You really do seem to spend a lot of time on here jumping to conclusions instead of assuming good faith, you know?
Okay, now I'm understanding your continued insistence on characterizing it as a "paper" much better. You're relying on a Google Groups posting? I'm confident that I don't need to tell you that Google Groups does not count as a reliable source, but I'll say that anyway just in case it's news.
That said, just for the record: the version printed in The Globe and Mail does not include any footnote annotations at all. Where the footnotes begin on the Google Groups posting, the G&M just includes the brief credential note that "Alasdair Roberts is an associate professor in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. An annotated version of this appears at ." The annotated version that was posted to Usenet clearly came from copying the annotations from the version on his own website, rather than from the G&M itself — and thus, crediting it directly to the G&M instead of to his own website constitutes an incorrect attribution of the source material. Which is, bam, one of the reasons why a Usenet posting archived at Google Groups doesn't count as a reliable source — you can certainly use that to help you track down possible sources, but you have to actually consult the original source for yourself if you want to cite something to it, and cannot directly cite to the Google Groups posting itself, because it's impossible to properly verify the accuracy of the Google Groups posting until you see the original source for yourself. And if we credited it directly to his own website instead of the G&M, then it would violate WP:SELFPUB in addition to still not having an actual reason why it was important enough to merit mention at all — and, for the record, the fact that the content was sourced exclusively to a Google Groups posting completely absolvesUser:Arthur Rubin, because his edit summary was a completely accurate assessment of what he was actually looking at.
So we still don't have a reliable source with any of the footnotes in it, nor a reason why it's important enough to warrant mention...but at least now I understand why you were so hung up on calling it a "paper". Not that having that knowledge actually makes a difference here, mind you. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Note also that there is a significant difference between something that is published (such as opinion pieces/editorials, or newspaper columns), and something that is peer reviewed. Stating something in a newspaper article without subjecting it to peer review is an example of original research, against which Misplaced Pages has strict rules. Mindmatrix20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Genie Awards
While I recognize that not really giving a hoot about Canadian film is pretty much one of the defining characteristics of Canadian culture, I'd still like to request some assistance in getting our coverage of the Genie Awards up to contemporary formatting and content and referencing standards — with the exception of a couple of years that I've recently updated (1st Genie Awards and 19th Genie Awards, and I've been tackling 24th Genie Awards today but am not done with it yet), very nearly every related article has one or more major problems that need some concerted attention.
Many of the award-by-year articles, for example, have never actually been properly updated with anything beyond the "big six" (best picture, best director and the acting awards) categories; sometimes, but not always, the screenplay categories have been added, as well as, again sometimes but not always, winner-only lists for a completely random selection of other categories (in one year it'll be the documentary, in another year the animated short, in another year nothing, and on and so forth). And many of the award-by-category articles, in turn, are missing significant pieces of information too; before today, for example, Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television Award for Best Achievement in Music – Original Song went "11, 17-20, 22-32", and was missing everything else, and even for some of the years it did contain it was still missing the names of the songs (which is pretty damn important information in a list of songs, isn't it?) — I've got it completed as far back as 1990 now, but would still appreciate some assistance tracking down the older years.
Sorry Bearcat, recently I've been busy cleaning up and expanding articles about Canadian banknotes, and I also have an extensive list of articles I'm trying to clean up or write in addition to those. Not that it helps, but I know your pain... Mindmatrix18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, for what it's worth, I've gotten so little interest here that I'm going to try soliciting some assistance at WP:FILM instead. Anybody who wants to help out is still welcome to do so, however. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
RMs re indigenous people names and corresponding town/geographic names
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#current_and_recent_RMs_re_indigenous_names. Also note that unique town names still disambiguated that need not be include Chemainus, British Columbia which should just be Chemainus (the band has changed its name to Tz'uminus to avoid confusion). Canadian disambiguation practices and indigenous title conventions (not codified, but should be) are being given the short shrift on the various RMs and on the thorniest CfD, whether or not my efforts to refute the false claims and bad suppositions/narrow quotes from guidelines fielded by many opponents of the move are "TLDR" (which is a bore to hear, but not surprising from people who don't even read the whole of the guidelines they simplistically invoke as if they were ironclad, which they are not cf. COMMONNAME) the four Canadians who agreed that the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Squamish" is the town, not the people, have been drowned by "votes" from the cabals, and denunciations of myself for whatever reasons suits my attackers at the moment. The notion that the town is not the PRIMARYTOPIC has also been claimed on Talk:Squamish#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Noting again that Chemainus, British Columbia doesn't need its disambiguation; and that re the PRIMARYTOPIC issue on Comox and Squamish, that the use of native names means that there is no confusion between the Kwikwetlem First Nation and Coquitlam, likewise re Nanaimo/Snuneymuxw and various others. Note my comments on the link about about Tsawwassen as to why it should remain disambiguated - because of the MOSTCOMMON use being the ferry terminal, not the FN. I may file an RM on Lillooet/Lillooet, British Columbia since the town name is decidedly unique and also demonstrably the primary use.Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: According to the guidelines, information about the above candidate should, instead of being a standalone article, be added to an article 2014 Quebec provincial elections. However, there isn't such an article right now. Is the upcoming election covered under another title, or should a draft of this article be started so that candidate information can be added? Or is this a bad idea altogether? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The candidate lists, for the record, have never actually been created consistently for all elections in all provinces — Ontario is the only one for which they've been consistently created, while in all other provinces it's completely random as to whether any given list actually exists or not, if any lists ever actually happened at all (which they haven't always). That's also leaving aside the open question of whether such lists actually serve any useful or encyclopedic function at all under current Misplaced Pages practice — they're not allowed to contain WP:BLP1E sketches anymore, which was their only genuinely substantive reason for existing even when they could, and thus now serve no real function that the election's main article isn't already fulfilling — but debating that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The list of candidates is quite comprehensive already and will be checked at the end of the nomination period with the official list released by the DGEQ. As for Ms. Leblond, she's already listed as a PLQ candidate in the Bertrand riding. If she wins, she'll get her article. As for adding articles for every candidate, let's just say that 892 people ran in the 2012 general election... Bouchecl (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, the discussion about "candidate lists" wasn't referring to the table of election results in an election's main article, but about the separate lists of candidates by party (e.g. Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, and on and so forth) that exist for some, but not necessarily all, parties in some, but not necessarily all, elections in some, but not necessarily all, provinces. Articles about individual as-yet-unelected candidates in an election are against our inclusion rules, but still happen quite regularly when there's an election campaign underway, so we have had to have a strategy in place for dealing with that — but the current practice is to redirect them to one of the more specific candidates-by-party lists, if an appropriate one exists, not to the comprehensive results table. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I wasn't aware of that. As you point out, we never created listings of party candidates running in Quebec general elections before. Bouchecl (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I know. One was the link provided in the comment above, and the other from eliminating the word 'provincial' from it. As redirects, they don't affect the base article, and they assist individuals who are used to the plural form (eg - those from some non-Canadian jurisdictions). Mindmatrix18:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone like to review this Afc submission that was a stale draft until I decided to improve it? I don't believe it can be described as a single event, since Dr. Senft was in the news for months, and is still getting into the news for his cancer-fighting activities. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Could we get some eyes on the Eaton's article, specifically the section called "Eaton's in Quebec"? Two users got caught up in an edit war in June 2012, which quickly degenerated into a series of insults and other unproductive behaviour on the talk page (see Talk:Eaton's#Eaton's in Quebec (section)). That fight died down, and then one of them quietly reinserted the text in question a year ago, and the other editor just noticed, so now they are back to reverting one another. One of the editors is willing to discuss on the talk page. Could editors with fresh eyes take a look at the section in question and please add their two cents? Some new input is desperately required. No need to read the past discussion, since it's mostly just insults back and forth. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
disputed by new dab page Lake Logan, which contained spurious/reaching entries (see its history). WP:UNDAB says the two are not equatable, I believe this dab was created because the Logan Lake redirect already pointed at the municipality
There are more now, from A-G are done in Category:Populated places in British Columbia. Some I was lucky to be able to move them instead of to engage an RM. By the time I/we are done 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)
"heated" in reference a hot springs-related article is cute, I guess unintentional, but PRIMARYTOPIC and MOSTCOMMON apply.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "heated" just thorny, because of your attempt to include not-suitable, and not even linked, items to the dab. Logan Lake and your Lake Logan dab are two different names, resolvable by hatnote.Skookum1 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Paul Kane for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Questionable notability of Michel Auger (politician)
I received a post on my talk page notifying me of an impending deletion of Michel Auger (politician), because the subject is not notable. I strongly believe that all Canadian MPs should have an article so I would like to get input on what exactly should be included in these articles to deter any potential request for deletion. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, the article actually got tagged for prod — and declined within two hours, for exactly the reasons given above — six weeks ago. And you addressed it with the tagging user at the time, to boot, so I'm not sure I understand why you're only bringing this to the WikiProject's attention now. Regardless, you are correct — the standard for politicians is that anybody who has held a seat in the House of Commons (or a provincial/territorial legislature, for that matter) is always notable enough for an article. Additional references would certainly help, but basic notability is not up for debate if the person is properly confirmable as having been elected to the HoC. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: This old declined Afc submission was forgotten, and another editor later made a fresh article about the same person: Robert J. Huggins. Is there useful material in the draft that should be moved to the mainspace article? Or should it just be let go as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That draft looks and reads very much like a promotional biography, and relies almost entirely on primary sources. (Even the live version needs sourcing improvements, but it's at least more neutral and less blatantly advertorial in tone.) I don't see anything substantive or properly sourced in the AFC draft that would actually improve the live version at all — so I'd just kill it. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Re the CfD closure at "Squamish people"
Well, seems like targeting me and being insecure about long passages of responses detailing why bad ideas are bad ideas is a successful tactic (and we're seeing the same game of illogic joined with accusations of unintelligibility of the proponent's rebuttals to wrong ideas, and we still have this problem category that was moved/changed by people who aren't even from the area or know anything about the topics at hand. The "Squamish" and "Squamish (disambiguation) RMs were non-admin closed despite other similar RMs on primarytopic=town have gone through, in many cases items of the very same kind. See Category_talk:Squamish_people#Re_the_2nd_CfD for other comments. Rather than complain about me writing in paragraphs instead of bullet points, I really think a lot of people in Misplaced Pages should start taking remedial reading..... and that they shouldn't "vote" on CfDs and RMs until they're knowledgeable about the subject at hand. "Waaah he uses big words and long sentences" is not an adequate excuse for not educating themselves as they should instead of complaining "I don't have time, but I want to make a vote based on a guideline I think is mandatory". This was wiki-lawyering of the worst kind but typical of the legal world also; don't examine the evidence, attack the proponent. Content and titles are suffering. What's up next? A MoveReview on all three of Squamish people, Squamish and Squamish, British Columbia at the same time to get them jointly relisted so a long hard look at the primarytopic nature of the town and the pattern of endonym titles that was SO OBVIOUS......ah, well, this'll be snitted at as another "wall of text" and it's a tiresome thing to be around people writing an encyclopedia that don't have the attention span to be able to read your average articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt any of these people could handle reading a 19th Century novel or a philosophical treatise....Skookum1 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
MoveReview, of course, is not written about reasons or logics that the decision was wrong; it's primarily about etiquette and conduct, rather than content or rationales or the actual reality of the real world; it's an inner/higher level of Misplaced Pages that's even more strictured than first-tier procedure; I'm probably hooped there too huh? This is not over, that's all I can say.Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
So we have had people from other countries decide for us that they can decide what the primarytopic of a Canadian title is.....and who dismiss CANENGL and CANSTYLE as irrelevant to global English "MOSTCOMMON" uses. Guidelines were cherrypicked, guidelines against things staying the way they are were ignored, and I was attacked instead. Things are going a bit more positively at Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move and Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move, which are parallel situations. Chemainus, Sechelt and many other native-names-as-town names have all been recognized as primary topics and obscure/new band names stand alongside them; but this one, nooooo, Stz'uminus is even more obscure than Skwxwu7mesh. Does anyone else here see the problem? People who don't know anything about Canada or BC or the way such names as St'at'imc, Ktunaxa et al are now common in Canadian English is rejected as meaningless to those who want to cite linguistics texts only...... in all their voluminous irrelevance. Five Canadians weighed in on this CfD, all of us were ignored, not just me. Cultural colonialism at its worst, but then nobody ever said Misplaced Pages had morality did they?Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
