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.
Hello everyone - I would like to get your opinions about Category:Ontario Curling Tour events. I noticed that several of the articles about these events were created today, but in my opinion they don't meet notability guidelines. In fact, I was about to propose deletion of one of them (lacking indication and evidence of notability) until I realized that the author had created a set. Before I go on and prod all of them, I would like to know what the community thinks. Thanks in advance, PKT(alk)22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The events meet the WP:CURLING notability guidelines. All of the events are cash spiels that distribute points to the players The points are used to give registered curlers on the CTRS (Canadian Team Ranking System), berths into events such as the Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, which determines the men and women's Olympic team representative, Canada Cup of Curling, which is often an event used to give a team direct entry into the Curing Trials, as well as many provinces use the CTRS to give teams berths into their respective provincial championship, which determines a winner to represent that province at either the Scotties Tournament of Hearts or the Tim Hortons Brier. The winner of those events move onto the World Curling Championships. The Ontario Curling Tour has been on the "To Do List" for the WP:CURLING for quite some time. I have begun creating the pages for this, and granted some are listed as Stubs and need further development, however all of this will come in time. It takes a lot of man hours to create and develop pages like this, and can even take years. I invite you to look at the work done with the World Curling Tour to get a perspective on the direction these pages are going into. Sirrussellott (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
While it's cool to have these pages, I'm not sure how notable a local tour event is. Perhaps some are, that is the ones with a long history. And of course those that are WCT events as well. Having a page on the Ontario Curling Tour is great, and needed, so thank you for that. I'm just not sure if each event is notable. I would probably vote to keep if they were put up to debate, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. -- Earl Andrew - talk11:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Gerald Caplan
An anonymous IP, with fewer than 20 edits in his/her entire history, tagged NDP organizer and academic Gerald Caplan for prod yesterday, with the reasoning that the article was mostly unreferenced. He's obviously notable and the article isn't entirely unreferenced, so I've removed the prod notice -- however, the article was created in 2005, and its referencing standard is quite clearly 2005 vintage (i.e. total sh*t). Since upgrading it to current standards may require some more specialized sources than I personally have access to, I wanted to ask if anybody's able to help in bringing it up to snuff. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Regional municipality categories
Three sets of categories relating to regional municipalities in Ontario have nominated for renaming, at categories for discussion. The discussions are at:
First, I put them all in one giant category (Category:Canada election result templates (complete list)) so that editors can use the "related changes" feature to make sure that no one is screwing with the numbers. I encourage you to check the related changes every month or two to see if anything has changed.
The article is incorrect. It lists China as Canada's number one trading partner. This a major typo. China and United States numbers have been mixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.85.240 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Image to Use in the JCPC Court case Info Box
There is a template for an info-box for articles about court cases: Template:Infobox court case. One of the fields is for an image to represent the court.
Since the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (formerly Canada's highest court, hence some relevance to Canadian topics) uses a less elaborate version of the Arms, as indicated on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council page, I've suggested in the Talkpage for the images that the same image should be used for the court case infobox: Template talk:Infobox court case
One of my periodic hobbies is to write on/improve articles of Canadian historical significance. To the end of organizing such topics, I have created a List of vital Canadian articles in the hopes it may encourage some topics to be expanded and improved by others as well. I will probably tack it onto Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canada/Navigation for some visibility, but as you can see, the list is a work in progress, and I'd definitely appreciate help in expanding it. (I already realize I haven't even added sections for awards and honours, and weather-related events.) Personally, I envison it as a list of articles that are significantly Canadian in influence, but feel free to add any articles you feel fit the scope. And most importantly, feel free to pick up any that need work and improve them. Cheers! Resolute17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Definitely improved from previous. You still need to add a source (in this case, where the photo was uploaded from, or a site with the equivalent file), after which I think you can feel free to remove the speedy tag. It could still go to files for discussion if other editors like, but that would involve a discussion. Cheers, Resolute14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Since the image was all over the news, that would be impossible to determine (I am not the uploader) the penultimate source would be the release when the photo was initially distributed. (and ultimately to the trooper who took the photograph) -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Date format
I noticed that User:Canuck89 is going around converting dmy date formats to mdy. WP:STRONGNAT says that Canadian articles can use either format, but I think it might be useful for us to standardize some of our bigger articles rather than having editors making sweeping changes to their preferred format. In my opinion, for dates in the middle of prose mdy is probably more natural to English-Canadian readers, although I personally dislike it because of the extra comma it adds. However, in dates that are being used purely as data, particularly in stand-alone lists and maybe also in infoboxes, I think ymd (with numbers only) or dmy (with the month name) look better. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
My personal view is that MDY is almost exclusively used in day to day presentation of everything in English Canada, so that is the direction articles should go. For most lists, however, you would sort by year first, so YMD does make more sense in such tables. Also, I would personally apply date standards only to presentation within prose. I have habit of date referencing citations as "2012-10-15" and find it monstrously annoying when someone switches to "October 15, 2012" when I am in the middle of writing an article. It completely screws up my editing mojo. (seriously!) Resolute17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolute, I didn't notice until today that people were changing the format inside citations, I agree that that's a bit odd. What do you think about the date formatting in lists in the format of List of Premiers of Alberta, which were also changed today? In that case, the dates are not perfectly lined up in a sortable list, but they also aren't in the middle of a sentence. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
On the table? Personally, I agree with Canuckian's change there. Day-month is unbelievably odd to me. It looks proper now. Resolute23:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I was merely restoring the lists to their original format, as this edit introduced a mixture of mdy and dmy dates into the article, when it was originally all mdy. Canuck 23:52, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice that I had made the initial change; when I changed the template type I just typed in the dates in the format I'm used to. Oh well, it will be useful to get a standard either way. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
We should use DMY or YMD, MDY just gets confused. There're even public service announcements on (Canadian) TV to tell you what the proper date format is supposed to be, because of the confusion... YMD is a much better format. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It's either between DMY or MDY here, IMO. We should stay consistent with all the other articles here, none use YMD at all. YMD is totally more confusing, the months should absolutely be spelled out to minimize confusion - I've been confused many times at YMD format. The date format guideline is fine the way it is... – Connormah (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think YMD is most often used in databases and lists where you want to be able to sort the data by date. Misplaced Pages can do that with spelled-out months, so I agree that we don't need YMD, except in places where we're trying to save space, like in refs. I think that DMY with spelled-out months makes more sense and flows better, but most common usage in English Canada is probably against me. The question is, should we standardize Canadian articles to MDY from DMY, or should we maintain the status quo of allowing either? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
MDY should be the only way to go in prose for the reasons previously stated by AG and Resolute.
In speech, when I say “Today is (today’s date)”, I say “Today is October seventeenth, two thousand twelve”, not “Today is seventeen(th) October two thousand twelve”. Why STRONGNAT says both MDY and DMY are acceptable for Canada is absolutely beyond me. If I’ve never heard anyone in Canada speak the latter, why should I have to read it on WP Canadian articles as “Today is 17 October 2012”? It is simply less readable when prose places the day and month out of order of actual speech.
To help me understand why STRONGNAT says either is acceptable, I’d like to know what geographic enclaves within Canada, if any, prefer DMY over MDY in either speech, prose or both. I've never seen a public service announcement (PSA) on Canadian television pushing DMY as the proper date format. Could it be that the PSA is/was localized to the geographic enclaves(s) that prefer DMY? When was the PSA last known to have aired?
I use YYYY-MM-DD in tables for sortability. It makes sense to me in tables. If it is truly confusing within a table, we could place YYYY-MM-DD in parentheses within the column header, just like we’d place km², $ and % in parentheses within column headers. See the below example.
Community
Incorporation date (YYYY-MM-DD)
Area (km²)
Growth rate (%)
Average household income ($)
I also have the same knack of using YYYY-MM-DD for date and accessdate parameters within inline citations for brevity purposes, and because the citation template is essentially a database of information relating to the source and the reference is not written as prose.
I support a movement to standardize date formats within Canadian articles under the four scenarios of 1) within prose, 2) within tables 3) within infoboxes and 4) within references, as I don't think a one size fits all is a solution to a standard date format for use in Canadian articles. If consensus is achieved, we can post it at WP:CANSTYLE and revise WP:STRONGNAT accordingly. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why we should waste time on standardizing a local date format, as long as it is consistent within a given article. I also don't see how the way we say something should dictate how we write it. Should we write "100$" as well? Hey, it's standard for about a quarter of Canadians! (the French-speaking quarter, anyways...)
For the record, I can't wait until the English-speaking world finally wakes up and settles on the wonderfulness of YYYY-MM-DD...already long standard in many spoken languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean...) ..................and metric.......... CüRlyTüRkeyContribs07:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages
Yes. Good suggestion, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense how you have proposed it. I think it helps avoid the current situation (where the occasional post at the sub projects is met by the deafening sound of crickets) and, to the extent it gets more people posting here, it helps widen the audience for issues related to the sub projects (and potentially gets more people involved). This change should be without prejudice to the future possibility that any of the sub projects might get particularly active with discrete activities that necessitate the re-establishment of their talk page. But we can play that by ear as time goes by. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I would keep the provincial ones separate. If I am going to organize something about Nova Scotia for example. I would rather that talk happen on that page away from all the noise that happens on this page. I can see redirecting some of the more generic ones to the main page. Things like the Ottawa ones I would redirect to the provincial page that is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The reason I brought this up was because of the province pages... we all talk here - thoses pages are dead.Moxy (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Just because they are dead doesn't mean they can't be useful. Just because you and some others use this page doesn't mean others might not prefer those pages. Its not like you all couldn't just watchlist those pages as well. Sort of defeats the purpose of having sub-projects if you take away their organizing space. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You are aware we are talking about just the talk pages (that are not used in some cases for years) - not the project pages themselves. Project pages will not change in anyway.Moxy (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of that. But the purpose of sub-projects is so that a subset of the main group of people can talk in a separate location to organize specific information to that sub-group. If you take away that talk space, you are effectively killing the sub-project. The whole purpose of dividing a Wikiproject into sub-projects/task forces is to take away talk specific to a subset of the articles and put it in another location. If you want to redirect the talk pages you are effectively ending the sub-projects/task forces. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No I am trying to keep them alive with more involved in the talks ...projects your referring look dead and have been tag thus way many times. Getting more involved will help the project over all I believe by making people aware of them. For instants Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada (last new member January 2010) will be a topic of great interest soon because of Ontario's new districts - but the project looks dead - so lets revive it and move the talk to the main Canada project so others can see the topic is not dead. I believe leaving this projects as is will not help them in anyway. 20:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You missed the point, the purpose of a having a separate group is so that the talk is separated from the general talk that goes on here at this page. If the projects are so dead that they can't be revived on their own then they should just be shut down period. Redirecting defeats the whole purpose of having a sub-project/task-force. If there is no talk page then there is no longer a sub-project and you might as well redirect all the pages to the Canada project. Now while some of them like the electoral district one and the politics one might be well served with a joint noticeboard as mentioned below, I then have to ask why do we even have two separate ones and why not just merge the four into a single entity called something like "Canadian politics and law" and still leave it with its own talk page. Personally I think having an electoral district task force is rather ridiculous on its own. The provinces I definitely think should be on their own and city projects merged into them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Good points - but as pointed out above - the talk pages your refereeing to are not used because we all talk here anyways - thus the projects keep getting tag as inactive (does this help the project - I think not). The proposes of the projects is for organization of topics - does not matter were talks happen - what matters is the amount of people involved. I simply dont see the benefit of small isolated talk pages that are not used. Just as we have to many Admin noticeboards - thing just get confusing if spread out over many pages when consolidation is easy. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No actually, its not about organization. The organization goes to help the discussions and work. But that isn't the main purpose of a wikiproject. Serial taggers often make that mistake. But the main purpose of a wikiproject is solely discussion in a centralized location for their scope of articles. The organization of articles is secondary to support that working together on their scope of articles. If anything things are much more confusing when you try and shove everything on one page and you have to try and find the stuff you are interested in amongst the stuff you aren't. I know I tend to avoid projects that mash too much stuff into one talk page. I know many others do as well, which is why WPUSA had a huge fight when they tried to start doing something similar to what you are now suggesting. I for one would stop using this page if this were to happen because too much stuff I am not interested in would be on this page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've no probs with the redirect proposal, Moxy. I'm not sure how folks at WP:QUEBEC would react, though, to having their talkpage or talkpages of other Quebec-related WikiProject, being redirected here. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think in some cases this is a good idea. However, wouldn't recommend merging all of them, because if you later wanted to get the attention of a specific group of editors, your message might get buried among more popular topics on this page. It might be a good idea to instead reduce ourselves to a small number of themed notice board. For example, WP:PPAP, WP:GOC, WP:CANELEC, and maybe also WP:CANLAW could share a notice board. As for the provincial ones, I agree that we don't need separate talk pages for the provinces with no active editing community, but it would be nice to keep some method of getting the attention of local editors. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This sound like a logical solution.....what do others think? We could link them up on this talk page at the top.Moxy (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose the city projects should remain individual, as Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal have a fair amount of local related traffic. And they did not sign on to WPCANADA, until it was forced down their throats by WPCANADA, so this is just another step in the forced WPCANADA assimilation of projects that were originally in the WPCITIES category tree. Further, I see no evidence of notices for WPTORONTO or WPMONTREAL. That you didn't even list which projects you want to merge here is very unfortunate. All I know is that you don't want to merge CRWP, CanadianAnimation, MilHist, Que/QWNB, CanFilm, Football here, but I don't know what else you want to merge or not, or if you forget to inform some projects on their talk page so I can't really tell from their talk pages either. Since you didn't list which projects are involved in this proposal except a few specific exceptions and a vague statement that others may be excepted, it makes little sense to support this without some concrete list. You linked to all the various projects related to Canada, but you're not suggesting that all of them be redirected here. Indeed the only projects that should be considered for this would be those with no activity for more than 1 year. Others should not be handled in such a general proposal, but should be individually proposed. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that many people here want to get rid of active talk pages unless they opt-in, so you don't have to worry about the city pages. This proposal is very different from the matter of the project banner. In that case, everything of interest to the city projects was also of interest to WPCANADA but not to WPCITIES, so it made sense for the city and country to use the same banner rather than having two banners on every page. Here, however, I think most of us can agree that there are big advantages to separate topic-specific talk pages when those topics have active editors. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment I notice that WP:TORONTO and WP:MONTREAL have not been informed, so your list of exceptions is not congruent with the projects that have been informed or haven't been informed. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If we are now casting votes, mark me down as oppose. I do not use this talk page as an alternative to my provincial WP talk page for topics exclusive to my province. I use this talk page for topics that are at the national level, or for topics relating to my provincial WP that may have implications for other sub-WPs of the Canada WP.
Also, as I’m more active at the provincial level rather than the national level, I prefer provincial talk pages and am more engaged and responsive to the less frequent discussions at that level than the more frequent pace of new discussion topics at the national level. Although I watch this page, most discussions here are of peripheral interest to me, if any at all. If there is a provincial discussion of interest to me, I don’t want to have to pick through the weeds to find it here (new topics getting buried among more other topics that are subsequently initiated). I would be more complacent and less responsive if all WP talk pages were consolidated. Consolidation may discourage talk rather than result in further talk… which brings me to my next point
A lack of recent discussion topics of provincial WP talk pages does not equal inactivity with the WP. Each provincial WP has been in place for some time now. During their infancies, much discussion was required to collaborate, coordinate and develop the articles within the scope of the WP. As these projects are now through infancy, less discussion arises and is needed to sustain the WP. Although there are only two relevant topics posted at my province’s WP in the past year, and not one since June, that doesn’t mean myself and numerous other member editors aren’t active in the ongoing improvement of articles within the scope of the WP. Essentially, the projects aren’t dead when there is a lack of discussion on their talk pages (I suspect that they were tagged inactive based solely on this measure) . The projects are dead when their members discontinue editing articles within the scope of the projects (a more appropriate measure of inactivity, albeit more time-consuming one to determine).
Understand that I do see some benefits to the proposal (e.g., wider audience), but I think the detriments significantly outweigh them. I also appreciate the frustration about the deafening sound of crickets. I recently heard a small colony of crickets at each provincial WP talk page when requesting their assistance to clean up their relevant sections at List of city nicknames in Canada. No assistance except for one noble editor out of Manitoba. What was more deafening was the lack of action resulting from posting the same on this talk page. Much more crickets, much more deafening. Hwy43 (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't this redirecting have to be opt-in? Despite all the crickets, these are legitimate WikiProjects with membership rolls. Autonomous even if overran by crickets. This is federalism gone mad ;)The Interior(Talk)06:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, most of these projects never actually asked to be part of this wikiproject in the first place. All that happened was that WPCanada decided they should all merge their talk page tags into one. (which I agree with). But they never really agreed to join this project. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It would absolutely have to be opt-in for active projects, we're not going to ask groups of editors to give up their notice boards. I think the question is: should we point dead talk pages here so that editors who stumble upon the project get a faster response? A second question would be about merging similar talk pages like PPAP, GOC, and CANELEC, but that would be up to the editors of those projects. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I see this is not going to go anywhere - As one of the people that maintain the projects - I will continue to remove the inactive tags when added and will continue to redirect unanswered questions to this notice board. The Status-quo is fine - I guess - if its going to make people upset.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have requested that the articles Loonie & Toonie be moved to their proper names of Canadian 1 dollar coin & Canadian 2 dollar coin. Although they are widely used nicknames they are just that, nicknames. This is an encyclopedia and they should be listed under their proper names with their nicknames mentioned in the lead and info box. I don't think either Misplaced Pages:Common names or Misplaced Pages:Official names applies here. Your comments are encouraged. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
power station -> generating station. British English/Canadian English_generating_station._British_English/Canadian_English-2012-10-21T08:02:00.000Z">
This is Skookum1, I'm not logging back in but I happened to see the imposed usage of "power station" being applied to the texts of articles in the "power stations" categories. I';m in no mood to have to deal with the Requested Moves forums again, and in this case was insulted and overruled by the Brits and Americans who dominate those discussions, and told that because we had been part of the British Empire that although "powerhouse" is used for American categories, and I was the sole CAnadian in the discussion, THEIR ruling was binding.....it's stuff like this that made me decide participating in Misplaced Pages further was a waste of time. This one was really grating though, as my father was with BC Hydro and I was raised in and around many of these places, which formally are called "generating station" in CAnadian English, and informally power plants or powerhouses. NEVER "power station" except a very few places in Ontario and Saskatchewan. What's worse? "original research" because I know my own English, or being told that a Canadian has no say over the consensus of American and British Wikipedians who didn't want to admit to an error? Anyway on the Ruskin Dam article (where I was raised) and the List of electrical generating stations in British Columbia articles I have removed uses of "power station" which had apparently been imposed by someone who figured that was correct because the categories are incorrectly titled....one of those changes was of a redirect in the See Also using the incorrect usage.....these categories, and related ones for other provinces, all need changing:
The sources all use "generating station" or "powerhouse" or "power plant" other than the aforementioned exceptions. Apparently that's not good enough for the CatMove people....Canadian English is supposed to apply to Canadian articles and categories; they don't think so....112.209.20.226 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)_generating_station._British_English/Canadian_English">
_generating_station._British_English/Canadian_English">
