We've been uncapitalizing prime minister of Canada & deputy prime minister of Canada in the respective bios of the individuals that have held those articles. Why then 'now', are a few editors forcing capitalization at Chrystia Freeland? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't follow closely but I recall a discussion on a very similar topic recently, which I see you were involved in. I suppose that once again consensus on this topic wasn't found. I don't imagine there's much for this wikiproject to do about that. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
"Prime Minister of Canada" is a job title, much like "President of the United States of America" is. If you're going to uncapitalize one, you need to uncapitalize the other as well for consistency's sake. --Rob Kelk 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
President of the United States uses a lower case p when it is not starting a sentence, and that convention appears to be consistent. Editorial guidelines in news outlets appear to use the same: lower case for the position name (prime minister of Canada), upper case when used as a personal title (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.8.91 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Need some outside assistance/opinion on content dispute
Can I get some eyes over at Ontario Highway 8 and the associated discussion at User_talk:FobTown#Highway_7187? I am trying to explain WP:UNDUE to this editor without much success. Rather than pile on experts in the subject matter and drive the editor away, I'm hoping someone more removed from the subject might offer some assistance. - Floydianτ¢ 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I have chimed in at that talk page. Regards, Aloha27 talk 01:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This has continued to spill out to numerous good and featured Ontario highway articles, particularly Ontario Highway 409, Ontario Highway 427 and to a lesser extent (because I just get reverted so they are just steamrolling though) Ontario Highway 401 and Queen Elizabeth Way. This is getting incredibly frustrating and I'd rather dedicate my time to improving lacklustre articles than having an unending content dispute with a new user. I have tried policy, I have tried offering alternate agreeable solutions, I have tried several times to have discussion take place on talk pages, I have brought this up here, on the user's talk page, at the administrators noticeboard, and I'm sure one of the other dispute resolution processes. At this point WP:BRD is wasted air, WP:3RR doesn't favour the status quo, and I'm edit warring with someone who does not seem as though they will ever get the point... or maybe I'm being the douchebag and I should go report myself at the edit warring noticeboard (I just can't be bothered with the forms...)? - Floydianτ¢ 20:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've issued a warning on User_talk:FobTown's talk page. If that has no effect the next stop will be AN3. Regards, Aloha27 talk 00:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Manic GT in Oshawa
Hello. I'm looking to improve the article on the little sports car with a great name, the Manic GT, that's turning 50 this year. I know there is a model exposed at the Canadian automotive museum in Oshawa. If someone has a picture of the car, they are welcome to upload it. --Webfil (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The museum is closed for now or I'd walk down the street and snap a picture for you. I've asked some local car-aficionados on Facebook if they have pictures of it. - Floydianτ¢ 23:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: A friend of the curator is going to get me a few pictures next time they check in on the place. - Floydianτ¢ 01:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Floydian: thanks a lot, looking forward to that. --Webfil (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Webfil: so the car is indeed in storage to make room for an exhibit on GM Canada. However, the museum curator Alexander Yates was happy to provide a photo of it. I don't deal with OTRS because their mountains of red tape makes me want to smack someone... but if you get issues from the assume-bad-faith copyright ninnies, I can have him send them an email. - Floydianτ¢ 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I spoke too soon. Apparently there are editors that spend their entire time here assuming bad faith. Now I get to harass the person who was kind enough to dig out a photo that they took, to email to me, that doesn't appear on the internet, because some wannabe lawyer can't find proof on the internet that the image is by the person that I uploaded the image credited to. - Floydianτ¢ 19:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I put that based on the EXIF data. According to the author this is an old photo from when it was on display. - Floydianτ¢ 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Doug Ford
A newish user named Fumarolo has added the phrase "hash dealer" to the introduction of Doug Ford's article, ahead of even identifying him as a politician or naming his political office. I reverted it as not critically important enough to merit mention right in the introduction, but they then reverted me "just so someone else can review", stating that "it should be stated in the intro since he is a current premier and hash dealer is unacceptable while in office". Except that there's no source on earth that has ever claimed he dealt drugs while in office; that claim is limited to stuff he did as a teenager. Which means that if there's a place for content about his hash dealing past in the article, it's in the "early life" section, not the intro. I've reverted a second time, but if they revert-war me again I won't be able to undo it without tripping WP:3RR — so is anybody else willing to help monitor this? Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
For added bonus, Fumarolo's edit history has so far consisted predominantly of adding the phrase "convicted drug dealer" to Jodie and Marc Emery, making unsourced claims that Justin Trudeau is "a potential bisexual" just because he did a meet-and-greet at the Fountainhead during Vancouver Pride (oh, noooooo! straight politicians never do that!), and trying to remove the words "Hazel" and "McCallion" from Hazel McCallion with the obviously false claim that she's known only by her maiden name Journeaux. And in just one week of being registered, they've already managed to accumulate one 31-hour temporary editblock for some of their stuff. In other words, not an editor who's adding a lot of valuable or worthwhile content to Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I suspect he's heading towards a block. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no justification for adding this to the lead. Added to my list. Meters (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The lad's been indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Another of the WP:Soldier deletions. Canadian soldier in WW I. Article is minimally sourced and in need of a transfusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hate to say it but he doesn't seem notable. I don't see anything in there that would qualify him for an article on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tailtalk 14:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Jeff Skoll honors
Hello! I posted a new request to update "Honours and awards" in the article about Canadian film producer and philanthropist Jeff Skoll for others to consider. I work with the Jeff Skoll Group. With my conflict of interest, I will be careful to work with Wikipedia editors to build consensus on updates in place of directly editing the article. Thank you. JSG Lindsey (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Royal Victoria Yacht Club (England) appears to have no, or virtually no relevance to this project, other than to say that the RVYC in England preceded the RVYC in Canada by nearly 50 years. The English club does not have the word England in it, no more than the Canadian club has Canada in it. Perhaps there ought to be page name changes or perhaps it doesn't matter but marking the page as relevant to Canada seems misleading. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The editor who put a WikiProject Canada banner on Talk:Royal Victoria Yacht Club (England) was mistaken, and I've changed it to WikiProject England. Thanks for pointing this out. PKT(alk) 13:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks and good wishes Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This has come up many times in the past article by article. We have many Canadians that have "Canadian-American" in the lead because they hold America citizenship. This really only happens on pop stars...like singers, actors and sports figures. Most of our bios on historically significant people dont have this. I can appreciate that Americans have an different view on citizenship vs nationality but should we apply some sort of standard? I am reminded of the endless attempts of trying to add "American" to Albert Einstein and Alexander Graham Bell with no luck....but with (In my view) resulted in a great way to handle nationality with one saying "was a German-born" and the other saying "Scottish-born..". At Elon Musk they solved this problem by a small blurb in the second paragraph. At Kiefer Sutherland they also have a nice way of doing this that explains a bit. What do others think here? For example Michael J. Fox or Alanis Morissette both avid about being Canadian.. who became famous in the states and acquire American citizenship but long after becoming famous in both countries. What is best way forward here? Should we have everyone with American citizenship listed as Canadian-American? Was thinking " Canadian-born, American actor etc....." As I did here (note previous edit summary)- is it a pop culture problem that citizenship is in the lead like this? As seen above an at other FA and GA articles with historical Canadians like John A. Macdonald we are much more clear.--Moxy- 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Deciding what nationality goes in the lede is arbitrary and based on a case by case basis. I'm not sure if you could set a standard for all people from Canada with dual Canadian and American citizenship. There's no standard for Americans and other people who have dual or multiple citizenship either. Some get described as being both American (or whatever) and another country and others are only American or another nationality. The following subjects aren't Canadian, but have had extensive discussion on what the ledes should say about their nationality: Natalie Portman, Max von Sydow, Timothee Chalamet, Kirsten Dunst, Julianne Moore, Tina Turner, Liu Yifei and so on. Perhaps it's worth noting that many of the Canadian actors/singers/etc who also have "American" in their lede are also active in and or reside in America as well, and WP policies do state that other nationalities can be listed if it's relevant to the lede. Compared to many others who have dual citizenship, but were born/raised/reside in/most active in the country of their birthplace/original citizenship (like America or Canada, etc, if that makes sense). See the hidden note in the lede of Dunst's page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
We also have a problem when they have 3 or more citizenships. Thinking best we do a fix of wording as much as we can MOS:BIOLEAD. Avril Lavigne is where the most current rfc is at about this current problem...long live Paul Anka!--Moxy- 05:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup different in every case at Michael J. Fox editors still don't understand the difference between nationality and citizenship. We're probably just have to accept fly by editors making votes based on American National social constructs.--Moxy- 00:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone help me delete a comma?
Over at The Famous Five page, there's a summary of the Persons Case. There's a nice block quote from Viscount Sankey, who gave the JCPC decision, in a quoting template. Problem is that the template seems to be inserting a comma after his name: "— John Sankey, 1st Viscount Sankey," I don't know how to fix it so the comma doesn't pop up. Or, is there an alternative quote template that could be used that doesn't have the comma? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Fixed it. The issue was arising from the use of the the "source=" parameter, which isn't meant as a source in the sense of "the citation" but as in "the context of when and where this was said". Template:Cquote has the example of Albert Einstein, in a letter to his son, where "source=" is "in a letter to his son". So I removed said parameter from the template code and included the reference right after Sankey's name, eliminating the unwanted comma. Hope this helps! — Kawnhr (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Quick question about a recent development within the past two weeks: is there any compelling reason why we would need two separate articles about National Arts Centre for the theatre company, and National Arts Centre (building) for the brick-and-mortar facility that they perform in? I'm not seeing one, there's a fair amount of overlap between the two topics, neither article is so very long that a splitout would be needed for size management purposes even independently of the partial content duplication, and this was started by a user based in Belgium who may not be as authoritative judge as Canadians are of whether we need this or not. But obviously, I wanted to solicit some outside opinions from other project members before trying to merge them unilaterally: do others agree with me that this is unnecessary and should be collapsed back into one article, or is there a valid basis for two separate articles here that I'm not seeing? Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bearcat - I agree with you. This version before the Belgian editor did the split appears to be of a reasonable length, in my opinion. PKT(alk) 16:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to reach out to that editor, User:Beireke1, to ask why they did it, before undertaking a merge or merge process. --papageno (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
IMHO at 20 kB (total article size) that is well too small to justify a split, as described at WP:SPLIT. Now the solution is rather simple in that the edits can be reverted and the (building) page can either be deleted or maybe kept as a redirect (though it's frankly an unlikely search term). I've left the editor a notice on their talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Best keep as one subject....no point in making readers runaround to find info.Moxy- 03:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear all, the reason to split out the initial article comes from this issue that we observed in a Wikidata data modelling project on performing arts data. Wikipedia articles are linked to a Wikidata item. That is a one to one relationship. This means that every topic in Wikipedia should correspond to a concept described as an item in Wikidata. Arts organisations and architectural structures seem conceptually too different to describe in one Wikidata item, as explained in the page linked above. As a test, I tried to split out the articles of some of these cases to keep both the articles and the links to Wikidata as clean as clean as possible. I understand that it may seem a bit unusual from a pure Wikipedia perspective, but from the point of view of the Wikimedia ecosystem as a whole, I (and the people within this project) believe that it makes sense. The only alternative to this that we see is to allow a one to many relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles, so that multiple Wikidata items could link to the same Wikipedia article. Beireke1 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I think there was a workaround for this by using redirects on Wikipedia; I cannot recall exactly how it was done, but I think it involved creating a new article for the second concept (e.g. the building), linking it to the corresponding Wikidata item, and the defining it as a redirect. Unfortunately, there is currently no standard way, at least to my knowledge, of disentangling concepts on Wikidata (which is direly needed) without running the risk of breaking some of the interwiki links on Wikipedia. At the same time, from a Wikipedia standpoint, it may be legitimate to treat several concepts (e.g. organization and building) in one and the same article if there is insufficient content matter for two or more separate articles. --Beat Estermann (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Then what would currently be the best way of dealing with the problem on a semi-large scale (hundreds of items, with great variety of linked articles in different Wikipedia language versions)? I don't see much activity after this discussion was closed. Beireke1 (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Beireke1: I think there is two different things here. To split the Wikidata item into two items makes total sense. But, doing the same thing in Wikipedia EN is not as good. Because of other concerns than data logic. Also, if you split the page in Wikipedia EN, why not also split the page in Wikipédia FR? And all the other languages… I wouldn't bound the 2 together. Changes on Wikipedia are not forced by Wikidata, they are independents projects. Regards, Antoine2711 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if it's helpful for me to weigh in, but these are two different things. The National Arts Centre as an organization is conceptually different from the National Arts Centre as a building. I actually think it would be fine to have articles on different topics in Wikipedia. The building is used for lots of things unconnected to the organization and has its own history. The building is its own thing. I would be really very happy with two separate Wikipedia articles and I'm happy to work on this. I don't see the advantage of having one article, certinaly this shouldn't be base on length. Either way, two separate Wikidata items. --Smallison (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I did the same on the French Wikipedia pages, but of course there will be similar topics where I don't master all the languages in which there are articles. So I would be very much in favour of a one to many relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles. And if the community decides that this kind of articles can't be split, we will have to make the very difficult decision in Wikidata which item to use to link the article to. As Wikidata Q-numbers are often used to pick up and reuse Wikipedia content, I would prefer to keep the relationship between concepts in both projects as clear as possible. Beireke1 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I am no WP expert, so I will not comment on whether a single or two articles are needed for Wikipedia users. But I've spent enough time in Wikidata to attest that fuzzy and/or conflicting interwiki links are a real challenge when attempting to achieve conceptual clarity in Wikidata. I fully agree with User:Beireke1 that one-to-many relationships are needed because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, was never meant to achieve the level of granularity that Wikidata, as an RDF-based knowledge base, was designed for. Let's take the National Arts Centre as an example. No later than yesterday, I created individual Wikidata items for each individual department of the National Arts Centre Corporation: French Theatre, English Theatre, Indigenous Theatre, Dance, NAC Present. This would be completely overkill in Wikipedia. But it is absolutely necessary in Wikidata in order to accurately match these Wikidata items with external base registers and directories of all sorts. Moreover, each NAC department has its own artistic director and has full autonomy to act as a producer or presenter of live performances. This level of detail is important for performing arts archives. The same goes with the NAC building, which is comprised of four distinct performance spaces. No need to create a Wikipedia article for each one. However, each one needs its own Wikidata venue item (still on my to-do list) to support several cultural consumption use cases (i.e. geofencing individual spaces within the larger building). Wikidata is meant to examine parts of the elephant and link them into a whole. Wikipedia... well, as I said, I'm no Wikipedia expert. But interwiki links absolutely need fixing (and the redirect process described in the Bonnie & Clyde problem doesn't cut it for me). Fjjulien (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles follow Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy on splitting is WP:SPLIT, which doesn't mention Wikidata or the Bonnie & Clyde problem. If the Bonnie & Clyde problem is significant enough that Wikipedia policy should be changed to help resolve it, a larger discussion should be raised on updating WP's policy, but until then it shouldn't be a reason to structure Wikipedia articles in a certain way. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@M.nelson: Ok, I understand. What would be the place to raise a discussion about the need for a one to many relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles, so that multiple Wikidata items could link to the same Wikipedia article? Or can we find out whether it has already been raised before? Beireke1 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Any reason why the current articles on regional municipalities include numbers when seemingly that is not the COMMONNAME? - if it's disambiguation, the better practice would be the standard parentheticals. If you have no clue what I'm talking about see the litany of requests at WP:AFC/R (starting with that one) for context. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, I believe you meant to refer to rural municipalities. See past discussions to implement the current approach here and here. Bottom line is there are so many competing variants for common name by rural municipality (RM) that it is impossible to determine and confirm the common name for each, and the common name confirmations would be inconsistent across the >300 existing and countless other historical rural municipalities with numbers in their official names. The consensus was therefore to simply go with the official names for each RM. There was an attempt in 2019 to move County of Minburn No. 27 to County of Minburn that failed. As for the RM-related requests at WP:AFC/R, I see the value in creating most if not all the requested redirects. Don’t understand why the formal requests are being made in that venue when the redirects could simply be created boldly by the editor (unless IPs don’t have such permission). I wish that user would register as many of the editor’s good faith edits are problematic, which could potentially be overcome with improved communication potential. Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hwy43: I was stubborn for about 4 years before getting an account (see, that got me no good - apparently not being completely clueless is suspicious)... Anyway, no, IPs and non-autoconfirmed users cannot create anything in the main (article) space. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation, but that's old news. I'll implement the requests then, and leave a message for the IP. I just wanted to know what I was doing, since I'm a fair bit away from Saskatchewan and in my corner of the woods we have MRCs so... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, RandomCanadian. I just placed messages on the talk pages of eight of nine of the IPs I believe to be the same editor presenting the benefits of a registered account. On the ninth I witness a block by Stwalkerster (see here), I believe due to the use of a WP:PROXY, which blocks account creation. Not sure if that applies across the other IP addresses. Hwy43 (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian:, just a courtesy heads up for you to check the new thread below as it relates to the above. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Roscoe Fillmore
An article under this WikiProject's jurisdiction, Roscoe Fillmore, has been nominated for deletion. You can comment here.--User:Namiba 19:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Help in merging two articles about the same Canadian lake at WP Egyptian Arabic
I posted a request to help merge two duplicate, bot-generated articles about the same Canadian lake in the Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic encyclopedia at WikiProject Egypt at the beginning of February, but there has been no response. The link to the request is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt#Requesting help in merging two articles in the ARZ Wikipedia. I do not speak Arabic so any help would be appreciated; are there any Arabic speakers here who might be able to offer assistance? --papageno (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
HMCS Wallaceburg (J336)
Talk:HMCS Wallaceburg (J336) has a hidden copyright violation notice. It should be visible as a cleanup message on the article page, but it is instead hidden on the talk page. As it dates from 2011, this clearly is really in need of addressing. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I see the notice on Talk:HMCS Wallaceburg (link above is the talk page of a redirect). The offending content was removed from the article in 2012, but I've requested revdel of the history which contains the potential copyright violation using {{Copyvio-revdel}}, per WP:Copyright problems#Suspected or complicated infringement. Once that's complete we can remove the talk page notice. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: The copyvio in 2011-2012 has been revdel'd; I've removed the notice on the talk page. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I've added a medical case chart and a photo I took back in May. I'll help out with future updates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Major awards for Canadian artists
Hi everyone. It's Art and Feminism edit-a-thon season so I'm trying to brush up on what constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" for purposes of establishing notability among Canadian artists. Are all the awards at List of Canadian art awards considered well-known and significant? Is anything big missing from that list? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll vouch for anything in that list that's sponsored by a provincial or federal government institution. I can't vouch for anything that isn't. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Notability criterion for Judges
Hi all. Some of you may recall we had a discussion a couple of years ago about the notability requirement for judges. To the extent we reached a consensus, it was that the issue was the presumption of notability for some judges and not others at "Notability (people)." It's taken me a couple of years, but I've finally got around to raising the issue over on the Talk page for that guideline: https:/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposal_to_restrict_notability_criterion_for_Judges . Would welcome any comments anyone may have about the proposal, pro, con, or neutral. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
proposal to change image for Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada
Current image
Proposed image
In 2009 I added File:Aboriginal War Veterans monument (close).JPG to Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada when we got Indigenous peoples in Canada to GA level. I am proposing that we change this - for 2 reasons - not sure a veterans memorial is appropriate to represent all Indigenous Canadians and the fact it does not have the "Official" symbols of the 3 aboriginal groups. I am proposing to use File:Transparentadicon.png that has the 3 recognized Indigenous Canadian symbols (as presented here) all incorporated into a red maple leaf - our national symbol that was chosen to show one country and did so to remove any colonial symbols from our national flag.[1] - [2]. As a member of the Kanyen’kehá:ka community I am bringing this here because I get very offended when people refer to the maple leaf as a colonial symbol - a symbol that my grandfather wore into battle and is on his grave stone because he fought and died for this country.--Moxy- 18:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Proposed image v2
I objected to this change because I don't think it's appropriate to represent Indigenous people with a canadian state symbol, due to the colonialist relationship between Canada and the indigenous I people. In 2015, the United Nations Human Rights committee published a report enumerating multiple human rights violations of indigenous people in Canada [3]. The final report of the National inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found that Canada was engaged in an ongoing genocide of indigenous people. [4] As such, I suggested the use of the an image with a turtle instead as a reference to Turtle Island. However, I would not object if only the wheel at the center of both icon be used.
I appreciate you sharing the story of your grandfather, and the story of indigenous veterans is why the war monument was somewhat appropriate for this template. Just keep in mind that many indigenous people don't feel the same way about canadian state symbols. Mottezen (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Calling Bull shit on your POV - find a source that says what your saying. Real facts are Canadian flag is an important part of indigenous heritage [5] ...so much so that there has been a movement to change the flag ...but making sure its still has a maple leaf in it because of its meaning. [6]. The design with the turtle looks nice but its only represents one northeastern myth...plus not sure why we should give undue weight by having 2 first nation symbols - while omitting any Canadian connection when the article is about all "Canadian" Indigenous peoples". An advocacy POV based on no sources is never the way to go. --Moxy- 20:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't need to look any further than this article you linked, with the quote "It is Canada Day. Remember that we live on stolen land and there is nothing to celebrate." The author likes to another article in the same publication: "The Chronicle Herald apologized for publishing a Canadian flag. For the artist's design, the creator "recognized himself as a Canadian and First Nations Canadian and infused his dual identity into his work, reflecting both his cultural heritage and the current nation" meaning the current flag represents only "the current nation" and it needs to be amended to include his "cultural heritage".
Additionally, defacing the Canadian flag to protest for indigenous rights have become more common in recent years [7][8].
Removing the Maple leaf would not remove the "canadian connection" from the template. Using the three officially-recognised indigenous symbols in Canada is sufficient. The Metis flag is not used for mixed-heritage peoples anywhere else in the world.
I hadn't seen this poll before, so I'm less opposed to the image you're proposing as before. Times are changing though, and this poll is a bit dated. But before linking this poll, I need to say that An advocacy POV based on no sources is what you were doing, not me. All the sources you linked before that were unrelated to the conversation. Mottezen (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
So I think we are good to go. Only source we have is some child vandalism to show distain vs national polls and the reason behind the flags creation with no colonial imagery and no race symbols (that for some odd reason you find not relevant).--Moxy-
Mottezen and Moxy. I only just noticed this. I would say no to the turtle. Turtle Island only represents some First Nations and does not feature in Inuit culture at all. I'm unsure if it features much in Métis culture. If you want a symbol that is more widespread among indigenous Canadians, then a raven. Although commonly thought of as a west coast First Nations symbol it also features in Inuit, Cree, Dene legends and right across to the east coast. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Not seeing a valid reason not to change...but the current image has served us fine for years. Perhaps best to just keep it as is in case others like Mottezen who are not familiar with the meaning behind the imagery associated with our flag may take offense.--Moxy- 00:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Dr. David Williams
I've started a bit of a stub article for David Williams (physician), Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario. It has been slapped with some BLP issues (not a lot of google work can get some bio info on this guy). Happy to have other editor's eyes on it. Cheers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Chetwynd, British Columbia Featured article review
I have nominated Chetwynd, British Columbia 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
They indeed appear to be disruptive. If they continue its a candidate for WP:AN/3RR; and then if their IP proves to be changing faster than before it is a case of semi-protection required. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisted both articles. Persistent vandalism should be taken to 3RR per RandomCanadian. Builder018 (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian and Builder018: thank you both. Coincidentally I tried to apply a fourth level disruptive editing warning using Twinkle and it doesn’t exist. So once a disruptive editor gets a third level warning it appears Twinkle deems further disruptive editing as vandalism. Regardless, I agree with the NOTVAND assessment. Hwy43 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hwy43: That's because of 3RR - if they've made more than 3 reverts; they can usually just be reported to the edit warring AN board (above). Anyway, if the templates run out, it's always a possibility to make a short (as to not waste too much of your time) message explaining why, both for AGF purposes and for avoiding technicalities. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: unfortunately with the way things go with this editor, I will always be the first violator of 3RR and punishment might boomerang. I realize there are exceptions for blatant vanadalism but it is evident here that things are grey between disruptive editing and vandalism. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, RandomCanadian. Check this incivility: [10][11]. Persistent disruptiveness and incivility increasingly shows the editor is WP:NOTHERE. I will request a block tonight. Hwy43 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Since been WP:AIVed. About to surveil all the other damage done in the last 24 hours. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: And apparently no action out of ANI aside from archiving. Puzzling and disappointing yet Wtmitchell did block the IP for one week vandalism. Maybe the block was upon review at ANI or Wtmitchell stumbled across the IP via other means and blocked by coincidence. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing that SPI can do for IPs, and they all geolocate to Alberta anyway so it is probably the same person on a dynamic IP (basically the same information CUs could give you, me thinks). If you want to check the ranges that would be Special:Contributions/70.64.0.0/12 and Special:Contributions/2604:3d00::/28 (you'll need something more precise in any case). If they keep coming back the pages can be semi-protected, but that shouldn't be required for now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not really. They can do a range block, if it's an associated range, which is what it seems like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, started a section in Talk:Local government in Canada about merging these two articles, they seem to be pretty dead so I thought I'd post here as well. WildComet (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
University of Windsor - date of establishment and former names
Hello all - there's been a "discussion" via competing edits (boy, is that ever euphemistic) in University of Windsor regarding how to best represent its origins in the infobox. Its history has been a matter of evolution with different names and responsibility. Would editors experienced in similar situations please chime in at Talk:University of Windsor#Date of establishment / Former names ? Thanks in advance! PKT(alk) 01:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
BBC Kids
FYI, there is a discussion about the use of BBC Kids (formerly a Canada-only TV channel; now an Australia-only TV channel), see talk:BBC Kids -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Bad Omen
Yesterday, I created a stub article about a short film, Bad Omen (film), that got a Canadian Screen Award nomination earlier this week — however, an anonymous IP has already edit-warred me twice to remove some information from the article. The first time they did it, they used no edit summary at all to explain their actions, and the second time they claimed that they were removing "spoilers" — but the information they were removing is just a simple plot summary directly referenced to a public interview that the filmmaker conducted about the film's own base themes, and is thus hardly a "spoiler" since he talked about it himself in a public forum. And furthermore, even if it were a "spoiler" Wikipedia doesn't actually have any rule against "spoilers" in the first place — our articles about films are allowed to reveal the "plot twists" (assuming this was even a "plot twist" in the first place, which it's not at all clear that it would be) and the onus is on the reader to avoid reading the article at all if they're concerned about spoilers, not on us to refrain from spoiling anything.
But since it's not clear-cut vandalism, I can't revert them a third time without tripping the WP:3RR wire, and since it's a brand new article I just created yesterday it doesn't have very many watchlisters yet. So I wanted to ask if anybody is willing to add this to your watchlists and help keep an eye on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The economics in canada article currently says that Canada is a market economy. But the Canadian Encyclopedia says that Canada is a mixed economy [12]. So what type of economy is Canada exactly? X-Editor (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm weary about the fact that the source for that [13] is dated 2001 - a lot has changed since then. Considering the opening line of "mixed economy" says "A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise." And that a "mixed economy" is used to describe our closest trading partner, the United States I would argue it is indeed a Mixed Economy and the previous source for "Market Economy" is outdated. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I’ll go ahead and make the change! X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
A number of COVID-19 articles have fallen into neglect
The following articles have become quickly outdated (I'm sure due to pandemic fatigue) if any editors (especially from their respective provinces/specific regions) would like to try to clean any up, especially general timelines or ledes that would help make the whole COVID-19 in Canada project look nicer :)
Hello, can I get some thoughts about Inuit clothing before I toss it up for GA? It was getting rather large, so last night, I split it into two articles, Inuit clothing and history of Inuit clothing, but now I'm having second thoughts. The diff before the split is here - that version was just over 10,000 words, while the split version is now 7800. Should I keep it split, or self-revert? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Abraham Lake
Hi all! I was actually watching a video the other day about dangerous bodies of water and stumbled across this [peculiar man-made lake]. I was wondering if anyone who has gone here before would like to contribute some more information regarding their experiences visiting this place. I personally want to check it out sometime as well :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldearf0 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Photos of cricket grounds
Hello WP:Canada members. I'm just over from the Cricket Project. We're looking for editors to take pictures of cricket grounds which have hosted major matches at international/domestic level. Here are some cricket grounds, both located in Toronto, which we currently do not have photos for. It would be greatly appreciated if any project members living locally to these grounds were to dust off their cameras and take some photos! The two cricket grounds are about 3km apart. Thanks in advance. StickyWicket (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Moved to talk:Regional municipality
Done.JPG)
