Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
| Main page | Talk page | Article alerts | Deletion talks | New articles | Vital articles | Featured content | Canada 10,000 | Portal |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5. | |
List of Canadian project articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025
edit | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Currently, this project has about ~66 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, please check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined for doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.
These articles could use some attention
- 1988 Canadian federal budget
- Cliff Thorburn
- George Simpson (HBC administrator)
- Human rights in Canada
- James Penton
- Monarchy in New Brunswick
- Monarchy of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces
- Municipal government of King, Ontario
- National Hockey League
- Newfoundland French
- Oath of Citizenship (Canada)
- Ontario
- Ottawa River timber trade
- Peace–Athabasca Delta
- Petitcodiac River
- Pierre Trudeau
- Pith and substance
- Politics of Canada
- Populism in Canada
- Portuguese Canadians
- Poverty in Canada
- Prehistory of the Canadian Maritimes
- Premier of Ontario
- Premiership of Danielle Smith
- Premierships of Pierre Trudeau
- Project Surname
- Racism in Canada
- Selected timeline related to orphan wells in Alberta
- Slave Craton
- Société des alcools du Québec
- Spencer Creek (Ontario)
- St. Jacobs, Ontario
- Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage
- Steeles Avenue
- Succession to the Throne Act, 2013
- Summit Series
- Thomas Simpson (explorer)
- Timeline of Canadian history
- Timeline of First Nations history
- Viva Silver
- Walter Gretzky
- West Asian Canadians
- William Mulock
- William Ronald
If someone could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Addition of protest content at Jaye Robinson
editWanted to draw some attention to Jaye Robinson. Arjun G. Menon has repeatedly added content calling her a NIMBY, citing blogs and Reddit as sources. Have noted Wikipedia:Reliable sources and tried to start discussion on the talk page, am ignored and met with reverts. In the interest of avoiding 3RR conflicts, I am going to step back from this, however, the protest content and unreliable sources should be addressed. WildComet (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like you point to any edit which cited Reddit as a source (that's a lie). What's true is that you've repeated deleted a valid paragraph that me and User:Gommeh wrote, with a political attempt to whitewash the biography of a controversial deceased person. I was never notified of any discussion on a talk page (but I've actually replied to it already). I think I'm stepping back from this as well.
- On an unrelated note, typical Wikipedia etiquette is to use a user's talk page to notify a user of a article talk page discussion. WildComet instead chose to drop two separate accusatory disruptive editing template messages starting with a "welcome to Wikipedia" to an editor who has been editing Wikipedia for 17 years. I don't believe for a moment that WildComet had any intent but to disruptively delete content they don't like manner, and all-round communicate poorly intentionally, to push their agenda. Arjun G. Menon (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I also deleted your edit. Please do not use blog posts as sources. Moreover, the photo of the plaque here isn't an official plaque; it's probably some AI creation. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Magnolia677 appears to me (of course, I very well could be wrong on this) an alternate account of WildComet.
- I also deleted your edit. Please do not use blog posts as sources. Moreover, the photo of the plaque here isn't an official plaque; it's probably some AI creation. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- They seem to use a similar style on talk pages as WildComet, e.g. titling a new topic on a user talk page "July 2025" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo218&oldid=1301395202#July_2025 (as they did to me) and casting similar accusatory aspersions and inappropriate warnings. They've used this account to make reverts to the article, with a timing to the revert that's suspiciously close to the other user's edits.
- Multiple factors, as such, indicate to me that the same person is behind both Magnolia677 and WildComet.
- However, I'm not going to engage with this further. This is not worth my time. Arjun G. Menon (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Arjun G. Menon: I agree with the removal of that material. It's not a real Heritage plaque. The content was unsourced when you edit warred by adding it four times, and when you finally did add sources they were to non-reliable substack posts. Doubling down by suggesting that the other editors are socks of each other based on very flimsy evidence is not a good idea. I suggest that you retract that immediately. The "Month year" header is nothing but a standard, automatic header inserted by Twinkle when leaving a warning. Both of the of the users were using Twinkle. Meters (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, my suspicion retracted. I wasn't aware of the Twinkle thing, as I've never used Twinkle. The inappropriate warnings still are a red flag though. Most editors don't thrown these kinds of inappropriate warnings at other editors. Arjun G. Menon (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Arjun G. Menon, you might also want to remove your edit here where you called me a "multi-armed bandit editing from multiple accounts.". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's a good point, those warnings are definitely not appropriately worded. If you need to warn someone about something, a perfectly acceptable way to warn them is to use a user warning on their talk page if you're not sure how to word it in a respectful way. In my opinion, the example below is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL.
- Sure, my suspicion retracted. I wasn't aware of the Twinkle thing, as I've never used Twinkle. The inappropriate warnings still are a red flag though. Most editors don't thrown these kinds of inappropriate warnings at other editors. Arjun G. Menon (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Arjun G. Menon: I agree with the removal of that material. It's not a real Heritage plaque. The content was unsourced when you edit warred by adding it four times, and when you finally did add sources they were to non-reliable substack posts. Doubling down by suggesting that the other editors are socks of each other based on very flimsy evidence is not a good idea. I suggest that you retract that immediately. The "Month year" header is nothing but a standard, automatic header inserted by Twinkle when leaving a warning. Both of the of the users were using Twinkle. Meters (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out earlier Reddit and blogs are not reliable sources. Especially in a BLP, you want to pay extra attention to make sure you're only using reliable sources and not self-published ones. That's my two cents, as an American I'm not going to comment on this much further. Gommeh 🎮 23:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Also OP I'd like to second this as well: it's perfectly possible you didn't know I was involved, but just to make sure you're aware, it's customary to let any involved editors know there's a discussion going on a noticeboard like this one. I was only notified about this after @Arjun G. Menon posted me about it on my talk page. Gommeh 🎮 23:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out earlier Reddit and blogs are not reliable sources. Especially in a BLP, you want to pay extra attention to make sure you're only using reliable sources and not self-published ones. That's my two cents, as an American I'm not going to comment on this much further. Gommeh 🎮 23:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Inappropriate warnings
editnot the place for this
|
|---|
|
As an aside, summary Magnolia677 (as well as WildComet) has been throwing inappropriate warnings, which I feel is abusive and rude towards other editors. Magnolia677 been warned about it multiple times on his talk page. A few quotes:
I would request a look into Magnolia677's conduct and behavior, especially these inappropriate warnings being thrown towards other Wikipedia editors. Arjun G. Menon (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC) |
- Arjun G. Menon (now ArtistProgrammer) has been CBANned. Meters (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I welcome all editors to join and voice their opinions on a new lead image proposal for the Town of Ajax PascalHD (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for James Naismith
editJames Naismith has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Canada has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Blue Sea, Quebec#Requested move 4 August 2025
edit
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blue Sea, Quebec#Requested move 4 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 08:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
We currently have an article at Bill 24 about some legislation in Nova Scotia. As most of you know, the name "Bill xx" is used across the country by most provinces for legislation that's not yet enacted. In this case, the bill has passed 3rd reading, but my issue is its post-enactment name. It's rather long - apparently it is "Temporary Access to Land Act and Joint Regional Transportation Agency Act (amended)" My question to the team is whether that's an appropriate name to move the article to, or is there a better alternative. Your thoughts? PKT(alk) 20:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- The article name should probably be the statute's name, despite its length. As a note, there are a few more of these articles: Bill 104, Quebec, Bill 124, Bill 178, Bill 28 (British Columbia), Bill 2, Bill 47, Bill 78, Bill 86, Bill 99, Bill 92. Also Bill 586 from France. Caddyshack01 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK - the deed is done for Bill 24 ........PKT(alk) 15:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Canadian Jewish News#Requested move 30 July 2025
edit There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Canadian Jewish News#Requested move 30 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Perimeter Highway#Requested move 1 August 2025
edit There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Perimeter Highway#Requested move 1 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
New article: 2025 Air Canada flight attendants' labour dispute
editIf anyone has time and interest, I'd appreciate your attention at 2025 Air Canada flight attendants' labour dispute.--User:Namiba User:Namiba 14:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Victims' names at 2020 Nova Scotia attacks
editThere is a discussion at Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks#Should we include a list of victims? which could use additional eyes, and comment, whatever side folks come down on the content/inclusion issue. Essentially, there were discussions which at least in my view seemed to indicate a lack of consensus to include names, first in the month after (May 2020), and then a few since (see talk page). It seems most of the victims names, besides perhaps involved officers, were omitted for much of the articles history. At some point, a reference was made to the victims names having been spoken in the Nova Scotia legislature (by the Premier) and that the names could be found there, and then in December 2024, an editor added them in this edit (without other discussion as far as I can tell), and shortly later that was made into a list by another editor. That seems to have been the stable version (or more or less the stable version) since. What discussion there has been on the talk page, seems to be mixed. In the earlier discussion there seems to be more against inclusion. A discussion in 2022/2023, was a bit more mixed in my view. Of course, I understand that there has been a push before and since not to "glorify" perpetrators (or those accused) and/or to honour the victims in some way (eg 2022 Buffalo shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings etc). How we reconcile that with privacy concerns (some of the victims were not killed in the attack so WP:BLPNAME may apply), and/or the spirit of that guideline and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, may be the question for us. Anyway, I would appreciate all input and perspectives on this. It may be a consensus to include names will quickly arise at the article talk page (or that an unexpressed one already exists). I just think it is best for there to be a clearer consensus on the talk page (one way or the other). Please sound off there. Thanks.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Intro of provincial district articles
editWe have (District #) in the intros of Prince Edward Island's (27) provincial districts.
- Example: "Alberton-Bloomfield (District 26)..."
I've noticed this isn't done for provincial district article intros, of the other provinces. Should they be? @Earl Andrew:, your input is welcomed here. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- It has been my experience that only PEI refers to its ridings district numbers interchangeably with the riding names themselves, sometimes exclusively. For example, Elections PEI currently has links to the results of their most recent by-elections on its main page, but doesn't even mention the riding names at all. Just the District numbers. I'm not opposed to adding them to other provinces' riding articles, but to me, PEI stands out as using District numbers the most, and thus warrants their inclusion in their articles.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do other provinces even use district numbers? If the provincial returning officer uses numbers and names, we should do both. If just a name in their webpage, then we should just do name. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nova Scotia and New Brunswick do, though they aren't used as prominently as PEI. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do other provinces even use district numbers? If the provincial returning officer uses numbers and names, we should do both. If just a name in their webpage, then we should just do name. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
NDP critics of the 45th Canadian Parliament
editDespite losing official party status, the New Democrats announced the critic portfolios of their current MPs on May 28, 2025. Should an article titled New Democratic Party Shadow Cabinet of the 45th Parliament of Canada be created or is it not notable enough now that party status was lost? Alternatively if the article should exist, maybe it should be namedd something else as no sources seem to refer to it as a shadow cabinet, likely due to the fact that it's only 7 people. RedBlueGreen93 15:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I thought the terms "shadow cabinet" and "shadow minister" was specifically the the Official Opposition, while other parties in opposition just have critics. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have seen it presented both ways in the media. E.g. here's some stories from 2019 (when the NDP were not the official opposition) where Jagmeet Singh's frontbench was called a shadow cabinet (1 2). Even the Green Party claims to maintain a shadow cabinet that advises Elizabeth May despite only May holding a seat. Ultimately in Canada, there doesn't appear to be any official recognition of a shadow cabinet (unlike the UK) so the proper name for a collection of party appointed critics is really entirely up to the parties themselves, and "shadow cabinet" seems to be a very commonly used term regardless of the party's status in parliament. RedBlueGreen93 22:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was just looking at ParlInfo for the Minister of Ag and Agri-Food. It uses “Shadow Minister” for the Conservatives (two, one for Ag and one for Rural Development, which are both part of the Minister’s remit), but “critic” for the NDP and BP. That suggests “Shadow minister” is for the Official Opp critics only.
- See: https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/Federal/areasResponsibility/profile?depId=427
- Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well thank you for bringing this to my attention, I was not aware. Maybe we should ping some of the other primary contributors to those articles and see if we can get some consensus on this. That said, this isn’t really what my initial question to the project was about. In the meantime I’ll probably make an article about the NDP critics, and there can be further discussion in the near future about how these articles should be named. RedBlueGreen93 10:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have seen it presented both ways in the media. E.g. here's some stories from 2019 (when the NDP were not the official opposition) where Jagmeet Singh's frontbench was called a shadow cabinet (1 2). Even the Green Party claims to maintain a shadow cabinet that advises Elizabeth May despite only May holding a seat. Ultimately in Canada, there doesn't appear to be any official recognition of a shadow cabinet (unlike the UK) so the proper name for a collection of party appointed critics is really entirely up to the parties themselves, and "shadow cabinet" seems to be a very commonly used term regardless of the party's status in parliament. RedBlueGreen93 22:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Treatment of bills (Proposed legislation)
editI have a proposal, following on the post by {ping|Caddyshack}} up above about bills. Just listing bills by their number is not very helpful or informative; they don't give the reader any idea about the subject matter, the legislature where the bill was considered, or anything, really. I think it fails WP:CRITERIA: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects."
As well, there are some bills that were never enacted, but their article title refers to them as Acts, which suggests that they were enacted and are laws. That is not accurate, and to my mind fails WP:COMMONNAME, since it is not accurate: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"
I would suggest a new naming convention for bills in Parliament or legislative assemblies. The article name would be "Bill ##: Title of the bill". That would make it clear what the subject matter was, and also that it was a bill, not an act.
There is also a category for Proposed legisation of Canada. It's been a mixture of federal and provincial bills. I've created two new sub-categories: one for proposed Quebec legislation, and one for proposed Ontario legislation. (I've started wtih those two because they were two I found in the Category : Proposed legislation of Canada.) I'll go through the list of bills that Caddyshack mentioned and categorise them now, to aid in finding them. I won't change the names of any bills unless there is a consensus to do so. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Caddyshack01: New and improved ping Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here’s an example of my proposed new naming approach for bills. I moved this article to the proposed format when I first came across the issue a few days ago: Bill C-398: An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (Internet neutrality). Previously it was “An act to amend etc,” making it look like the article was about à federal statute, which is not correct.
- Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Adding @PKT:, since they raised a similar issue about the Nova Scotia article that was titled as a bill, but then got Royal assent, so changed it to an Act. I think that approach makes sense: if an article starts out about a bill and then it gets passed, we should drop the “Bill ##” from the article name. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I just went through that list of articles on Bills provided by Caddyshack01. Every one of them is no longer a bill; each one is a law. Following the approach taken by PKT in the Nova Scotia example, I think each of them should be renamed by the title of the act, with a comment in the lead "colloquially referred to as Bill ##" or some such. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not much to add from me. As I wrote earlier, "Bill xx" and "Bill C-xx" are ambiguous titles, because the bill numbers get re-used..... PKT(alk) 23:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think including "Bill XX:" at the beginning of the article name is fine if the Bill was never passed by the legislature/parliament, although I do not think it will be always necessary. An article can be stand-alone with the name of the bill rather than including the number. My caution would be if a bill is passed, the name should be changed to remove "Bill XX:" to reflect that it was passed. Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, should be moved if the bill is passed, as PKT did with the Nova Scotia article. The problem is that bills don't have names other than the proposed name as an Act, so if we don't include "Bill" in the article title, just the proposed short title, it looks like it is an article about a law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I just went through that list of articles on Bills provided by Caddyshack01. Every one of them is no longer a bill; each one is a law. Following the approach taken by PKT in the Nova Scotia example, I think each of them should be renamed by the title of the act, with a comment in the lead "colloquially referred to as Bill ##" or some such. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Adding @PKT:, since they raised a similar issue about the Nova Scotia article that was titled as a bill, but then got Royal assent, so changed it to an Act. I think that approach makes sense: if an article starts out about a bill and then it gets passed, we should drop the “Bill ##” from the article name. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Election tables in city articles
editSome of thee city articles have election tables like this:
| Year | Liberal | Conservative | New Democratic | Green | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 23% | 94,886 | 39% | 160,938 | 32% | 133,984 | 0% | 1,933 | |
| 2019 | 23% | 100,759 | 52% | 231,813 | 21% | 92,733 | 2% | 10,264 | |
However, on some monitors the black text on the coloured background is hard to read. I was wondering if something like below would be better:
| Year | Liberal | Conservative | New Democratic | Green | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 23% | 94,886 | 39% | 160,938 | 32% | 133,984 | 0% | 1,933 | |
| 2019 | 23% | 100,759 | 52% | 231,813 | 21% | 92,733 | 2% | 10,264 | |
CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Text on coloured backgrounds needs to conform to the accessibility standards at MOS:CONTRAST and MOS:COLORS. If not, it should be changed. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- The second one with the regular cell backgrounds for each year is much better and easier to read. Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely agree that the second is an improvement, but I think the party names are now hard to read against the background. I would suggest a layout that either uses vertical colour bars, or one that uses the pip from the Template:Canadian party colour. I can't figure out a way to display them properly on this page, so I put them on User:Kawnhr/sandbox2. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Yours are much better and of the two I prefer example 1. Does anybody have any idea why they are sorted in that particular order? Shouldn't they be alphabetical or by result? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's in order of standing in the House of Commons, but ordering by results isn't a great idea since parties will wax and wane but the table has to be in the same order. No objection to putting it in alphabetical order.
- Actually, I'm just now noticing how weird that coloured bar by the year is. Initially I thought it was indicating the winner of the election, but that's not right, because the Liberals won in those years… so I guess it's indicating which party won in Edmonton, but that's redundant when we can see that from the table. Either we should remove that or adjust it to instead display the election winner. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Yours are much better and of the two I prefer example 1. Does anybody have any idea why they are sorted in that particular order? Shouldn't they be alphabetical or by result? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely agree that the second is an improvement, but I think the party names are now hard to read against the background. I would suggest a layout that either uses vertical colour bars, or one that uses the pip from the Template:Canadian party colour. I can't figure out a way to display them properly on this page, so I put them on User:Kawnhr/sandbox2. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
"Unreferenced Canada articles"
editWithin the past 24 hours, a user created Category:Unreferenced Canada articles and started going around adding [[Category:Unreferenced Canada articles]] directly to the bottom of articles as an unhidden maintenance category. Equivalents like Category:Unreferenced Germany articles and Category:Unreferenced United States articles, however, clearly show that it's a category for the talk pages, not for the articles, and is meant to be automatically transcluded via the use of "unref=y" code in a Wikiproject banner rather than by manually adding the category to the bottom of the article.
As of right now, however, {{WikiProject Canada}} doesn't even have code in it to generate that category at all.
So I wanted to ask: do we want this category — it's allowable, but would we actually use it? — and if so, then could somebody who's more knowledgeable about template coding than I am edit the Wikiproject banner to enable that functionality? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm supportive of this idea. I recently went looking for categories that sort Nova Scotia articles by their maintenance tag, and was kind of surprised to discover that we don't seem to have any kind of internal tracker for such things across the WikiProject. I'd take it further than just "Unreferenced Canada articles" and also have stuff like "Canada articles needing updates", "Canada articles with original research", etc. Would be most ideal for tidying things up. MediaKyle (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
- We have so many articles that we sort by cleanup type . you can add Nova Scotia articles ....see User:CleanupWorklistBotMoxy🍁 12:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
The article Crash Adams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Promotional and does not demonstrate relevance.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Rainbow crossing (Toronto)
editRainbow crossing (Toronto) has been nominated for deletion, if any notice board participants are interested in weighing in or helping to improve the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
The case of Hugh John MacDonald and Hugh John Macdonald
editRecently I came across Hugh John MacDonald (Alberta politician) and Hugh John Macdonald (Edmonton politician). This seems like an insufficient way to disambiguate the two men, because the Edmonton politician was also an Alberta politician… not just in the sense that Edmonton is in Alberta, but because he was also in provincial politics as an MLA.
WP:NCPDAB says that, in instances where the people have the same name and profession, to fall back on birth years. So Macdonald (Alberta politician, born 1898)
and MacDonald (Alberta politician, born 1911)
. But it also warns that this is generally not helpful and a last resort, so I'm wondering if anybody has an alternative. Would it be preferrable to have Calgary MLA
and Edmonton MLA
, like with John Smith (Kent MPP) and John Smith (Peel MPP)? — Kawnhr (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I loathe using years as dabs, so agreed that we should avoid it. I think the easiest solution is to move Hugh John MacDonald (Alberta politician) to Hugh John MacDonald (Calgary politician) (or Calgary MLA). The other Hugh John MacDonald was also a municipal politician, so I disagree with using "Edmonton MLA" as a dab. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it's a problem as currently set out. I like Earl Andrew's suggestion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, everyone. Since the Calgary one was only elected provincially, and per pages like John Smith (Peel MPP) and John Robertson (Glasgow MP) that are use the job title in the disambiguation tag, I went with Hugh John MacDonald (Calgary MLA). Also, doing the move really confirmed it was necessary: in the process of cleaning up redirects, I found a few links to "(Alberta politician)" — that is, the Calgary one — that were actually referring to the Edmonton one! — Kawnhr (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well-done! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, everyone. Since the Calgary one was only elected provincially, and per pages like John Smith (Peel MPP) and John Robertson (Glasgow MP) that are use the job title in the disambiguation tag, I went with Hugh John MacDonald (Calgary MLA). Also, doing the move really confirmed it was necessary: in the process of cleaning up redirects, I found a few links to "(Alberta politician)" — that is, the Calgary one — that were actually referring to the Edmonton one! — Kawnhr (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it's a problem as currently set out. I like Earl Andrew's suggestion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Calvin McCarty
editCalvin McCarty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
WCNA 2026 community input survey
editHi folks,
Wikimedia Canada is looking to organize the 2026 edition of WikiConference North America (WCNA) in Edmonton! We want to make sure we incorporate input from the community in our planning and have created a short survey to gather feedback (available in English, French, and Spanish). If you might be interested in attending the conference in 2026, we would very much appreciate you taking a few minutes to complete the survey by September 2, 2025. The link is available on the Wikimedia Canada website.
Cheers - Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu
editIs Richelin, Quebec J0J 1R0 a typo or an alternative name for Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu? The postal code indicates it should be Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu but I can;t find a Richelin. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's a mispelling of a military post office called Richelain in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. I did a search on the Government of Canada site and found the two results for Richelin had the same address and postal code as Richelain. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for that. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Naming convention of shadow cabinets
editFor each parliament, we seem to have articles for the shadow cabinets of each major party since 2006. This includes the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet Cabinet, and then similarly named articles for the opposition critics of third and fourth parties (e.g. New Democratic Party Shadow Cabinet). The Library of Parliament only seems to consider the Official Opposition bench as a shadow cabinet, with their members being referred to as shadow ministers, while all the other opposition parties's frontbench members seem to be refered to as critics. In a different discussion a few days ago, @Kawnhr: seemed to suggest suggested that only the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet Cabinet should be known as such due to the Library of Parliament distinction. I am not entirely opposed to this and we could follow the British convention of naming the other opposition benches something else such as "Bloc Québécois frontbench team". However, secondary sources still tend to refer to the minor party opposition teams as shadow cabinets (e.g. the Globe and Mail and Global News). Any thoughts on such a change or is our current convention acceptable.
In addition to my first question. I would also be in favour of re-oragnizing all the shadow cabinet articles to be named after their party leaders rather than each parliamentary term, similar to the British convention. Many of the earlier articles we have such as the Liberal Party Shadow Cabinet of the 41st Parliament of Canada only list members appointed by Justin Trudeau after 2013, and a title such as "Shadow Cabinet of Justin Trudeau" or "Frontbench team of Justin Trudeau" may be more appropriate. It seems that there is more of a turnover in membership following a leadership election rather than a general election. It may be a lot of work but I think it would be more sensible in the long run. Any thoughts? RedBlueGreen93 15:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)