Talk:Canada/Archive 10

message: Created 01:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Granted, "Canadian culture" is an elusive concept, but the absence of any reference to the vast cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada -- and this is not a reference to cultural differences from a political perspective -- mis-informs.  If the following phrase, "Many cultural products are now marketed toward a unified "North American" market," is included, it must be accompanied by the statement that a unified North American market does not include the province of Quebec which has had to develop, for example, its own French language "star" system that is almost entirely divorced from what could rightly be refered to as the more integrated English-speaking North American market.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to start this section of the article off with one of the most interesting features of "Canadian" culture which is the fact that it is difficult to define because it is not unitary.  This is to say that by creating the category "Canadian culture", the editors pre-suppose something for which there is no consensus in erudite Canadian circles; if anything, the national unifying malaise is a lack of distinctly uniform Canadian culture. --Philippe90210 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of Canadian culture belongs in Talk:Culture of Canada. Remember WP:NPOV  Avt tor 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I've removed your additions, with the exception of the bit about religious rights. Please see the "What is Canadian" section for details. --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Culture

message: This image is currently a featured picture candidate. Due to a large influx of new candidates there are very few votes for this image. If you have an opinion on this image please go to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kwakwaka'wakw big house and cast your vote. HighInBC 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kwakwaka'wakw big house

message: "Canada became a Permanent Observer at the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1972, and then joined as the 33rd Member State on January 8, 1990." (Government of Canada) http://www.international.gc.ca/aboriginalplanet/750/around/international/aroas-en.asp
and "The Organization of American States" http://www.oas.org
Would we be able at this point to include "The American State of Canada" as the 33rd Member State? Intuitionz 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean listing Canada in the article at Organization of American States, it's already there; otherwise, I don't understand what you mean or why you think Wikipedia would use the phrase "The American State of Canada" to denote anything. I'll be charitable and assume you're aware that the OAS is an organization of all of North and South America's independent countries (except for Cuba), and has nothing to do with constituent states of the USA. Bearcat 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Canada's LEGAL status in continental America" is as a sovereign nation or country. while attempts at precision and classification are welcome, listing canada as an american state makes about as much sense as listing esperanto as a canadian language. it can be argued as technically true but has no actual relevance. -- Denstat 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, the Government of Canada's website is at . Canada's been part of the America's as long as it's existed. It's membership in a particular organization has nothing to do with anything. What point is it that you're trying to make? --Q Canuck 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: Canada's been part of the America's since 1990. Persuent the Organization of American States I just thought we could include Canada's recent membership of America. Intuitionz 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying Canada wasn't part of the Americas until 1990 is like saying Norway isn't part of Europe, because it's not part of the European Union. The Americas are a geographical landmass. Membership in an international organization doesn't change what continent you're on. --Q Canuck 12:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you provide source?Poaseo 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't know if the statistics as cited are accurate, but the simplest explanation is that the areas described by "160km from the US border" and "the Quebec City-Windsor corridor etc." overlap.  People in Montreal, for example, would be counted in both.  That being said, the phrasing is awkward and redundant.  I'd suggest:  "Roughly three quarters of Canada's population is concentrated in the urban centres of three areas: the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor (notably the Toronto-Hamilton, Montreal, and Ottawa census metropolitan areas), the BC Lower Mainland (Vancouver and environs), and the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.  Almost all of these are within 160 km of the U.S. border." --Nephtes 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The American State of Canada 

message: What does the logo represent?
The four colours indicate the four main languages spoken throughout the hemisphere: blue (French); red (English); gold (Spanish); and green (Portuguese). That all four appear in both north and south America symbolizes both the widespread use of English and French in the south, and the growing interest among Canadians to learn about Latin American and Caribbean culture.
: Could you provide source?Poaseo 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: The Demographics part of the article tells that three-quarters of the population (in Canada) lives within 160km from the US. border. Then it says "A similar proportion live in urban areas concentrated in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor (notably the Toronto-Hamilton, Montreal, and Ottawa census metropolitan areas), the BC Lower Mainland (Vancouver and environs), and the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor in Alberta."
A similar propotion to what? to me it seems like that within the 160km and in the urban areas there live six quarters of the Canadian population, witch is a 50% more than there actualy is in whole Canada. I did not change this, since my non-english background may confuse my understanding of this sentence. 
Snalin 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if the statistics as cited are accurate, but the simplest explanation is that the areas described by "160km from the US border" and "the Quebec City-Windsor corridor etc." overlap.  People in Montreal, for example, would be counted in both.  That being said, the phrasing is awkward and redundant.  I'd suggest:  "Roughly three quarters of Canada's population is concentrated in the urban centres of three areas: the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor (notably the Toronto-Hamilton, Montreal, and Ottawa census metropolitan areas), the BC Lower Mainland (Vancouver and environs), and the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.  Almost all of these are within 160 km of the U.S. border." --Nephtes 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: six quarters?

message: I corrected vandalism. Other users please note and monitor.Avt tor 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I had thought that Dominion of Canada was still the formal and official name of Canada, but it is not mentioned in the first sentence. Is this no longer so? DragonRouge 22:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the subsection on "Origin and history of the name", and/or the separate article Canada's name. Bearcat 22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that! Thanks. DragonRouge 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This issue has been discussed at great length at Talk:Canada's name, Talk:Canada's name/Archive and Talk:Canada's name/Archive2. Ground Zero | t 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the links! Interesting discussions. DragonRouge 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is the contradiction? Both articles make identical statements that "the Canada Act 1982 refers only to "Canada" and, as such, is currently the only legal (and bilingual) name. " It's ungrammatical (I'll fix that) but it isn't contradictory. Eron 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada's name says "While no legal document ever says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada, Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country". Carolynparrishfan 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence is bizzare, how else can a country define it's name if not through legal documents. Surely we the treaties we sign with other countries would both be a legal document and contain our official name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also rubbish. Extensive investigation has shown that Canada's name is nothing but 'Canada'. This was settled long ago. The sentence seems to have been removed now. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "official titles of the country" is problematic. I think the point is that Canada is still sometimes called "the Dominion of Canada" or referred to as a "Dominion", although this is falling into disuse as time goes on. I think the situation is analogous to a person's name; someone whose legal name is "John Smith" might from time to time be called "Mister John Smith," or "Doctor John Smith" or "Captain John Smith." His legal name remains the same in all cases; it's simply a question of adding a title. As the BNA act referred to the creation of a "Dominion" called Canada (as opposed to a "Kingdom", or a "Republic"), the word Dominion has at times been used as a title to accompany the legal name. In our informal times (when was was the last time you called anyone "Mister"?) that title is increasingly dropped. Eron 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not entirely correct. Canada was a colony of Britain until 1867, when it became an independent country. At the time of independence, the country was described as a Dominion; I am not aware of any reference to Canada as a Dominion prior to that time. Similarly, Newfoundland was called a Dominion from 1907, when it ceased to be a British colony, until 1949, when it became a province of Canada. It is contradictory to say that Canada was at the same time "its own country" and "under direct political control and financial support" from Britain. While full constitutional independence was not achieved immediately, it cannot be said that Canada was under the political control of Britain after July 1, 1867. Eron 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So Talk:Canada's name, Talk:Canada's name/Archive and Talk:Canada's name/Archive2 isn't enough consideration? The content and length of these articles seems to assume that it wasn't so idly cast aside without due consideration. Disinclination 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I recommend ignoring ArmchairVexillologistDon. He was one of the people arguing for 'Dominion of Canada', but since he lost the argument he is now reduced to flinging around terms like 'historical revisionism' and 'black list' to imply that the results of the debate were unfair. However I must admit writing key terms in blue in order to make them look like links is a new low. DJ Clayworth 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal name

message: In the introduction "[[ colonial empires|Canada" was the original markup, which simply made a mess, displaying the two opening brackets due to no closing brackets.  I removed the space and changed it to "Canada", which simply resulted in "Canada" being displayed as the link ... so I removed the pipe and now colonial empires displays properly.  But I'm not sure if that is the proper markup, as it may refer to any colonial empires (with no Canadian context).
Sorry, but my editing comprehension around the possibly billions of internal links, pipes, etc., isn't up to speed with the potentially billions of hours it'll take me to ever figure it all out.
If anyone could help to clarify or fix up the edit, well at least it reads properly now instead of showing markup brackets and right in the intro within 10 seconds of reading. Someone must know how it was/is supposed to be.  Thanks in advance for taking a peek. --S-Ranger 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial empires edit summary didn't display properly; confused. 

message: Hi all.  I just removed Judaism from the paragraph regarding religions under Demographics.  I want to be clear that this is not anything to do with any desire to decrease the profile of the religion.  Here's my rationale: First, stats:
Christianity: 77%
Islam: 2.0%
Judaism: 1.1%
Buddhism: 1.0%
Hinduism: 1.0%
Sikhism: 0.9%
Other: 0.3%
None: 16.5%
See? Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism are so close by numbers that unless we're going to list all four, I don't think that we should list any.  ...and if we're going to list all four, then we should just have a table. I think there would be a valid argument to remove Islam as well, as it's one-thirty-eigth the size of the first place, but there is an argument for it as it does have almost twice as many as the rest of the "pack". AshleyMorton 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think the demographics section is too long (as are some others). The religion paragraph is OK, but I would trim down the Christian/Catholic/Protestant phrase. Such fine-grain details belong in the Demographics of Canada article. Mindmatrix 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and I would support the cutting down of other sections as well (especially the History section). -- Jeff3000 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many religions to list in Demographics paragraph 

message: I just noticed that the list of ethnicities in the demographics section adds up to Canada having %126.6 of a population. Is the census wrong, or do people get listed as multiple things (i.e., Irish-Scottish)?--Moncubus 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the source of the data Stats Can, you can notice that all the ethnicities adds up to 44,099,260, much higher than the total population of 29,639,035, so that would imply that people could check multiple ethnicities. -- Jeff3000 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's correct — a person of mixed Irish/Scottish heritage would count as one Irish and one Scottish in the demographic data, so it adds up to more than 100 per cent. Bearcat 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics Math Problem

message: I believe that it is important to indicate or at least to think about why there are so many issues between the English and French culture in Canada. Without saying that one group is better or worse than the other one, and without denigrating each other, I just think that we should write on why the Quebec's sovereignty movement exists, and why it is so omnipresent in the province of Quebec. There is misunderstanding between both groups. The reference about that issue is everywhere in Quebec, ask any sovereingtists and you'll get the answer. It is not summarized in only one book that one person wrote. We only have to watch TV and watch the political debates about that issue.
As a Quebecer myself, I can tell you the view of a French Canadian. I'm not a sovereigntist and I've never been one, but I can tell you that I'm an activist and even though French and English are both official languages, Canada is not a bilingual country. As French speakers, we are not even able to travel around Canada and easily live in French in other provinces, whereas an English speaker can easily live in English anywhere in Quebec, no matter how big is the majority of French speakers in the city where he or she travels. As former Prime minister Trudeau has already said, Canada would be a bilingual country if Anglophones made as many efforts to learn French than Francophones do to learn English. With that in mind, how could a French speaking Quebecer be attached to the rest of Canada if he or she is not even able to live in French anywhere in its own country?
Canadian politics doesn't considered the French Canadian culture at a fair value because the English Canadian group is much greater than that of French Canadians. Therefore, in that political situation, democracy alienates the French Canadians, especially the Quebecers. And true liberal democracy is not omnipotent. Why does Quebec mostly stand as a dissident in most interprovincial and federal collaborations? Because the decisions are made in accordance with the majority, and since the nine other provinces are English provinces, they have similar views on many issues that differ from the French view of Quebec.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.210.166 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi.  Please see Wikipedia:No original research -- we cannot come up with our own arguments and ideas from our general background knowledge.  We attempt to create an encyclopedic summary in our articles, citing references for the views and facts that we include.  Also, keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia:Summary style article about the entire country.  Detailed analysis, properly referenced from reliable sources, should go into the Quebec sovereignty movement article.  Thanks.  Jkelly 22:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec's sovereignty movement 

message: As far as I know, New Brunswick is the only legal province that is bilingual (has both French and English as official languages. Is this not a good fact to include in the introduction when it talks about Canada being bilingual? btg2290 02:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already mentioned in the article.  The lead should be a general description, and such details are left to the body of the article.  Please read Wikipedia:Lead section.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Manitoba is also a bilingual province. However, after the Constitutional Act, they were permitted to... by-pass? ... that requirement. It is mentioned on the Manitoba article as Official languages 	English and French, per mandate of the Constitution Act 1982. Disinclination 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the Constitution Act 1982 has nothing to do with it.  Manitoba is not officially bilingual, but (like Quebec) it must publish its laws in both languages. See Manitoba Act and Reference re Manitoba Language Rights. Indefatigable 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really should have edited that. In any case, its all a matter of -where- French is used officially, or not. I still think it should be noted in this special case. Along with other articles on bilingualism. It should be mentionable enough. Disinclination 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying a place is bilingual or officially bilingual do not necessarily mean the same thing. Montreal is bilingual despite being in an officially french province, and many other areas are similarly bilingual without a law telling them that it is so. In BC, being in a bilingual country doesn't mean a whole lot in everyday life, except for what I read on cereal boxes, and personally, I try not to spend too much time in federal institutions. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia on government, and I believe articles should similarly be general, (and agree with Jeff3000).  Bobanny 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilingual Province(s) 

message: I've heard that marijuana may or may not be legal? Can anyone clarify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.253.171 (talk • contribs) .
:It's not legal as of yet, though some political parties are pushing to decriminalize possession of small amounts of it. -- Jeff3000 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there was some federal legislation introduced a few years ago to decriminalize possession of small amounts (and to increase penalties for dealing), but it died because it didn't get passed before that session of Parliament ended.  It certainly wasn't Ontario-specific.  Generally, in Canada the federal gov't has exclusive power to legislate criminal law.  --thirty-seven 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marijuana?

message: ALL of the images are broken. on every page on this site.... Zazaban 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is working now. HighInBC 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images.

message: What vandalism has anybody done, if it's an insult to Canada by probably Americans, then screw them.
Yeah! You're right! I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but to those that vandalize stuff like that, they are retards! I don't wanna swear, cause I might get blocked, but the thing is, they're are disrespecting Canada! You can't blame me for saying mean things, because it's harsh to hear that kind of propaganda towards the peaceful country. Basically, (Most)Americans are dumb. I'm saying most because there are some Americans on my fav NHL team. An example of a good American is Patrick Eaves. Basically, America sucks. Oh yeah, I wish I could vandalize the America page, it's just that I'll get blocked.... That's be a taste of their own medicine!Hasek is the best 20:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the vandals, folks. Just watch the article, revert their changes, and warn them (warning templates can be found at WP:Templates; if they do it too often, report them to WP:AIV and they're likely to be blocked. They're just vandals, nothing serious. I also recommend not being insulting about other nationalities, or anyone, really. It's not really productive. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lets remember to remain civil...even in the face of uncivil behavior.  Furthermore, making "personal" attacks is not helpful...It would be best of follow the vandals and file a complaint to get the person(s) blocked.  I agree with Tony Fox on this.  DPetersontalk 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, good points, but I think the original poster - from Surrey - is likely just trolling. That comment seems a little misplaced. CMacMillan 01:34, 25 October 2006 
(UTC)
Okay, sure then. Hasek is the best 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: You know, if I came to this article looking for the names of the provinces of Canada, it could take quite a while. Lots of place names are used with the assumption that a reader will already know whether a city, province, or whatever is being referred to. And once I find a link to the provinces of Canada article, it still takes quite a bit of scrolling and reading to find them. --JimWae 19:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bad suggestion, and yes, provinces joined confederation, not administrative divisions. They just may not have been provinces of Canada at that point. CMacMillan 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the section can be named Provinces, people who don't know that provinces are administrative subdivisions may find it initially confusing.  As for the tables, if I remember correctly, featured articles recommend prose instead of tables or lists. -- Jeff3000 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The opening paragraph of the "Administrative divisions" section reads "Canada is composed of ten provinces and three territories. The provinces are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. The three territories are the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon Territory." I'm not really sure how that could be made any more clear. Eron 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Our audience is not solely to Canadians, and I would doubt that most English speakers in the world, and/or all Wikipedia users know that Provinces are the subdivisions in the country, so I believe that the current title is the appropriate one.  And I find tables ruin the flow of the article, especially given the relatively large table that would be produced by the provinces and/or territores.  -- Jeff3000 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't like tables or lists, and would rather have prose, even it's a list that's written like prose.  From Wikipedia:Embedded list "As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. ... Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."  Also this is a summary style article; not all that information should be included.  The tables are available in the daughter article Provinces and territories of Canada. -- Jeff3000 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Look again at Wikipedia:Embedded list - it recommends that when the contents are the same in paragraph or list form, that list form be used rather than paragraph form --JimWae 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I recall that there used to be a table listing the provinces, but it made a real mess of the article. --gbambino 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some ambiguity as to what the term "administrative division" means?  It's the sixth item in the table of contents, and one can easily click on it if one would like to know the names of Canada's administrative divisions.  As Eron noted, its opening paragraph is very straightforward; there's even a map.  There's no need to include a table for a mere thirteen provinces and territories. -- WGee 01:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm...  I definitely Support using "Provinces and Territories".  I think that having a general rule is silly - some countries shoot directly to the county/municipality level from their national government (meaning they may have hundreds of first-level divisions).  At the other extreme, Belgium has only three.  Clearly, for Belgium, all of the divisions should be listed and discussed in the main article.  For Russia, their 88 "Federal subjects" should not even be listed.  However, Canada lies in between, at a level (10/13) where we should probably be listing and giving basic information, but not really discussing.  In addition, I would suggest that it is too narrow a definition to suggest that Provinces are just *not* administrative divisions.  I believe that calling something an adminstrative division necessarily makes no comment at all about it's existence as it's "own entity". AshleyMorton 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Many Americans don't even know that Canada has "provinces" instead of "states."  We are targetting a world-wide audience, and in my opinion the best terminology to use so that most people understand what the section is about is the current title. -- Jeff3000 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly Support the useage of Provinces and Territories. Yes, we are targetting a world-wide audience. But they are referred to as territories and provinces respectively in Canada. I don't want to dumb down this information just so people who are, quite frankly, too ignorant to learn it. Disinclination 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The majority, if not all, country articles use administrative divisions as the section header. I randomly searched Turkey, Iraq, Portugal, Mozambique, and Argentina. Why sould Canada be an exception? Joelito (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eron is right.  There was no consensus for the change, and Wikipedia:Embedded list explicitly states that "having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better.  I'm going to revert it back.  -- Jeff3000 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better. In some cases however, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence, compare:"
Both are lists, but list style rather than paragraph style is easier to read & find --JimWae 04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree, the list style breaks up the article, and makes it look unstructured.  In my opinion it makes the article harder to read.  -- Jeff3000 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like someone said earlier in the talk, it had been done before, and it made the article, to put bluntly, ugly. Disinclination 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also of the six editors who have commented above about the way the paragraph is structured, list in prose or list in list style, five of them are ok with the way it is currently. -- Jeff3000 04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your interpreation of Wikipedia:Embedded list.  In fact I read the opposite way, and as mentioned above the consensus is to keep it the way it is. -- Jeff3000 04:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest we make one of those seperate discussion/vote (don't know the actually name, sorry) pages where everyone can vote and decide on what to do, and make a reference back down to this specific point of the talk page. Disinclination 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provinces 

message: I added some un-necessary corrections about the "Canada" IPA in French, editing [kanada] to [känä'dä], as that vowel in more or less centralised in French (as in most other languages). I also added a stress mark because words do have an inherent stress in French, but it's only pronounced when the word is at the end of a group of words.
Call it zealotism, but I strive to make IPA transcription the more complete possible.
Valkari 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, in Canadian French "Canada" is pronounced [kanadɑ](which is considered archaic in France.)  Should this be the pronunciation listed at the top?  Confiteordeo 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I pronounce it and have always heard it pronounced in Canada. Luigizanasi 01:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to change it, then, since I think the Canadian pronunciation is more appropriate than the European one for this article.  I also found a reference for it, but it's in print... Confiteordeo 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation of "Canada" in French 

message: It appears that this article is slowly accumulating more footer templates, yet again. We've already had this discussion, but...which templates do we eliminate, if any? Some can and should be moved to sub-articles (for example - countries of the Atlantic Ocean to Geography of Canada, or something similar). Opinions? Mindmatrix 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is below the content, why does it matter if there is alot of it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brevity. Relevance. Readability. Avt tor 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the navbox galore is getting ridiculous. Many would better be suited for sub-artilces (like Geography, Politics, History, Military or Culture). --Qyd 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are annoying, but I've converted the final few that weren't by default in their closed state to being closed, and thus limited their annoyance.  I do favour moving some out though. -- Jeff3000 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template creep

message: The animated gif of the territorial evolution of Canada is messing up the formatting, causing a gap in the text between the "History" heading and the text of that section.
I think this is a cool animation, but I don't know if it belongs in a brief summary-style article like this.  
--thirty-seven 07:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think  it better belongs in History of Canada.  -- Jeff3000 14:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would this work? :Image:Canada provinces evolution-250.gif --Qyd 23:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The GIF patent is now expired; are you sure that your statement is still correct?  If so, given that the patent is no longer an issue, why are GIFs not allowed?  --Nephtes 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We use GIFs all the time here, there are thousands of them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated GIF

message: I was wondering if anybody was considering adding a picture gallery? I saw some in other country's articles, like Serbia, Spain, and Bulgaria and believe Canada deserves one.
Lt. penguin 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Gallery 

message: In the moto it is not from sea to sea.  It is From coast to coast  or From an ocean to the other Ad mari Ad mare means Coast or Ocean not sea Usque means The other. I'm latin so I know that :oP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.215.22 (talk • contribs) 
No you're not ;)
:I have no idea what an exact Latin translation of "A Mari usque ad Mare" would be.  However, I do know that "Canada's motto, was derived from Psalm 72:8, which reads in Latin "Et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae," and in the King James version, "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." - Eron 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Not for the translation (though that's nice too), for calling me a youngster. That hasn't happened in years - Eron 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto

message: "Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 sovereign states."
One of these sovereign states is Canada. Now, looking at the list of Monarchys in the Americas, Canada is the sole American Sovereign State (Monarchy) (State). Isn't the Queen of Canada the sole American Sovereign since there are no other Monarchys in the Americas which their Government recognizes? NOTE: I am emphasizing "American Sovereign" as she should be recognized as a "European Sovereign" just as alike as a "American Sovereign" respectively.
Bottom line: She should be included as an American Sovereign and Canada as the American Sovereign State (Monarchy) respectively. 
I find no reason to as the United States being allowed "Super-Power" and Canada not mentioned as the "American Sovereign State". Intuitionz 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Great circuitous logic-izzle. Now 533 WP:TROLL CMacMillan 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit confused by all that. Can someone please translate? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Which part? My biting the Troll, or what he's trying to push? CMacMillan 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A+B+C cannot = D unless a reliable source has already made that assertion(atleast on wikipedia), see WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is my fault, I shouldn't have fed the troll, but everyone has a judgement slip. This is a "user" who usually shows up after previous discussions are archived to offer semantic piffle. Such as The American State of Canada or a proposal that United Empire Loyalists were Loyalists of the United Empire (a precursor of the United States), rather than Empire Loyalists who were United. Get it? . CMacMillan 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said before, you need a reliable source making this claim, or it is original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Canada is a sovereign country of the Americas. However, the term "American ... State" is going to be interpreted as one of the United States, of which Canada is not. It would be semantically confusing to refer to Canada as an "American Sovereign State". Obviously. Avt tor 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer to my message to you earlier regarding original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:If my memory serves me correctly. I believe the " http://www.americascanada.gc.ca " was launched as a portal for the summit of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) when it was held in Canada.  As far as Canadian "gc.ca" URLs I've explored these before, they go to a bunch of cities across the world where Canada has a presence.
US cities - example
*Boston, (City of) - http://www.boston.gc.ca/
*Buffalo, (City of) - http://www.buffalo.gc.ca/
*Miami, (City of) - http://www.miami.gc.ca/
etc. etc. etc.
Caribbean countries' example
*Barbados - http://www.bridgetown.gc.ca/
*Dominican Republic - http://www.santodomingo.gc.ca/
*Guyana, S. America - http://www.georgetown.gc.ca/
*Trinidad and Tobago - http://www.portofspain.gc.ca/
etc. etc. etc.
CaribDigita 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada: "American Sovereign State" or Not? 

message: "Canada was a major front in the War of 1812 between the United States and British Empire..." 
This should more clearly describe the US attempt to invade and annex Canada.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.6.227 (talk • contribs)  04:54, 12 November 2006  (UTC)
:All that is covered in the main article on the War of 1812. Eron 14:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1812 

message: I don't know if anyone's caught this yet (but I assume so judging by the fact that the article is locked): "America is way, way more important to Canada and to the world in every possible conceivable manner. America is a superpower, Canada is... not. Canadians are jealous that they will never reach the height of their superior neighbors and cling on to fugs like Celin Dion, Avril Lavigne and that guy from Beverly Hills 90210 who had a car accident a couple years ago, what's his name. Sad people."
It's at the very beginning of the article, at the end of the third paragaph (just before the table of contents). As I am not registered, I'd like to ask that someone remove it.
:Thanks, someone fixed it. You don't have to be registered to make changes, only to create new articles. So you are welcome to fix things like this yourself. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't apply when the article is protected, as this one is currently. Mindmatrix 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The pronunciation of "Canada" as shown in the IPA is highly irregular, mixing phonemic and phonetic transcription. The use of the IPA on Wikipedia is normally restricted to broad phonemic transcriptions (when showing the pronunciation of a name, at least), and should follow the traditional use of symbols diacritics as used for the particular language. What I mean by this is that we have too much irrelevant information in the transcriptions right now. I know that a previous editor purposely added the centralizing and stress diacritic for the French pronunciation, but this really should be removed. Since stress and centralization are not phonemic in French (all /a/ vowels are more-or-less central in French, and all content words have final stress when in isolation), these extraneous diacritics should be removed, in keeping with the concept of phonemic (contrastive segments only) transcription. With the English, aspiration is not phonemic (it is totally predictable given the phonological and morphological structure, including stress), and thus that should be removed as well.
You can check out the transcriptions of Copenhagen, for example, to see how only the contrastive elements of English and Danish are encoded. The aspiration and nasalization are not shown for the English, as they are predictable. If you need examples of phonemic transcriptions on other Wikipedia pages, let me know and I can show you. Remember, there is no limit to how many diacritics you could put on a phonetic transcription (nasalization before the /n/ in the English, dental bridge under the /d/ for the French, etc.), but we are not trying to transcribe that. We are making a phonemic transcription, and should limit our use of the IPA to exactly what is needed for each language. I am changing the transcription to keep with Wikipedia guidelines. --SameerKhan 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The image of Canadian banknotes is, I believe outdated. I Know for sure that the part of the image with the Canadian five-dollar bill is of a previous version of the bill. It stands to reason that the portion of the image with the Canadian ten-dollar bill is also outdated.
NAJohnson 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly are you propsing to change, and what is the problem? I looked under the Economy section, and it has a picture of all the updated banknotes. Whats the problem? Disinclination 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope. These are the current banknotes, according to the Bank of Canada. Mindmatrix 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It would have been nice to know that was the problem. Telling us they are outdated, then giving us links to an outdated picture, without telling us what was outdated, doesn't help much. But thank you, NA. Disinclination 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the link I provided shows that both versions are current. There are two versions of the $5 (2002 and 2006) and $10 bills (2001 and 2005) that are considered current - the latest was the $5 released just over a week ago. If someone wants to update the graphic, by all means do so, but its not really outdated per se. (I do agree that having the most recent versions would be desirable.) Mindmatrix 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry if what I implied was that the bills shown were no longer in circulation. They are still legal tender, but they are no longer being manufactured, and since the average life of a bill in circulation ia about one year, they are an endangered species. I replaced the image. The only downside is that there is no real detail. I think this is because the mint does not want to supply high enough definitioin images that they may be counterfeited.--NAJohnson 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The licensing of the new image is not the same as the old one.  Should they be the same? Can the new image be uploaded to commons given the license agreement with the Mint? -- Jeff3000 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Canadian Banknote Designs 

message: Wasn't Canada called The Dominion of Canada at one point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justin Herbert (talk • contribs)  00:39, 25 November 2006  (UTC)
:Look further up this page under the heading Formal name for discussion of that issue. Eron 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also go to the Canada's name article for a disucussion. Luigizanasi 04:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Dominion? 

message: I've requested a peer review for this article. If you're interested in giving some feedback, click here. Thanks, Bobanny 00:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pauline Johnson]]