Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

message: Oh, I also wanted to seek opinions about another issue. :Category:Communities in Ontario contains almost all Ontario communities, but excludes those that may be categorized elsewhere (eg - :Category:Greater Sudbury, Ontario). I think this would be a good example of allowing exceptions to the rule (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories for details, fourth paragraph). Most people won't find Capreol, Ontario, for example, if they don't know it's part of Greater Sudbury. I think we should list all communities in the provincial category, including those in sub-categories. Mindmatrix 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
:My first concern with this is that no other category for "Communities in X" exists on Wikipedia; we really need to find an entirely different way to structure and categorize these kinds of articles (eg. separating them into "Towns in Ontario", "Villages in Ontario", etc., but there may be other ways.) One example of why this is a problem is that the "Communities in Canada" category has been filed for months in a nonexistent (redlinked) "Communities by country" category (which is never going to exist.) Bearcat 21:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Every country seems to have its own standards; for the US, there are Locations in X categories (for example: :Category:Locations in Maine). I don't object to Villages in etc, since we already have the equivalent Cities in and Towns in categories, but how do you handle the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated communities? For example, Osgoode Township, Ontario consists of a number of communities (see this) - how do you classify them? Words like communities or locations are generic enough to capture all those places. Mindmatrix 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I should have inspected more categories for US states. They've created :Category:Unincorporated communities in Alaska etc. for some states. For the larger states, they also have Villages in and Hamlets in categories (see :Category:New York). I wouldn't object to using similar categories for Canadian locations. Mindmatrix 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Communities in Ontario]] and other provinces

message: The article Department of Marine and Fisheries (Canada) seems redundant to the article Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada). It's the same department, but under the original name. There has been some confusion with naming as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also known as Fisheries and Oceans Canada (I know the confusion first hand, as I'm currently working with the Governemnt.) I suggest merging DMF into DFO, but I'd like to hear what others have to say before I flag it for VfD. Zhatt July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)
:First of all, if you do merge them, you should not VfD. The correct procedure is to create a redirect at the old article pointing to the merged one. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Fisheries and Oceans Canada redirects to DFO as it should and DMF clearly states it is a former department. It may be desirable to keep an article about the former department as a history of the ministry or it might be better to keep the history with the current department article. I haven't decided yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
::OK, no VfD. Didn't know that. Thanks. Does anyone else have an opinion on if DMF should be merged into and redirected to DFO? If you notice, on DMF, there is a list of departmental name changes at the bottom. What gives DMF the right to have an article but not these other variations on the name? Zhatt July 8, 2005 21:47 (UTC)
:::Go for the merge and redirect like DoubleBlue suggested.  It's interesting stuff that should be under a history section in the main DFO article. I would argue that it should be in the same article because the function of the former department are very similar to the current DFO. At a minimum, there should be a "See also" link in both articles. See Wikipedia:Merge for instructions. —  Luigizanasi 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
Article merged. Thanks for your help and comments. Zhatt July 8, 2005 22:44 (UTC)
:Yes, you were right Zhatt. It's better merged. Well done. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
Generally, my rule is that if something merely changes name but is essentially the same thing other than the name change, then the old name should just be a redirect to the new one and the history should go in the current name's article. However, if two or three or four things merged to create one new thing, or one thing got taken over by another thing that already existed, then I'd do separate articles. Bearcat 17:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Marine and Fisheries 

message: Some redirects to the four canada geography stub types are up for deletion on WP:SFD. Please comment if you think these redirects are useful, or if the main stub names suffice. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada geo stub redirects listed for deletion 

message: WP:WSS/C#Newfoundland-geo-stub, NovaScotia-geo-stub Should Newfoundland and Labrador be  or just  or something else? DoubleBlue (Talk) 10:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with . I'll add comments to the proposal page. Mindmatrix 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Created as , with redirect at . In the end, NovaScotia-geo-stub wasn't created - but  was in its place, to cover NS, NB and PEI. If that gets to be too big a category, it may be split further in the future. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-stubbing of the articles is complete. Mindmatrix 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was quick. I was going to help. :-) Good work all. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Provincial geo-stubs names up for discussion

message: I'm sure that I am not the only one to have felt that there are an awful lot of Canadians on Wikipedia. Jimbo just released a table ranking countries by Wikipedia page views per capita. Among English speaking nations Canada was first with 0.26 page views per person during the period studied (believed to be one day). 4.10% of Wikipedia traffic came from Canada, placing us fourth in total traffic after the United States, Germany, and Japan. Most surprising is that Canada is ahead of the larger UK by a significant margin, and has almost double the per capita page view rate of Australia. Of course this jsut raises the question of why Wikipedia is so popular in Canada. - SimonP 14:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Canada has the highest internet penetration among anglophone nations.  We also have a healthy distrust of experts, and a traditional citizen participation in public life.  Put the two together, and voila.  For example, see Progressive Bloggers.--Simon.Pole 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ever wondered why there are so many of us?

message: User Montréalais has recently changed Citadel of Quebec to Citadelle of Quebec. I am puzzled by his claim that Citadelle is used in both English and French. If you consult many of the gc.ca sites including http://www.pc.gc.ca/voyage-travel/pv-vp/itm5-/page5_E.asp you will see that the government continues to use the correct English word "citadel". Halifax also has an impressive British-built citadel Citadel Hill. A capital letter is not really required since citadels were built all over the place and the word is in every English dictionary. Understandably in Quebec the complex known as the Fortifications of Quebec will be referred to as a citadelle, but not elsewhere in the English speaking world when a perfectly good English word exists. This complex was built by the British and it is more than ironic that it should be presented to the rest of the world outside Quebec as somehow French. By this reasoning, every powder magazine in Quebec will have to be termed a poudrière in English. French Wikipedia should correctly use Citadelle de Québec but English Wikipedia should use Citadel of Quebec. Can we have some opinon on whether it is wise to frenchify an historic English word?--BrentS 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't actually see a contradiction between saying that "Citadel of Quebec" is a common term for the thing and saying that "La Citadelle" is its actual proper name. And yes, I would take the Governor General's website as a higher authority on this matter than a government tourism site; a tourist profile isn't bound by protocol to refer to the thing by its formal and proper name, while the GG more or less is. Bearcat 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citadel of Quebec 

message: The new templates for  and  have been implemented, and articles have been sorted into their respective categories. Here's the current tally:
* Canada: 265 articles
* Alberta: 156 articles
* British Columbia: 208 articles
* Newfoundland and Labrador: 95 articles
* Maritimes: 138 articles
* Ontario: 738 articles
* Quebec: 341 articles
We need to work on expanding those articles - that's nearly 2000 stubs, and the list is growing rapidly. Mindmatrix 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geo-stub sorting

message: Hi everyone, I have really been working hard, on cleaning up and detaling Northwest Territories electoral history, 
My work, is going to take me away for at least a month, and I won't have time to continue with N.W.T. elections, and related.
If someone out there wants to take on the more recent elections, I am still looking for a comprehensive source of members elected from 1951 on, still looking for a source for the period of appointed members between 1905 and 1951, and looking for a source of members appointed to the temporary council prior to 1876.
My free time lately has mostly been consumed on the Northwest Territories party politics from 1898 - 1905, I have nearly completed the list of members elected in 1902, scanning through microfilm of Newspaper from the late 1890's on, but I am at a loss as to when Party politics actually began in the Northwest Territories.
According to a Calgary Herald editorial from November 17th 1898, it talks about the pro's and con's of the possible introduction of "Dominion Party Lines" into the Northwest Territories legislature. And I was quite shocked to learn that the 1898 election was not along party lines, as some on-line sources seemed to have indicated. I will update the 1898 election to reflect that.
In news paper articles close to the 1902 election it does talk about the "Government and Opposition" , but I was able to find no indications of what date in the 1898 - 1902 period party politics sprang up, but they were clearly active in the 4th North-West Legislative Assembly even though it was not elected on party lines.
I also found somthing interesting, perhaps more related to journalist neutrality more then anything, in the articles of the day that refered to Candidates affiliations as simply "Government" or "Opposition" and "Indepedent", or "Independent Opposition or Indpendent Government, It was only in a couple editorials that Liberal or Liberal-Conservative was mentioned. When an article would talk about who a candidate is running for, it would say John Smith pledges loyalty to the Governing Party etc.
Aside from the birth of party politics, the end before the period of Alberta and Saskatchewan being carved out seems intriguing and needs researching, most of the Liberal-Conservatives switched to Liberal, and some Liberals switched to the Conservatives, when the new parties were formed in Alberta and Saskatchewan, there doesn't seem to have been any loyalty, in the short time party politics formed in the territories.
--Cloveious 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Northwest Territories Electoral History

message: Hi, I noticed that the riding Don Valley East has an interesting table in it. This should be made into a template and added to all the ridings. However, I am not sure this is universal for every province since Ontario has the same ridings both federally and provincially. Should we have unique ones per province or a general one for the country. Also what should be the columns? The current ones are:
* MP
* Party
* MPP
* Party
* Province
* Census division(s)
* Census subdivision(s)
* Federal district created
I am not sure the value of the Census division and sub-division. Any other comments? --YUL89YYZ 18:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
: It's done as a table with the coding copied and pasted directly into the article, rather than as a true template. Which means that you can use it for any riding, and just remove the sections (like provincial representation) that don't apply. Bearcat 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a valuable summary box of an electoral district, though some of the info (ie. census divisions, MPP) may not be relevant to other provinces. However, Don Valley East appears to be a relatively simple district (look at Regina—Qu'Appelle as an extreme example of the opposite). It also may not work for former districts (ie. Fraser Valley). But I believe it is something worth experimenting on.   -maclean25 19:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal electoral districts template 

message: Can anyone either find a photo or take a photo of the lapel pins the members of the House of Commons gives out to their constituents? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image request 

message: G'day to all the Canadian Wikipedians here. Just to let you know that I have created a Canadian school stub:  and an appropriate category: :Category:Canadian school stubs to help better sort all of the schools stubs we have. Please use this stub for all Canadian schools. Thank you -- Ianblair23 11:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian school stub 

message: I added a  place beneath the Active Wikipedeans for people to list their blogs.  Look okay? --Simon.Pole 07:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'd rather not have this, especially given the discussion we've had about making this page shorter (see Notice board rearrangement above). At any rate, it would be more appropriate to link to one's blog from one's user page, and include the user page in :Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Mindmatrix 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Mindmatrix.  Maybe if we go to a :Category:Canadian Wikipedians, we could have a subcateogry :Category:Canadian Wikipedian Bloggers?--Simon.Pole 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Blogger List 

message: Hi folks,
I just wanted to let you know that there is a list of transcluded deletion debates on Canada-related articles.  You can find it here:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada.  There is currently only one sublist, of articles related to Quebec, but the list could be further subdivided.  
I see that you have a list of deletion debates on this page, so presumably this new transcluded list will be of use.  Please help to keep the list up to date by archiving old items and adding new ones.  Thanks!
By the way, new members are needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting.  Hope to see you there!  
Cheers,
-- Visviva 17:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion list 

message: I have a proposal for re-organization of the above referenced notice board article. Instead of formatting it according to problem (ie. Expansion, Clean-up, Neutral dispute), my proposal is to group it according to subject (ie. People, Places, Events, etc.). This is already done for the Expansion section of the current page but instead of repeating it for the clean-up section, how about simply listing the clean-up articles under the major headings of People, places, etc. See this example here to see what I am trying to descibe.  --maclean25 03:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way is OK with me, though I prefer what's currently on the page. If we shift to your layout, I suggest not indenting the sub-headers; moreover, they should be made true headers, not simply bolded. The problem with that is the font size of the header - it's too big (perhaps unindenting should suffice). Mindmatrix 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, it's not very controversial but I thought I would list it here for comments before I did anything. When developing this layout I tried to make it attractive (at least not visually offending) & user friendly (ie. systematic). The order of (i) articles with tags, (ii) articles in need of expansion, and then (iii) articles simply in need of attention is appropriate because it reflects the order of importance (with respect to the requirement for attention). I try to be conservative with headings because I've witnessed too many articles become disjointed and muddled by too many sections and headings. The indenting can go, I only did this to separate the heading from the list...well, it made sense in my paper sketches.   --maclean25 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Articles to improve|Canadian Notice Board - Articles to Improve]]

message: Does anyone have access to Edward (Ted) McWhinney's recent book The Governor General and the Prime Ministers? There is a dispute at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada regarding his proposal for Canada becoming a republic by simply not proclaiming Elizabeth II's successor once the post of monarch becomes vacant and it would be good if someone who actually has access to the book (through a university library?) can read up on what McWhinney actually said. Homey 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The U of T library has no record of it, which strongly suggests it hasn't been released yet in hardcover. -The Tom 04:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit more poking around, I see no evidence of a hardcover version existing...  , Ronsdale Press, 150pp paperback seems to be the only ticket going -The Tom 04:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen's Privy Council for Canada

message: I've noticed an increasing trend of new articles about roads of no cultural or historical significance to their region. Most of them simply describe various stretches of the road, and perhaps a few attractions found along it. Some may mention transport hubs et al.
Some roads are meaningful - the 400-Series Highways in Ontario, Bloor Street in Toronto, Saint Catherine Street in Montreal, but most aren't. In particular, numerous roads in the GTA have articles about them now; some of these probably should go:
* BpNichol Lane
* McCowan Road
* Leslie Street
* Bayview Avenue
* Kennedy Road (Toronto)
* Midland Avenue
* Steeles Avenue
* Weston Road
* Warden Avenue
* Victoria Park Avenue
* Brimley Road
* Woodbine Avenue
Heck, just look at :Category:Toronto streets and :Category:Canadian roads for a more comprehensive list. I'm not saying that all of these should be deleted, but certainly some of them should be stricken from Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 14:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a small but vocal minority who believe that any street that exists anywhere in the world should merit an article (even if it's just a one-block residential laneway with two houses on it.) I don't agree with that; I think a street needs to have some special thing about it that makes it encyclopedic. Yonge Street is fine, due to the "longest street in the world" claims. Degrassi Street is fine, due to the Degrassi shows. Allen Road is fine, because of the whole Spadina Expressway thing. Even Shades Of Death Road is fine, just because its name is so...weird. But generally, I don't think a street is notable just because it exists or even because it's a town or city's main street; it needs to have "special" historical or cultural significance. Bearcat 00:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try nominating one for VfD/AfD to see what happens. Mindmatrix 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian roads

message: Canada's rather rich naval history is given pretty abysmal coverage on Wikipedia at the moment, but the topic is a bit too broad (in terms of number of articles) and a bit too narrow (in terms of appeal to the editing population in general) in order to go through a formal collaboration-of-the-week/articles-for-improvement type process.  Just thought I'd post a general appeal for interested persons to throw a bit of attention at this area—I don't know if we want to go the fullblown WikiProject route, but any redlink fighting prowess would be greatly appreciated.  I've been plowing away at List of ships of the Canadian Navy and within :Category:Canadian Navy for a few days now, and while it's a little cleaner than it used to be, there's still an appalling amount of red.  Every other major nation has Wikipedia articles for all of its current warships big and small; we've got a pretty mild smattering of one-liners on the various frigates and not much else.  Any thoughts? -The Tom 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a naval/military aficionado, I can assist in editing, maintaining, and enhancing these articles.  Guidance?  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Navy 

message: Despite the lack of enthusiasm to my previous posting on this issue, I have been working on bringing the 2006 Wikipedia conference to Toronto. I have spoken with the director of KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. KMDI specializes in the study of collaborative content generation, and they are willing to collaborate with us and can get us access to University of Toronto facilities for free. This is a pretty major advantage to the Toronto bid, and I now feel we have a good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The one element we don't yet have is many people willing to help out. I am willing to do a lot of the work, but the support of others is needed. I have already spammed a number of user pages, but anyone else who is willing to work on this project please sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. - SimonP 18:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
* I'd be willing to help out some, but I'm not sure I have it in me right now to be a key organizer. This has been a really bad year for me. Bearcat 17:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimania 2006

message: Is this the same thing as Clarkson, Peel Regional Municipality, Ontario? I assume it is, but wanted to make sure. Mindmatrix 15:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Clarkson Village, Ontario]]

message: How would one go about cleaning up that section? I'm assuming we don't need to archive it, but I'm not sure what to delete. I know some of those RoCs are no longer an issue, but I don't know witch one's especially since some are not dated. Would it be okay to just removing anything that is (seems to be) over a month old? 
Zhatt 17:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
* I think everything nominated before the Toki Poni discussion can be removed; I've checked a few of the discussions, and they've had no new comments for at least a week. That should whittle the list down nicely. Mindmatrix 17:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Comment 

message: A user changed the meaning of SSM's original Ojibwe name, Bawating, from "rapid water" to "meeting place", and indicated on the talk page that he's sure that's the correct meaning even though he doesn't have a source for it. Quite apart from the fact that the vast majority of references I can find on the web cite Bawating as meaning "rapids", "water beaten to spray" (ie. rapids) or "where water flows over rocks", "meeting place" is commonly cited as a meaning for Toronto (and I think I've seen it incorrectly cited for other aboriginal place names as well). But, if you phrase the Google search just right, you can find a page or two which cites "meeting place", not "rapids", as the meaning of Bawating.
So, two questions:
# Can anybody shed some light on the question? 
# Does it say something about the Canadian psyche that we have such a fascinating determination to believe every place name of First Nations origin means "meeting place"?
Thanks. Bearcat 17:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only ever heard it used for Toronto myself Sherurcij 03:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario]]

message: Spurred by the nomination of :Category:Villages in Canada for deletion, I wanted to discuss the categorization of Canadian locations (again, I know...)
Categories we agree on:
*Cities in XXX
*Towns in XXX
Categories I propose:
*Townships in XXX
*Parishes in XXX - not for all provinces
*Villages in XXX - do any incorporated villages exist? I thought so, but I can't find any 
*Unincorporated villages in XXX - this includes hamlets et al (maybe Unincorporated communities in XXX?)
Categories to delete:
*Communities in XXX (too generic)
*Parishes of XXX (replaced by Parishes in XXX above, for consistency)
*Townships of XXX (replaced by Townships in XXX above, for consistency)
This follows the model for US locations, so there would be consistency there too. They also use other categories (eg :Category:Places in New York to contain the information above - something we might wish to pursue (we have a similar category in :Category:Subdivisions of Canada, but no equivalent provincial categories).
Does anyone have objections? I'll do all the work, I just want to make sure everyone agrees to this before I proceed. Mindmatrix 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a Yukoner, I would suggest keeping "Communities in X". Make towns, villages, etc.subcategories of it for the provinces where it makes sense. Plus how would you deal with MRC's in Quebec and their equivalent in Ontario. Communities is the term used in the North. Many are unincorporated, others are a combination of a village/town/unincorporated community and a reserve, but are considered one community. "Places" is too vague. "Census Subdivision"  is a Stats Can term, but if one only uses "subdivision", it could be ambiguous as it also means a development/neighbourhood.  Plus nothing says it has to be consistent among all provinces/territories. Luigizanasi 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  MRCs and counties and regional districts and such aren't an issue; they already have a separate categorization scheme under :Category:Census divisions of Canada. They'd never be categorized under "communities" anyway. Bearcat 21:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This link can help you with British Columbia. It is current as of 2002. However, it does not have Regional Districts or rural communities.  --maclean25 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found similar links for Ontario and Manitoba. These two links answer my question about incorporated villages in Canada. Mindmatrix 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's one for Saskatchewan, Alberta (in the drop-down lists), and Nova Scotia (and counties too). Mindmatrix 02:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I found one for PEI, and another for NWT. Those for N&L, NB and Nunavut are difficult to find - I've found listings of locations, but not their status. Mindmatrix 02:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It may be wise to define what these terms mean first. There may be nomenclature differences. I saw what BC calls rural communities (ie. unincorporated farm towns which have no defined borders), Manitoba calls Rural Municipalities (which appear to have defined borders but are unincorporated). From what I saw it appears to be a people per area distinction that separates villages from towns and so forth. --maclean25 04:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly want to define the terms first. There are far more terms in use than I expected, but so be it. I'll also make sure to customize sufficiently for each province/territory, while maintaining a more standard national perspective overall. I may make a separate page in my user namespace to track all this stuff... Mindmatrix 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I'd consider a separate category for "municipalities" to be particularly necessary. Any incorporated community is a municipality; they just don't all use that designation in their official name. A community that uses "municipality of (name)" is still legally a town or a township; "municipality" is just an alternate designation that some communities happen to be designated with instead of "town" or "township". It's not actually a distinct legal status.Bearcat 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Determining whether some places are towns, townships or villages is downright impossible in some cases. But I agree, we don't need a separate category for this. Mindmatrix 20:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorizing Canadian communities

message: A request has been made to merge this article into British colonization of the Americas. Is it a distinct enough idea to warrant its own article? I think that this is a primarily Canadian issue so I asked here. Rmhermen 15:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These unquestionably should not be merged. BNA is essentially the name of modern Canada name from 1776 to 1867 and the British North America Act is still the core of Canada's constitution. - SimonP 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur fully with SimonP; keep them separate. E Pluribus Anthony 02:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[British North America]]

message: Our beloved Ontario population vandal (the one who makes random unsourced changes to the population figures for Ontario cities) is back again. So far, the only changes I'm aware of have been to London and Peterborough, but it'd be best if as many people as possible keep an eye on the Ontario city articles. Known IP so far is User:24.92.224.54, but this has previously happened under other IPs as well. Bearcat 21:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look earlier today, and found only those two edits; I haven't found any other anon IPs that may be causing problems (the Newmarket, Ontario article was once frequently pop-spammed, so I especially keep watch of that one). Mindmatrix 03:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That has got to be the most pathetic vandalism ever...wow Sherurcij 03:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: and suddenly he took leave of his census...

message: My fellow Canadians ...
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 03:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|Infobox#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: Is this community named Ballantynes Cove, or Ballantyne's Cove (note the apostrophe)? Statcan is no help in this matter. Mindmatrix 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  According to the Atlas of Canada, it's Ballantynes Cove (no apostrophe). E Pluribus Anthony 20:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ballantynes Cove, Nova Scotia]]

message: An anonymous user has created this article. Aside from the poor choice of title, it:
* projects the population of 10 Candian cities to 2050
* lists metropolitan area populations, which are different from List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada
* does the same job as List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada
* does not cite sources, and the numbers look suspicious; nothing in the StatsCan database uses these numbers
I think I'll slap an AfD on this one, unless someone can give me a reason not to. Mindmatrix 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd simply redirect it to List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada, mainly because that will be a lot faster than an AfD. - SimonP 00:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm with SimonP. Just redirect it; doesn't need a vote. Bearcat 21:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with other users; redirect. E Pluribus Anthony 20:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Biggest Canadian Cities by Metropolitan Area]]

message: This article that I just created deals with a very controversial idea here in Southwestern British Columbia, of whether or not there should be a fixed link connecting Vancouver Island to the B.C. Lower Mainland.  I would like to see some in-depth, but hopefully not heated, discussion about this idea in that article.  Denelson83  20:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Georgia Strait Bridge]]

message: Vaguely curious if any of the election-covering gang would be up for tackling a municipal election, namely Vancouver's this November.  I don't think we've ever done a Canadian municipal election before, and I suppose there could be concerns about diverting attention away from historic federal and provincial coverage that could still use work (although personally I think we're veering pretty close to a buildout threshold on those—without getting into serious text-based research, that is).  Vancouver's kind of a neat special case, though, as there's a nutty party system intertwined in various manners with the provincial and federal scene as well as the typical dose of poop-suit/sex-party/drunk-premier-grade British Columbian political intrigue.  I recognize we don't really have surfeit of British Columbians around here (and I barely qualify for covering Vancouver well, being from the deepest edges of the Interior and presently relocated to S. Ont.), so there would be an element of bumbling unfamiliarity.  That said, there's no shortage of web coverage to draw upon.  Thoughts? -The Tom 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this area needs some work. Compare what we have at :Category:Toronto city councillors and at :Category:Ottawa City councillors with the red links at Vancouver City Council. - SimonP 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted.  Again, something of a side effect of not much overlap on the "Wikipedians from BC" and "Wikipedians who follow politics closely" Venn Diagram.  I suppose my biggest concern is that we blow open a whole new notability wall by doing municipal election articles, rather than get a few detailed articles about municipal politics in major Canadian cities, we'll get a whole whack of stubs listing the makeup of town councils in Saskatchewan in 1975 with adorned with links that are going to stay red until said towns are overgrown by rainforest.  I think we can all agree that Vancouver is notable, its just I hope that things grow out from there in a responsible manner. -The Tom 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see more organization when it comes to municipal elections. We should start by having an article at municipal elections in Canada and list dates of elections there. I know Quebec and BC have elections this year, and Ontario has them next year, but I have no idea for the other provinces. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK, if anyone cares, here is my opinion. I like the idea of Wikipedia gradually lowering the bar of notability to include more local stuff. I do not believe individual councillers should have articles unless they have proved to be influential or otherwise notable, most are neither. Let's start with the mayor first, then if that works out go down to councillers. I think it is hippocritical to have councillers and mayors but not administrators. Certainly, administrators have more influence on a municipality. Councillers are just decision-makers, administrators decide what decisions the councillers will make and advises them on those decisions. Most municipal elections are not very notable or interesting so I like the lists solution. However, some elections are, for example the 2002 Vancouver Municipal election was a big milestone in the city's history (first non-NPA government in its history?) deserve many, many articles. --maclean25 02:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And I've created Quebec municipal elections, 2005 :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vancouver municipal election

message: Just to let y'all know, it looks like they've finally hammered out a definitive policy on category naming. Looks like it's going to be (subject) in Canada (although there are certainly some categories where it would have to be of Canada) in some cases, and "Canadian (subject)" in others. They seem to have a list of which applies where, so some categories may have to be renamed. (It sounds like a pretty dubious and confusing policy to me, but whatchagonnado...) I'll certainly take some of that on, but if anybody's looking for something to do... Bearcat 02:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do the geographical stuff: parks, lakes etc., including all the location articles - towns, villages, communities...heck, I'm already working on it :-) Mindmatrix 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Hi, anyone good with making maps, wish to tackle location maps for History of Northwest Territories capital cities? I am currently expanding the page, but have less then desirable cartography skills --Cloveious 02:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey; I can try this.  I'll get back to you. E Pluribus Anthony 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I appreciate it, --Cloveious 07:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Location Maps

message: An anon editor keeps reverting the article RAV-FM (a high school radio station in the Toronto area) to an unwikified, uncategorized and unformatted version with significant POV assertions. He characterizes it as a factual dispute, but hasn't actually disputed any facts; the factual content of the article remains identical after his edits. He has never acknowledged the discussion page; instead, he has occasionally inserted personal notes disputing the reversion into the article itself. And I can't just ban the offending IP, because it's been a wildly different IP number each time.
Just a request for other people to keep it watchlisted so I'm not always handling this matter by myself. Thanks. Bearcat 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[RAV-FM]]

message: Today, a non-Canadian user filed Matthew Coon Come in :Category:Native American activists and :Category:Native American leaders. Has there been any concrete discussion around whether First Nations people from Canada should or should not be classified as "Native Americans"? Bearcat 22:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[First Nations]] question

message: This past summer, we cleaned up the notice board and this discussion area. However, we still have a bit of a mess when it comes to archiving these discussions, as well as info related to the CCOTW (let alone the name of it). Given several new projects that are underway, I'd like to clean up and re-structure all Canada-related projects, boards etc. so that we have a more cohesive and functional system.
My proposal starts with the following:
* rename the CCOTW, and move it out from under the notice board
**Proposed name: Wikipedia:Canada collaboration
* rename this discussion area, moving it out from under the notice board
**Proposed name: Wikipedia:Canada discussions
* create threaded discussions for both of those, a la Wikipedia:AfD
**I can do this - it shouldn't be too difficult
Once we've done this, we can start integrating other Canada-related projects into the system. This gives us automatic archival capability, shorter pages, and easier maintenance. We can also create a variety of views of the data by simply transcluding discussions et al as needed.
Do I need to clarify anything? Does anyone object? Should I just be bold and make the changes? Mindmatrix 02:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the functionality. There are no section edit links anymore, the headers link to the sub-page and launch an edit session automatically, and the template does everything once the user has supplied the article's name and a reason for the nomination, including adding a sig. I've also simplified the instructions somewhat. Mindmatrix 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-structure Canada-related projects

message: Do any of you know where a media junkie might find helpful resource directories for writing radio station articles besides the CRTC, the Industry Canada database and the Canadian Communications Foundation?
I think I slammed into the ultimate speed bump today: CJSD in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Read it, and realize that with the known resources, this was actually the best I could do. I need some help fixing that mess! Bearcat 11:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found some info for radio stations at the culture.ca website, though it seems to be mostly a collection of unrelated articles; there's no mention of CJSD. There's also the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council which may have some info, though a quick perusal led me to a member list, which links directly to external links for the radio stations. Aside: the CJSD website definitely needs work. Mindmatrix 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Canadian radio infovoid

message: Just wanted to let everyone know that I've put in a request for a stub for Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related stub articles.  Comments on this proposed stub are welcomed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/canada-abp-stub. If passed the stub will be available for use in a week. Kurieeto 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aboriginal peoples in Canada-related stubs

message: After this article went through an AfD, the admin who closed the AfD moved it to Canadian Anti-Smoking Campaign. I don't think this is the right place for this article. In the AfD, I offered this suggestion:
:Anti-smoking programs in Ontario? Perhaps programs is the wrong word, though, and I'd like to capture the fact this is done by the government. Anti-smoking campaigns by the Government of Ontario? Government of Ontario anti-smoking campaigns?
Does anyone have a good suggestion for the appropriate name of this article? At the very least, we should remove some of those capital letters. Mindmatrix 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: stupid.ca

message: A number of Tory candidates for the anticipated election appear to have created lengthy vanity screeds--in some cases simply copying and pasting their bios from their campaign websites. Certainly they are entitled to an article; I would like to see more candidates with articles. But the content needs to be encyclopaedic. I am fixing what I can, but with 308 ridings, its not a one-person job. Please, help! Carolynparrishfan 13:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[39th Canadian general election]]

message: See . Also see the template's talk page: use with care. What do people think about my use of this (see :Image:M O Hammond 1910.jpg)? Lupo 09:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright on photographs in Canada

message: I think I'll be updating the CCOTW page with my new template and transcluded discussion system soon (within a few days). If anybody has objections, please state them. Don't worry about offending me - I'd rather get this right, than implement a system everyone dislikes. Mindmatrix 18:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, after a bit of a delay. I still have to update the history and removed nominations, which I'll probably format using the new system for consistency. Mindmatrix 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating the CCOTW page

message: The edit history of the 192.197.82.201, 203, and 205 IP addresses are of some interest, as they are apparently the IP addresses for Parliament Hill. Conservatives seem to have been especially busy. - SimonP 05:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors in high places

message: Not sure if anybody can help. I'm looking for the name of the MP that threw a lawbook (you know these things named by color?) on the floor of the commons while in session. Can anybody help? Circeus 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help: book throwing in the commons

message: Does anyone ever use the References section of the noticeboard, or should it just be removed? There does not seem to be much usefull information in there. Zhatt 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original idea behind it was that people could add stuff to it if they knew of anything appropriate. Granted, it's almost never been used that way. Bearcat 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Section 

message: Is it just me, or has nobody been updating this part of the timeline recently?  Either that or it's been a pretty uneventful campaign as of late, but there are no events listed on this timeline between December 1 and December 15.  Anyone wish to fill in the gap?  Denelson83  05:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Timeline of the Canadian federal election, 2006#Campaign]]

message: My attempt to start an article on this subject was the victim of speedy deletion. I may not have made a strong enough case for notability; I can't tell any more. Since it is linked from Deaths in 2005, I think that it might have been more appropriate to flag it for attention if it was somewhat skimpy. I was a bit peeved to find it gone. Mr. Procter, of course, was one of the last remaining Canadian World War I veterans. I thought that I had referenced material from the CBC on his life. --Big_Iron 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it, it should never have been speedied. - SimonP 19:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  William "Duke" Procter 

message: There was a Ottawa Citizen article a few weeks ago criticizing the bios of federal candidates.  Many of the offending sections are still there. Perhaps they could use some fix-up. 142.68.196.175 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate Bios 

message: The above referenced page might make a good visit for anyone reading this message board. No one seems to be using this page. It could be a useful resouce if people providing Canada-related topics were to note them oo this page...maybe not. I will watch it for a few days and see if this note provokes/ stirs any interest. Thanks for reading this! (Stormbay 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Canada-related topics]]