Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada/Assessment

message: After looking through this article, I think it deserves either a B- or A-class rating, as it is fairly well written, is properly referenced and research, and is of a High importance. What do you think? -YK Times 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Canada-United States relations]] assessment 

message: The members on this wikiproject for Saskatchewan are using the Canadian banner for assessment purposes.  There has been a discussion whether a Saskatchewan banner complete with assessment should be started or not.  I see some provinces self assess on their talk page banners and some do not.  SriMesh | talk 02:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan|Saskatchewan Wikiproject]] self assessment query

message: I just came across this article today, and I seriously do not think that a B-class rating is appropriate. The article contains a much-too-large lead paragraph, a historical timeline which confuses the uninitiated like me, a few nice pictures, and an inappropriately large amount of detail on horse deaths, and that's about it. No detail about the events or the grounds or parade or recent winners or anything, and most of all no specifics of chuckwagon racing - to my mind the single most significant event of the Stampede.
I propose downgrading the article to C-class. Fleebo (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Calgary Stampede]]

message: Why are Vancouver and Montreal listed as being able to be converted? There is opposition at Montreal to such a conversion, and Vancouver doesn't seem to have been contacted about any such process. 65.93.12.108 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the problem was that the initial setup defaulted to have WPCanada and the cities share an importance scale, which would undervalue articles that had high local importance.  The template was therefore modified to keep the importance as blank for the city projects unless expressly added.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is opposition to this position at Montreal's WT page. And Vancouver rolled back the instructions so as to be able to use the Vancouver banner as well as Canada's instead of only using Canada's. The suggestion on this page seems to ignore what Vancouver and Montreal want in favour of what WPCanada wants regardless of what Vancouver or Montreal decide. 64.229.102.230 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposition on the Montreal's WT page comes from two users with no edits to Montreal topics before the discussion, and those would generally be ignored in straw polls.  In an earlier discussion, there were two project members who voted, one in favour and one opposed.  By Wikipedia standards, that counts as a no-consensus, and a borderline orphaned project.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like WikiProject Canada is imposing its will onto Vancouver and Montreal without support (no consensus is not a vote to support the proposition outlined on this page when this discussion began. It is an implicit denial of the proposal, since it changes the status quo without requisite support -- hence "no consensus" is a keep at AFD). There seems to be an opaque process that does not consult the Wikiproject involved, on the existence and use of their own banners. Even if it is "no consensus", it is not Canada's place to assume what's to be done at other WikiProjects, unless you've taken steps for informed consent and consensus building with those WikiProjects (with an unequivocal support position outcome). They have not been tagged as inactive, so can't be called absent and unable to decide themselves on the usage of their own banners. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver and Montreal 

message: The Canada Roads project will be doing its own assessments from now on semi-independently of the rest of the Canada project. The Canada Project tags will still be on the articles to assess for the provinces, etc, but they can and probably will be different than what CRWP will be assessing the articles going forward. As an analogy, What US Roads assesses and Ohio State Route article can be different than what the Ohio project assesses it, just like what happens with Ontario Roads (sone to use the CRWP template and retire its own) and Canada has done on behalf of CRWP. Please update the main assessment page as you see fit. The assessment categories are also changing so that table for the Roads will soon blank or delete once the changeover is done. (In its place will be 15 separate tables, one for each province/territory, the Trans-Canada Highway and the overall project.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't WPCR be moved to the "no active replacement" section? 65.93.12.43 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRWP and asessments 

message: isn't listed on this page. The banner doesn't seem to list this project. 65.93.12.43 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ontario roads was there but i did add  to the Canada-related assessments done as independent projects section.Moxy (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Ontario Roads 

message: Who does assessments here and how are they done? Are there different assessment departments for  different subprojects? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who does assessments here? 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Article_assessment for discussion related to stubs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject stubs 

message: This project has been mentioned at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#More_on_Project_Assessments. XOttawahitech (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to let you know