Talk:Canada/Archive 6

message: The article reads that Canada was originally a federation of former british colonies.  That is not true.  It was originally a federation of british colonies.  I changed it.  But then it was changed back.  The rest of the re-writing has been improved.  But that part is wrong, or at least misleading.
:Hello!  Thanks for the note.  You will note that the statement was revised (to reflect significant French influence), not merely changed back.  And what of colonies-cum-provinces that joined after 1867 or Newfoundland, which was a dominion before its entry into Confederation in 1949?  Relatedly: you also deleted a germane point about Canada's entitlement as a dominion.  Perhaps we should just remove "Originally" or "former" from that sentence?  We're/I'm open to suggestions.
:It appears you have made edits using two IPs.  I would suggest registering with a user name and discussing such changes before removing information in toto.  This may also reduce the skepticism some Wikipedians may have about such edits.  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 19:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: former british colonies

message: I don't think the following info requires a section of its own, thus I removed it. This level of detail on a topic is not warranted in an overview article - all of this info is already provided in linked military articles, and some essentials are already touched upon in other sections e.g. foreign relations. If deemed necessary, add a few lines about participation in wars, etc. to an existing section, but it doesn't warrant a standalone section. Budget details, number of vehicles, etc. are too obscure for this article.
Canada currently employs 59,000 military servicemen. The forces consist of 2,400 armoured fighting vehicles, 140 combat aircraft, and 34 combat vessels. The Canadian Forces are comprised of: the Canadian Forces Land Force Command, which is the army branch; the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, which is the naval branch; and the Canadian Forces Air Command, which is the air force branch. In the 2005 federal budget, the Liberal government allocated $12.9 billion for the armed forces. 
Since its inception, the Canadian Forces have served in a variety of wars including World War I, World War II, the Korean War and, more recently, Afghanistan.--Aardvark114 03:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military info removed 

message: Hello!  Can someone clarify and provide authoritative figures for Canada's total area – and, as well, subtotals for land/water, and provinces/territories?  There are discrepancies between figures in the Template:Canada infobox and Geography of Canada, et al., and I've seen both figures (for total area) in various sources.  Have I missed something?  Thoughts?  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone shed some more light on this apparent ... discrepancy?  Help is appreciated. E Pluribus Anthony 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, I will investigate the varying figures and make appropriate editions to appropriate articles ... you're all warned! :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's area? 

message: According to the 2001 census ], only 446,290 Canadian residents spokenneither offical language. That is about 1.5% of the population. So I will revert the 95% figure to 98.5%.Luigizanasi 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge of official languages 

message: what about greenland? , by looking at a world map or globe , greenland looks slightly higher than canada , and isn't greenland in north america ?
:You are correct. Cape Morris Jesup and Kaffeklubben Island are north of Cape Columbia. Needs to be fixed. Luigizanasi 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  In prior editions, the 'northern part of North America' blurb got removed, so I like the current edition; it's more accurate.  I've replaced "half" (which is precisely 50%) with "portion": Canada occupies actually 41% of North America. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did we have to let Mexico into Nafta? :-) Luigizanasi 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ... and Greenland isn't a country.  Jkelly 18:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So then Denmark is the northernmost country? Not only are they stealing Hans Island, but they are also stealing our claim to being the world's northernmost country. :-) On a more serious note, other countries, notably Russia, have territorial claims in the Arctic Ocean up to the North Pole (I am not sure about Greenland/Denmark, norway Svalbard, etc.), so we are not unique.  -- Luigizanasi 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's correct to say that Canada is the northernmost country, but Greenland (as a part of Denmark) is the northernmost territory in North America; so indicating only one is imprecise.  Is there anything citing Canada's northerly stature?  Moreover, Canada's Arctic claims are not universally recognised: e.g., by the EU and US, so mention of this should be minimised upfront in the overview (but perhaps elaborated upon in Geography of Canada, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current edition is passable; thanks JW.  Note though: "portion" (and a major one at that) is explicit but succinct enough for an overview, more precise than "half" is in this context. E Pluribus Anthony 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is noted further down in the article, but I agree that it should be minimised upfront or qualified. E Pluribus Anthony 06:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the northernmost country in north america 

message: Vandalism reverted to previous version that did not discuss Canada's capital as being Rectum, Ontario, and Canada being the world's largest anal lubricant producer. Bluefox 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This article needs to have consistancy with accents in city names (ie. Québec City).  B/c Québec's official language is français, isn't the official name of Québec City (ville-de-Québec) in français, and therefore accented?  Or, if this article wants to use the 'Anglicized' version of their names, then do so.  This article can't have Quebec City in one place, then call it Québec City elsewhere in the article.
:Hi!  The article on Quebec City (and, for clarity,  this should probably be the form generally used in this English Wp) summarises the various differences of usage in both languages.  Further to that, I realise that the municipal website and elsewhere may use Québec City; however, the book Editing Canadian English (2nd ed.) indicates that the "(t)he form Québec City makes no sense in either language" (p. 77).  E Pluribus Anthony 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Québec City is not correct in English or Français, my point was simply that the article used both Quebec City and Québec City (which, I noted, you have rectified).  Thx! --chris 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally with you regarding consistency, hence my note and edits.  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 08:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Québec City/Quebec City 

message: I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide, but the  box link is intended for the ends of articles - not for the very beginning, nor with extraneous white spacing to permit such placement. Happy editing, --cj | talk 22:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello ... looks good to me.  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 22:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah ... is there any reason the portal link has to be upfront, perhaps having only one down below somewhere (where the dupe previously was)? E Pluribus Anthony 23:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it weren't for the fact that the article lacks a proper "See also" section, I would say the portal belongs there. The custom "Other topics" box that's currently serving that purpose seems to be a rather inflexible way of doing a see-also list; maybe we should revisit that formatting choice?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that would do.  As well, stop-gap or not, maybe we should just move the portal box near to the 'sister links' ("Other topics"?) box at the bottom of the page, keeping everything together?  And this won't wreak any havoc on formatting up top.  If there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony 23:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal link

message: I think that it is ridiculous to have a link to both Molson and the I am Canadian commercials in the Culture section.  Yes, beer is regarded as a Canadian cultural aspect, but is it necessary to place 2 ads for Molson?  I think it would be better (to shorten this article and for NPOV) if both were removed, and a link added for Beer in Canada.  That way, all beer-makers (including microbrews) can have equal exposure on Wiki. --chris 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  I agree: however, I would probably go about doing it differently that the current edition.  I think it prudent to only include brief mention of Canadian beer (not just Molson) for your reasons stated and the I am Canadian campaign (since this was relatively significant), not to expand on either or to specifically note Molson. E Pluribus Anthony 01:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. I was about to make similar changes when you beat me to it. :-)  Luigizanasi 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish I was always this quick.  :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the way you put it, but "dig"?--chris 02:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I actually had a much simpler version beforehand (and have restored it): appropriate details are in their articles, and the overview article is getting too long and (unnecessarily) detailed already.  I may have to do a thorough pruning of it.  E Pluribus Anthony 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ads for Molson 

message: There seems to be some disagreement, expressed solely by edits to the article, over how much information about immigration /multi-culturalism should be in this article.  I would like to encourage contributors to review Wikipedia:Summary style.  The article is at 55k.  A similar conversation took place at the article on Greece as well.  I suggest that multi-culturalism should get a mention in this article, but detailed information about immigration belongs at Demographics of Canada.  Jkelly 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: only brief and germane mentions should be made in this overview article, with detail in the appropriate subarticles; see above for my positions on this and that. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-culturalism / Immigration

message: the photo is accurat, but the discription isn't. "Ice Hockey events like the Canada Cup are popular in Canada" should be "Ice Hockey events like the World Cup of Hockey (formerly Canada Cup) are popular in Canada". I'll make the correction GoodDay 17:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of Gretzky with Canada Cup

message: Somebody should include political divisions. It has played an integral part of Canadian society and Canadian politics. Why is it not there?
:It is there: Canada#Provinces and territories of Canada. E Pluribus Anthony 20:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the above, a unique section is being added elsewhere in the article about political divisions, and I've reverted it twice.  Such a section in the article (above) already exists.  If any of this content is to be retained (and it is mostly redundant), it should be consolidated with the current section, not created anew. E Pluribus Anthony 05:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Divisions

message: Now that Paul Martin was overthrown by the Opposition, who legally governs the country? The Assembly is dissolved and nothing gets carrier on until the elections...I'll put on nobody for the time being, but we need to clarify this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.156.160 (talk • contribs) . 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin remains prime minister, and his cabinet all remain in their positions and can fully exercise the powers delegated to them by legislation.  No new legislation can be passed because Parliament is dissolved, but it's not much different from any other winter, as Parliament is rarely in session in December and January anyway.  There's no need to delete Martin from the infobox. Indefatigable 22:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Good to know; I'll acquiesce to your knowledge on the subject, since I wasn't 100% sure myself. Do you have any references to support this? I ask not so much to verify your contribution, as to educate myself as an obviously uninformed Canadian! :) Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 22:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Indefatigable: by convention, the incumbent PM remains in power until the GG asks the 'victor' of a subsequent election (i.e., the leader of the party who typically garners the most seats in the House of Commons, whether majority or minority) to form a new government. E Pluribus Anthony 01:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article Prime Minister of Canada, especially the section Term, explains it pretty well.  One of governor general's duties is to make sure there is always a prime minister.  The only exceptions are the few hours between the orderly resignation of one PM and the appointment of the next (such as Campbell → Chrétien or Chrétien → Martin) and the few days between the untimely death of a PM and the appointment of the next. Indefatigable 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good reading, Indefatigable. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: however, there is no direct mention of the GG's role in the transition of PMs (only notes about the dissolution of Parliament), at least in the term section.  Should this be rectified? E Pluribus Anthony 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Although his government was defeated in a vote of confidence on 29 November 2005, Martin remains Prime Minister until a new parliament is elected and the Governor General asks the leader of the victorious party to form a new government. Luigizanasi 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably generalise any such statement, i.e., any PM, not just PM Jr., only noting the current political maelstrom later and briefly. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 03:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Minister 

message: I was trying to update the disambiguation page for Liberal. For the link from this article to that page would it be better for it to go to Liberalism or to send it to Small-l liberal? -- murder1 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though it's more cryptic, I'd probably use small-l liberal: it's more specific to a Canadian context and also links to liberalism (and the same for small-c conservative).  E Pluribus Anthony 01:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Disambiguation Page 

message: Is this now a new territory, since they self-govern themselves?   --  user:zanimum
No. The article says: "Although Nunatsiavut will remain part of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nunatsiavut government will have authority over health, education, and justice in the land claim area." So the map won't change, and the leader of Nuatsiavut won't be appearing at First Ministers' conferences unless specifically invited. Ground Zero | t 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nunatsiavut]] 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&diff=next&oldid=31326912  (Question posed and link added by JimWae, 14 December 2005)
:That's how it appears to me.  Should we put it back to how it appeared before that revert, and save ourselves from correcting all the errors that we had already corrected?  HistoryBA 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've been bold and have reverted Fawcett5's edit.  I note that his/her edit summary was highly misleading.  Perhaps he/she would be good enough to provide an explanation for the edit here.  HistoryBA 16:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure: I support JW/HBA in whatever they decide. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Ten wikilashes ... ;) E Pluribus Anthony 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive revert to much previous version by Fawcett5 ??