:You say that as though it's happened more than once. And as I said before, those sources were removed because they did not support the statement being footnoted. I have discussed those sources above in painstaking detail. I will ask for a third time, what in any of those seven sources supports the existing language? I looked reasonably thoroughly at all seven (including the one that was paywalled, as I have JSTOR access), but given that I am fallible as anyone else, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that I missed something. I keep asking what you think I missed to no avail. <small>(Note: I removed the <nowiki><big></nowiki> tags in the preceding comment per [[WP:SHOUTING]].)</small> [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 04:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
:You say that as though it's happened more than once. And as I said before, those sources were removed because they did not support the statement being footnoted. I have discussed those sources above in painstaking detail. I will ask for a third time, what in any of those seven sources supports the existing language? I looked reasonably thoroughly at all seven (including the one that was paywalled, as I have JSTOR access), but given that I am fallible as anyone else, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that I missed something. I keep asking what you think I missed to no avail. <small>(Note: I removed the <nowiki><big></nowiki> tags in the preceding comment per [[WP:SHOUTING]].)</small> [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 04:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
::Should not be editing these articles if your not familiar with basic terms used in the field [[right-of-centre]]......off to bed....lots to review tomorrow.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 04:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
::Should not be editing these articles if your not familiar with basic terms used in the field [[right-of-centre]]......off to bed....lots to review tomorrow.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 04:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
:::So you're saying you didn't review the edits before reverting them? And without getting into my [[Wikipedia:There is no credential policy|credentials]], I can assure you I'm very familiar with the terms. [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} is a template I have created that links to a service that visualizes the extent of a National Topographic System map sheet. It draws a box on a map that corresponds to the exact extent of such a map sheet. Unfortunately, as there is no way we could cajole WikiMiniAtlas to show such an extent, I have instead had to link to an external site to implement this solution. It might prove helpful for people who would want to obtain NTS maps. I have also created {{Canada NTS Grid}} to calculate an NTS map sheet ID that contains a specified set of coordinates. I want to add {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} instances to articles that mention such map sheets. As an example, I have put it into the articles for Mount Logan and Mount Waddington. -- Denelson8322:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Denelson83 has added two external links to the infoboxes of several Canadian cities. I have so far clicked on (and then deleted) these links on two articles. The first link is dead, and the second link is a satellite image with a huge square around the city. Infoboxes are already cluttered, and there are already links to several excellent satellite maps by clicking the Template:GeoTemplate in the infobox. Perhaps Denelson83 could just add their satellite map to that template? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That will not draw a box on the satellite map indicating the extent of the map sheet. That is what I want my template to do. You are going to have to first find a way to make that possible without me having to resort to an external web page. -- Denelson8323:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have only checked a couple and notice the template needs tweaking. It needs to centre on the object and, ideally, have a place marker. I found this in the Whitehorse article. The city is in the top right but the map is centred on Fish Lake. The one for Innuit Mountain is here. The waterbody at the bottom right flowing out of the blue line is Nachvak Fiord / Nachvak Lake. Slightly to the northwest is a skinny lake called Chasm Lake and northwest of that is another skinny lake that I can't see a name for. Innuit Mountain according to the coordinates at Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB) is slightly southeast of Chasm Lake. Once the centring problem is fixed then it should be good. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva01:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the purpose of {{Canada NTS Map Sheet}} is to show the precise extent of a 1:50,000 scale NRCan NTS map sheet. The web page this template links to has an option to show tiles from OpenStreetMap's Carto service. What matters is that the referenced feature simply appears on that map sheet. -- Denelson8307:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NTS map sheet 25N10 is named "Hill Island", in Nunavut just south of Iqaluit. When an NTS map sheet is mentioned in an article on a location, it simply indicates that that particular location is found on that particular NTS map sheet. The template I created is simply an NPOV way of showing the extent of that map sheet. Think of it as a sort of "preview". But again, that is the best I can come up with for this particular objective. If you can find a way to both visualize the extent of an NTS map sheet and plot a given feature's location on the map sheet on the same web page, I would certainly like to know about it, so I can improve the presentation. And centring a feature on an NTS map sheet has no logic to it. The boundaries of an NTS map sheet are fixed. Might you actually be suggesting to plot a location, centre it on the screen, and then draw the NTS map sheet extent around it? -- Denelson8305:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of referring to paper NTS map sheets? That is so archaic. Does anyone still use this? Not really helpful to the project... -- P 1 9 9✉02:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know. Old maps are useful for historical research (it can be interesting in places like here [not Canada, in case anybody asks, but useful as matter of example]), and I assume that paper maps or digital scans thereof could still be useful to future historians too, but yeah, it's not much useful for an enyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numbering cabinet ministers
We've got inconsistencies among federal cabinet ministers. Some are numbered in the infoboxes (example) 31st Finance Minister, while some are not (example) Finance Minister. Which should it be? GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should be consistent, but I'm not sure which way is correct. I didn't think that Ministers of Finance were normally ordinally numbered, but our list in Minister of Finance (Canada)does have ordinals, so seems to me that we should also number them in infoboxes. On the same note, our article on Chrystia Freeland describes her as the 10th deputy PM and [unnumbered] finance minister, and we should be consistent there too. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above, messed up 2019 template. Could somebody explain to me, what I'm doing wrong? I've attempted to create a Template for Malpeque concerning the 2021 federal election & it won't appear, plus it's messed up the 2019 template. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you made your changes to the 2019 template ([1]) and then blanked the 2021 template ([2]). Did you get browser tabs mixed up? I do that all the time. I suggest taking the code from your edit to 2019 and saving it as a new edit at 2021, that should get you where you want to go. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's blank, you have to put some content in it. It also looks like you were trying to call it from the template page, which gives you a template loop error. Where are you trying to insert it? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I attempted to copy/paste the 2019 template into the 2021 template & then make changes to the content. Suffice it say, it didn't work (i.e template loop). GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think I saw where you did that, but I think you (accidentally) made your changes in the 2019 template, instead of making a copy and saving it as the 2021 template. I've just copied your edit over to 2021, you should be able to see it now and work on it from there. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also, if you want to speed up the process of copying the template code, you could save an edit with (for example) {{subst:Canadian federal election, 2019/Charlottetown}} which will produce a copy of the template code, and then edit it for 2021. I think these templates are a long way off from content that would require attribution. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A further note on this topic: the templates currently have a row labelled "Eligible voters" but that is incorrect. There is no count of "eligible voters" (i.e. Canadian citizens aged 18 or older), for any district, province, or the whole country. Instead, Elections Canada reports "number of electors on lists" ([3]) and bases turnout on that figure ([4][5]). Sometimes, for a specific purpose, a study is done that "uses the estimated number of Canadian citizens of voting age as the denominator [for the turnout calculation] instead of the number of registered electors" ([6]). But that estimated number of "eligible voters" is not what we use in these Wikipedia election templates. The label "Eligible voters" in these templates should therefore be changed to "Electors on lists". This comment applies to templates for Canadian federal elections; perhaps provincial or municipal elections use different terminology. Mathew5000 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian federal elections & provincial/territorial elections
Myself & @Joeyconnick: appear to be in dispute at 2020 British Columbia general election & the rest of the provincial/territorial elections, not to mention the federal elections. He suggests we have "(formerly formally the 42nd British Columbia general election)" in the 2020 BC election's intro. I surmise, that over theses last few years, those styles were gradually phased out of these articles. Do we want them back? which would mean adding "(formerly formally the 44th Canadian general election)" to the 2021 Canadian federal election intro? GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that descriptors like 42nd British Columbia general election are conveniences we use in Wikipedia because provincial and federal elections aren't on fixed schedules. In my opinion, such descriptors can and should be dropped when election dates are set. Further points: using the word "formerly" as Joeyconnick suggests is inaccurate, because it's still the 42nd election (just not commonly referred to as such), and the article goes on to state, "to elect members of the Legislative Assembly to serve in the 42nd parliament of the Canadian province of British Columbia", so the "42nd" numeration is preserved. I now leave the soapbox. PKT(alk)13:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"formerly" is a typo on GoodDay's end, the edits in question use "formally": [7]
If we're going to use the formal, nth name for future elections (eg: 43rd British Columbia general election), it makes sense to include those formal names in previous articles as well. Additionally, like Nikkimaria says above, the formal numberings aren't totally unknown; certainly more people will recognize "2021 election", but "44th election" or "election 44" do have some use amongst media sources [8] and, yes, the Twitter hashtag. — Kawnhr (talk)
But when that future election is called & we thus change the aticle title to (in this case) "Year British Columbia general election". Do we also add "(formally the 43rd British Columbia general election)" into the article's lead? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't suggest we have it in the lead. I suggested it had been in the lead quite a while and asked what the rationale was for removing it, given WP:STATUSQUO, since no explanation had been given in the edit summaries of the changes GoodDay had made. Given MOS:BOLDSYN, it seemed weird to me. GoodDay said something like "these have been falling to the wayside for a while" and I asked if they could point me to somewhere where this had been discussed. They then reverted my restorations and stated if I wanted the alternate titles added to "every single federal & provincial/territorial election article", I'd have to come here to discuss it. That was an immediate red flag to me, as I find people who are making IDONTLIKEIT edits often point to "other stuff exists" (or doesn't) and imply a change can only be made if it's made across the entire project as a justification for their edits rather than providing an actual rationale that aligns with our guidelines.
But anyway, I wasn't asking for additions to be made either across multiple pages or even these particular two: I was just asking for a rationale for GoodDay's two removals other than their claim the "(formally the Xth...)" format was being phased out. Given BOLDSYN, I think these kinds of indicators should stay. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, whatever's decided here, I'll implement. Be it re-adding or not, the formal titles in the leads. Even though (IMHO) the additions will crowd up the intros, where the "Xth Parliament" or "Xth Legislature" (for examples) is already mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a COMMONNAME point of view, the nth jurisdiction election name should be used for upcoming elections, while the year jurisdiction election should be used once the name is known as that is what most media outlets would call it. Is there any guidance from other national projects without fixed election dates (such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the UK, Australia & New Zealand election articles. The don't use it in their intros, including their future election articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the pages should be titled using the year of the election, but I think it makes sense to include the formal name (nth) in the lead as well, as they are still in use (albeit not as frequently).If we're not going to include the formal name in the lead (or at all) then we should probably start putting future elections at Next… instead of nth…. AFAICT Canada is alone is using the nth format for upcoming elections: Next United Kingdom general election, Next Australian federal election, Next New Zealand general election in the first place. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Next" titles lead to problems with linkrot and split histories (not limited to election articles), and should be avoided. If we know that the next election is the 45th (or whatever it is), then we should just start that article at 45th Canadian federal election. It can be moved to the MOS-standard "[year] general election" when the date is certain, and the left-behind page-move redirect will be clear and unambiguous. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source that the numeral title is the "formal" title? I don't think the numerals should be [re-]added, it leads to confusion. The articles should just read "the [year] election was held to elect the [number]th legislature": it's clear, correct, and doesn't clutter the lead with trivial numerals. There was a big discussion a few years back about the numbering of elections and general assemblies in the Maritime provinces, because those former colonies didn't establish new legislatures at Confederation and there was unsettled confusion about whether the legislatures should be counted from Confederation or from the establishment of the colony (also complicated because Nova Scotia skipped one, and PEI joined late). I guess don't assume that whatever works at the federal level will also automatically work for the provinces. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really want to clog up the intro, though? Especially, when the ..th parliament or legislative assembly 'is' already mentioned in the intro? GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would clog up the intro— it's just one parenthetical, and plenty of articles include alternate names for the subject in the opening sentence. It may not be the most elegant look, but I think that "44th Canadian general election" is important enough to include, given that it's the official name of the election and that abbreviated forms of it ("election 44") are in regular use. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included as well. This discussion seem to have come to a consensus more than a week ago and can probably be closed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already mention the # of the legislature in the intro of all these articles, so I don't see any need to 'repeat' that #. Also, the # election bit is kinda archaic. Heck, even the British aren't using it. Anyways, those who want them added, won't get any resistance from me. By all means, go for it. PS - That's gonna be hundreds of articles, as currently we don't use the 'formal #' bit, in them. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, since the discussion here seemed mildly in favour (or at least accepting of) putting "(formally the XXth election)" in the lead, I've been doing that over the last few days— slowly, to avoid the appearance of spamming and to test the waters to see if anyone objected. That happened over at 1957 Canadian federal election, with Wehwalt saying rv, still needs a citation saying that's the official name, not just what they happen to call it now. Are there any sources from 1957?. It's true that Elections Canada's relevant page only goes as far back as 1997 (the 36th election). Is this a concern? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology gradually faded away (i.e edited out) years ago, on the articles-in-question. I suspect over time, the same will happen again. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to say something's the formal name, then evidence that this is the formal name is expected, such as a source. Do election documents from 1957 refer to it in that exact manner? What Elections Canada says is descriptive of the general election, but that doesn't make that a formal name.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Elections Canada and the Library of Parliament are not sources for this, or why a contemporaneous document would be necessary to establish the name. Even if it were the case that the names were retroactively established, that doesn't mean it's not relevant. The Constitution Act, 1867 wasn't passed under that name but that's still what it's known as today. Is the objection just to the word "formal"? Would you prefer "also known as"? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So right now, roughly the first half of Canadian federal election articles don't have the formal title in the intro, while the second half do. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to do all of them, but I paused when I encountered pushback (mentioned above). It seemed unwise to continue until resolved. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Numbering deputy premiers
Hello. Would somebody explain to editor @Mewulwe: that we number provincial deputy premiers? See Kelvin Goertzen, where he's potentially gonna cause an edit war. He & I crossed paths on this numbering topic, in the past (see May 2017) on bios. PS: It would be silly to have one out of eight Manitoba deputy premiers, not numbered. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with deleting the numbering from all the Manitoba deputy premiers or deputy premiers overall. It would help if you or others, can give me a list of which ones to delete the numbering from. After all, it would look rather odd numbering one deputy premier & not the other, when they're from the same province. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no objections? I've deleted the numberings from the infoboxes of the other Manitoba deputy premiers bios. Why? A) So they'll be in-line with Goertzen's infobox & B) I'm not interested in getting into another of Mewulwe's edit-wars. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a fait accompli but I wasn't intending to presume that my opinion on the matter is authoritative; I think it's more a matter for discussion. As far as I know, deputy PM/premier is a position that's appointed at the discretion of the sitting PM/premier, and not a compulsory position, and so there are many instances of long vacancies between tenures of deputy premiers. For example there was no Deputy Prime Minister of Canada between Anne McLellan in 2006 and Chrystia Freeland in 2019; our table says the position was "vacant" but really the position just did not exist at that time. We don't appear to say that Freeland succeeded McLellan, but I think that numbering them 9th and 10th implies succession, notwithstanding the 13-year gap. However, as GoodDay observes, Manitoba has appointed a deputy premier continuously since 1988, and Deputy Premier of Manitoba seems to be a more formal position with an actual Cabinet portfolio, so maybe numbering does make sense for Manitoba. I don't know, I'm just giving an opinion here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I merely deleted the ordinals from the bios-in-question, as I wasn't interested in edit-warring with Mewulwe, at Goertzen's bio. For the most part, I no longer put up a fight over the general-topic (ordinals in office holders' infoboxes) when he's involved. His habit of randomly deleting an ordinal from an officer holder's infobox, with 'no' regard to a politician's predecessors & successors? is annoying, though. PS - He will edit-war over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a clear answer here. My instinct is that DPM should be numbered by analogy to PM, and because, hey, it's an important title. But on the other hand, I can't dismiss that DPM (and provincial equivalents) is not a formalized role, carries no explicit duties and responsibilities, and is even left vacant for periods— all of which rather underlines that it is, legally, "just another cabinet post". A cursory look at legislative libraries also doesn't show any separate lists maintained for the deputies. I think I'm leaning towards leaving it unnumbered in infoboxes on that basis, since we don't number other cabinet ministers, but I wouldn't fight a contrary decision. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've inconsistencies in the federal & provincial cabinet members. For example: Some of the bios of federal finance ministers have ordinals in their infoboxes, while others don't. FWIW - I'm in favour of 'deleting' ordinals from all federal/provincial/territorial cabinet official infoboxes, below the prime ministers/deputy prime ministers, the premiers & deputy premiers. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy Prime Ministers & provincial/territorial Deputy Premiers
Note: If Mewulwe deletes any ordinals from the infoboxes of any of the Canadian deputy prime ministers bios 'or' any of the Ontario, PEI, BC deputy premiers bios? I will follow his lead & complete the deletions, in each of those groups of bios. Consistency should be maintained in one form or the other & I'm not interested in getting into any edit-wars with him. PS- Despite having been pinged to this WikiProject discussion. Mewulwe has ignored it & chosen not to give his input. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poste Montagnais, Quebec
Does anybody know exactly what Poste Montagnais, Quebec is? The article says it's a community serving "Hydro-Québec's electrical substation, "Poste Montagnais" (Montagnais Substation)" but I can't seem to find anything about it other than there was a weather station, an airport and the substations official name may be Poste des Montagnais. The coordinates in the article are for Lac Fournier. So is it a populated community, that is not listed here, or something else? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva03:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In November 2019, I noted on this page that Wikipedia had incorrect vote counts from the 2011 and 2015 federal elections. [9] The problem is that the "preliminary" vote counts were put into various articles and remained there years later, instead of the final vote counts.
Do we have any kind of systematic effort to revise articles that list vote counts, when the final counts are released? Here's an example from the 2019 federal general election, where Wikipedia uses incorrect numbers:
Wikipedia shows the following vote counts for the 2019 election:
McLeod 6,638
D'Aigle 4,279
Beckett 3,619
Falvo 1,757
Quinlan 295
total valid votes 16,291 (this is patently wrong! The sum of the figures is in fact 16,588)
rejected ballots 125
turnout 16,416
eligible voters 30,235
On the other hand, reliable sources [10][11] give the following figures:
McLeod 6,467
D'Aigle 4,157
Beckett 3,640
Falvo 1,731
Quinlan 296
rejected ballots 125
total votes 16,416
electors on lists 30,704
Weirdly, for some candidates (McLeod, D'Aigle, and Falvo), Wikipedia overcounts the candidate's number of votes instead of undercounting it.
The incorrect numbers were placed in the template in September 2020 [12] — well after the correct (final) vote counts were available [13].
My point is this: Putting preliminary vote counts in Wikipedia articles, that never get corrected, is much worse than having no vote counts at all. If these incorrect numbers persist on Wikipedia for Canadian federal elections, I can only imagine how bad the problem is for provincial and municipal elections. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoodDay: if you find information that's demonstrably not correct, you don't need to discuss before fixing it. As for a coordinated effort to verify or repair: no, there is not, other than your post here. I wonder if it would be possible to create a centralized results template and have the other templates read it? I'm not very proficient in templates but it seems like it would be much simpler to update and verify if we just had one centralized table. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with GoodDay and Ivanvector, but the reference has to be updated to a site/URL that has the correct, final numbers. Please and thank you! PKT(alk)14:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I did not post here seeking permission to make a correction to some incorrect figures. There's no point in correcting these one at a time; what is needed is a coordinated effort to make the corrections or else delete the numbers. The NWT electoral district is just one example where Wikipedia has had wrong numbers since the last election. How can we avoid problems like this for next week's general election? The obvious way is this: let's not include the preliminary vote figures, at all, in any Wikipedia article. Or if we do, then the numbers should be rounded to the nearest hundred, thus indicating they are not exact figures. Printing exact vote counts would be great if they're all correct, but if they're only mostly correct, it's pretty bad. It would be better to have no figures at all. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with that too: filling the templates with "preliminary" or "unofficial" results badly fails WP:NOTNEWS. We're an encyclopedia, we can wait for the official counts to be published. However, we can't actually stop the multitudes who will want to be "F1RST" to add results in based on whatever loose sources or preliminary counts they can find, so maybe the best we can do is an advisory to readers that any results published are not official, and someone who knows what they're doing can remove the notice as official results are added properly. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "Preliminary results — not final" (or something to that effect) banners on riding results tables before, which would seem to thread the needle here: allowing people to edit in the preliminary results (/ not having to fight to keep those out), while making clear that they are not to be trusted as 100% accurate (and a notice for editors to fix it later). Are those not being added here, or are they being removed prematurely? — Kawnhr (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would agree that we should avoid preliminary numbers, and not add any numbers at all to election templates until the final numbers are certified — but, unfortunately, there's no easy way to enforce that, short of a blanket lock on all election templates for at least two weeks. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does Elections Canada expect to finalize results in just two weeks? I've seen it take 60 days or more for municipalities and Elections Ontario to issue "final" numbers. PKT(alk)16:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should report what RSes state. With this election, there will likely be first-night numbers and that will determine preliminary standing of parties. It will be reliably published by media outlets. Final numbers will not be available for two weeks due to process, and the articles should be finalized at that time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do we go by, though? It's likely that the various national media will report different results at different times, especially given what is likely to be a close contest in many places (the aggregator 338Canada currently has a 0.3% margin between the leading parties, and 60/338 ridings rated "toss up") and the official source (Elections Canada) does not officially declare winners, and won't post official results until many days later. If votes are still being counted, any edit someone saves with a reference will likely fail verification by the time a reader clicks on it. Better to have no information than unverifiable information. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When updating ballot counts for any election, the only source that should be used is the site of the organization that runs the election, be it Elections Canada, a provincial Elections body or a municipal website. Get the data from the source. PKT(alk)16:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Ivanvector's squirrel's last comment: creating the category for templates with unofficial results will help, but won't completely solve the problem. For example, the article Annamie Paul has incorrect results that are hard-coded in the source, not transcluded from a template. (Though the counts in Paul's article are wrong, the correct results for the 2020 by-election in Toronto Centre are used in the article Marci Ien, except that the number of "Eligible voters" is given as 81,400 while Elections Canada lists the number of "Electors on lists" as 81,861 [14].)
In response to some uncertainty in comments above about whether final results will be expected in a couple of weeks or a couple of months: This page (from the Elections Canada website) makes a distinction between on the one hand "validated results" certified by the returning officer in each district, "generally, within a week following election day", and on the other hand "official voting results" published "generally within several months of election day". Anyone who wants to venture into the weeds on this point can look at Chapter 2 of the Returning Officer's Manual.
If preliminary numbers are used in Wikipedia, they should be rounded. For example, in the infoboxes and tables in the main article for the election, obviously there should be some indication of the total popular vote for each of the main parties. But when the numbers used are preliminary, the figures in the Popular vote parameter of the infobox should be (for example) 6,943,000 rather than 6,942,937. In each individual article for electoral districts and for candidates I see no reason to include preliminary numerical results at all, just a statement of the winner as declared by reliable sources. I acknowledge, however, the points made above in this discussion, that editors will rush to include very specific information as soon as possible, and it is hard to enforce any guideline that discourages this. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can't perfectly solve the problem. For Annamie Paul, that article shouldn't have the results coded into the article, it should call the appropriate template. There doesn't seem to be one but there should be, it would be used in at least four articles (those two plus Kevin Clarke (politician) and Toronto Centre). That should be easy enough to fix. I think relying on the validated results as described is reliable enough, I don't think it's common for the officially published results to be significantly different from the RO's count, unless there are legal shenanigans which likely would make the news. I disagree that preliminary results should be rounded: for small ridings (i.e. PEI has about 28,000 electors in each riding) a difference of +/- 500 votes can change the result; we should publish the numbers that whichever source is cited publishes, without modification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created {{Canadian federal by-election, October 26, 2020/Toronto Centre}} and replaced the hard-coded results in the appropriate articles. In doing so I noticed that the linked page from Elections Canada is the validated results, and it appears that no official results have been subsequently published. Should we take that to mean that the validated results are the official results? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, it turns out that someone already thought of the "preliminary results" thing: I went to code in a |prelim= switch in {{Canadian election result/top}} but it's already there, so if you add |prelim=yes to the header template a "preliminary results - not yet official" banner displays right below the header. It doesn't add categorization though. If there's consensus here I'll go ahead and do that, I'll just have to figure out how. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Official voting results for the October 2020 by-elections were published on February 1, 2021 ([15]). I made some corrections to the Toronto Centre by-election results template. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up on this, I went ahead and created Category:Canada election preliminary results, a hidden tracking category that is populated by the |prelim= switch in {{Canadian election result/top}}. It's not quite working how I intended just yet: the category contains the results templates as well as the articles that transclude them, but it's a start. It's also revealed a few articles from older elections that still have preliminary results in them, which should be updated. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinals in infoboxes of cabinet member bios
We've inconsistencies in this area. I'll will slowly & gradually delete the ordinals from the federal/provincial/territorial cabinet member bios' infoboxes. Note, I won't delete the ordinals from the bios concerning prime ministers & deputy prime ministers, as long as Mewulwe doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the article of Joe Clark, on the last paragraph of the lead, on the second last sentence, it says, After the Progressive Conservatives merged with the more right-wing Canadian Alliance to form the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada in 2003, Clark instead sat as an independent Progressive Conservative, criticizing the merger as what he described as an "Alliance take-over", believing that the new party was drifting towards social conservatism.
Shouldn't it be "independent", rather than "independent Progressive Conservative"? Since he was technically registered as an independent.........Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the source, he still considered himself a progressive conservative, even though the party ceased to exist, in December 2003. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was technically an independent, but the HoC also allows members to choose any affiliation they want; and indeed PARLINFO shows he was recognized as a "Progressive Conservative" after the merger. But "independent Progressive Conservative" is a really odd way to put it, like it's trying to split the difference between his 'actual' affiliation and his self-designated affiliation. Given it's sourced to PARLINFO I'm skeptical of this wording; it feels an awful lot like one editor's interpretation rather than what Clark actually said. Ideally, we would find a news story where Clark announces this and use, but a Google search wasn't very helpful. But rather than get bogged down in the intricacies of recognized party affiliation, I think Moxy} has the right of it: we should just say he "declined (ed: or refused?) to join the party" and leave the specifics to the body. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The source (the website of Parliament) reads that from February 2, 2002 to June 27, 2004, he sat "as an Independent, recognized as a Progressive Conservative". Based on that I think saying "independent Progressive Conservative" in the lede is fine. I tried to find a better source; a Macleans article from mid-2002 doesn't mention his formal affiliation after the Alliance merger, and neither does a CBC article from 2018. My understanding was that politicians that were previously affiliated with the PCs and didn't align with the new party ran as Progressive Canadians because the Progressive Conservative trademark was taken over by the new party, but Clark retired before that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be a few days due to mail-in ballots for the tighter races (they won't be counted until tomorrow), but there should be a general consensus by around midnight Eastern Time. We should have a final number by Friday.[16] - Floydianτ¢16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Official certification for all ridings will take longer than that. It will depend on how many contested elections and/or judicial recounts there will be. Elections Canada provides details about the processes for recounts. That having been said, the majority of ridings will have clear results within a few days after the vote. PKT(alk)17:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion a few threads up about that. Elections Canada will post the "validated" (by each district's returning officer) results within a few days most likely, but the "official" (or is it "certified?") results may be weeks or months later. For the October 2020 by-elections the official results were posted the following February, as an example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Election results templates, redux
A while ago GoodDay started working on the results templates for today's election, but didn't get through very many. I tried to pick up where they left off today, starting in Newfoundland and working west, but I only got midway through Nova Scotia before the Elections Canada website started throwing 500 errors, so instead I started pushing the templates into the district and candidate articles (where they exist). For the 46 ridings which have a template, that's all been completed, but that's only about 15% of ridings. I'll try to pick that up again later but I need to get some of the work I actually get paid for done. Basically, NF and PEI are complete, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are a mix, all of the major leaders' ridings are done (but I didn't touch Electoral history of Justin Trudeau, it doesn't follow the same format), and it looks like someone else started working from the west coast (Vancouver is well-represented).
If anyone else wants to pick up on this, I noticed that various users have already created results tables in many of the district articles, and the data from those tables could be used to populate new templates. Be careful doing that, though, I did notice a few districts aren't using the official confirmed candidates listings and need to be updated.
I'll pass the ball over to yas. I won't have the time over the next few weeks, to even attempt to complete all 338 riding templates, for the 2021 fed election. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update, I got a bit more than halfway through Quebec and then had to stop, and Ebbedlila I think did a good job in Manitoba but I don't know how complete it is (I don't know the province well). The category has 111 templates now, so almost a third of the way done. Ebbedlila has also removed the "will be held on" banner from the templates. I was going to switch that out with the preliminary results banner but my AWB job was depending on that tag still being in, so I'll have to come up with something else. Some users have already started overwriting the template transclusion with hard-coded election night results (e.g. Toronto Centre), I've been moving the results to the templates and restoring the links when I see it. Also, kudos to Fungus Guy who really did the lion's share of the work on creating the 2021 results tables in the district articles over the last few weeks, that was a big job. I've mostly just been porting their work into the templates. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries there, you just beat me to it is all. I'm pretty sure I can still craft an AWB recipe to add the tag, but haven't done so since most of the templates don't have any results to post yet. There seem to have been delays in processing special ballots, last I checked (this morning) no ridings have been completed. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Compare his photo on the Conservative party website in 2019 (via Wayback Machine) [17] to now [18]. It's the same guy but now they spell his name Joël Bernard with a tréma. As further confirmation, this article in Le Droit mentions that Joël Bernard, the Gatineau candidate, used to work for Stockwell Day. (Incidentally, you can see in the Wayback Machine that as of mid-August, the Conservatives listed a Robert Doucet as their candidate in Gatineau. [19] Bernard must have been a last-minute switch.) Mathew5000 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's our standard for handling the vote change/swing in districts that have had a byelection? Do we compare to the byelection, or to the previous general election? I'm seeing it done both ways and want to be consistent. As an example, in Toronto Centre the Liberal candidate earned 50.2% last night (preliminary results), compared to 42.0% in the 2020 byelection, and 57.37% in 2019. For the 2021 results, do we say that's a gain of 8.2% (compared to 2020) or a loss of 5.37% (compared to 2019)? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The results are compared to the previous election, so in Fredericton, it is a Liberal gain from the Greens, as the Greens won the seat in 2019. We should therefore compare to by-elections (as it's the previous election) unless there's been a redistribution, then we want to compare with the redistributed results it they're available (since it's preferable to compare the riding's results to the same geography).-- Earl Andrew - talk18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should PPC be included in the 2021 Federal Election infobox?
They did not win any seats, but there was some discussion in the talk page that since they got 5% of the vote they should be included. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe they should. The media covered them as they did the other, more electorally successful parties. This should be the primary guide regarding inclusion in the infobox of an election article.--User:Namiba15:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should be included. They were given broad national attention by the media, which really should be our only standard, but one might also argue that while they didn't win any seats, they gained significantly more votes than at least one party that did. Also, the box looks better as two lines of three rather than one line of three and one line of two. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reform Party of Canada - centre-right to right-wing or just right-wing?
Hi,
on the article, Reform Party of Canada, there appears to be a dispute (on the infobox) in which one group believes Reform was centre-right/right-wing while the other says it is just plain right-wing. There are only two citations that say Reform was centre-right while countless call it right-wing. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not centre-right. Centre-right is what happened after Reform merged away to create the Alliance. or the new Conservatives. Being to the right of the main conservative party means it was right-wing. Though, anything right of the absolute centre can be described as right-wing in any case. If the source is comparing the Reform party to U.S. political parties, then it would be soft-right in the U.S. context, or moderate/Rockerfeller/RINO Republican. Reform was to the right of all major parties at the time; the PC, the LIB, the BQ, the NDP, the SoCred. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reform didn't merge with anyone to create the Alliance. They merely changed their name to Alliance in 2000. Then in December 2003, Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives to create the Conservative Party. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that they were "centre-right" relative to hard-right figures like Hitler or Mussolini, but they certainly weren't "centre-right" relative to centre-right figures like Joe Clark, Angela Merkel, Danny Williams, Tim Houston, David Cameron, Theresa May or Nelson Rockefeller. They weren't fascists by any means, but they certainly weren't moderate "progressive conservatives" either. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reform changed their name to Alliance in 2000, with the hopes of winning over Eastern Canadians. It didn't quite work out for them, as first they were caught off guard by a snap election in 2000 (shortly after their name change) & secondly, chose Stockwell Day as party leader, instead of Preston Manning. Kind of a backstabbing to the guy who brought them into existence. Eventually they'd replaced Day with Stephen Harper as leader. Then Alliance leader Harper & newly chosen PC leader Peter MacKay (who broke his word about no-merger & stabbed David Orchard in the back), agreed to unite the right & (depending how you look at) merged their parties to become the Conservative Party or dissolved their parties & the former members formed the Conservative Party, in December 2003. The result of the near reunified right (remember the BQ still exists), have given the Liberals a real opponent, since 1993. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^Finkel, Alvin. Review of Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, by Trevor Harrison. The Canadian Historical Review, vol. 77 no. 3, 1996, p. 454-456. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/574837.
Two types of election maps, being used in Canadian federal election articles
The 1867, 2011 to 2021 fed elections use one type of map. While the 1872 to 2008 fed elections use another type of map. Not sure how to fix this. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trudeau infobox image
It appears that me and User:Angelgreat are in a dispute on which photo the Justin Trudeau infobox should have. The original photo was taken in 2019, then Angelgreat changed the photo to a 2021 image with him wearing a beard. I argue that the 2019 infobox photo should be kept.
Angelgreat's proposed infobox image (2021 with beard)
Well, the bearded image is the most recent and with the fact he currently has a beard seems better to use and thus is the best to use in the article. Angelgreat (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image is better. Beard aside, the pandemic hair he has in the newer photo isn't really representative of how he normally looks. By the way, shouldn't this discussion be at Talk:Justin Trudeau? – Anne drew18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have already clarified. He shaved off the mustach & beard, in preparation for the 2021 campaign. Not sure if he'll grow them back. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a rule that current photos are preferred over older photos in infoboxes. The rule is that the photo has to be Justin, not that it has to be recent. So "this image is more recent than that one" has nothing to do anything. And since he's shaved the beard again anyway, it isn't even reflective of his current appearance at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Annamie Paul
Has she already resigned as leader of the Green Party of Canada? or is she remaining leader until her successor (interim or permanent) is chosen? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CTV News is the only source I've seen to be explicit with this: The embattled Green Party leader announced Monday that she’s started the process of withdrawing from the role … Even aside from that, though all other the sources are careful to say she is resigning rather than has resigned (which suggests she's staying on until a successor is selected or maybe just that there's a process to go through). So I think it's safe to say she's still the leader for the time being, albeit an outgoing one. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kawnhr here - she has announced that she is going to resign, but has not yet. She may stay on until her successor is chosen, or she may leave the position vacant, but no sources are saying for certain nor really saying much of anything about it at this point. Much the same way that Wade MacLauchlan announced his resignation immediately following the 2019 Prince Edward Island general election (on April 26, 2019) but remained leader of the Liberal Party until Robert Mitchell replaced him on May 8. Then Mitchell resigned, then Sonny Gallant resigned; the party still hasn't elected a permanent successor. Given her statement it seems kind of likely that she will just walk away, but I'm sure it will become clear(er) within a few days. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is Anything But Conservative, the strategic voting tactic, a topic worthy of its own article? My gut feeling is no, since it is not really an organized campaign and just handwringing and tactical considerations by some of the electorate (with the exception of Danny Williams' ABC campaign, but that can be incorporated into the relevant page[s] easily). But I wanted to ask the project before moving to AFD, in case there is something here and it just keeps massive clean-up and expansion. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree that it's notable enough to warrant mention in the relevant other articles, but it's not notable enough to warrant its own separate article as a standalone topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jag Bhaduria
While updating election results tables I came across the biography of Jag Bhaduria, which when I found it was just a complete mess of BLP-violating content posted with no extant sources. I completely overhauled the article over a couple days, however there are some sources I can't access, and what's left is basically an entirely negative BLP. I'd appreciate if I could get some more eyes on it, and if anyone has a subscription to the Hill-Times I can give you a few more articles to review. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those is we can't use court cases themselves as reliable sources, and I haven't been able to find any third-party sourcing for them other than the OCT confirming that his suspension was upheld. I would like to add more detail about those, though. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does OCT stand for? Anyway, here are a couple of reliable sources (behind paywall, but many public libraries have free access for cardholders):
Canadian Party colour templates: link to Alberta Non-Partisan League
Issue has come up about the entry for the Alberta Non-Partisan League in the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada/list of parties. The entry assigns the Non-Partisan League a pink colour, but when that code is used in an election result box, it links to the Nonpartisan League of North Dakota, rather than to the Alberta Non-Partisan League. The Alberta League nominated three candidates for the 1917 Canadian federal election. The entry for the League in the election results table showed the pink colour, but the link went to the North Dakota article. @Orangemike: has correctly fixed the entry so it links to the article on the Alberta League, but now the colour box is grey rather than pink. I have no idea how to correct the entry in the "Political parties" list so it will show the pink colour and link to the Alberta Non-partisan League. Could someone with technical skills take a look at it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add an "italic_title = no" line to the infobox. That will break Infobox SCC's automatic formatting of the title, so that DISPLAYTITLE will work on its own. Essentially, the problem here is that because the final "Attorney General" is in parentheses, the infobox is automatically presuming that it's present as a disambiguator, rather than as a core part of the title — so what you want to do is shut down the title formatting function in the infobox so that DISPLAYTITLE will override it. (I ran into the same problem with the short film Biidaaban (The Dawn Comes) in 2019.) Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Seems this infobox doesn't allow for an italic_title = no param, and I am not competent enough to edit {{Infobox SCC}} myself to provide for one, so I've gotten around it by switching on the noerror param on {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Not especially elegant, but gets the job done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the infobox coding has the "| italic title = {{{italic title|<includeonly>yes</includeonly><noinclude>no</noinclude>}}}" line in it, so it clearly does permit that. But whatever works. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to a page on peoplepill.com, a site so unreliable that I can't even provide the link here because it's blacklisted and thus I can't save any edit that actually includes it, newly elected MP Lori Idlout is the granddaughter of Inuit hunter Joseph Idlout. But I can't seem to find any better source that says the same. Additionally, if this is true it would also make her a relative of singer Lucie Idlout, but I can find no indication of whether that would make Lori and Lucie sisters or cousins either.
Lori Idlout's mother's name is Carmen Idlout ([28]) though not sure whether that's a birth name or married name. Lucie Idlout's mother's name is Leah ([29]) so it's fair to conclude that Lucie and Lori are not sisters. I couldn't find any reliable source saying whether Lori Idlout is related to Joseph Idlout. She's pretty accomplished in her own right, so if she is related to Joseph it would just be trivia anyway. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The family connections of anybody who has a Wikipedia article are essentially always trivia, because they always have a Wikipedia article because of their own accomplishments rather than because of who they're related to per se. But that doesn't stop us from noting that notable people have notable relatives, if and when we can source the fact properly, for anybody else. Bearcat (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that the political spectrum positions are based solely on the country's spectrum or is it worldwide? If the former, I don't see why a note shouldn't be next to all positions to make it clear to readers. I have been confused about this, and I would believe many non-registered users are too. Cable10291 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10,000 Challenge fifth anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its fifth anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any source of Stephen Harper's infobox political affiliation?
It says in his infobox he was a Reformer until 1997 and then left the party. Also says he joined the Canadian Alliance in 2002. Need sources please, as it would be weird if he left the party in '97 and then suddenly joined back in 2002. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1993 Harper became the Reform member of Parliament for Calgary West. He resigned that seat in 1997 to head up the National Citizens Coalition lobby group ( From 1998 to 2002, Stephen Harper served as NCC president).. In 2002 he succeeded Stockwell Day as the leader of the Canadian Alliance party (becoming leader of the Opposition), then resigned that post in 2004 to become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada"[32].Moxy-15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go to a library and get some history books for the period. St Laurent was pre-internet by a long shot, so the resources on-line for him are not as good as for more recent PMs. Two books you might want to check out are Mr Prime Minister by Bruce Hutchison (dated, but Hutchison was writing as a contemporary of St Laurent), and Granatstein's book on ranking the Prime Ministers. Granatstein in turn may give you pointers for other texts or articles to check out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the flaws in the Wikipedia project — people whose notability was accrued pre-internet very often have much shorter and lesser-quality articles than people who are still present in the contemporary news cycle, simply because Wikipedians tend to just search Google for sourcing, and toss up whatever they can find in a casual web search, instead of actually putting in the effort to do traditional library research. (And conversely, precisely because sourcing contemporary figures is so easy and Googly, their articles tend much more to get bogged down in trivia that doesn't really need to be in a Wikipedia article at all, such as every individual time an MP shows up at a community event to hand over a giant plastic novelty cheque representing a government funding announcement.) But there are definitely books that can be used for St. Laurent, and archived newspaper coverage from his own time that can be found on microfilms or in news databases like Newspapers.com or ProQuest — he just won't Google as well as Justin Trudeau does, simply because very little of his sourcing would be web-published contemporary news coverage from the 2010s and 2020s. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great project, I have a history degree and have noticed the same thing but have been a bit stuck on how to improve relevant articles, because I already run into this issue of notability and sources - I have been trying to address the deficit of articles about non-profits/charities in Canada, and it is really tough. News articles about most of them are not what many editors consider "noteworthy" and in many cases what media sources did exist are no longer available because newspapers or broadcasters no longer host them. I have tried to explain that for such organizations, a hundred "little" references is very notable, because they are not celebrities or video game makers, their work doesn't get recognized with stories that feature the organizations themselves (unless we think of 80,000 charities we should only have articles about a handful of huge charities). Anyway, I digress. I know a little about PM St Laurent so I will also take a look myself. He was a unifying force, nationally, and very active internationally. He is not very well known, but objectively, could be seen as one of the greatest PMs. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dollar symbol and MOS requirement to identify dollar except US dollar
On John A. Macdonald, there appears to be a dispute in the last paragraph on in the lead. It says "Macdonald has come under criticism for the Chinese Head Tax"...............the Chinese Head Tax was definitely a racist policy, however, it was considered normal at the time. I removed that sentence and kept the Residential Schools part, though my edit was reverted. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this has been brought here. If there's going to be a general discussion about edits to a specific page, the Talk page for that article is the starting point. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The full text you removed begins with "In the 21st century, ..." and describes modern criticism of Macdonald and the Chinese Head Tax, as the criticism is written about in the article. Whether or not it was "normal" in the 1860s is not relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a style guide for Indigenous Canadian topics?
As an Australian editor, I started compiling a style guide for referring to Australian Indigenous peoples and related topics a couple of years ago (see here and here if interested to see what I'm aiming at), as I have found that many of the standard WP rules and guidelines (in particular capitalisation) don't work for what is now standard Australian usage. It has just occurred to me to consult you lot to see if you have any peculiarly Canadian style guides to follow with regard to Indigenous Canadians. I see a few discussions in your archives by searching on Aboriginal, but being a bit short of time just at the moment just thought of asking here as a shortcut. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cobblet, I will have a read of those out of interest, but I am mainly interested in whether Canadian Wikipedians had developed anything for guidance on Wikipedia, relating to local usage. There are quite a lot of external online MOSes for Australian usage, but as non-Indigenous Australians, non-Australian editors and Australian editors with little familiarity with these recommended or common usages also edit, and there is nothing on the standard MOS and WP pages about, e.g. capitalisation with regard to Indigenous peoples and related terminology, I thought it would be a good idea to develop one (after discussion and consensus of course) so that it is easy to consult for all editors. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a Wikipedia-specific style guide for indigenous topics at present, although a section for indigenous issues could certainly be added to WP:CANSTYLE if anybody has any ideas for the kinds of things that could potentially be written in it. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created Draft:United_Way_East_Ottawa which should have been published originally, but I got tagged as COI (totally not the case) and the article has been languishing for months. It is pretty straightforward. It is one of the biggest charitable organizations in the country, but because it went into the review process, I've got editors wrongfully suggesting it shouldn't be an article because it is a "branch" (untrue) or because it lacks notability. If someone could help me out by reviewing it and approving it (and changes of course if needed) that would be great. I would like to have it off my list and off my mind, if I can't successfully publish an article about an obviously notable organization, I must be totally useless. I know getting drafts approved can take time, but this is way beyond the average. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was draftified, and since then has been declined as a draft three times. You resubmitted it just one week ago. This is certainly not "way beyond the average". As the template says, This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,724 pending submissions waiting for review.
As for a possible COI issue, you are declared as a paid editor on LiveWorkPlay, another Ottawa charity, you've declared that your "boss is a volunteer board of directors, and your paid duties include "communications work". I note that you are not following the proper procedure for editing an article ( LiveWorkPlay) in which you have a conflict of interest. I am not at all surprised if the possibility of a COI in this new topic (another Ottawa charity) was raised. Meters (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meters Why are you talking about the LiveWorkPlay article? It was successfully published, and yes, I had to work through understanding the COI and paid editor policies. What does that have to do with what I am asking for help with here? I want help with the issue at hand - I AM NOT IN A COI with United Way East Ontario. I should NOT have been declared as such - without even an opportunity to discuss it - and your response that my concern about the article at hand and being wrongfully labeled COI has something to do with a different article is NOT what the Teahouse is supposed to be about. Your response doesn't make sense. For the record, I never tried to hide my relationship to LiveWorkPlay. I was a new user who was learning the right declarations to make. Am I to be punished forever and labeled COI forever for any article I write about a charity? I don't work for United Way, I've never been paid by United Way, and no one has explained why I am in COI - so thanks for your non-help and making this a further negative experience. I am simply trying to publish an article about a notable organization in a section of Wikipedia that has a huge deficit of articles. Iamthekanadian (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to make this a negative experience. I am trying to help. You asked a question about submittals of drafts and I gave you an answer. One week since your last submittal is far from "way beyond the average". Wait for someone to review it. As I quoted, it might take seven weeks or even longer.
I did not say that you had a conflict of interest in the UnitedWay article. You appeared to be complaining about COI questions relating to this article, and I was simply explaining why such concerns might have been raised, given your COI with a closely related topic and your current lack of compliance with WP:COI. If no-one raised a COI issue with regards to the United Way article then why are you claiming that it was delayed by a COI issue? If you simply chose not work on it while you dealt with the COI issue with the other article, that was your choice, not our doing.
Perhaps you should read WP:COI again. You seem to be saying above that it only applies to paid editing. That is not correct. And you should not be directly editing LiveWorkPlay since you have declared a conflict of interest in that article. Meters (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purely the editors that focus on those articles. I have the same scheme with road articles; the entire country has 230 articles that are B-class or higher, and 200 of them are articles that I took through the processes, all from Ontario. - Floydianτ¢18:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood it. We always used the election date (in this case Sep 20, 2021), as the ending/begining of the outgoing/incoming MPs' tenures. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:GoodDay okay, but Instant Comma is still not listening. He makes the case that it should say September 19 (his reasoning is because it shows on the parliament website) rather than September 20th. There is still a dispute here. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional consensus of Wikipedians was to use the writ drop, not election day. I'm not insisting that it has to stay that way, and I've explained the complexities of the situation below, but the existing consensus has been writ drop, not election day. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that there are three different competing views out there in the world about how to denote the end of an MP's term:
Dissolution: Because parliament is dissolved during an election, and thus there's no sitting parliament for people to actually be members of, an MP who isn't returned to parliament (either because they were defeated or because they just didn't reoffer) in the new election ceased to be an MP at the writ drop.
Election day: An MP who isn't returned to parliament ceases to be an MP only on election day itself.
Last full day: An MP who isn't returned to parliament ceases to be an MP on the last full day before election day.
The complicating factor, of course, is that you can find sources out there following all three of these practices. Strictly speaking, there's no officially right or wrong answer to this question — there's no law that stipulates that an outgoing MP's term ends on this date or that, so you see different sources doing all three of those things depending on their own preferred interpretation of the nuances and complexities.
And by the same token, although you don't see option #1 applied to prime ministers, you do still see a slightly different version of the "2 or 3?" issue — an outgoing PM continues to hold the role in a caretaker capacity until the new PM is actually sworn in by the GG a couple of weeks after election day, and does not cease to be PM either with a writ drop or the moment the media declare that somebody else won the election, but the question still comes up as to whether to denote the outgoing PM's term as ending the same day their successor was sworn in to replace them, or the last full day before their successor was sworn in to replace them.
Accordingly the debate about how to denote the end of an outgoing MP's term has come up here in the past, and consensus at that time was to go with the dissolution date. Yet, of course, even if there was an official consensus to follow one particular practice, you'll almost certainly find some Wikipedia articles where an editor did something different and it just didn't get noticed by other editors (let's face it, Wikipedia does not have a good quality control process to ensure that all of our articles are consistent!)
So I'm certainly not wedded to the idea that we have to keep doing it that way — I don't have any strong opinions about which of those practices we should use here, other than the fact that whatever we decide to do we need to be consistent about it. But because the consensus in the past was to use the dissolution date, if there's a consensus to change to a different date there are a lot of MP's articles that would need to be gone through to have their end dates changed. If there's one thing we really shouldn't be doing, it's changing the end date on Kenny Chiu and Peter Kent but not on Adam Vaughan or Bob Bratina or Paul Lefebvre. Either we make and follow through on a commitment to comprehensively review every article we have about every historical Canadian MP to ensure that the end date is changed to whatever the new consensus date is across the board, or we shouldn't change the consensus at all — because being inconsistent and messy about this is a much more mortal and unforgivable sin than just not using the date Instant Comma prefers. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always went with the 'election date', as the end of the term. Otherwise, we'd have re-elected MPs with gaps between their consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't start "new" offices for reelected MPs, unless their riding got redistributed so that they were reelected in a different riding than the one they'd left — if an MP is reelected to the same office, then we just treat the whole thing as one continuous term rather than breaking it up into two or three single-election offices. The issue only comes up if an MP's time in Parliament ends completely, so that they're not a member of the new parliament at all or if they were reelected but the riding changed due to a redistribution. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify my position, which seems to have been misinterpreted above. (1) There is no date that "Instant Comma prefers." It can be September 20 or September 19 or August 15 as far as I'm concerned. My only preference is that we follow the sources. I've cited sources. Some others who have contributed to this discussion have not. (2) I did not take a consistent practice and make it inconsistent. When I went through to change the dates, some said August 15, even more said September 20, and one said September 21. It was already inconsistent; I was trying to make it consistent. (3) In my view, it is better to be inconsistently right, and moving toward being consistently right, than to be consistently wrong. If the correct date is the date of the election (or the date before), we should be moving toward that, rather than insist on keeping the wrong date just because that's what we've done in the past. For Bearcat, being inconsistent is the "mortal and unforgivable sin." For me, providing wrong information is a bigger problem. Instant Comma (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is consistency. Go with whatever we've been doing these last few years. PS: IMHO, option 2 (election day) should be used, but I'm not going to open an RFC over it. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all clear that "date of the writ drop" is "wrong" information. You're free to have an opinion about which date we should use, but there is a genuine legal basis for the position that an MP's term ends with the writ drop — like I said, I don't even have a strong opinion one way or the other about that, and all I was doing was explaining the situation — so you're not free to just arbitrarily label it as "wrong". Stick to providing reasons why we should reconsider the existing consensus, rather than calling it "wrong" per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an "opinion about which date we should use" - and if I had an opinion, that would be irrelevant. I would like us to use the correct information (even if that correct information is that an MP's term ends when the writs are issued) and avoid using incorrect information on the specious argument that it's better to be wrong and consistent than right and inconsistent. So how do we know what is correct and what is incorrect? On Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. This should be a discussion of reliable sources, not an exchange of opinions. Instant Comma (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A related topic. When does a cabinet member's tenure end? On election day (if they have ran for or lost re-election as MP, MLA etc) or when they actually resign. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's correct that a minister doesn't necessarily have to be an MP (remember, Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew were parachuted into cabinet from the outside, and thus were cabinet ministers before they became MPs, and I don't remember the guy's name off the top of my head but Harper also tried to appoint a senator as a cabinet member at some point although I don't think it lasted very long). There's also the concept of the caretaker government, which explains how this kind of thing can happen. So cabinet ministers work like prime ministers, not like MPs: a cabinet minister continues to hold the role until such time as their successor is sworn in to replace them, even if the person technically isn't an MP at all anymore. And even if a cabinet minister resigns or dies, the PM doesn't typically leave the role unfilled for weeks at a time, but announces their replacement within a day at most, so even that doesn't really pose much of an issue. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet shuffles
I have a quick question I wanted to ask about 2021 Canadian cabinet reshuffle (which is not about the post-election shuffle that just happened a few minutes ago, but the minor mini-shuffle back in January when Navdeep Bains resigned from the cabinet). Namely, do we really necessarily need a standalone article about every cabinet shuffle that happens, or should we apply an importance test to distinguish cabinet shuffles that warrant articles from cabinet shuffles that don't?
The question, to me, is one of context: I can imagine a cabinet shuffle having such unusual impact that it would pass the ten year test for enduring significance as a standalone topic in its own right, but I certainly don't see how every cabinet shuffle automatically passes that sniff test. If all PMJT does is move around one or two people because of external circumstances like a cabinet minister resigning or dying in office, then I don't see how that's an important topic for us to maintain an article about — if a shuffle has more impact, such as the 2019 shuffle that moved Jody Wilson-Raybould from Attorney General to Veterans Affairs and then blew up in JT's face, then I can imagine plausible grounds for a Wikipedia article, but (a) this isn't that, and (b) that doesn't have an article at all.
FWIW there are articles for UK shuffles (eg: 2021 British cabinet reshuffle), so these articles aren't without precedent. Even so, I struggle to see the need for such articles; I do think it's useful to note when a shuffle happens, and to explicitly mention who joined or left, but I think it would do better to be included on 29th Canadian Ministry. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker first paragraph leads
Notice how for these two articles, the first sentence of their first paragraphs in their leads start differently than all of the other 21 Prime Ministers.
John George Diefenbaker PC CH QC FRSC FRSA (/ˈdiːfənˌbeɪkər/; September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was the 13th prime minister of Canada, serving from 1957 to 1963.
As compared to all the other ones:
__________ was a Canadian politician who served as the __ prime minister of Canada.
By all means add "Canadian politician", to the intros of Macdonald & Diefenbaker. PS - For the Canadian prime ministers who were born in the UK? I wish we'd use "British-Canadian" & birthplace UKGB. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More italics woes: parentheses in title of statutes
There are several articles in the style: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (specifics). However, when the "italictitle" template is used in the article, the name of the article renders as An Act to amend the Criminal Code (specifics). Is there any way to fix this? For examples, see the articles listed at An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Dawson Creek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Good
Hi. I'm having a problem over at Matthew Good with another editor who refuses to allow the fact that he was dropped from his label for allegations of abuse in the lead. The topic is dealt with later in the article and is heavily cited. I asked the editor to take it to the talk page, but he ignored me an reverted me. Before it escalates into an edit war, I was hoping some other eyes could weigh in on the subject. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor-in-question, has very infrequently visited the 'pedia, in the last six years. Quite likely, a different person using the account. IMHO, the editor-in-question should be 'given' a warning & then blocked, if warning isn't heeded. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, not looking at the history of the article, this seems undue to be in the lead. It's a single paragraph in the article, and everything else is covered more heavily. The lead should summarize the article's main points, and I'm not entirely sure this counts as one of the main points of the article. Canterbury Tailtalk20:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look at the references, I agree with Canterbury Tail and the 'other' editor. But the debate should be on the article's talk page - I will post there as well. Cheers, PKT(alk)22:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree that it's not the kind of thing that needs to be highlighted in the introduction as if it were one of the most centrally important facts in his entire career. The information is already covered and properly contextualized and referenced later in the article, and Renfreak hasn't been removing it from there — but there's no need to call undue attention to it right in the lede. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without names (to whom we shall offend), the article should not include the allegations, lede or not, until they are proven. As per MOS:BLP, "Unless the event is highly significant and the individual's role was substantial and well-documented.", (emphasis mine), they are unsubstantiated claims. Allegations are worth the value of the paper they are written upon. - Floydianτ¢04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the allegations should only be included to explain why he was dropped from his label. It did make national news. That's why I thought it should be in the lead and the article. It affected his ability to publish music, which is what he was known for, along with his advocacy of mental health, from which he was dropped. However, if the consensus is that it should be removed, let's remove it. I'm not a stickler on whether it should be in the article/lead, just the other editor refused to discuss and before I got into an edit war with the individual, I wanted clarity. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not @Renfreak:'s edit was correct, isn't my worry. It's that since his 'return?', he only focused on that 'one' article & wouldn't communicate about his changes either on the article's talkpage or his own talkpage. Note: He hasn't edited anything, since his last revert was left standing. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2000 Election help
I made a line graph of opinion polls here. Problem is, on the x axis the dates are messed up. How to solve this?
Why is your post, mis-signed? I've always viewed having polls shown in election articles (where the election has already held), as being redundant. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding region order
The Federal Electoral Districts – Representation Order of 2013 Lists PEI before Nova Scotia, then the Territories from west to east. The map follows a pure east-west progression for the provinces and then follows with the Territories from east-west. I didn't notice the difference until another editor reordered PEI and Nova Scotia before the election.
It is not correct to say that the Representation Order of 2013 lists the Territories from west to east. In fact, the Representation Order ([33]) does not mention the territories at all. However, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act ([34]) lists the Territories twice, in subsection 2(2) and section 30, both times using the order Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut. My view is, articles such as Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding should either list provinces alphabetically (per WP:MOSCAN#Content organization) or in the same order that Elections Canada uses in reporting the results (namely, NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YT NT NU [35]). The way it's arranged now in the Wiki article (NL NS PE NB QC ON MB SK AB BC NU NT YT) does neither of those. It's not necessarily true that an "east to west" order would put Nova Scotia before P.E.I., because Nova Scotia extends both further east and further west than P.E.I., and for that matter, Newfoundland and Labrador extends both further east and further west than Nova Scotia. Does Labrador reach even further west than the westernmost point of New Brunswick? I'm not sure, but it's definitely close. Our article 2012 Canadian federal electoral redistribution uses a west-to-east order in the tables but an alphabetical order in the listing. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can leads have five paragraphs?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On John A. Macdonald I find it weird that a bit of his early life is on the first paragraph ("Macdonald was born in Scotland..."), I'm wondering if it's okay to split that part up and make it another paragraph in the lead? The lead would now have five paragraphs rather than four. Not to mention that there are also plenty of other articles, such as Pierre Trudeau, whose leads have five. Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been going through a lot of election pages lately, tidying up the colour codes, when I noticed something about BC and Quebec's municipal elections. In the cities that have local parties, those parties have colours assigned to them in the results tables… but those colours aren't generated with the usual {{Canadian party colour}}, but generated manually with hex codes. For example, check 2018 British Columbia municipal elections and 2017 Quebec municipal elections.
I feel this is probably not the best way to handle this; using hex codes directly is more complicated (or at least harder to remember) and opens up the possibility of inconsistencies across pages. My thought is that these colour schemes should be edited into the list that the template draws from, since they're in already use. But then I wondered if their absence was intentional, since municipal party politics can be volatile… in which case, perhaps the colours should be removed from these pages?
So I'll ask the project how these colours would be best handled:
1) Do nothing, leave them as-is;
2) Formalize these colours by coding them into {{Canadian party colour}}. New jurisdiction codes for Burnaby, Gatineau, etc.;
3) Remove these bespoke colours and use the independent colour (light grey) for all cities that don't have their own schemes;
4) Some combination of the above.
I agree. Ignore them, the accessibility nightmare that is colour usage means its best just to leave as regular text so users can override with their own various access settings. Canterbury Tailtalk20:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the party colours are an accessibility nightmare, should they be removed project wide? For federal and provincial lists as well? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were me, I would just ignore them, not use them in articles I was writing, and mention that they are bad when it comes up. But I wouldn't invest time in trying to remove them, because in my experience people who like them will spend just as much time adding them back. Just my feeling about it, though. As for the accessibility, as far as I know they would not "break" screen readers or interfere with text to speech, they might cause problems visually, but as the user above has suggested the users may be able to disable them with their own settings. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who is responsible for the colours on both pages, I'm definitely in favour of just ignoring them, as I've spent quite a bit of work trying to research which colours to use. Because things are so volatile in municipal elections, I figure it's not worth while to update the Canadian party colour list, and it's also fairly time consuming. -- Earl Andrew - talk23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But as a follow-up, if these colours are 'unsanctioned' (for lack of a better word; I'm not trying to be dramatic!), then wouldn't it be better to remove them from the pages that use them? Just list the party affiliation, but with no corresponding colour? — Kawnhr (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are they unsanctioned though? In all cases, I pull the colours directly off the party's website, facebook page, or failing that, their logo. -- Earl Andrew - talk14:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, I'd prefer they stay, especially for the cases where I've included the council results as well. Though, in those instances you could argue they should be 'sanctioned'. If it's an issue, I can start adding the party's to the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk18:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other— and since you're the one who's been primarily managing {{Canadian party colour}}, I'm willing to defer to your judgment here. I only brought this up because I wasn't sure if others knew about the colours on these pages (ie: that they were being added with a hex code, and not generated by the template), since municipal election pages are rather obscure. If it's all good, then don't mind me. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page of the president of the University of Toronto could use some more eyes from active editors in related wiki projects. The short desc of this BLP was vandalized in this edit on September 14, so that when you Googled Meric Gertler the infobox scraped from Wikipedia proclaimed that he is a "Canadian academic university administrator and neoliberal shill". That's sophisticated and potentially high impact vandalism that wasn't noticed until today, almost 2 months later. The page has also been the subject of very long-simmering disputes over language related to the University of Toronto's investments in the fossil fuels industry. It would be good have more page watchers. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goods and services tax - to capitalize or not to capitalize?
A few weeks ago, I moved an article from my draft workspace to Little Canada (attraction) and nominated it for DYK. A few days later, I was about to de-orphan it when I came across Little Canada (tourist attraction). The version I created was started on 17 August 2021 and moved to the main namespace on 30 October 2021. The other article was created directly in the main namespace on 30 August 2021. Questions:
Which title should this article use?
Should the articles be merged, or a simple redirect created?
I prefer the shorter title, but I'd rather leave this to editors not involved with either article to resolve. (A quick perusal of other article titles suggests there's an almost even split between the two disambiguators, with a slight preference for the shorter version.) I'd also rather not lose the editing history for either article, but depending on the title chosen and the way they are combined, this may not be possible. (I left the same question at DYK just over a week ago, but it has yet to be addressed, so I thought I'd ask here.) Once this issue is resolved, I'll work on de-orphaning the article. 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
User:GoodDay I too am confused. Judging by his contributions, I'd say about three quarters of his edits are related to deleting stuff rather than adding and actually contributing. Also he kinda butchered the Canadian Alliance article (gonna revise it now :P). Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:GoodDay He seems to be deleting a lot of credible citations too. Might be a bit over the line but should we contact an admin to give him a warning? Barely any of his edits are good faith... Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About 5 years ago this sort of tactic was used to change the infobox positions overtime. Just need to keep an eyeout. Best we follow more stringent verification ....statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.Moxy-03:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's precisely my concern. About 5 years ago this sort of tactic was used to change the infobox positions overtime. I would encourage you to assume good faith here, especially in light of the explanation I provided below. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I assume these six edits to Canadian Alliance to be those to which you're referring. These edits changed percentage signs used in prose to words, in line with the standard referenced by MOS:%. They fixed a typo (two periods where there should have been one). They added a wikilink to the term House of Commons the first time it was used. And they made changes to the "political position" of the Canadian Alliance.
I can explain the latter in further detail. The party was described as "centre-right to right-wing" in the infobox, the lead, and the body of the article. References were only located in the body (in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and MOS:LEADCITE). I made the following edits:
My first edit was to remove the Rayside, Sabin & Thomas citation[1] from the centre-right statement as there does not appear to be anything in the source suggesting that the party is centre-right. (I used the edit summary I don't see anything in this source that backs up the claim.)
The next edit removed the Grenier[2] and Harrison[3] citations from the same statement as they also did not suggest that the Canadian Alliance was a centre-right party. The closest they came was using the term "right-of-centre", a term that could encompass anything from the centre-right party to the far-right. (I used the edit summary "right-of-centre" ≠ centre-right.)
The third edit removed the "Canadian Political Parties" citation[4] from the same statement as it only described the party as "right-wing". (Edit summary: Not in citation.)
The remaining citations for the statement were Paikin,[5]Encyclopædia Britannica,[6] and Carson.[7] Nowhere in the Encyclopædia Britannica or Carson references is the party described as "centre-right". And while Paikin at least uses the term "centre-right", he uses it in the phrase "in 2002, the centre-right forces in the country were split among the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Quebecois." Here, Paikin is speaking about the parties' bases of support, not the parties themselves, which is all the more evident given that the Bloc is generally recognized as a centre-left (or maybe centrist) party. Accordingly, I removed those three citations and removed the statement from the three places it had been in the article.
What? can you see the sources? Pls do a word search for each one. Think we should review any changes to political articles .....simply not the place for beginners.Moxy-03:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can, in fact, see the sources (including Carson, which is paywalled but available via JSTOR) and have done keyword searches. Is there a passage you think I missed, Moxy?
Think we should review any changes to political articles .....simply not the place for beginners. I'm not sure what leads you to believe me to be a "beginner", but in any case, review is always good and should always be done in the normal course of editing. If you think "beginners" should not be allowed, that's what WP:ECP is for, but I don't see how the protection policy would allow for its application. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I removed sources that failed verification. I went through each of those sources in painstaking detail above. So as I asked above, what is it in the sources you think I missed?
^Grenier, Éric (July 27, 2017). "The Pollcast: Lessons from the federal PC-Alliance merger". CBC. CBC. Retrieved November 2, 2019. Fourteen years ago, Canada's two right-of-centre parties — the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives — merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
^Paikin, Steve (August 30, 2016). "What I wish I could have asked Stephen Harper". TVOntario. TVOntario. Retrieved November 2, 2019. the centre-right forces in the country were split among the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Quebecois
A consensus that the Canadian Alliance in centre-right to right-wing rather than right-wing
User:GoodDay and also other Canadian users, please reply to this consensus. I need to show User:Vif12vf that the Canadian Alliance is centre-right to right-wing rather than right-wing. It was centre-right to right-wing before but he changed it to right-wing without any citation. Now he's threatening to report me.
He wants a consensus about this. Can we all agree that the Canadian Alliance is centre-right to right-wing? (to show this consensus to Vif12vf) Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change it to right-wing, I simply reverted your edit, which btw was done improperly by adding "right-wing to centre-right" as a singular pipe leading to the article for Right-wing politics only, and not to the article for Centre-right politics. You also removed another pipe from the infobox without giving any kind of reason as to why! Furthermore, an unsourced item being in place does not justify swapping said item out with an equally unsourced item. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be easy to source just look up unite the right. Will do so when i have more time. I think we should make an article the "Canadian political Spectrum".. there's really a lot of basic stuff people seem to miss.Moxy-03:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that really is the case then explain these 3 things. 1, why did you not give a proper reason for re-adding this position? 2, why do you simply re-add the position without a single source to back it up? 3, why do you not re-add it properly as its own link, something you easily could have done by reverting to the earlier version where the position was present? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I wrote the following in reply to Ak-eater06 in the section above explaining my edits:
I assume these six edits to Canadian Alliance to be those to which you're referring. These edits changed percentage signs used in prose to words, in line with the standard referenced by MOS:%. They fixed a typo (two periods where there should have been one). They added a wikilink to the term House of Commons the first time it was used. And they made changes to the "political position" of the Canadian Alliance.
I can explain the latter in further detail. The party was described as "centre-right to right-wing" in the infobox, the lead, and the body of the article. References were only located in the body (in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and MOS:LEADCITE). I made the following edits:
My first edit was to remove the Rayside, Sabin & Thomas citation[1] from the centre-right statement as there does not appear to be anything in the source suggesting that the party is centre-right. (I used the edit summary I don't see anything in this source that backs up the claim.)
The next edit removed the Grenier[2] and Harrison[3] citations from the same statement as they also did not suggest that the Canadian Alliance was a centre-right party. The closest they came was using the term "right-of-centre", a term that could encompass anything from the centre-right party to the far-right. (I used the edit summary "right-of-centre" ≠ centre-right.)
The third edit removed the "Canadian Political Parties" citation[4] from the same statement as it only described the party as "right-wing". (Edit summary: Not in citation.)
The remaining citations for the statement were Paikin,[5]Encyclopædia Britannica,[6] and Carson.[7] Nowhere in the Encyclopædia Britannica or Carson references is the party described as "centre-right". And while Paikin at least uses the term "centre-right", he uses it in the phrase "in 2002, the centre-right forces in the country were split among the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Quebecois." Here, Paikin is speaking about the parties' bases of support, not the parties themselves, which is all the more evident given that the Bloc is generally recognized as a centre-left (or maybe centrist) party. Accordingly, I removed those three citations and removed the statement from the three places it had been in the article.
What about these edits leads you to believe the article was "butchered", Ak-eater06?
I think we have a duty to follow the sources here. If the preponderance of reliable sources suggest the Canadian Alliance to have been a centre-right to right-wing party then the language of the article should be left as-is in that regard and the appropriate sources added. If not, then "right-wing" – the same language we use to refer to the Reform Party of Canada – is the appropriate characterization. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say that as though it's happened more than once. And as I said before, those sources were removed because they did not support the statement being footnoted. I have discussed those sources above in painstaking detail. I will ask for a third time, what in any of those seven sources supports the existing language? I looked reasonably thoroughly at all seven (including the one that was paywalled, as I have JSTOR access), but given that I am fallible as anyone else, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that I missed something. I keep asking what you think I missed to no avail. (Note: I removed the <big> tags in the preceding comment per WP:SHOUTING.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^Grenier, Éric (July 27, 2017). "The Pollcast: Lessons from the federal PC-Alliance merger". CBC. CBC. Retrieved November 2, 2019. Fourteen years ago, Canada's two right-of-centre parties — the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives — merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
^Paikin, Steve (August 30, 2016). "What I wish I could have asked Stephen Harper". TVOntario. TVOntario. Retrieved November 2, 2019. the centre-right forces in the country were split among the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Bloc Quebecois
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
