Talk:Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DoubleBlue (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 13 November 2007 (→‎Comments on options: so?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCanada FA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Featured articleCanada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of April 5, 2024

What's new?

Articles for deletion

  • 11 May 2024 – List of flags by color combination (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Koavf (t · c) was closed as keep by OwenX (t · c) on 26 May 2024; see discussion (14 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

(7 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

Navigation

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Rwanda.)

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section

Opening paragraphs

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section.

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. See Canada or Japan for examples.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Too much detail

A section should be written in WP:Summary style, containing just the important facts. If it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. The link should be shown as below: (see WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for recommended hatnote usage) 

== Politics ==
{{main|Politics of the Netherlands}}

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available. The CIA World Factbook Maps can be used as a basis for the map, but plenty of other sources are available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s)).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text or fragmented image display for some readers. See WP:GALLERY for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Sisterlinks

Related WikiProjects

Popular pages


This article is hereby recognized as a recipient of the FCGA Award.

Notice: This article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to Canada, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., Politics of Canada, Geography of Canada, etc. Thank you.


Archive

Archives

2003–2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
2006
7
8
9
10
2007
11
12
13
14
15
2008
16
17
18
2009
19
2010
20
2011
21
2012
22
2013
23
2015–present
24
25
26
27

Discussion of Canada's official name

Canada's name
Official Name 1

Future TFA paragraph

Main Page

A minor change

I'd do this myself, but considering it's protected, that's not exactly possible. Anyways, the population density in the infobox and the population density under the headline Geography and climate differ. Please correct this. --Super Martyo Brother 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's relative geographic size

The article mentions Canada as the second largest (in land area) to Russia. As "Russia" has been broken up into several smaller soviet nations, would that not make us the largest?

Musesshadow 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Canada was smaller than the ex-USSR, which broke up. The largest resulting nation is Russia, which is still way larger than Canada.--Ramdrake 12:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See List of countries and outlying territories by total area for the details. - Eron Talk 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: naming controversy

If you want to settle the dispute over whether Canada is a dominion,federation,or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps, you should actually go as far as calling a government office to find out and confirm what the country's official name and status is. It might have to get to that point. Adamv88 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute over what the country's name is. There is a dispute over how to describe what the country became, and I don't know of any technology that allows one to call backwards through time. --G2bambino 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"There's no dispute over what the country's name is. There is a dispute over how to describe what the country became"

Hence, I said they should ask about the country's official name and status. Adamv88 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that there's no dispute over Canada being (presently) a Dominion (it isn't), only how to describe what it became (past tense). --G2bambino 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, Canada is still a Dominion. Clause 3 of the British North America Act 1867 stated explicitly that Canada is a Dominion, and this clause has NEVER BEEN REPEALED. Therefore, Canada is still a Dominion.

Why do people NOT GET this?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 75.162.0.146. The long-form name is the Dominion of Canada and its status is a Dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dominion (small "d") but not a Dominion (capital "d"). There is no longer a British Commonwealth of Nations, only a Commonwealth of Nations. --G2bambino 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is a CAPITOL "D" ... Dominion. The lack of usage of "British Commonwealth of Nations", does not constitute an abolishment of the term British. G2bambino, you and I, may be Constitutional-Monarchists, but we have very different interpretations on a great many things ... indeed.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, small "d" dominion, as in a territory under a sovereign's authority, not capital "d" Dominion, as in a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire (and, all together a separate issue to whether ot not it's called the "Dominion of Canada"). Further, you may choose to use the word "British" before "Commonwealth of Nations," but the Commonwealth of Nations itself calls itself the "Commonwealth of Nations." --G2bambino 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, LEGAL DOCUMENTS use the term Dominion (e.g., the British North America Acts), and the term British Commonwealth of Nations (e.g., the Statute of Westminster 1931). Since NONE of the BNA Acts (1867-1975), and the Statute of Westminster 1931 have been REPEALED ... these LEGAL TERMS (i.e., Dominion, British Commonwealth of Nations) are still in force.

G2bambino please direct me to the LEGAL DOCUMENTS that REPEAL these terms?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"British Commonwealth of Nations" is used in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. Preambles do not have legal effect.
You confuse the differences between usages of the word "dominion": general usage, usage within the British Empire between 1867 and approximately the 1970s, and usage within Canada's official name. --G2bambino 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2bambino, I do respect you. I really do. The point where you and I differ in on the "Split-Crown's" Constitutional-Monarchy Model. With regards to the usage of Dominion, Canada was founded as a Dominion in 1867, and the Canada Act 1982 did NOT change that , in other words Canada is still a Dominion (today in 2007). Canada's Dominion Status has never been legal repealed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting; perhaps you're right. The Statute of Westminster, which remains a part of the Canadian constitution, does define what a Dominion is, and says Canada is one. I'm unsure if any subsequent legislation overrides that. This is, however, still a different discussion to any about the country's name; that was the only point I was trying to make. --G2bambino 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello G2bambino. Okkie dokkie ... point-taken.
Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shows you what little I know, I thought the BNA was repealed in 1982, with the adoption of the Canada Act? GoodDay 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was simply renamed the Constitution Act, 1867. --G2bambino 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got two viewpoints here, I reckon. First there's the legal one, which believes that a term used years ago and unrepealed is carved in stone. Then there's the pragmatic viewpoint that believes names should reflect historical context and the common understanding. The British do not always go to the trouble of repealing laws. They tend to be lazy that way. Rather they often just drop the observance of the law. This is the case with dominion, dropped by 1948 and replaced by 'realm' in 1953. In a beach in Adelaide, South Australia there was a by-law prescribing fall length suits on beaches that was not repealed until the 1980s. Does that mean that until then that beach was a fully-clothed beach? Certainly not. The authorities simply forgot to change the law! I don't think anyone has trouble understanding that Canada was constituted the 'Dominion of Canada'. Some of us are only asking, is it still a dominion? And we also ask, what is a dominion anyway?--Gazzster 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit on "dominion" discussion

I opened the last attempt to resolve the "dominion issue" on October 28, and made and RfC not long after that. I'm just wondering how long we should allow that particular survey to remain open. One week? Two weeks? The Canada article is generally a busy page, but so far it seems it's only the same three or four editors involved in trying to resolve the dispute - even the user who initiated the whole affair has gone strangely silent for quite some time. So, we'll have to wrap it up at some point - hopefully soon. Can we agree to make a choice from the above 17 suggestions on November 12? That allows two weeks for input. --G2bambino 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussion may continue for a good time more. I suggest that if anyone wants to edit, just go ahead and do it! And well, if the fur flies as a consequence, that's unavoidable, and may even deepen the discussion. I think myself it's unlikely that admin would respond to a request for intervention. The discussion after all is nuanced and rather obscure (but not the less important for that). --Gazzster 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can edit; the page has been locked for nearly a month now. As of Nov. 12 it will have been one month and two days. I suggest we close the discussion that day, and whichever option has the most support will be inserted. --G2bambino 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LOL!!! Hello Gazzster.

"And well, if the fur flies as a consequence, that's unavoidable, and may even deepen the discussion."

Here, Here. Let the fur fly!

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, ArmchairVexillologistDon has been arguing his case without success for several years on this page. The case has been 'resolved' several times (and never in favour of "Dominion") but that hasn't stopped the discussion. Good luck.
And Don, it's "hear, hear" not "here, here". Not knowing stuff like this really doesn't increase your credibility as an export in Canadian parliamentary procedure. 199.71.183.2 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, hold up. So you're saying someone's spelling skills have even the slightest to do with their credibility? I don't have much personal knowledge on the whole dominion thing nor do I really care one way or the other, but this really bothers me. For all you know (s)he could be dyslexic and simply has problems writing things down. I would suggest that if this discussion is to continue in a rational manner that the participants should start basing their judgments of the capability of other editors on logical arguments and the presentation of hard evidence, not simple typographical errors. L'Aquatique talktome 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa there yourself, that's a pretty broad brush you are swinging around. "The participants" in this discussion have for the most part been grappling with logical arguments and hard evidence for several weeks and tens of thousands of word - cast your eyes up the page for a sample. As far as I can tell, the above comment is the only contribution made by User:199.71.183.2; that editor is hardly a participant at all. The rest of us have done fairly well at keeping things focussed on the content, not the typography, thank you very much. - Eron Talk 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel offended, I was simply making mention of something that bothered me. The reason that I put my comment directly under the offending one rather than at the bottom was to specify that mine was directed toward that user. Frankly, I'm surprised that the discussion has remained as civil as it has considering the controversy it discusses, and for that, I commend you. However, I do call it as I see it, whether or not that is a fault of mine perhaps remains to be seen. Also, I wanted to make mention of it because many people will read this who are not participants, indeed not even editors, and I don't want them to get the wrong impression of how we treat our fellow editors. Carry on, L'Aquatique talktome 05:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 199.71.183.2. Yes, I do have trouble spelling. I am an English-Canadian (i.e., English-Speaking Canadian) who was in early French-Emmersion. I speak and write Fr-english or Fr-anglais. I can't spell for shit, but I have managed to get a B.Sc., M.Sc., and a Ph.D.

Take care, ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Ph.D., eh? The issue hear isn't spelling but meaning. Do you understand that the phrase is "hear, hear" as in "listen, listen, what he said is right and praiseworthy"? If so, then it truly is atrocious spelling to substitute "here" for "hear". On the udder hand, 199.71.183.2 may have just been playfully poking fun at your spelling. After all he did suggest that you were having credibility problems as an "export" in Canajun parlamentry proseejer. Export urself to Amurrica cuz wee no how to spel verry gud hear. --Richard 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in some respects, such as that Americans are generally poor spellers (before everyone and their uncle leaps all over me, I'm American, so I can say it) however I do think it is more complicated than you may think. Here and hear, as I'm sure you know, are homophones, which are generally confusing for everyone. If Don does in fact have a mild form of dyslexia (which I'm not saying he does) he may well have known exactly what he was talking about. I know how it feels, since I'm exactly the opposite: I have no problem reading or writing, but translating speech to text/understanding or vice versa can get tricky- I've been told I pronounce a lot of words funny (usually phonetically) and I have trouble understanding tv, movies, etc without captioning. It shouldn't effect my credibility as an editor, which it hasn't, just as Don's mistake shouldn't effect his. I apologize if I stepped on any toes. : ) L'Aquatique talktome 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that tomorrow would be a bit early to close the vote; we are just starting to get some suggestions that are a result of compromise. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I'm actually thinking I'm going to do tomorrow is throw out all the ones that certainly have no support and narrow the list down to three or four. Hopefully either one can be decided on, or some kind of composite. --G2bambino 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote results

Okay, as per above, I've closed the discussions and tallied the votes; this marks the one month and two day anniversary of the page being locked. Yay.

Considering a support and oppose vote equals one point, and a weak support and weak oppose vote equals 0.5 point, the results are as follows:

  1. 5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 5/4 1 2
  2. 3 in favour/4 opposed rejected
  3. 4 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  4. 0 in favour/8 opposed rejected
  5. 0 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  6. 0.5 in favour/4.5 opposed rejected
  7. 2.5 in favour/3 opposed rejected
  8. 5.5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 5.5/4 8 1
  9. 2 in favour/4.5 opposed rejected
  10. 1.5 in favour/4 opposed rejected
  11. 1.5 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  12. 0 in favour/5.5 opposed rejected
  13. 4.5 in favour/4 opposed acceptable 4.5/4 13 3
  14. 0 in favour/5 opposed rejected
  15. 0 in favour/5.5 opposed rejected
  16. 0 in favour/6 opposed rejected
  17. 0.5 in favour/3.5 opposed rejected
  18. 4 in favour/2 opposed acceptable 4/2 18 4
  19. 2 in favour/3 opposed rejected
  20. 2 in favour/1.5 opposed acceptable 2/1.5 20 5

Thus, in order of support, the acceptable proposals are:

  1. In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, a federal "Dominion under the Name of Canada"[1] was formed.
  2. In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to become a federation with dominion status.
  3. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form Canada.
  4. In 1867, three British North American colonies united to form a federation of four provinces.
  5. In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire. OR
— In 1867, with the federal union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada became a semi-autonomous entity of the United Kingdom.

Now that we've narrowed it down to five, hopefully we can choose one or create some combination/variation of/on them. --G2bambino 17:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on options

  • I am very much opposed to #3 because one of the BNA colonies was already called "Canada". For me to support it, it would have to be amended to something along the lines of "the current country of Canada". I weakly oppose #1, we can do this without a quote. I weakly oppose #5, it's a bit long-winded and the term "polity" is rarely used. I support #2, because I think saying "with dominion status" is a good compromise by including the word while not using it as a title. I also support #4, though I would want it amended to make it clearer that the federation mentioned is modern Canada. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, G2, for your efforts. Per AG, I also strongly oppose #3 (which is why the original article was changed); I'm unsure the proposed amendment would change my perspective -- it seems kitschy. As well, #4 is redundant with mention of 'federation' upfront in the 3rd paragraph. So, in order, I prefer #1 (since it is verbatim with reference and therefore not contestable), #5, and #2. Quizimodo 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose #1, oppose #2 and #5, support either #3 or #4.--Gregalton 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken into consideration the fact that several proposals were added after people had already commented on the existing ones? The last three on the list - two of which made your final five - did not have as full an airing as the other ones. - Eron Talk 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of this. --G2bambino 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1 and 2, Support 3 and 4, and cannot imagine how 5 could be seen as an improvement on anything. Seriously, folks, this is the lead to a general article; "semi-autonomous polity"? A slash and parentheses?
I truly cannot understand objecting to 3 on the grounds that their might be some confusion over the Canada that was created. If that is a problem, perhaps we need to move the whole article to Canada (country). The article itself begins with the statement "Canada (IPA: /ˈkænədə/) is a country..." That country - the modern political entity - is the subject of this article, and I believe in context it is quite clear that this is what is meant by statement 3. - Eron Talk 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per #5: I think the words in brackets were meant to be an alternative to "British Empire," not an actual part of the sentence. --G2bambino 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; that was not clear. (And, given that we had 20 options, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that if we were being presented with an alternative phrasing, it would have been given its own proposal.) - Eron Talk 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that would've merely added to the many options already available. 'Polity' (which is more accurate, but essentially means 'political entity') has since been replaced simply by 'entity'. Quizimodo 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support #3, on the grounds that simplicity is best, especially for a lead. A lead does not have to explain; that is the purpose of the article. And that is exactly what the relevant section in the main body does.--Gazzster 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it's so simplistic that it isn't really true; Canada was formed 75 years earlier, and along the way the term "Canada" changed its meaning a few times. #4 is only a bit more complicated, yet much less historically ambiguous. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask any Canadian when "Canada" was formed. While many will say "Huh?", those who do have an answer will say "July 1, 1867." I doubt that anyone will say that Canada was formed when the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were formed, or the united Province of Canada, or the French colony of Canada. - Eron Talk 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AG. Let's please remember that the federal Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, but the eponymous entities in the years prior. That's the difference between being precise and not. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe Cartier first called the area "Canada" in 1534 but this article is discussing the modern Canada, the "country occupying most of northern North America, extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward into the Arctic Ocean", which was indeed newly created in 1867. Previous colonies and places were called Canada and there are even other places today called Canada but clearly our topic is post-Confederation Canada. It would seem odd in the complete context of the first two paragraphs not to name the country in this sentence about its formation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the topic of this article concerns the modern state, but we are dealing with the crucial sentence regarding Confederation and what Canada became in 1867. We cannot mention Confederation without even alluding to what preceded it and what it was or became upon its inception in the lead ... and it didn't become just a federation. I also agree that we need to note the name of the resulting entity — and that's the benefit of #1. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Canada occupied most of North America, extended from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west and northward to the Artic Ocean in 1867. --G2bambino 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Canada that was created in 1867 does indeed. It didn't in 1867 but that's irrelevant. This article is not about Canada in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose #1 & 5 as clunky and awkward to read. #2 does not work because of the long-discussed difficulty with saying "dominion status" which requires too much elaboration for the intro. #4 is not bad but #3 is the better. I think better yet might be to say: In 1867, three British North American colonies united in a new federation named Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this variant isn't clunky or wordy? There is also no allusion to its quasi-independence upon Confederation, which #5 accomplishes in spades. Quizimodo 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next sentence please. This sentence does not need to accomplish everything; just that this new country was formed in 1867. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, conveniently, the next sentence currently reads "A gradual process of independence from the United Kingdom moved Canada towards statehood and culminated in the Canada Act 1982, severing the last vestiges of dependence on the British parliament." It needs some work, but it's not too bad. - EronTalk 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just in the next sentence please, since the federal entity formed upon Confederation was not fully autonomous. And no one is saying that the sentence needs to 'accomplish everything', just to highlight the sort of federation that Confederation yielded -- and yes, that's one with 'dominion' status or similar. The next sentence can stand for some improvement, but no argument about what its emphasis should be. Quizimodo 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist that this sentence include mention that it was under British rule or a monarchy? Somewhere in the latest archive, that's what you said you required and I presume you intend to mean when you say "dominion status". DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to insist that it not mention it, despite the fact that it was so? Quizimodo 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't. It's already better said in several other sentences. It doesn't need to cloudy this one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support that amendment; it's simple yet it's clear what it's talking about. I still prefer #4 though, saying that it started out as four provinces adds a bit of extra information without making the sentence any more awkward. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) *I could live with DoubleBlue's proposal, but if we are going to modify the sentence, might I suggest another look at the (just barely) rejected proposal 7: "In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form Canada." I think it is important to include the link to confederation. If it is still considered insufficiently clear to which "Canada" we are referring, we could say "In 1867, three British North American colonies united through Confederation to form the modern country of Canada." - Eron Talk 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this variant isn't clunky? As well, it was not as grand in scope upon Confederation, being 1/5? its current size. Quizimodo 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd happily drop "the modern country of;" it is superfluous in an article that is manifestly about the modern country of Canada. The size and scope of Canada on the day it was created are irrelevant; no one suggests that the United States of America wasn't really created on July 4, 1776 because it was a fraction of its current size on that date. That example also works if we consider political structure and level of independence. It is a somewhat arbitrary date; full independence wasn't secured until the American Revolutionary War was won in 1783, and the current political structure of the country wasn't established until the adoption of the current United States Constitution in 1787. But the date everyone remembers is July 4, 1776. - EronTalk 19:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the 'modern country of Canada' was formed in 1999, with the creation of Nunavut. Anyhow, imprecision of the proposed wording aside, the accretion of territories is part-and-parcel of Confederation and the modern-day entity, so its hardly irrelevant; as well, the following sentence can be built to incorporate that (and suggestions are abound regarding this). Anyhow, this article is not just about the 'modern country' but pre-Confederation -- otherwise, we wouldn't note its inhabitation by aboriginals and historical underpinnnings, including the former Canadas. 'The modern country of Canada' contains as many words as 'a federation with dominion status' or (plus two) 'a semi-autonomous entity of the UK' or similar, with the last two at least being more meaningful (perhaps not to you or naysayers), so again resistance to including that fact in the lead and in the appropriate context is untenable. Quizimodo 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Canada was formed in 1867 with the BNA Act. Other provinces and territories were added to it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not precisely. The Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, from the Provinces of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Quizimodo 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In essence, in many respects I feel we've come full-circle. The original edits were made precisely because of the lack of clarity of the original, inaccurate, simple version ... yet that is precisely what a number of editors seem to support. Yes, the intent of the introduction is to summarise, and (as demonstrated above) notions of Confederation and Dominion are inextricably linked and can/have been summarised. We are not simpletons -- any of #1, #2, or #5 are far more informative than other variants, without being excessive nor necessitating an overhaul of the rest of the introduction. Version #5 is a conciliation, merely linking to but not exhibiting 'dominion', yet it is still rejected by some because it is 'clunky and awkward'? There is definitely something very wrong with this. The three above are at least accurate. In response, #3 and #4 are simple and also awkward: #3 is imprecise (since 'Canada' existed before Confederation), and #4 doesn't even name the polity; either of these may also require modifications elsewhere in the introduction that are beyond the purview of this discussion (e.g., redundant notions of 'federation'). In summary: the term or notion of 'dominion' is either in the introduction or it isn't, and support for the latter -- considering that this is information which anyone can verify -- remains untenable. Quizimodo 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

This talk page is getting ridiculously long. Can we agree to archive up to, but not including, Section # 57 "A minor change" or does anyone think we still need old proposals on main talk page? DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We should sign up for one of those bots that archives automaticaly when a topic hasn't been discussed in a long time. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --G2bambino 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support using an archive bot. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ya got me sold. GoodDay 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada&oldid=171301589"