:I believe I've found the answer at [[Template talk:Canada-geo-stub]]. It was originally Canada-place-stub and changed to Canada-geo-stub to match other country stubs but apparently wording was never updated. I've changed it now to say "[[Geography of Canada|Canadian geography]] article". [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:I believe I've found the answer at [[Template talk:Canada-geo-stub]]. It was originally Canada-place-stub and changed to Canada-geo-stub to match other country stubs but apparently wording was never updated. I've changed it now to say "[[Geography of Canada|Canadian geography]] article". [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::Black Tusk, it would be helpful is you could kindly review [[WP:AGF]], and perhaps future posts could focus on the substantive issues minus the insults. Thanks. [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::Black Tusk, it would be helpful is you could kindly review [[WP:AGF]], and perhaps future posts could focus on the substantive issues minus the insults. Thanks. [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Uh, Skeezix1000 how are my suggestions above insults? My suggestions are common sense and simple. Geography of Canada is vast and diverse and therefore it is a major topic. Yet I haven't seen any improvements to major Canadian geography articles (except my own) since I joined Wikipedia in 2006. And having at least one user working on all this stuff is surely not enough. Look at most lengthy Canadian-related geography articles and you will realize it's mostly me expand them. If this keep up I'm better off retiring..... [[User:Black Tusk|Black Tusk]] ([[User talk:Black Tusk|talk]]) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Uh, Skeezix1000 how are my suggestions above insults? My suggestions are common sense and simple. Geography of Canada is vast and diverse and therefore it is a major topic. Yet I haven't seen any improvements to major Canadian geography articles (except my own) since I joined Wikipedia in 2006. And having at least one user working on all this stuff is surely not enough. Look at most lengthy Canadian-related geography articles and you will realize it's mostly me expand them. If this keep up I'm better off retiring and there would be nothing..... [[User:Black Tusk|Black Tusk]] ([[User talk:Black Tusk|talk]]) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
==Canadian election timelines featured topic==
==Canadian election timelines featured topic==
Revision as of 19:54, 12 October 2008
Archives Index (Note that this index must be updated manually each 6 months)
An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community
Hello folks,
The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit also to be held in Cebu, and which the Philippine Wikipedia Community is a Implementing Partner in. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to network with leaders from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)
If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. To register for the Open Source Summit, please contact CEDF-IT. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.
Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 June 2008
Military history of Canada has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 July 2008
Hmm, that's a toughy. Anon did a pretty fine job of it. :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to insert Canada flag icons after every mention of Canada or Canadian, so as to diminish the ambiguity. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of them were wikilinked though. What the heck?! Gary King (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The election has now been called, so as with all elections we'll need to keep a close eye on the main article, party articles and candidate articles to make sure everything is conforming to policy (read: NPOV) and to watch out for likely edit wars.
Of course it will all be nothing compared to what happens on election night, October 14th, as packs of anon editors update ridings according to who won the first 1% of the vote, so mark that date on your calendar too. -Royalguard11(T) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'd like to remind everybody to watch especially carefully for unelected candidates with unreferenced articles that are essentially copied and pasted directly from their own campaign websites. Election candidates are only entitled to their own articles if they're already notable for one reason or another, or if they receive significant press coverage during the campaign (i.e. if somebody gets national coverage for saying something dumb about a social issue, or gets dumped for committing a crime) — but if their candidacy is their only claim of notability, then they only get a short blurb in a merged list.
There's so much mess from past elections that still hasn't been properly cleaned up — so let's do our best to keep things clean right off the bat this time. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have two ideas, but both would go against some established protocols and policies we have. We could preemptively create-protect all potential candidate articles (based off of official party websites & Election Canada), referring people in the summary to somewhere like here telling them not to create pages of candidates because they aren't notable unless they win office. A second option would be for us to create all the articles as redirects to the proper candidate article (like Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election) and protect those. We could get rid of the orphan ones after.
Our other option is to wait and watch as articles get created and merge them ourselves or deal with the at AFD. -Royalguard11(T) 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought of the same thing, actually... Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if we preemptively create redirects to the appropriate party candidate lists. We have to be especially careful of situations in which a candidate has a common name, and for which an article or dab page already exists. We also have to ensure that someone doesn't decide to replace the redirect with a bio. Mindmatrix 23:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear there. What I meant to say was create the redirects and then protect the redirects (like full), obviously not the party-candidate-2008-election articles. If there is already a page, then regular wiki-rules apply (if they create an article overtop, we revert it, possibly transferring the info the the election article). -Royalguard11(T) 04:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't really like that idea. Create the redirects, put an editorial message that unelected politicians are not normally notable; fine but prohibiting an article without just cause is a bit too preemptive. There are notable people who run for election but are not elected. If someone can create a well-sourced, NPOV, NOR article on a candidate, that should be encouraged not put up blocks and special requests to do so. Protecting a redirect is done where an article has already been discussed as not appropriate and is repeatedly created anyway. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DoubleBlue, disagree with protecting the redirects. The election may be a vehicle for a number of good biographical articles to be created so we shouldn't protect unless there is an imminent need in specific cases. I like the idea of creating the redirects and, if we're creating them, then they'll already be on our watchlists, right? So it should be easier to identify spammy articles and revert them back to the redirects. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works too I guess. The idea is to have to avoid all the extra AFD's that'll come with a bunch of spammy bios, so that should work too. If there hasn't been anything added about the candidate by elections end and they aren't elected, we could get rid of the redirects after, no? -Royalguard11(T) 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same rationale as the one behind bolding the article subject's name at the top of an independent article. Nothing special beyond that; it just hasn't been applied consistently across the whole list as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I fixed it by taking out all the bolding. At the same time I tried to make all the listings the same style. The NDP one had a table in it for some of the ridings which I removed due to size issues. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla 20:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article feedback
Hello, I hope this is the right place to make this request. Usually, I patrol newpages or watch for vandalism, but I made my first attempts at creating articles recently. They're a few articles related to Manitoba justice issues: Taman Inquiry, Martin S. Minuk, Raymond E. Wyant, and Conditional sentence (Canada). I also wrote this section Winnipeg Police Service#Controversies. Just wondering if anybody from the area would like to provide any feedback or suggestions for improvements or future directions. I know the bios are short--I'm more focused on the inquiry and police pages.
I read some of your new articles and they are good. They are stubs, but they can be expanded. You are doing well! AdjustShift (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I hope to expand things when I find the time. Unfortunately, real life beckons. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick request
Could I ask that a few more editors add Sainte-Marie among the Hurons to their watchlists? It seems to be an unusually common target for anonymous-IP vandalism, for some reason I'm not too clear on, so it probably needs a bit of extra babysitting. References need to be upgraded to footnote format, too, but that's a secondary concern. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What an obscure target for vandalism. Will do. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure whether it gets vandalized more than seemingly higher-profile articles, or whether it just seems like more than usual because so few people had it watchlisted that I was the only one ever catching vandalism on it, but every couple of months there's a burst of anon IPs who blank large sections of the article persistently for a few days and then disappear. Go figure. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Canada-related
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before making any nominations to the Release Version team, let's discuss which articles we believe, as a project, need to be included. I've started a list of potential candidates below; please update the list. We should compare to the Release Version team's overall list, to ensure we're not nominating articles already included as part of other projects. Mindmatrix 01:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a recent to the page for Gerry Ritz (re: today's events regarding his comments about the Listeriosis outbreak) and it seems that, for some unknown reason, the succession box and categories below have disappeared since I saved the page. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Simply missed the / in the closing </ref> code. I've done it myself several times before. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Quebec City provincial electoral districts should be created to subcat for Quebec City electoral districts. The other categories I have requested seem to have corresponding provincial electoral districts. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YMMV, I suppose, but for what it's worth I don't think we should be categorizing electoral districts by the individual city that they serve. For one thing, the phrase "(City) electoral districts" is much too easily confused with municipal wards — any such category should more properly be named "(Federal/Provincial) electoral districts serving (City)". I'm also not particularly sold on why it's necessary to categorize electoral districts by which city they're located in — why isn't it sufficient for the electoral district and city articles to simply text link to each other? Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the articles are OK, since they can deliver far more detail than categories could. The only advantage to the categories is that they can then be sub-categorised to the city cat too, but I think an article within that cat (such as Vancouver (electoral districts)) could serve just as well. Mindmatrix 16:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note that once an article is "inside" such a cat, it won't be apparent that the articles in that cat may include areas not in the city in question, especially in the case of historical ridings. Dewdney (electoral district) and Chilliwhack (prob Chilliwhack (electoral district) as that may redirect to regular ol' Chilliwack) were "descendant" ridings of the original New Westminster riding - not New Westminster City, which was the city-only, but essentially the whole of the New Westminster Land District (rough equivalent would be the combined GVRD/Metro Vancouver, FVRD and Sunshine Coast RDs) which was entirely rural/wilderness (in fact, much of it still is because of hte uninhabitability of much of its terrain). The Vancouver ridings are ultimately "child" ridings of the....Dewdney riding I think, i.e. ultimately of New Westminster District (the original/temporary name from 1871)...one of New West's four original "children" anyway; and child-ridings of the CoVancouver riding(s) include West Van, North Van etc. Nanaimo is aonther agglomceration - I think I made Nanaimo (electoral districts), and also Vancouver Island (electoral districts), which obviously overlap. Point is taht ridings assocaited with a city are not just city ridings; in Vancouver's case they now are, but nearly all other urban riding-areas in BC include non-city areas (e.g. Esquimalt-Point Renfrew, Saanich and the Islands, Prince George-Omineca and variants.....also note, in passing, that Vancouver (electoral district) was not a CoV riding, a but Vancouver Island one.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was an error in the template that caused the above image to be labeled as "Cambridge Municipal Airport" instead of Cambridge Bay Airport. Does anyone know which airport is "Cambridge Municipal Airport" in the Thunder Bay District, Ontario? CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla 07:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I do a Google Maps search on "Cambridge Municipal Airport", what actually comes up is an airport in Cambridge, Minnesota. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that confused me, too, but as far as I know there isn't actually any airport in the Thunder Bay District called Cambridge. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time I've ever seen something on Google Maps that had me mystified. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency of appearence to Canada-related navboxes
User:PrinceOfCanada has raised the possibility of making all Canada-related navboxes in a red and white colour scheme like that of Template:Canada topics. I suppose the first issue is whether or not all the templates should be the same. Then the matter of the use of red comes up; someone already voiced their objection to it, I'm certain I read a WP guideline that states red should really be reserved for warning templates. How does this sit with others? --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion a single flag or coloured element may be used to visually identify this as a Canada-related navbox, but a serious encyclopedia shouldn't be festooning interface elements with national symbols. I don't like the communist imagery used in navboxes at USSR#External links, and I'm glad that the editors of Nazi Germany and Nazi Party haven't gone overboard. —MichaelZ. 2008-09-18 21:45 z
I wouldn't necessarily object to using a bit of red in Canada-related navboxes — but {{Canada topics}}, to my eyes, looks like something that should be on a vat of toxic chemicals. I'd recommend toning that red down somewhat, frankly, not making other navboxes look more like it. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes!
Hard to tone down the colour without making it look pink, brick, or wine, and it's arguably wrong to use any colour different from the flag's to represent the national symbol anyway.
I think the little flag is sufficient to identify the topic, and it will look professional next to other navboxes. I took the initiative and purged the red scourge, but see this diff for an example. —MichaelZ. 2008-09-18 22:54 z
Yeah, one option would be to leave the flag on but change the colour of the template itself away from red. Another option would be to leave the title bar in red, but change the subheadings to a different-but-compatible colour. But I'd also note, for example, that the colour we use on political templates to represent the Liberal Party is a much softer, more pinkish red than the one that the party actually uses, so we're not necessarily bound to a strict shade match. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PrinceOfCanada's idea to have a consistent format and colour scheme for all Canadian templates, but I do also agree with others here that the use of red is a little excessive. The idea of a red title bar only (with flag, of course) seems workable. --G2bambino (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would still make it stand out over just about any other interface element of Wikipedia, including the project logo, main navigation, and page heading, and any content including photos, maps, logos, or other graphics.
How about red text on white? Just a maple leaf may be more distinctive than the tiny flag. We could clip one from the flag, image:Flag of Canada.svg, or make a solid red graphic from a good photo, image:Canadian Maple Leaf.JPG.
This example will stand out just fine in Wikipedia. Pretend the leaf doesn't have a background:
The Canadian government's graphical standards recommend using pure red #f00 for the actual flag logo.[1] They use this for the flag and leaf, and it looks like a flag back-lit by the sun. But for their main-page graphical elements they use a darker #ccf—with discretion—which looks more like the colour of the flag under normal lighting. I've done the same in the example above. —MichaelZ. 2008-09-25 01:18 z
You know, even this is more red than the government generally uses, for example on its wordmark. If you ask me, nothing will draw the eye better than a single red-on-white leaf or flag in a monochrome setting. Tarting up the template just distracts from the main visual element.
Think of it this way: you don't represent the country by painting the whole parliament building red, you do it by flying a splendid flag on the Peace Tower. —MichaelZ. 2008-09-25 01:43 z
Oooooooh. I like this! Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is gorgeous. I don't like the light purple; perhaps dark blue (as in the Union Jack) or light blue (as in Quebec flag) instead? Prince of Canada t | c 04:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[undent] No moose and Mountie, with a Rockies backdrop? Just kidding. Worth noting maybe that {{WikiProject Oregon}} uses the beaver on their templates, by way of their state seal and mae-tag the Beaver State. Also should note the politics involved in maybe keeping the Govto f Canada symbol off FN-related templates; OldManRivers, who's on egtende wiibreakright now, averred that even {{Coast Salish in British Columbia}} vs. {{Coast Salish}} was a political/cutlrual gaffe, as the border is only our conception and still outside the native polity in many ways; to add the maple leaf on the {{Kwakwaka'wakw}} or its cousins; also note his selection of black as the theme colour on at least Northwest Coast peoples, or that was in the intent, it's not been applied across the region's templates; {{Skwxwu7mesh}} I think he also embellished with an image; there are other examples, particaurly around the Puget Sound peoples and some in teh Southwest, that use national logos or images to flavour-up the template, at least in its opened form. The sere fine-line mostly white with red highlight and modernesque look I'm not particular about; is tehre something that could make it less....corporate? The government of Canada logo btw was one of the first big marketing/ad contracts of its kind, and was originally associated very much with the Liberal Party's own design scheme; as in other things I'm old-fashioned and prefer the coat of arms, but then I'm a neo-monarchist too :-) If there's a maple leaf can it maybe look less like te government one? - the ones on the penhy7, more natural-llooking? Kind of like the one on military sleeves. Just an idea, and a question of taste rather than POV, as the Liberal legacy assocaited with the government design is now in the past.....the black signs are a trip, though, the black-and-white maple leafs and particular government typeface; architecturally both inobstrusive and dominating, interesting...anyway is there anything less severe looking I don't mean to denigrate the very pro-looking graphics, I'm just concerned about the opitcs; it'll look like a canadian.org or historica.ca or other para/non-governmental heritage site and others of their kind (though again their maple leaves are not government-style maple leaves). I know the one in the second image is not quite the same as the govt one in the flag logo, but it's close; why not "leaf it up"? BTW at least WP:Oregon has the beaver on its seal, and {{{WikiProject California}} a bear on theirs, but {{WikiProject Washington}} is stuck with George Washington and that haircut of his;. My own tastes would be for the centre of teh coast of arms, the shield itself - as on the old flag, or in more elabvorate form on the 50 cent piece (my fave), but that's the Old Canada, not hte New One that the new flag represents; maybe the coat of arms could be used on History templates, though? Just thoughts, no graphics handy or skills to offer, just design/theme considerations....probably {{Hudson's Bay Trading Company, L.P.}} has the full company escutcheon, bearers and motto and all, on that template; not sure about the NWC one; similarly Geography-related topics could maybe use a little more landscape flavour etc.02:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk)
A propos of nothing, it took me four tries to find the template that Skookum1 actually meant to link to for HBC. Can we please rename that to something a bit more straightforward? Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorr didn't know that was its name; I've never added it, just seen it displayed. The other one maybe goes to the mercantile/retail company, not hte historical operations?
Oh, it ain't your fault, I'm making fun of whoever named it that way in the first place. As far as I know, though, this is the only HBC template we have right now. Certainly it's the only one I saw on any HBC-related articles when I was trying to find it. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
an d taht's not the HBC template I'm thinking of; I know I've seen it somewhere, I'll go looking on various pages, maybe it's only on some; know iI saw it somewhere.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone link to the HBC template, and an Oregon template with a Beaver?
The functional requirement is to make a 25-pixel tall collapsed template visually identifiable (I cheated, and nudged it to 30 px so the leaf would have a nice setting and the template would be subtly distinctive). The coat of arms and shield aren't designed to be used this way. But they incorporate the leaf as a symbol, and it is recognizable throughout the world.
If someone can find an old-fashioned red maple leaf, that would be great. Maybe one can be extracted from the old air force roundel or some other source. I can create a leaf myself, but it will probably be a few days before I have time. —MichaelZ. 2008-09-25 14:23 z
Here are the Oregon templates: {{Oregon Pioneer History}} and {{Oregon Brief History}} though they've greatly reduced the size of the state seal since last I looked at these; they "over-did" it in the first try, the template was massive; I'll poke around see what else is out there.Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it must be red text, then just the title, and not the interface elements in the corners (I just adjusted my first proposal above this way). —MichaelZ. 2008-09-27 06:39 z
I like this but don't like the red text as it suggests a red link to a non-existent article. I would prefer just undecorated text so that the links are obvious. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! True enough. --G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like that leaf even better. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't really like the grey, though.. surely one of you can suggest something better? Also I think there should be some kind of delineation between the titlebar and the rest of the box, but I'm not sure what parameter that is. Prince of Canada t | c 07:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Followup question: once we land on a version (keeping in mind First Nations issues as mentioned above), is it possible to set the style as a template, to make updating all the Canada templates easier? Prince of Canada t | c 07:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the default groupstyle is better. I think the only way for delineation is to have differing colours; perhaps a very light grey (like f6f6f6 ) in either the title or list section.
Yes, you could just use the navbox template in the Canada navbox template and select different default settings. Probably a wise idea. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And I'd been wondering how to do {{colorbox}}! So.. any objections to the version above? I'll make changes Sunday (presuming no objections). Prince of Canada t | c 07:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[De-indent] Yes, the black text is better, though I do prefer the stylised maple-leaf for some reason; it just looks crisper. But, I don't feel strongly about it. The grey should definitely be lighter, though; more a warm grey like I used. I would avoid brighter colours in that area; the clean look of the template comes from a minimal use of colour, though very Canadian ones.
Is there any way to make the thin line around the perimiter in red? Just something subtle if the text is going to be black. --G2bambino (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White on light grey is almost impossible to read. The border property |border = 1px solid red; handles borders. Prince of Canada t | c 21:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does everyone think? I've tried to include every possible permutation; would be virtually identical for have added a {{Navbox with columns}}. Thoughts? Prince of Canada t | c 13:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find the greys to be far too dark. I've heeded the white on grey point, and tried to keep it light with something like:
That's a nice rendition. I find the brighter red maple leaf I used more eye-catching, but maybe that's just me. --G2bambino (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the red lines are attractive, but much too busy and distracting for the reader. I'd rather see grey tones filling the title boxes on the left. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-04 03:43 z
Oh dear... *looks at his contribs list*.. I can change it if there is consensus to do so. It'll take a little while ;) Prince of Canada t | c 03:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Bearcat
Most Canadian Wikipedians have come across the contributions of User:Bearcat but I doubt most have noticed that he has reached an impressive achievement as the first Wikipedian to exceed 200 000 edits (List of Wikipedians by number of edits). We are fortunate to have such dedicated and prolific contributors as Bearcat and User:SimonP amongst the Canadian workgroup and they have helped make the Canadian coverage in Wikipedia among the best. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Bearcat, it’s with your tremendous efforts and keen eye that has made Wikipedia what it is today. A great achievement indeed; to reach 200,000 edits. --HJKeats (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, har. I got there largely by spending the last two days creating a whole lot of redirects from regional election templates to the candidate lists in a semi-futile attempt to stave off the creation of dozens of copy-pasted campaign brochures. (A process which is far from done, I might add, and I could really use a bit of help...) Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto
Bit of an edit war brewing over whether the infobox on Toronto's article should contain this image or this one. Any input? Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is being played out in Talk:Toronto where it should be. But generally speaking, montage pictures seem too busy and complex for the confines of a settlement infobox and probably should only be considered when there is disagreement over which of multiple pictures are worthy of the infobox. Dl2000 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at a bridge?
Hi, I am wondering if the project would like to participate in the peer review of Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge and assess if the project should include the article in its fold and its importance. William Hamilton Merritt was driven to charter the companies to build this bridge, and the Great Western Railway considered the bridge as crucial to its operations. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge/archive1. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
URGENT
Suicide threat from an IP in Canada - someone with knowledge of autoritive positions in Ottawa please contact someone, thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP user in question is now blocked, and apparently admitting this was a hoax.[2] Also the IP involved appears to be going through Saint John, New Brunswick St John's, NL, not Ottawa [3]. Dl2000 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just called my cable company (Persona) and asked about HBO Canada. They told me that HBO Canada would completely replace TMN because (her words) "it's the more popular name". I can't believe that TMN would surrender their name so easily, assuming this is true. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take one Persona customer service rep's word for it unless and until we can find sources to support it. According to the current media sources, HBO Canada is going to be one channel within the TMN/Movie Central multiplexes, so we certainly need to stay with that unless and until TMN or Movie Central themselves indicate otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, though, as things currently stand, while the content about HBO Canada currently exists in both The Movie Network and Movie Central, the title HBO Canada has been created as a redirect to TMN. I don't think that's appropriate (it sort of sets up a POV about which of the two services is more important), but since it's supposed to be one channel within the TMN and MC multiplexes rather than a standalone channel, I'm also not entirely sure that it's notable enough in its own right to stand alone as an independent article, either. Any opinions about how we should handle this? Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to decide whether, in light of last week's fire, the Sudbury Steelworkers Hall could be considered sufficiently notable for its own article. I'm a bit ambivalent about it, because I'm not sure whether my own born-and-bred-in-the-Sudz familiarity with the building is colouring my judgement regarding its actual encyclopedia-worthiness, so I'd like to ask if anybody else has an opinion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were there other significant events in the building's history other than the fire? Does the building have a historic designation e.g. under Ontario Heritage Act? Since building fires are commonplace, that factor alone might not survive an AfD. It could be safer to include this in Greater Sudbury perhaps under an Architecture or Neighbourhoods section. Dl2000 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that there isn't an article about one of the greatest human rights abuses in Canadian history (not my words but those of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples). I refer to the forced relocation of scores of Inuit from northern Quebec to the High Arctic so the federal government could claim sovereignty during the Cold War. I have created a draft here User:BrainyBabe/Sandbox and have been inserting variants of the text into several articles, e.g. History of Nunavut. I am not terribly proficient with the niceties (as you can see from my being unable to rename the sandbox page). So I am asking for help:
1. With a suitable title for the article (I may go ahead and create it in this burst of wiki-enthusiasm, but renaming is on the cards)
2. With content
3. With suggestions for where links to it should go
4. With more sources
5. With anything else helpful.
I'd like to note that the more general article Human rights in Canada, while certainly a good idea on BrainyBabe's part, currently contains only a section on the human flagpoles incident and a see-also link to Canadian residential school system. The topic itself is obviously something we need on Wikipedia, and the article has the potential to become an excellent showcase piece for Wikiproject Canada — but it really needs some deep expansion to get there. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bearcat for your prompt attention! I was even more astonished that there was no article Human rights in Canada. Apparently it was deleted once for being full of emptiness -- literally random typing. I hope my re-start doesn't get pressured into AfD just because I had to start it lopsidedly. I do hope lots of editors join in. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the title of the article Human flagpoles, which I think is not that intuitive for people searching for the information, nor perhaps of totally of NPOV. It also contains some statements that need some clearly sourcing, e.g. the part about the dependency on government programs, and that there is a cause and effect with the relocation. I personally doubt it: as someone with considerable interest and experience in the North, the same dependency applies to many (non-relocated) peoples in the North. And interestingly enough (OR warning) Grise Fjord has, I believe, a very, very low crime rate compared to other Northern communities. --Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too am not entirely happy with the title, as I said in the first post, but it was the best I could come up with at short notice. Any suggestions? As for sourcing...I think that too was from MM's book. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Inuit relocations" is probably too broad of a title and would cover much more than just those two relo's (though "Human flagpoles" could redirect into it). I've noted my concern about balance at the article talk. Franamax (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody change the selection criteria for Category:Unassessed Canada-related articles so that it excludes Category Talk pages? There are many such pages being included, which inflates the number of articles to be assessed and they frustrate the assessment process. PKT 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As many of you already know, our Yukon-related categories were recently standardized on the form "Yukon" without the word the in front. I'd also like to request that we review the situation for our Northwest Territories categories as well, since they're also currently using a mix of "Northwest Territories" in some cases and "the Northwest Territories" in others. I don't think there's ever been as clear a consensus about which form is preferred as there has been for Yukon categories, and I certainly can't claim to know what's considered standard. Thus, I'd like to request that we revisit what the naming convention should be for NWT-related categories, so that they can be standardized on one form or the other.
As it turns out, WP:CANSTYLE#Territories doesn't specify either format as being preferred in a category name, so we really should establish a consensus here. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem if "the" is included or the "the" is deleted. To me it just seems kind of wierd because why should "the Yukon" be changed to "Yukon" if "the Northwest Territories" stays as "the Northwest Territories"? I always see them as "the Yukon" and "the Northwest Territories". Black Tusk (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that a lot of people do say "the Yukon" rather than just "Yukon", but Wikipedia isn't necessarily bound by common usage in a category name. There was a review of the Yukon situation, and it came to the conclusion that per the Yukon Act and other official usage, Yukon-without-the is now the preferred format even though most people still use the older style in casual speech. It's rather comparable to the Ukraine situation, actually: people still quite commonly refer to the country as "the Ukraine" in day-to-day conversation, but Ukraine-without-the is the accepted standard in formal and encyclopedic contexts. IMO, though, it's far more important that NWT categories be internally consistent among themselves, and that Yukon categories be internally consistent among themselves, than that NWT and Yukon categories be consistent with each other. YMMV, I admit. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I distinctly remember having this discussion sometime in 2005 (or perhaps 2006). At the time, it was decided that using "the" was the preferred choice for both territories. Unfortunately, the result of that discussion wasn't codified into any of the standards (or maybe it was, but got lost in the continual cycle of revisions to the style guide). I'll see if I can find the discussion. Mindmatrix 23:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, there's this discussion, but that was a pre-cursor. Salient quote from Luigizanasi, regarding Category:Geography of the Yukon: Let's just hope no one tries to change them to "Geography of Yukon", etc.. Seems prophetic in hindsight, no? Mindmatrix 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres' also this, with a quick blurb from Luigizanasi. The broadest discussion about this was this one. Mindmatrix 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were also later discussions that settled on Yukon-without-the. Consensus can change, after all. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much weight this carries, but I work for Northern News Services, and our guidelines for referring to it are as "the Northwest Territories" or "the NWT". Does anyone know if the GNWT has a guideline for what format they use in Statutes or official documentation? -YK Timestalk 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by their own website, the government typically refers to itself as Government of the Northwest Territories. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello all, i like to know what is the relationship between Thomas Skinner and Thomas Skinner, Jr..
can't be major Skinner's father since he lived well beyond 1818. so i think Thomas Skinner may be major Skinner's uncle whom he mentioned in his autobiography as a military officer, but not his name.
thanks--chanakal (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laura l'immortelle
I need some help building this article. A 12-year old girl plagiarized a fanfiction and presented it as Laura l'immortelle, an original novel. I am writing an article about this case. Please respect Wikipedia:BLPWhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox/infobox consistency, deuxième partie
Hi all. I'm guessing many of you have probably seen my username cropping up all over watchlists like a bad rash. I'm most of the way through making all the Canadian navboxes consistent, as well as any infoboxes I run across. The criteria I've been using are basically: applicable across Canada (not regional), not changing styles dictated by larger WikiProjects.
However, one user pointed out here that there is a (maybe minor? your call) issue with lack of other identifying images in the templates. So, on to step two of the process:
If people here agree, I would suggest adding a second image to the right-hand side of the titlebar that pertains to the article in question. So maybe something like for music boxes, and for law-related, and for monarchy boxes, etc etc etc. What do all of you think? I'm not 100% sure I like it, maybe placement is the issue. But on pages with multiple Canada boxes, it would be a quick visual differentiator.
I am big believer in less is more, and that a clean, clutter-free template is preferable to and looks better than one with unnecessary icons. I think the simple maple leaf, by itself, is far more attractive. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you did pop up all over my watchlist, but not like a bad rash. Thank you for taking on that task. Well done. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'm with you on the second image being unnecessary, upon reflection. Tome to go reformat all the Supreme Court boxes... Prince of Canada t | c 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about using some of hte little logos on the stubs, e.g. {{BritishColumbia-park-stub}} and {{BritishColumbia-stub}} and such, I don't mean throughout hte template, just on teh masthead; as Prince of Canada knows, I feel that mountains are as thematically important in a mountain range tmple, namely {{Canadian Rockies}}. Certain kinds of templates span wikiprojects, in tehis case WP:mountains (even though there are few WP:Mountains templaes at present). When they do, as with the law example above or in teh case of any "crossover relevance" with other wikiprojects/tpics, especially if there are symbolic themese there already; I'm not asking for complexity, only a dual-icon masthead, the maple leaf and whatever else; what to do in t eh case of Canadian Rockies I'm not sure; it's adeparture in colour from other geographic/mountain tempaltes, that's for sure....is it just about being Canadian, or is it also about being the Rockies?Skookum1 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
BTW I don't mean to sound extreme about this, but I'm curious about the use of the stars and stripes and/or red white and blueon US Wiki templates, likewise Britain's and France's; national templates do seem to feature flags, I'm trying to remebmer shat else?Skookum1 (talk) (and Russia's and...a buncha othres...I'm curious now about templates, if any for things like the Bavarian Alps and others to see if the Bavarian/German flag /emblem is used....maybe...Whiel it's a beautiful design, I do ahev t o say it reminds me very much of Air Canada's business lounges and various bank investment publications; in that sense ,very Canadian, or Canadian asd efined by its dominant metropole. All very modrne and all; I guess my tastes are just more rustic and heritage-oriented; but I hope {{History of Canada}} can ahve something a little more flavourful; again, it's a beautiful design, as design ;maybe something as simple as a change of line-colour (or flag-clolour?) for {{Parks in Canada}}{{History of Canada}} and the like (Heritage Sites templat etc); green for parks, brown trim for heritage/history etc; extra icons don't ahve to be the solution - I juts think here has to be one. Canadian Rockies is a mountains template primarily...just some thoughts.00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:Canadian Rockies looks kind of broken to me. When collapsed, it has a subdued appearance, but when I open it I see some brilliant red lines screaming out. Then there's an extra red rule over the content area, but for some reason it doesn't carry around on the other three sides. Finally, the secondary titles under parks are glaringly contrasting, with roman text instead of bold, a grey toned background and for some reason thick white rules separating them where the primary titles have thin double red rules. Looks like the committee-produced horse, to me. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-05 00:42 z
"Screaming" is a bit of an exaggeration, no? I agree that the grey used is too dark (I mentioned this earlier), and maybe the rules around the secondary titles need some finessing, but I think the rest is quite restrained and elegant. --G2bambino (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm with G2bambino on this one. I quite like the appearance overall, though I'd tweak the grey a bit too. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a misdirected effort: if breaks consistency over wikipedia, and adds un-necessary html markup that contravene with WP:accessibility#Style and markup. Let's stick to defaults as much as we can, and also keep things as simple as possible. The extra html does not add any kind of content and only loads up the template. Thank you. --209.115.232.65 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the overall formatting (e.g. using the navbox template rather than manually coding each individual template) should be consistent across all templates, Wikipedia doesn't really have any sort of requirement that templates need to keep the exact same colour and visual appearance. And simply making use of style switches that are already coded right into the base template isn't the same thing as introducing unnecessary HTML coding. I don't see this effort as unreasonable or misdirected, personally. I think the default blue is rather ugly, actually. But maybe that's just me. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just you; I find the default insipid. As for the grey.. ehhh. Too light and the whole template looks like a bunch of white screen. But someone has said they can write a simple bot (and go through approval of course) for making any changes rapidly. Prince of Canada t | c 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so we produce circuses like {{Hamilton}}, as everyone starts implementing their own artistic vision. And all that without adding any kind of content. --Qyd (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I think somebody was going for Hamilton Tiger Cats colours, clearly. But oh my freaking ugh. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image use rationale
I received the following message on my talk page. I just wanted to let everyone know so that what changed need to be made to keep the image will be made properly so I don't make any mistake that leads to the image being deleted.
Image copyright problem with Image:Sandra Oh at 28th Genie Awards.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Sandra Oh at 28th Genie Awards.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Promo images such as Image:Sandra Oh at 28th Genie Awards.png are classified as non-free by Wikipedia standards, even though they may be widely distributed for press or promotional use. WP would expect that a free image of the awards be used if possible. If a fair use image needs to be used, then a rationale is required for each article the image is used, often specified by using a template like {{non-free use rationale}}. Dl2000 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help me find model Claire Cellucci
From: Gerrit Verstraete, founder Drawing Society of Canada.
This a personal request.
Claire Cellucci was a Canadian fashion model and actress who appeared in one or two eposides of "Due South" as well as numerous fashion / product shoots.
Her birthyear is listed as 1968, with the disturbing news she died in 2006, in Canada, at age 38.
Is this the same Claire Cellucci, fashion model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gverstraete (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are most Canada-geo-stub templates say location insted of geography? Not all geography-related subjects are "locations". Earthquakes are geography-related but are not locations. I know this project too often seems to be restritive by way of insisting on national standards that play down important content, and sometimes relevent perspectives, that are outside the supposed national norm; this applies in all things, not just this project. I can also see this because most geography-related subjects on Canadian geography are stub and start class. Therefore this project should smarten up and the geo-stub descriptions are most likely errors. Black Tusk (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your entire rant here but if you can improve our coverage on geography topics, go for it. I suppose the Canada-geo-stub should just say geography-related. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've found the answer at Template talk:Canada-geo-stub. It was originally Canada-place-stub and changed to Canada-geo-stub to match other country stubs but apparently wording was never updated. I've changed it now to say "Canadian geography article". DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black Tusk, it would be helpful is you could kindly review WP:AGF, and perhaps future posts could focus on the substantive issues minus the insults. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Skeezix1000 how are my suggestions above insults? My suggestions are common sense and simple. Geography of Canada is vast and diverse and therefore it is a major topic. Yet I haven't seen any improvements to major Canadian geography articles (except my own) since I joined Wikipedia in 2006. And having at least one user working on all this stuff is surely not enough. Look at most lengthy Canadian-related geography articles and you will realize it's mostly me expand them. If this keep up I'm better off retiring and there would be nothing..... Black Tusk (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
and shield 
aren't designed to be used this way. But they incorporate the leaf as a symbol, and it is recognizable throughout the world..jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
I can create a leaf myself, but it will probably be a few days before I have time. —Michael Z. 2008-09-25 14:23 z
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
for music boxes, and 
for law-related, and 
for monarchy boxes, etc etc etc. What do all of you think? I'm not 100% sure I like it, maybe placement is the issue. But on pages with multiple Canada boxes, it would be a quick visual differentiator.
