Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Main page

Discussion board

Notices

Article alerts

Deletion talks

Articles to improve

Requested articles

Vital articles

Featured content

Projects & portals

Help & tools

Welcome to the discussion page of WikiProject Canada Discussion du Projet:Canada (Français) General info Main page (Templates) Discussion board (Deletions) Notice board (Alerts - Log) Featured content Vital articles Projects & portals Members (Userboxes) Help & tools All project pages   Announcements Article requests Articles to improve Cleanup listing Unreferenced BLPs New articles Popular pages Photographs requests Map requests Assessment log, stats, index Guidelines Manual of Style Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) Templates Project banner Infoboxes Stubs References Project category All WP:CA related pages Collaborators Education program Wikimedia Canada Commons Canada Project Cadillac Fairview malls As many of you know, Cadillac Fairview has started branding its malls with a "CF" prefix (e.g. CF Chinook Centre, CF Eaton Centre, etc.). Accordingly, for the past few months some of the mall articles have been moving back and forth between the traditional mall names and the new CF + mall name monickers. Rather than having a series of individual battles, with possibly inconsistent results, I thought it might make sense to have a central discussion to try and find some comprehensive consensus. My gut reaction is that the new CF names have not yet been shown to meet the WP:COMMONNAME test, and I noticed this morning that newspapers in Toronto (I checked the Globe and the Star) are mostly not using the CF names (although someone should do a more thorough media review). If this discussion has already occurred, my apologies. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Agreed. I did a search for Eaton Centre as an example and other than press releases or other non-independent sources, all other sources don't include CF. The CF shouldn't be included right now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Did a similar look yesterday, before requesting move reverts. The user in question (@Echaryk: works in marketing for CF (simple Google search tells you this), and there are almost no reliable sources that put CF in front of the names. Also, in general Wikipedia doesn't use sponsorship names (for example the many sponsored sports stadia that don't use their official/sponsored name). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Nobody except CF appears to use the addition of their corporate identity. Recent advertising materials for high profile tenants don't (see recent Nordstrom announcements), nor do any of the websites for existing tenants that I have found. In addition, even CF's own website refers to the centres without the 'CF' in the majority of prose on many pages. Considering that the centres already have established public identities, unless CF is undertaking a gradual complete rebranding of all of them to simply 'CF Centre' or similar, I can't see how this clumsy agglutination will ever really catch on and we shouldn't be in the position of leading that process. Pyrope 19:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) On a side note, regarding North American sports venues: since the media typically uses the sponsored name, usually the corresponding Wikipedia article will be renamed when the venue is renamed. However it's unclear at this point if the subtle rebranding of the malls will result in a change in common usage. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Compare the former CN & CP railway hotels now in the Fairmont chain, all having been officially so branded for at least a decade: I just had a quick look at a handful of our articles, and none of those are under titles beginning with “(The) Fairmont”.—Odysseus1479 00:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Fairmont Royal York does, although in that case this is to disambiguate the Toronto establishment from other 'Royal York' hotels. However, in the majority of cases you are absolutely right. Pyrope 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Other than noting the 'CF' in the article, I see no reason to change from the common names. If there is a new mall to be built with a new name, I could understand that possibly. But right now, I don't see the company being able to get the 'CF' into common usage. I believe it is more for industry insiders, and the retail and construction industry media. E.g. urbantoronto.ca. Alaney2k (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hello. Yes I do work for Cadillac Fairview and I am simply just trying to update the content in the Wikipedia pages to ensure they are accurate. The mall properties were rebranded recently with "CF" at the end of 2015. This is not a sponsorship, rather it's the new legal name of the buildings. Signage in the buildings have been updated to reflect this change as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Echaryk (talk • contribs) @Echaryk: We don't go by legal name in Wikipedia. As previously mentioned, 'CF' can be noted in the article, but the malls are commonly referred to by the public without your corporate suffix. I doubt if you do that internally either. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Echaryk, I think you should review our guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making any further edits to CF-related articles. Second, we believe our articles are accurate when they reflect the English-language naming that is generally used in the world (see WP:COMMONNAME), which does not necessarily correspond to official names or corporate branding (although the latter can be mentioned in the body of an article, as Secondarywaltz notes above). Thus, we have articles, for example, on Bob Rae, Rhode Island and Quebec City, not Robert Keith Rae, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, or Ville de Québec. If the general public and media start to routinely refer to these malls as "CF Eaton Centre", "CF Sherway Gardens", etc. then we would, of course, reconsider the titles of these articles.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Echaryk, what you're being told in this discussion is correct — the title of a page is dictated by the thing's WP:COMMONNAME, not its "official" one. So the "CF" addition can be noted in the body of the article, but it's not appropriate to move the page to a new title until somebody can demonstrate that the new name has actually superseded the old one in common usage. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks everyone for your comments. Many of the higher profile articles had already been moved back to the original titles some time ago, so I cleaned up whatever was left. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC) On March 13, Echaryk changed the articles again, despite being told not to. I have reverted them. freshacconci talk to me 14:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Taking a few of your reverts at random, the changes made seem fairly innocuous and minor: [1], [2], [3]. This edit has a more subjective element, regarding what stores should be considered anchor tenants, but I don't feel the edit is promotional, which your warning on the user's talk page is about. Perhaps the editor can be given appropriate guidance regarding the best approach to make minor article updates? I know the usual advice is "use the talk page", but for low-profile pages there may be a lengthy delay before someone decides to take any action. Perhaps for trivial changes such as updating a web site link, minor factual updates, or insubstantial copy edits, something more streamlined could be suggested? (A paid-contributor disclosure still hasn't been given in the prescribed manner, which remains an issue.) isaacl (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Per my interpretation of Wikipedia:Article titles, I actually do think that the CF prefixes should be used. The relevant guideline states that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The old names are inaccurate because they no longer reflect the actual names of the facilities. The common names guideline also states that "if [reliable] sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match"; searching for CF Polo Park on Google News leads to a number of major reliable sources (including local news stations and the Winnipeg Free Press, the city's newspaper of record, referring to it by this name. Hence, it is approriate to apply this change. In some situations, the new names actually lead to natural disambiguation, which is preferred.ViperSnake151  Talk  21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) I think this point was made before. If the common name becomes the CF-prefixed one, then it's normal to change that article's title. You could still probably get many more hits on the name without the CF though. I got over 300000 hits for Polo park and 17,700 for CF polo park. For '"polo park" shopping winnipeg' I still got over 100,000. So I would think it would still be premature. I have not seen any reference to Fairview Mall or Sherway Gardens with the CF prefix. So I think we would continue on a case-by-case basis. Alaney2k (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Street names We usually follow the format Example Street (city), (and not Example Street, City), correct? Was just discussing a similar topic with Hong Kong related streets, and looked into Category:Roads in Toronto, and found it not entirely consistent. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I haven't seen a policy, or anything consistent. I believe parentheses is the best way to disambiguate. 117Avenue (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC) @Kelapstick: Coincidentally, see the latest thread at WT:CRWP and follow the link to the March 2012 version of the WikiProject page for naming conventions in Canada. Therein may lie an answer for you. It was just noticed as missing and a new home will be found for it tonight. Hwy43 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) The WP:CANROADS naming conventions have been reestablished at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Naming. However, it deals only with highways and is silent on streets. Hwy43 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Does WP:CANST have anything? CRWP is for highways, but CANST is for streets -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Wasn't aware of WP:CANST. Appears inactive since late 2011. Also nothing there regarding the above. I've since ploughed through all the sub-cats at Category:Streets in Canada by city. With the exception of in Edmonton, the dominant format appears to be parentheses, but it is not an overwhelming majority. IIRC, the MOS or something similar states default format for geographic-related disambiguation is to use parentheses except for communities, which uses the comma convention. WP:CANSTYLE#Geography speaks to natural geographic features, but not constructed ones such as streets, buildings, etc. I agree with 117Avenue that parentheses would be the best way to disambiguate streets. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC) WP:CANST has never been active. I don't know why it was created, why it couldn't be handled by CANROADS. 117Avenue (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC) IIRC, CRWP and other roads projects refused jurisdiction for streets. Asking about tagging for the various HWY/RD projects to street articles gets rejections. But circumstances may have changed since the time the various STREETS projects were formed. (such as WP:CANST and WP:USST ) Personally, I think a single wikiproject to cover tracks/trails/roads/highways/streets makes more sense. Perhaps we should ask CRWP and CANST to merge together. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ... The Wikipedia Library Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website. There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Quebec City anyone want to cleanup the worlds largest infobox--Moxy (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Haha... I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe removing the image montage at the top, and moving it somewhere else in the article? This might be worth discussing on the article's talk page, in case the people who added all the stuff in the first place have thoughts on it. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I've taken a pass at it, more work welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Edit war at L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec‎ I am having a dispute at L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec‎ with an editor who is refusing to explain his edits, nor engage in a discussion on the talk page, see Talk:L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec. More editors and input are needed to resolve this. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC) HMCS Quebec C66 FYI, HMCS Quebec has been proposed to be merged into HMS Uganda, see the discussion at Talk:HMS Uganda (66) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Thomas Mulcair: Is he still NDP leader or now NDP interim leader We need input at New Democratic Party article. Is Mulcair still leader of the NDP, or is he now interim leader, after having lost a leadership review. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) See 43rd Canadian federal election article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Band government? Please take a look at Talk:Mi'kmaq#Band government?. Are the Mi'kmaq a band government? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Jean Lapierre's death The article covering Jean Lapierre's death, 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash, is up for renaming, see talk:2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Category:Massacres in Canada inclusion criteria For those interested, please see Category talk:Massacres in Canada#Inclusion criteria. Hwy43 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Template:SCref This template, which is used in several Canadian places, does not seem to work for the 2011 census. As an example this should be for Montreal. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC) I'll check this out soonish. Mindmatrix 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) In your example, did you intend for the citation to be to the municipality profile, but instead get the CMA? (I'm assuming this is the case, but I wanted to verify it.) Mindmatrix 14:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Also, could you please post the template and values you used to generate that link? Mindmatrix 14:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I'm having trouble duplicating your problems. I've used the following: Montreal CMA: {{SCref|year=2011|unit=cma|type=prof|code=462}}, resulting in "(Code 462) Census Profile". 2011 census. Statistics Canada. 2012.  Montreal CD: {{SCref|year=2011|unit=cd|type=prof|code=2466}}, resulting in "(Code 2466) Census Profile". 2011 census. Statistics Canada. 2012.  Both of those work for me. Mindmatrix 17:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) The template fails if you don't fill in the year. It uses a default value of 2011, but appears to be incorrectly implemented or processed. In the meantime, fill in a value for the year. (Note that I see the point of failure, but not why it's failing. The template appears to be correctly specified, based on the documentation for the ParserFunctions and default value processing. Anybody curious about this can peruse the Mediawiki pages Help:Extension:ParserFunctions, Help:Parser functions in templates, and Help:Templates.) Mindmatrix 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "Balfour Declaration" The primary topic of "Balfour Declaration" is under discussion, see Talk:Balfour Declaration -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC) RfC: Chrysler reception, rankings, ratings You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article? Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. References References Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Merger of Peace Village, Ontario I've proposed a merger of Peace Village, Ontario to Maple, Ontario. Please discuss at Talk:Peace Village, Ontario. Mindmatrix 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) AfC submission See Draft:Newfoundland cod fishery collapse. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Rona Ambrose a "Prominent feminist"? Pls see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rona Ambrose--Moxy (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC) RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#How should Indexes and Indicators be used? Hello. A discussion has been initiated about if and how to include city rankings based on various indicators and indices in city articles. See the discussion here, and also note a similar thread above it. Hwy43 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC) The topic is how to include Indicators and Indexes, city rankings is not part of this discussion and is already being addressed in this thread. Mkevlar 01:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Will Amos An apparent WP:SPA editor is adding content to Liberal MP Will Amos regarding his position (or non-position, more accurately) on issues pertaining to Gatineau Park in his riding — specifically, the insinuation is that he had ethically dubious reasons for refusing to take a position that might cost him the support of a local homeowner's association, and the only source provided for the claim is Buzzfeed. This is not adequate sourcing for a matter which has not been substantively covered by any mainstream media, and the fact that the editor is an SPA whose edit history pertains almost exclusively to Gatineau Park strongly suggests an agenda that is not compatible with Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. However, I've tried twice now to remove the content from the article as improperly sourced and not neutral, but the SPA has reverted me both times. Is anybody else willing to take a look at the article to review the matter and weigh in one way or the other? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC) The content being added is improperly sourced, obviously failing NPOV and in one case original research. I've reverted the IP again. Maybe it is worth trying to engage with the person on the talk page? Ajraddatz (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I agree a stronger reference source is required especially considering the other controversy seems to be baseless. I reverted it and the user does not have a user page to post discussion inclusion tags. Mkevlar (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Switching Canada links to Canadians links I have been changing links such as [[Canada|Canadian]] to [[Canadians|Canadian]] for articles about Canadian persons. I have been using AWB to do this. It was pointed out to me that I should have started a discussion about this first (see WP:ASSISTED which I was not aware of -- there are so many policies!). I think this is non-controversial so I had gone ahead and did a bunch of conversions. I got a few thanks, but I have got a couple of objections. Any thoughts here? Alaney2k (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC) I was one of the people who objected to Alaney2k's editing. To clarify, changing [[Canada|Canadian]] to [[Canadians|Canadian]] is not the only type of edit being made, and IMO is not objectionable if done carefully. However, there are also new links being added in contravention of various parts of the linking guideline, including WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE, as well as a number of more substantive additions being made using AWB. These I think need wider discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC) There is a big difference between the adjective Canadian (about Canada) and the noun Canadian (the Canadian people). This would have to be done with care. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Absolutely. Using the link for Canadian writer, but not Canadian business, or Canadian province. I was doing that. Most Canadian bio articles do have links to the Canadians page, but some do not. I was adding the link to the Canadians page. I'm not sure, but I think that was at least part of the objections I received. I think wp:overlink does not prohibit Canada or Canadians links in the infobox, but I thinks others might disagree. Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC) No. It violates WP:OVERLINK as Canada and Canadians are a common term. Think of it this way. Would a person come to Wikipedia asking, "What is the nationality those people who live north of the United States. You know, Rudy Weibe is one of them. Oh, I know. I'll just check his article." No one is looking for that link on an author's page, so it's unnecessary. You should clarify on the linking talk page if you think I'm making too much of this. If however you were to link to Canadian nationality law, that would be a different issue, because the parameter is nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC) I think you are constructing something artificial there. I would go to the article for the article, not the nationality. I would see the link. Myself, I see a pop-up of the article. Both on my desktop and on my phone. And I get a bit of information. But at any rate, it would always be a secondary or minor thing. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC) It's a common term. That is why it should not be linked. The rationale is, would a read want to link to the subject to find out more? In other words, would a read intentionally go to an article about a writer to find their way to an article about that writer's citizens? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC) In a biography, most definitely, I actually do it all the time. Helps put the persons life in perspective. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I think that at least one link to the nationality of a person is expected in an encyclopedic context. I don't think you could create a consensus of Wikipedia editors otherwise. Just look at common practice here. Alaney2k (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Personally I feel it is somewhat unexpected for the adjective "Canadian" to link to an article about the people of Canada. I would only expect such a link in articles that were discussing cultures or peoples. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC) This might be reflected in why I've found there is a split of links. Some link to Canada, and I've found lots that link to Canadians. I don't think it would be helpful to point to a disambiguation page. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC) But it is common practice to link to the persons article, whether it is Americans, Scottish people, whatever. Alaney2k (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Assuming you are discussing the lead sentence in a biography, in accordance with English Wikipedia's guidance for biographies, the adjective generally refers to the person's nationality, so I think it is more expected for a link (if any) to go to the country in question. An article about the people of a particular background is about culture, rather than citizenship or residency. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC) These articles about the people of a country are more than culture. There is demographics, citizenship info. Canadians also includes the First Nations, founding nations. Alaney2k (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC) I'm unclear on how the split should work between a country article and a peoples article: it seems to me that citizenship information, demographics and discussion of the peoples within a country should be included in a country article, since these require the context of a country. In the case of Canada, I guess the peoples article can be considered a spinout of the country article, though it leads to inconsistencies with other peoples articles that cover residents of other countries who maintain strong ties to another ethnic background. isaacl (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC) I've always expected it to go to an article about the people of that background, not the country. There was a move quite awhile back that was switching all articles from linking to the country to linking to the people page, but it like many things fizzled out which is why you likely see a mix of both being done. We aren't talking about the country when we say Canadian we are speaking about the type of person in a biography. If it was something like a product or a business it would be different. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC) The use of the word 'Canadian' as an adjective should be avoided in some cases. For example, 'Canadian village' located in province xxx. Also, when we are talking about things like Canadian music or Canadian musicians. It is a bit vague to say Canadian rock band. Do they play Canadian rock or are they Canadian nationals playing rock? It is a bit pedantic, because it usually explained later in the article, but in every case I've seen they are Canadian nationals. Alaney2k (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC) According to guidance to which I linked, it is nationality being referenced, not background. In the case of Canadians, though, where there isn't really a diaspora to speak of, the two largely overlap. For other cases where background diverges from nationality, such as ethnic Chinese in other Asian countries, it's more tricky. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Your nationality is part of your background. What you are trying to refer to is your ethnicity, which is also part of your background. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC) The Canadians article is not solely about ethnicity, so I did mean to refer to background, which I agree includes ethnicity. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Exactly, my point was that the article Canadians isn't just about ethnicity, therefore it is the appropriate link as background is also about nationality. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC) As you are aware, the guidance specifically says that nationality should be specified in the lead, and that Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Thus the guidance is not for background in general, encompassing nationality, ethnicity, and other components, but just for nationality. Nonetheless, let's see what others feel is an appropriate link; perhaps there is a consensus for a more general link. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC) And since nationality is discussed on that page, then it does cover nationality much better than the country article which doesn't so much. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC) I should also mention that the persondata template is going away, and one of the alternatives is to put info in infoboxes. I've been deleting the persondata where there is an infobox. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Actuallly, Wikidata is intended to be the primary alternative to persondata - the template should be removed when the data is already represented in Wikidata, not just in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC) They've already captured the persondata. But the infoboxes also make it easier to put data into wikidata. Alaney2k (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) If you mean that having the information in an infobox makes it easier for someone to enter the info into Wikidata, I find the real time-consuming task is entering the source of the data, which then requires you to create entries for the properties of the source if they don't already exist. Maybe after a while I'd get more proficient at it, but there's still a lot of meta data that has to be entered. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC) OK, so let's step back. If I simply change [[Canada|Canadian]] to [[Canadians|Canadian]] for Canadian persons only and not mess with infoboxes, adding extra links, other Canadian things/etc. that that takes care of objections? I think discussing more than that muddies the waters. I definitely went beyond what was simple and non-controversial. These other things can be another topic. I think it would be beneficial to discuss some of those things -- to get some of this recorded. Make my editing better and be a help to others? Alaney2k (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC) As above, I have no objection to that particular change so long as it is done carefully. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC) I have just run across the substituting of Canadian for Canada, purely accidentally, in the course of gnoming and correcting errors, and followed to this discussion; yes, i'm late to the party, but i think there are still issues, perhaps with execution rather than concept (though, in mine opinion, as someone else stated above, linking to Canada may well be overlinking. Anyway, i have looked at three of the edits made by Alaney2k, and found an issue with each of them; i have mentioned it on his talk page, but i'm bringing it up here, also, to get a few more eyes on edits which may contain potential problems. I found Warner Music Canada, where i reverted because the category "1990 in Canadian music" was changed to "1990 in [[Canadians|Canadian]]", which makes less than no sense. I also had to change part of his edit in Warren Kinsella, where something similar had happened in a category. The third is a little different, in that the opening sentence of Hnat Domenichelli now reads "'''Hnat A. Domenichelli''' (born February 16, 1976) is a former [[Canadians|Canadian]]-[[Switzerland|Swiss]] former professional [[ice hockey]] player"; to me this is a problem because "Canadian" links to "Canadians" and "Swiss" links to "Switzerland", which is a distinct lack of consistency. Sure, it's easy to change, but if AWB is being used to make these changes, it should be making all of them it comes across, not a random selection. I'll ping Isaacl, Nikkimaria, Djsasso, Secondarywaltz and Walter Görlitz as previous participants in this conversation; cheers, LindsayHello 12:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Not sure if I have the authority to make the Swiss change under this task. Alaney2k (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC) I don't really have a problem with the Hnat A. Domenichelli one because that is typically how such changes are made. You work on one set and then go back and work on the others. WP:NODEADLINE and all that. The other two appear to just be clicking too fast on AWB. I suggest slowing down a bit on the changes to avoid such mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I will. Alaney2k (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Michele Heights The article Michele Heights has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Completely uncited, fails WP:LOCAL and generally seems not notable. While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MacMedtalkstalk 00:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Canadian border or Canada–US border I have started a discussion at Talk:Canada–United States border about the use of "Canadian border" vs "Canada–US border" in articles. Would like some input either way. Alaney2k (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Canadian television logs (an amazing resource!) The following FTP site contains Canadian television logs dating back to August 1999: ftp://support.crtc.gc.ca/ It appears that this link is no longer being updated, and may soon be decommissioned altogether. I have therefore requested that a proper web archive be made of the site, which can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/support_crtc_gc_ca15052016 Much more recent logs (starting from September 2014, so there is some overlap) are now being posted here, but the files seem to be constantly updated and thus potentially unreliable: http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/800106c1-0b08-401e-8be2-ac45d62e662e Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC) Here is a generic citation for the current version of the logs directory (which is unlikely to be updated anyway): Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC) And here's one for the newer link (note that the date given on the page is obviously wrong, and thus not included): Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC) References Certainly of interest to some especially committed media geeks, but I'm not sure I see what use this is to Wikipedia as referencing for anything that warrants note in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) The obvious use is for original episode airdates for Canadian television series. The number of entirely unsourced, and largely wrong, Canadian airdates on Wikipedia right now is astronomical. Even more bizarrely, the only other major source for this (AFAIK), Zap2it, seems to have almost as many mistakes of that type. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC) sports group? How active is the sports group of this project? I'm an active contributor at WP:CFL, but I just saw a WikiProject template from a CFL bio for the first time today. Would this project want biographies of those that played in the CFL to be tagged? ~ RobTalk 22:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC) How to apply WP:ENGVAR An unregistered editor has decided to put "use British English" templates on the talk pages of three articles - Talk:Barclays Bank Canada, Talk:National Westminster Bank of Canada, and Talk:Lloyds Bank of Canada - on the basis that they are or were UK-owned. I have been started a discussion on those pages as I believe this is a misapplication of WP:ENGVAR. Comments would be welcome. Ground Zero | t 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) No article alerts since 8 June I noticed this project does not display any alerts more recent than 8 June. Any thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Category:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal has been nominated for discussion Category:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC) RfC about lead section of country article I am requesting comments about the lead section of Singapore and I have cited Canada as a good example due to it being a featured article. I would appreciate if editors can comment here. Talk:Singapore#RfC_about_lead_section --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Notice to participants at this page about adminship Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate. Many thanks and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) New book Maybe relevant for Sport in Canada or Manitoba#Sports, new history book: Thrashing Seasons: Sporting Culture in Manitoba and the Genesis of Prairie Wrestling, University of Manitoba Press (distributed in the US by Michigan State University Press), 2016. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Vandalism issue Just a heads up to WikProject Canada: earlier this month, a user began undertaking a campaign of editing Canadian people's BLPs to replace the names of cities, provinces and Canada itself with "Traditional [Insert Name of First Nation] Territory" (e.g. writer Proma Tagore was described as living in "Coast Salish Territories" instead of Vancouver) — in addition to Tagore, the other affected articles were Larissa Lai, Harsha Walia and Rita Wong (and I think it not entirely accidental that the articles involved were all women of South Asian descent associated with the Vancouver area.) They were frequently reverted, but then rereverted the reversions despite talk page warnings, and in a couple of cases there was no reversion at all until I learned of this today — accordingly, I've blocked them as a disruptive editor, but I just wanted to let everybody know to be on the lookout in case this problem recurs. In particular, if you come across a similar situation, immediately check that user's edit history to ensure that the disruption isn't getting overlooked in other articles besides the one you already saw. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)