Talk:List of oldest buildings in Canada

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

Importance of young buildings questionable[edit]

I have added the importance-sect tag.

I realize that Canada has a much shorter "occidental" (for want of a better word) history than we Europeans do, and that many of these buildings may be of significant importance in their communities. However, when years like 1939 (!) are cited, the phrase "oldest" building is almost ridiculed. I once, personally, lived in a house from the sixteenth century. I have lived in two other houses from the late nineteenth century. Some of the houses listed are about as old as my mother (and I dare you to list her as an oldest anything, she would take your head off...)

I would suggest a reasonable cut-off at possibly 1800 (highly negotiable); with exceptions for say the two or three oldest houses of an individual state, should they happen to be younger. 94.220.252.5 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, some would not get the fact that older has a different meaning in the new world. It does, however, have a different meaning. A cut-off at 1800 is ridiculous, as many major cities were founded land after that. I'll remove the tag you added. --Qyd (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you miss the point: Notability and relevance. That a house built in 1939 is the oldest in some particular part of Canada is not of sufficient global relevance and interest to be included in an encyclopedia, seeing that there are millions upon millions of houses that are older. This information is interesting to the locals (not a sign of notability), possibly to tourists (WP is not a tourist guide), and possibly to historians or ethnologist (WP is not a specialist guide).

To take an analogous and hypothetical example, that John Smith of Torolaska holds the third best long jump in the states history at 6.54, really is not something Wikipedia should discuss. The Canadian record might be worth mentioning even if that poor, but only by virture of being the Canadian record. Wikipedia may be a relevant first stop to search for the Canadian record, but the adventures of John Smith would be sought in a specialist source of Track-and-Field statistics. (For comparison, the WR is 8.95, the women's WR is ~ 7.50, and the actual Canadian record is bound to be above 8 meters.)

My suggestion would be (if people are sufficiently interested) to move the complete listings to a private website and link to it from the WP entry.

(I have not re-added the tag, but do consider its inclusion correct.) 88.77.154.179 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point: you lived in a 16th century building that is not mentioned on wikipedia, so a 1900 Canadian building does not matter to the world. They are not relevant to you.
My point is that buildings registered as heritage buildings in Canada are notable enough, not only to be featured in this list, but to have their own wikipedia article. --Qyd (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, a point to be made. There are no 16th or 17th century buildings in Saskatchewan. The oldest is 1774, and there are still a few standing and declared national and provincial historic sites in the 1800s, but the some of the designated historical architecture of SK is of the early 1900s as the main immigration came with the CPR Rail, or shortly before in the late 1800s. The sites earlier than that are re-stored or re-built forts and Hudson Bay Company posts. SriMesh | talk 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, being a heritage building is not enough for an own article. Notability takes more than that.88.77.128.233 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion has been noted. moving on. --Qyd (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are missing the point. At the time of the War of 1812 there couldn't have been more than 10,000 buildings in Ontario while in Europe many 10's of millions were standing. That a building from that time survives today in Europe is trivial while such a reality in Ontario is rare. Move west and the baseline of rare moves ahead in time. Add to that the conditions of how and where the early buildings were constructed - very deep in an unexplored wilderness (from the perspective of who built them) - makes their continuing survival more significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.41.45 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a Wikipedia article, "List of silliest articles on Wikipedia". This could be the second entry. Jkshapiro (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Table Column[edit]

I'm wondering if, perhaps, an additional 'Notes' column would be appropriate? Not all of these buildings have their own articles at this time (and some are either unwarranted or simply unlikely to get them), and it may help provide context re: the above discussion. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, Tok. This aticle is languishing[edit]

The Alberta and Quebec sections have been extensively rewritten to match the new (as of 2008) title. The other provincial sections need to be updated or should be deleted, because the information in them is grossly inacurate. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to simply correct what's inaccurate? If you can fix, or at the very least point out the problems you see, then why not not do it? - Jonathon A H (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not an expert on those provinces, don't know where to find the proper resources, and don't want to expend the time and effort to learn. I fix what I know, and hope that it inspires other to follow along. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know enough to say that the information is 'grossly inaccurate', so you know enough to point out what's wrong, no? That's the least you can do if you're going to say things like that. - Jonathon A H (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from London, Ontario and the house that I live in is from the 1800's so this article made me laugh quite a bit. - Aman V (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.8.53 (talk) [reply]

Fairfield House[edit]

The link for Fairfield House pointed to a building located in England, so I removed it. I also "updated" the date of construction from 1794 to 1793 as per the Loyalist Township website article on Amherstview TimothyPilgrim (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what about eldon house in london, ontario — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.32.8 (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Territory?[edit]

No subsection for the Yukon at all? Surely there are some old buildings from the gold rush that are still standing up there?--Anawrahta (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Yukon subsection is finally created. Empirecoins (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

native structures?[edit]

Glancing over this list, and checking Ft St James and McLeod Lake, which are the oldest non-native settlements in BC (but no buildings as old as they are...), I note that native structures are missing entirely; Keeshan and Gitwangak Battle Hill National Historic Site are definitely 18th C or before; reconstructions I'm not taking into account, like Xa:ytem and quiggly holes and the like, but there are significant structures that pre-date the earliest ones by quite a bit......none of the original Fort Langley from 1826 remains, so far as I know. There's a church at Yale that's 1860, maybe 1859; its equivalent in Lillooet burned down a good 40 years ago now.....the systemic bias of such "oldest" lists is clear to me and others; shouldn't it be spelled out in the lede as limited to "white" structures. Re Fort San Miguel at Nootka Sound, no buildings remain, though some foundations or other structures are in evidence, and it's 18th Century.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mohawk chapel in Ontario was built by the Mohawks who fought with the Crown in the American Revolution

St. Andrews Church[edit]

I added the St. Andrews Church , built in 1802. Its the oldest stone building in Ontario and was used as a hospital during the war of 1812. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.21.81 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut off dates[edit]

I realize that these article lists are very informal. The lists dont have any cut off dates, which means it seems that the lists can go on for a long time with no ending. I started out fixing this problem by making the cut off date in Ontario at 1850. So anything in Ontario built on or after that year will not be included on the list. However there is still a large amount of buildings on that particular list and I think that the cut off date maybe should be lowered even further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirecoins (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- I agree, otherwise the list can go on and on. How about an 1830 cut off date for Ontario? Drenowe (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)drenowe[reply]

- 1840. And thanks for all the added buildings for Ontario. Empirecoins (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok now the list was getting too long. shortened it to 1830. Empirecoins (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks, glad to be of help. (User talk:drenowe) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario[edit]

The Ontario and Quebec Tables appear under the Quebec heading and I do not know how to fix it.--Hantsheroes (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Year Built" Requires Clarification[edit]

I see numerous examples where different definitions of "Year Built" are used.

For example the De Gannes-Cosby House is listed as 1708, even though it was rebuilt after a fire on foundations dating from 1693. While the Maison Puisseaux is listed as being built in 1638, but that original building no longer exists. It was re-built twice after fires and the current building dates from the 1700s. HISTORBUFF (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have since checked a few more of the Quebec entries. All of the first three entries use dates for buildings which no longer exist, but once existed on that site. I will leave this section open for a while and then will try to align "year built" based on when the existing principle building was built.
The date should NOT refer to older buildings on the same site even if minor elements (eg the foundations) are incorporated into a new building. I can understand if some damage was done and repaired, it is still the same building, but if was essentially destroyed and rebuilt, or has was expanded to to the point where only a small original element remains, then it is no longer the same building. HISTORBUFF (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_buildings_in_Canada&oldid=1203098352"