Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

"City, Province (Territory)" format

This discussion has been roaring at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Our_Provinces_are_missing., so I think it would be best to resolve the issue here - one way or another - through a proposal to change a section of the style guide based on the Government of Canada's style guide, which is less prescriptive, and gives writers more flexibility: "It is not necessary to use the provincial abbreviation after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Fredericton. However, since the same name is often shared by several places in Canada and other parts of the English-speaking world (e.g. Perth, Windsor, Hamilton), add the appropriate abbreviation in cases where doubt could arise."

Current version: In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the format "City, Province/Territory, Canada", unless the article text or title has already established that the subject is Canadian, e.g., it is not necessary to identify the "Parliament of Canada" as being located in "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada".
Proposed addition to the above: It is not necessary to include the Province/Territory after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Fredericton, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the addition to the style guide, and briefly why. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and Oppose as written. The statement pointed to above by the Government of Canada can be interpreted your way by not including the province and just having it as "city, country" or it can be interpreted as the cities mentioned be well known so they don't need the province or the country succeeding it. It isn't entirely clear. I know you gave some examples on the Canada project page of them using "Ottawa, Canada", but they use Ottawa, Ontario as well. How can we judge how well known a city is? Sure, to Canadians, Fredericton might be well known, but I wouldn't classify it as well known, especially when they leave Calgary out which I'd think is better known. As another discussion above said, seeing Toronto, Canada makes me cringe. If Toronto is so well known why does it even need Canada after it? Chicago; Rome; Madrid are often left standalone. What would be the harm in stating "city, province, country" in the lead/infobox and then just simply referring to the city alone since already introduced in full? Why wouldn't the reader benefit from knowing Moose Jaw is in Saskatchewan? Sure, they might not know where Saskatchewan is, but is that our problem, they might not even know where Canada is! They can just click the link if they wanted to, however, if the province wasn't listed and they did want to know where Moose Jaw was in Canada, they would be forced to click the link which isn't right; leave them with more not less as PKT said on the project page. I wouldn't consider linking our provinces as overlinking either since they wouldn't be major geographical areas such as a country or a very well known cities worldwide like Tokyo or New York City. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The province should be added where appropriate for the context, or the country should be added where appropriate for the context, or both should be added where appropriate for the context. But the style guide is going too far in saying that "City, Province" is necessary in all contexts. Let the writer decide. In the article on the Ontario Hockey League, do we have to specify "Toronto, Ontario"? Or in the article on Quebec nationalism, is "Montreal, Quebec" necessary? I would say, "let the writer decide". The current wording says, "you must identify the province". Ground Zero | t 01:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the format should be as follows for all municipalities in Canada:
  • "City name"
  • If there is disambiguation needed, then "City name, Canada"
  • If there is still disambiguation needed, then "City name, province, Canada".
Does this agree with your recommendation? Mattximus (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Ground Zero | t 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And with mine. I would go a bit further though and offer locations where the additional disambiguation may be needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I would argue that most people outside Canada don't know where Fredericton is, or its importance. Maybe not Winnipeg, either. Cities with true international profiles would be Ottawa (National Capital), Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal (Olympic cities, and certain international events), and Toronto (sporting and largest city). Perhaps these five don't need their provinces identified, but I firmly believe in identifying provinces wherever a municipality is named, and to link the province more often than not. Whether people outside our fair country care about the provinces is irrelevant to me - give them more than they need, not less. PKT(alk) 01:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue with letting the writer decide is you forfeit consistency. For the contexts given by Mattximus, the articles concerning a specific province, it is usually linked on its own like it is in the lead of Quebec nationalism "...and promotes the unity of the Québécois people in the province of Quebec." Then throughout the article I'd just leave Montreal standalone. In other contexts, I firmly believe in identifying the province as well, at least when first introducing the city, for reasons stated above. It feels geographically incomplete and incorrect to omit the province. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Rules-based consistency is an enemy of good writing. The existing rule tells a writer mentioning an event in Montreal in the Quebec nationalism article to specify "Montreal, Quebec". My proposal would allow the writer the flexibility not to. I'm not opposed to including the province or even a link to it where it will improve understanding. I am just opposed to telling writers that they must in every case. Ground Zero | t 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re: PKT. If they need to know where Fredericton or Winnipeg, we could add Canada. If they need further detail, we could add the respective province, however linking them is not needed because a link to the city should exist and in the article for the city, both province and nation are linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: not exactly sure where I stand, but if the outcome is to go with the proposed addition, strike Winnipeg and Fredericton and replace with Montreal and Calgary. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. Ground Zero | t 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Strike Calgary, I would suggest Thunder Bay or even Moose Jaw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If the proposal here is to follow a statement made by the Government of Canada, why would we then start replacing cities with ones we think are more well known with ones the Government of Canada does? Obviously, I don't know why they wouldn't have picked Calgary for example over Fredericton...even Halifax is probably a better East Coast option, however, that's why I think they were gauging that article to a Canadian audience who would be more likely to know where Fredericton is. I just don't understand how them being "well known" warrants ", Canada" to succeed the city name, when if being "well known", they could probably standalone, so I don't see the logic there.
Because this is an international encyclopedia, not a Canadian-specific encyclopedia. Our audience is beyond Canada, and they are more likely to know the two proposed substitutions than Winnipeg, Fredericton, Thunder Bay and Moose Jaw known to nearly all Canadians, and significantly less known internationally compared to the five others. Hwy43 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, what I don't understand is how a city being "well known" affects this situation except if we were talking about the city being left as standalone. For example, if we left Moose Jaw, the city itself, as standalone, there might be confusion with an international reader reading, so a province or the country would be needed for clarity, which was always done. Now, for the well known cities like Toronto and Montreal, they could likely standalone with out a province or country for clarity. So why is that Government of Canada article being interpreted like Toronto being well known needs "Toronto, Canada"?...at least from what I'm seeing. Being well known should not have any bearing whether you write "Toronto, Ontario, Canada / Toronto, Canada" or "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada / Moose Jaw, Canada", what it does have a bearing on is if the city can be left standalone altogether. For our purposes, like the proposed amendment below, we should always write "city, province, country" when introducing the city in the lead and the infobox no matter well known or not, thereafter it can be referenced as standalone. Also, if your proposing to follow one piece of info from the Government of Canada article, but not another, there's something wrong. If they think Fredericton is well known, it should be like that here as well, not that being well known even pertains to this as I've said in my eyes. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, I don't know where I stand overall. I also don't propose following the Government of Canada source as its scale is national. However, it is a type of solution at the national level that can inform the solution we are seeking here. PKT provides some well-rationalized qualitative reasons for why the five should be included. Surely there is quantitative evidence as well, whether internal to Wikipedia or something based on a reliable source that sets these five apart from the rest. An example, though I don't know if the data is available, is answering the question of which city articles in Canada have the highest frequency of hits from readers outside Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ground Zero, I know the rules say an editor must follow "Montreal, Quebec" even in an article about Quebec nationalism, which I would say is unnecessary as well, however, I would also say "Montreal, Canada" in the same article would be unnecessary as well. I've already stated that I'd like to see the province listed in conjunction at least in the lead/infobox when first introducing it, then standalone thereafter, however, in instances of large international context such as List of Pan American Games records in swimming, I wouldn't mind listing it like shown in the article due to the consistency of the other international locations listed; same with the locations listed in Hillsong Church Families in Hillsong Church. What I would have a problem with is if, for example, someone's article said "he was born in Toronto, Canada, but grew up in Los Angeles, California" because then the format is all out of whack for this article. I don't know how you'd incorporate this into a policy, but what you're proposing, I wouldn't support for the instance if the editor chooses to write a sentence like the example I just gave. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Amendment/Oppose as written That sentence needs an introduction. "In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as Ontario, Quebec, Toronto, Ontario Hockey League), ". Secondly, I would add a sentence such as "In all articles, always include the province in locations specified in an infobox (birth place, death place, location fields) and in lead sections." Alaney2k (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support amendment suggested directly above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Amended amended version

Here is my proposed compromise wording, which I can support:

Proposed addition, amended, to the above:
In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as Ontario, Quebec, Toronto, Ontario Hockey League), it is not necessary to include the Province/Territory after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Calgary, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation. Always include the province in locations specified in an infobox (birth place, death place, location fields).

I did not include "and in lead sections" at the end of the last sentence because that would generate the resulkt that the lead section could be required to read, "The Ontario Hockey League (OHL) is one of the three major junior ice hockey leagues which constitute the Canadian Hockey League. The league is for players aged 16–21. Its headquarters are in Toronto, Ontario." We can leave that decision up to the authors of the article. Also, "In all articles, always..." was more emphasis than it appropriate for a style manual. We are not school marms in Wikipedia (or, at least we should aim not to be). Ground Zero | t 22:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support this if we fix the part about the lead statement easily by adding "and in lead sections when first introducing the city where it would not conflict with the preceding". Something like that. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: You should include Quebec City to the list of well-known cities. Bouchecl (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Rationale for it despite exclusion of Winnipeg and Edmonton? Hwy43 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Quebec City is a special case, since the name of the capital city bears the name of the province of the same name. Bouchecl (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, just seeing Winnipeg is included among the five other cities. Not sure there was consensus to include, so similar to the above question; rationale for Winnipeg despite exclusion of Quebec City and Edmonton? Hwy43 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: the four example topics comprise two provinces, a city and an organization. If this flies, let's strike one province in favour of something at the federal level, such as Statistics Canada, Canada Revenue Agency or Parliament of Canada. As Ontario is mentioned twice, strike it, or strike Quebec and replace itOntario Hockey League with Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. No need to overemphasize provinces in the examples. Hwy43 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with Hwy43's suggestion. But maybe instead of another hockey league, use the example from before about Quebec nationalism.
Note there was an error in my above post. My intent was to also have only one hockey league (see hardly noticeable strikethrough revision above). Hwy43 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No worries, so (topics such as Parliament of Canada, Ontario, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League)? To be clear, in the Parliment of Canada article it states the location as "Ottawa, Ontario", so if this proposal is put into place, we would just list it as Ottawa standalone, correct? I don't know if I'd agree with it on a federal level now that I think about it since where is the city in Canada in that federal article? I understand in something like the Ontario Hockey League it is plainly obvious the locations are about Ontario so it is not needed to write Toronto, Ontario dozens of times, but not in a broad federal article. I'd maybe say "In articles about a strictly Provincial/Territorial topic" to narrow it down further. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
To throw a wrench, there are American-based teams in the OHL. Not sure if this changes things. Also, I didn't suggest removal of the city from the four original examples. If one is reincluded, I suggest Vancouver for geographic balance. Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, for OHL we could probably leave the Canadian Ontarian cities as standalone since that's the base and the title of the league and just keep city, state for the American ones. With regards to the cities, I agree to include Vancouver in the list. Looking at city articles like Vancouver and Toronto, when other major Canadian cities are listed in their article, the city such as Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc are left standalone, which look fine to me; so it would agree with this policy. I revised my thought above for the sake of simplicity and after seeing Statistics Canada introduce its HQ in Ottawa (standalone), it looks fine, so the same can be done with the Parliament of Canada. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
By a quick look at page view stats, Toronto gets roughly 6500 views a day, 4500 for Montreal and Vancouver, and about 2000-2500 for Edmonton and Calgary AND Winnipeg. Quebec City I probably would only consider due to it sharing part of its province's name (1800 views). About 1200 for Saskatoon, 1500 for Halifax and only 350 for Fredericton. I would keep Winnipeg, add Edmonton and MAYBE Quebec City, maybe even Halifax as an East Coast representative since it has close views to Quebec City. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the five as rationalized very well by PKT above is best, but agree there should be some discretion. I guess it is worded so that it is already discretionary though. How about changing "well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Calgary..." to "well-known cities (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Calgary, etc.)"? I think the discretion is now much more explicit and it empowers editors to use the discretion where appropriate. Hwy43 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good, those cities are definitely the most prominent and including any others may be over embellishing it. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
For everyone's reference, here are the 90-day page view stats for ten-largest cities mentioned above. Hwy43 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have held off on commenting because I have been trying to figure out a way to improve this suggestion:

"fix the part about the lead statement easily by adding "and in lead sections when first introducing the city where it would not conflict with the preceding". Something like that."

I find this to be pretty confusing, because it seems to be an exception to an exception. It is probably unnecessary, and if the Manual's directions are confusing, people will ignore them. With the instruction about "clarity and disambiguation", I think we are giving clear direction to authors to include the province where appropriate without laying it on too thick.

As far as the list of examples goes, I am not too fussy and accept the proposal above. It is a list of examples, not an exhaustive list. Use of this exception will depend on the context. Ground Zero | t 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But without this we're basically saying that provinces are only really allowed in the infobox fields, when they should also be added when introducing a city for the first time in any section as long as it isn't an article about a strictly Canadian topic as we would have identified previously. Shouldn't be too hard to comprehend. If we are going to introduce a city for the first time in an article that isn't about a strictly Canadian topic, we should write Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, (or Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada depending on situation), then, refer to it as Moose Jaw from then on. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No. "... it is not necessary to include the Province/Territory ... if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation" does not prohibit an author from including it if they want to. It only means it is not necessary. This started because Alaney2k was indiscriminately adding the province. This allows an author not to include the province of they feel it is not necessary. And it does require the author to include the province if it is needed for clarity, as in the case of an article about a topic that is not strictly Canadian. Ground Zero | t 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, that makes sense, but the thing I want to avoid with this policy is city, country formats like "Toronto, Canada", which this current version would allow if the editor chooses. When you say "And it does require the author to include the province if it is needed for clarity, as in the case of an article about a topic that is not strictly Canadian" do you mean by this that an editor will decide whether a Canadian city name in a non-Canadian specific article can standalone, or, if it needs the province as well for clarity.....or do you mean to choose between "Toronto, Canada" and "Toronto, Ontario, Canada", because omitting the province is forfeiting needed clarity in all situations unless in a strictly Canadian related article (to be clear, the ", Canada" would not be needed either in Canadian specific articles). This is why I wanted to add that extra blurb to the end. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This thread is becoming very convoluted, would it be possible to provide a point form summary of what conclusion was/is being reached? I honestly don't know if what I suggested above (with respect to article names) was agreed with or rejected... Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Mattximus, Ground Zero said he'd agree with what you put forth. I would not, however. I believe city, country format should never be used, especially for Canadian/American cities. Sorry for possibly making this over complicated for you, but this is what I'm trying to get across. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What I suggested is simply what is done in other countries, shouldn't Canada follow suit, or if not, what justifies making Canada/USA different? It really should be "Hamilton, Canada" in the same way you would write "Frankfurt, Germany", not "Frankfurt, Hesse". Would you rather "Frankfurt, Hesse"? I know from a Canadian perspective "Hamilton, Ontario" sounds better. But this is an international website, and we should not expect everybody to know every sub national province or state on earth. Including Ontario instead of Canada is confusing to international readers. If you are thinking strictly what is useful to readers, then Nation should come before Province/State for disambiguation. The province should only be included if there are multiple Hamiltons in Canada and they need to be distinguished.
If you are not convinced, which is more useful to you for finding out where a place is, should their be 2 places named Xi'an. "Xi'an, Shaanxi" or "Xi'an, China"?

Mattximus (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) is not necessary to include the ProvinceI wouldn't prefer "Frankfurt, Germany" or "Frankfurt, Hesse", what I would prefer is "Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany"; to me it is interesting to see the states/provinces used because if I didn't know about them, I could investigate further. "Frankfurt, Hesse" would likely cause confusion to a non German, as would "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan" For a non Canadian or North American, which is why I'd favour "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada". I would think most of those cities other than English speaking cities use the city, country format because this is the English Wikipedia where Canadians, Americans, Australians and UK inhabitants dominate. You may also see English cities use city, province format - ex. Hay Plumb Norwich, Norfolk. As PKT said above earlier, "Whether people outside our fair country care about the provinces is irrelevant to me - give them more than they need, not less." If you would go to the German Wikipedia, you will be more likely to see Frankfurt, Hesse in all probability. For this language Wiki, city, country formats are not preferred for English speaking cities for me. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Frankfurt, Germany" is what it is known as. And for the record, there are two Frankfurt in Germany. If you need to know which state the city is in, you can click through to the city article. You don't see "Bergen, Hordaland, Norway" only "Bergen, Norway". You will frequently not see "Los Angeles, California, United States", instead you will only see "Los Angeles". But we know your preference Vaselineeeeeeee. You've made it clear multiple times, and you don't give them more than they need. That breaks a fundamental rule of writing. As George Orwell stated, "if it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out" and province can be easily cut out as it it's present in the article on the city, which happens to be linked.
The amendment is still not sufficiently precise and the ordering is odd. It should either be geographically ordered (east-to-west makes sense) or by current size of metropolitan area.
Do not include the province or territory after the names of well-known cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg or Hamilton, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation in articles of Canadian subjects. When listing Canadian cities articles of non-Canadian subjects, list only the city and country, such as Fredericton, Canada. Only link the city, not the province or country. See WP:OVERLINK.
That addresses all of the topics being discussed, although there are some who disagree with the guideline and would prefer to see "Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada" in the article about bids for the 2010 Winter Olympics (even though none of the other locations list all three), or "Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada" in an article about international opposition to seal hunting (I don't think that article exists). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If there are two Frankfurts in Germany, all the more reason to add the province. Again, this is an English Wikipedia so you won't often see a Norwegian city with its province included due to this fact. If you go to the Norwegian Wikipedia, you'd be more likely to find it. It isn't omitting a word. It's omitting a province. Very different. This isn't just any old word that can be cut, it's a geographic location that without, makes a city geographically incomplete with "city, country" formats. The policy as it is only allows "city, province, country", which should not be the case for Canadian specific articles, but now the way you've proposed only allows "city, country" format, which also should not be case either. Under no circumstances do I think it's needed to use city, country format, again, especially for Canadian/American/British cities as this is an English Wikipedia, although international is irreverent; his is how we refer to our cities and we shouldn't have to make our readers click on the city to find out what province their in when it can be already stated. Toronto and Montreal can standalone like Los Angeles could, but you often see "Los Angeles, California" as well, then from there on you would refer to it as the standalone city only. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 11:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the standard convention for disambiguating the two Frankfurts isn't by state — the German polity in its various forms far predates the creation of Germany's contemporary system of states, so long-established communities that had other standard disambiguators known and used before the states came into being typically retain that older method instead of being dabbed by state: for the two Frankfurts, it's the rivers that they're on. The much larger and much more internationally famous one can usually just be Frankfurt, with Frankfurt am Main ("Frankfurt on (the River) Main") as a backup if necessary because both Frankfurts are being referred to in close proximity; while the smaller one on the German-Polish border is almost always Frankfurt an der Oder ("Frankfurt on the (River) Oder"), but can also just be Frankfurt if the context has already narrowed you down to Oder/Brandenburg. So what's done in Germany isn't really a helpful guide to what should or shouldn't be done in Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. There are two Frankfurts, and the disambiguation is already addressed. Yet disambiguation is no reason to change how we present information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the amended version, although I will try to use provinces after all city names, which the amended version makes optional. PKT(alk) 13:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @PKT: Which "amended" version are you referring to; Ground Zero's or Walter's? I'll compromise and support the amendment made by Ground Zero for the same reasons as PKT; I will continue to try to use provinces after all city names, which Ground Zero's makes optional. Again though, if I or any editor comes across a Canadian city with city, country format, we will likely change it to include the province; this may cause reversions for editors who are on the other side of the argument such as Walter, which is why I didn't originally like the "writer gets to decide" ideology as there still will be inconsistencies with display of info and between editing philosophies of editors with no concrete guideline in place. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that - I'm referring to Ground Zero's version, under the heading "Amended amended version". I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. PKT(alk) 16:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments: About the sorting solutions advanced by Walter, there is always alphabetical. As for the WP:OVERLINK reference, no issues with not linking Canada as it is a commonly understood term around the world. While the provincial/territorial names are commonly understood in Canada, they are not internationally, and even within the United States. I discourage specifically calling out provinces and territories as things that should not be linked as there will always be international readers of Canadian articles. Hwy43 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Another comment: Why is it that we title cities as Parral, Chihuahua, not Parral, Mexico; Bath, Somerset, not Bath, England; Abbotsford, British Columbia, not Abbotsford, Canada; Sora, Lazio, not Sora, Italy; Launceston, Tasmania not Launceston, Australia; Tuscon, Arizona, not Tuscon, United States (only ONE per country from what I've found).....But then want to write city names in city, country format when we state them within an article? Parral, Chihuahua may sound Spanish? A non Mexican might wonder if it's in Spain, Mexico, anywhere in South America? But is that really our problem? All we're trying to do is accurately represent cities in the proper sequential geographic order when a distinction is necessary. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't confuse how Wikipedia titles its articles with what makes for good writing. Wikipedia titles don't need to flow in a sentence. That isn't helpful guidance in this discussion. Ground Zero | t 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
How would the flow change between saying Toronto, Ontario or Toronto, Canada anywhere in an article? No flow is changed, what is changed is the accuracy of how cities are sequentially named. It is useful to show that the city, country format is never used to title an article, so why would we need to use it within an article? Even writing Toronto, Ontario, Canada doesn't drastically change the flow, I'd think the average reader will be able to handle it, I'd hope. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Context is missing. If I were writing prose in an article about the hockey team, Toronto, Ontario would be appropriate. If I were writing prose about recordings of Bach's Goldberg Variations, and wanted to discuss the difficulty that audio engineers had recording Glenn Gould in the 1956 recording because of his constant singing along to the melody, and wanted to discuss the location of the studio, I would expect to write Toronto, Canada. In an infobox for the recording of a Rush album: Toronto, Canada. In a table listing stadiums used in Major League Soccer: Toronto, Canada. The other proposal does not address that key point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The overwhelming number of infoboxes today with Canadian addresses include the province. At a minimum, we should keep that. I, for one, have not been convinced that the use of the province is -bad- writing. It is more "officious" for sure, but the articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to be essay style. In some ways, we are trying to put into policy form, something that has not been put down yet for other countries. Am I right about that? If so, we might have a chance to affect the policy styles for other location references, but I wonder if we will be out of step. I wonder if the US editors would go for eliminating the state? I do believe that we should be somewhat consistent within articles. If it uses the US state, then the Canadian province should be perfectly ok too. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you even thinking about what I'm actually writing? We should not keep that. If Katy Perry comes to the Wherehouse Studio in Vancouver to record, the album should list "Vancouver, Canada" and not British Columbia. However if Carly Rae Jepsen were, then it would make sense to include it. And yes, I'm saying we should remove that.
You for one are not considering context in determining whether including provinces is a correct style or not. It is correct for non-U.S. locations. It's not about consistency in the article, but if the subject is Canadian, discussions of provinces is appropriate. If the subject is not, it's immaterial to the discussion.
Much of Wikipedia's MoS is based on the Chicago Manual of Style. I'd like to see what the following has to say: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch08/ch08_toc.html 8.44 "Continents, countries, cities, oceans, and such" but access requires an account. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It says this:

8.44Continents, countries, cities, oceans, and such

Entities that appear on maps are always capitalized, as are adjectives and nouns derived from them. An initial the as part of a name is lowercased in running text, except in the rare case of an initial the in the name of a city.

(I tried the free 30-day trial) I think we should stay away from style and simply describe where we want provinces mandated. That's what the current canstyle is about. You and others suggest some leeway, and I've suggested in leads and infoboxes mandate it, but elsewhere leave it up to the writer. Where it is a prominent city, it can be left out, etc. I'd add that in tables which include US states, include Canadian provinces for consistency. This is all less restrictive than the current text which, although not 100% clear in context, expects it everywhere. I think we can remove the wlink to Canada except for the first wlink in an infobox, and similar for the city and province wlink, although I don't think wp:overlink applies there. Alaney2k (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is incomplete. Ledes and infoboxes for subjects that are clearly part of Canada may list province. Non-Canadaian articles in no way should list province.
And in tables, follow the principle described above and if there is consensus, include province in non-Canadaian articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We're not that far apart now, I think. We might have some hairs to split yet. If a Canadian location is in an infobox, it's likely someone who was born or died in Canada, or a company based in Canada or an event in Canada, etc. I would say those are at the very least Canadian-related, which is what this MoS section is on. I don't think one would object to those having a province. I kind of feel that the same applies to lead paragraphs. My main point here is that we could get into how Canadian is a article/topic, and I'd rather avoid that kind of discussion. I think it could lead to edit warring. For example, an article on a country at the Vancouver Olympics. The location is Vancouver. High degree of relation to Canada as well as the country. Infobox yes, lede no? Alaney2k (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No. You're still light years away and not reading what I'm writing. There are recordings made in Canada, filming or post-production locations in Canada, professional sports teams whose home is in Canada, and many other subjects that are not Canadian that list Canadian locations in infoboxes. For instance Wonder What's Next. People and other topics that are based in Canada are not an issue. The issue is when you add provinces in situations like this, this, this or this it's not appropriate.
Infoboxes are treated separately by overlink, for example, and other policies. I see no reason why canstyle can't specify for all infoboxes. It's not prose; it's just a listing. As for the diffs, I'm not alone in thinking that wp:overlink is not well written. A lot of other editors agree and wlink Canada in their articles anyway. Overlink would ban linking of Canada completely. Well, I've said my piece. My preferences are the current wording at wp:canstyle or mandating in infoboxes and leads. And with consideration for leads to avoid unnecessary duplication. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not about linking. It's about supplying unnecessary information.
And the links are not about OVERLINK, but about adding provinces. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for getting the 30-day trial to the Chicago MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Lots of copies in the TPL too. I have lots of access to it. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This is making an issue where there never was one. The article context will dictate if the province should be mentioned, which is usually in the introduction. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@P199: The reason I came here was that Alaney2k was adding it to tables in Major League Soccer-related articles (and others I watch). The subject itself is American and it has three teams in Canada (Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal) and he was indicating that the this MoS insisted that the province and country be listed. So the context was not clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
P199, I'm not sure what you are opposing. What we are/were trying to do was update the text in the MoS to moderate from what it says today, which is basically mandating mention of the province to one that is more comprehensive, more appropriate to good writing, and reflective of the international nature of Wikipedia. Prior to my involvement, it was pointed out that a lot of references to Canadian cities lacked the province, even in articles on Canadian topics. The adding of provinces by myself seems to have finally sparked this discussion, although we seem to have bogged down in the revised wording. It's probably time to develop another proposed wording. Walter, did you want to try? If not, I'm willing. Alaney2k (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed addition to the MOS. The number of rules, policies, guidelines is ballooning way too much. This issue does not need codifying. Like I said, context will dictate if it's needed. Or just add it, WP:Be Bold. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@P199:, but it clearly will not dictate it as I wrote above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ground Zero: This seemingly needs to be revisited because Alaney2k has been going around and making changes contrary to WP:CANPLACE and the above proposal. Mkdw talk 04:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted him several times myself. I suggest that we remind Alaney2k of this discussion and request that he honours it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have updated many articles. The percentage of complaints/reverts is very low, like 1%. That said, I would be happy if we settle this. It broke down. In all cases, I have tried to be encyclopedic. As I have mentioned but seems to have been forgotten is that this discussion really started with someone pointing out how often province names are omitted. For example, if a person is born in British Columbia, but moves to Toronto, I include Ontario as they have moved, and it should not be implied they are still in British Columbia. Yes, of course, the cities mentioned are well-known, but that doesn't mean we omit common information that is proper to include for someone reading the article, not just clicking around. I am trying to reduce or keep the same number of links, which is another bone of contention. Alaney2k (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The reason that you have not had complaints or reverts (notice I didn't violate MOS:SLASH and I started by correcting the WP:THREAD problem you created, which is permitted in WP:REDACT) is likely because the editors don't know of the consensus here and you don't care about editing following the rules. Please fix all of the violations you've created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. We've not updated the wp:canplace text. There are no violations, only disagreement. You don't know what you are talking about. Alaney2k (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Now personal attacks. Nice. It was clear what we agreed on and technicality that I will attempt to correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The pot calling the kettle black! You criticize me, revert me and I have to get others to discuss your reverts and get them reversed. Then you suggest I be bold on another topic. It's not a violation if the policy doesn't cover something, it's just different writing style. I have had received lots of thanks for article changes that I have made that you would not agree with. There are many who disagree with you. You do not hold the only opinion. Alaney2k (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A new amendment

The proposed amendment read:

In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as Ontario, Quebec, Toronto, Ontario Hockey League), it is not necessary to include the Province/Territory after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Calgary, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation. Always include the province in locations specified in an infobox (birth place, death place, location fields).

I suggest the following:

In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as a Canadian province, city, or other clearly Canadian subject), it is not necessary to include the Province or Territory after the names of cities if the city has an article and it is linked. Always include the province in locations specified in an infobox when discussing birth place, death place, or location of a business or structure.

This addresses the concerns and avoids violating WP:REPEATLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In favour

  1. Support As proposer, I support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support We expressly eliminated province/state from global city article names. Reintroducing them seems hugely inconsistent. Mkdw talk 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Agree with Walter Görlitz, having city, province, nation is overkill. For disambiguation purposes then it's ok, but for international articles then city, nation is sufficient. For large Canadian cities (especially in a Canadian context), no province or nation qualifier is needed. For example, Toronto is good, Toronto, Canada is ok if needed, but Toronto, Ontario, Canada is ridiculous. And I can't see any reason to use Toronto, Ontario since that is less well known than using Canada. Mattximus (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - the wording "it is not necessary" gives editors the discretion to include the province where it makes sense. It does not prohibit them from doing so or require them to do so. This proposal is simpler, and less prone to quarrelling, than the previous version. Ground Zero | t 19:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support, this is the most sensible approach to the issue. It's not necessary to differentiate the some city names, but others (eg Halifax, Victoria or Kingston) can be ambiguous if not differentiated. PKT(alk) 22:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Opposed

  • Opposed prefer the first version. Alaney2k (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this and prior versions as WP:CREEP, and a WP:CONLEVEL policy problem (tiny clusters of editors cannot make up their own "rules" against site-wide norms).
    • We use subnational jurisdiction designations like Canadian provinces and US states consistently, except when the city is so well-known and uniquely named (or overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as is London in England) that including the detail is superfluous.
    • Even then we usually do it anyway in tabular data (like infoboxes, sports charts, etc.) for consistency and clarity.
    • This is done across the entire encyclopedia; this has nothing to do with Canada in particular. MoS hasn't bothered codifying any this in a central place, as far as I can tell, though it should do so at the main WP:MOS page, or better yet at MOS:LINK, which already has a section on not over-linking geographical names, but is missing this particular bit of advice.
    • Whether the subject is "strictly Canadian" or not is irrelevant; users may be coming here to find that out, not already in possession of that knowledge. We absolutely cannot write WP with the idea in mind that a bunch of Canadians are coming here and confining themselves to articles about Canada; any given reader may be from Belize or Guam, and may have gotten to an article on a Canada-connected subject via a link from a blog post or one of our own articles on baseball or petrochemicals or electronic music.
    • The "strictly Canadian" thing doesn't make sense anyway: there are virtually zero topics with Canada as their sole scope (whether tagged on the talk page by multiple wikiprojects or not – though WikiProject Canada has no more say about the content of this guideline than anyone else). The whole notion is subjective and dispute-prone: Is Alex Pagulayan "strictly Canadian"? Editors and sources have disagreed about it, and readers generally have no idea.
    • Canada itself isn't "strictly Canadian" since it used to be UK, French, and First Nations territory before "Canada" was even a name or a concept; this actually matters for various historical bios.
    • Further, the proposed wording for this MoS material isn't itself MoS-compliant: "Province/Territory" and "Province or Territory" are against MOS:CAPS and (in the first case) MOS:SLASH; should be "province or territory". These words are only capitalized when used in a proper name, e.g. the Yukon Territory, or the Province of Manitoba as a legal entity (but "in the province of Manitoba" as a geographical reference – it's the same distinction as "I work for the City of Oakland" vs. "I live in the city of Oakland"; if you try to literally move into the City of Oakland or the Province of Manitoba, you'll be arrested for squatting in government office buildings).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish; well said. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose SMcCandlish pretty much sums up exactly what I was going to say. -DJSasso (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Having noticed the recent strange activities involving two editors (e.g. edit warring, 3RR violations, templating each other despite being regulars, ANI discussion), I have reviewed the above, and I align with SMcCandlish's compelling comments and oppose the most recent suggestion. Not only that, I am not certain I support any proposed option that preceded it. This discussion has been so lengthy and quite convoluted and confusing to the point where I don't know exactly what alternative(s) to the most recent suggestion remain(s). So at this point, I simply support the current state. Hwy43 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I should make that clear as well. I was confused by the above so I only support status quo. -DJSasso (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    And the reason this became "convoluted and confusing" is because people have approached it from a bogus "what special rules should we invent for Canada?" perspective instead of "how to make the application of site wide rules to Canada-related topics clear?" Yes, there will be some Canada-specific things, but we have to sharply divide "what's uniquely different about Canada from a writing-style perspective" from "how does writing about Canada fit snugly into how we write about every other topic." This, BTW, is much of the reason for MoS being centralized instead of every wikiproject making up their own "style guideline" (essay). Pages like this get maintained, while wikiproject style essays become moribund, get ignored, and are rapidly (even originally) badly out-of-step with the rest of the encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

General discussion

  • What I would like to see is something that encourages the use of provinces on first use in the prose, without necessarily linking the province. If someone is born in British Columbia, then moves to a location in another province, it seems to me to be good writing to include the province of the secondary location. I'm not saying mandate it, I'm saying it's good writing. Like a recommendation paragraph. Alaney2k (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    This is already standard practice site-wide; we use Buffalo, New York not "Buffalo, New York"; Brill, Buckinghamshire or Brill, England, not "Brill, Buckinghamshire" or "Brill, England" (and especially not "Brill, United Kingdom" or "Brill, UK", which is ambiguous due to Brill, Cornwall also being in the UK). We need this in the main MoS page or at MOS:LINK, since this pattern is a well-accepted best practice, regardless of topic; it's weird that it's not in there already. There's nothing Canada-specific about this, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the nonsense we suffer through. MLS is a league sanctioned and run by an American body and so clearly adding "Ontario" to the location is unnecessary based on consensus, but until we get the wording down, I suspect that @Vaselineeeeeeee: will continue to ignore it. So could we please make some change? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, what is this consensus you speak of, there is none at the moment. You're complaining about "personal attacks" then calls people's edits "nonsense" claiming a supposed "consensus". Also, is this amendment talking only abut Canadian subject articles? This sentence "Always include the province in locations specified in an infobox when discussing birth place, death place, or location of a business or structure." Is that continuing off the "Canadian topic" theme in the previous sentence, because you have reverted the infobox location in the 2017 MLS Cup article to only include the country. Also, I still very much think provinces are needed in all articles on the first time of appearance, but if it is decided they aren't needed, you don't need to say "Toronto, Canada" 3 times in an article like in the MLS Cup, one will be enough. Furthermore, this "Canadian topic" can be hard to pinpoint. Yeah, so MLS is sanctioned by US Soccer, but the the article's subject is about the final match, which was won by a Canadian team and held in a Canadian city, so I think it is very much a subject about the US as it is Canada. Even in "American articles", I don't see how a bit of clarification gets you in a twist. Again, why is there a need to conform to "American" styles. This "logic" is flawed anyhow as this area is very grey; "American style" according to who? User:SounderBruce, a heavy contributor to MLS articles, and American seemingly didn't care much about this supposed "Canadian style", needing to change it to "American style". Major League Soccer#Teams uses city, state; city, province in your so called American article, just for kicks. You need to stop claiming there is a "consensus" and stop claiming there is an "American style" when it comes to this, or that it is necessary for us to conform to this idea. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is that for subjects that are non-Canadian, we do not include the province. The question is how to word it in the MoS. Because he didn't revert you doesn't mean he doesn't know about this MoS or anything Canadian. It's not about anything Canadian. MLS is an American league that allows three Canadian teams to play in it, and MLSE bid the most to host the game. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Vaselinee[...]; the only thing clear about this mess is a lack of consensus about it. Which is not surprising, since what's going on here is an attempt to ignore site-wide consensus and make up some bogus micro-topical "rule" no one will GaF about or actually follow. Country-specific MoS and NC pages need to focus on matters that are actually unique to those countries, or they serve no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
And the reason the MLS team list uses city, state is because that's how it's done in American articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
And so they use city, province in this "American article" as well, which basically refutes your idea that city, country is used for Canadian cities in "American articles". This whole idea of "American topic" and "Canadian topic" is so, so wrong, and SMcCandlish has so excellently shown why. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. But not City, Province, Nation. Pick one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, except for special cases like two cities in same country with same name, and first occurrence in infobox so people even know what country it's about. Covered in the proposal now open at WT:MOS (see notice below).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why this isn't a RFC so as to attract more discussion? --NeilN talk to me 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify if this statement "In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as a Canadian province, city, or other clearly Canadian subject), it is not necessary to include the Province or Territory after the names of cities if the city has an article and it is linked." means to always use "City, Country", or just the City alone? An example may be necessary in this statement. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe just city alone, no need to have Toronto, Canada in any article with a Canadian topic. Mattximus (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
What about for less well known places like possibly Moose Jaw or maybe even Vaughan? We're going to leave these without province? This is why the last proposal clarified this. It's also strange that Walter was the one who proposed this, but still insists on using city, country. Even if this passes, that will not be the case. It's almost the exact same as what is in place now, just we would now be able to leave city names without the province and country. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Further to my recent comments above and prompted by NeilN's question, it appears there is no consensus at present and unlikely to be, so if there is any hope at achieving a consensus, I suggest starting fresh with a concisely worded RfC. Hwy43 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Meta-proposal open at main MoS talk page

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style#Proposal to add missing advice on geographical names.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Could you please summarize the proposal? It seems to have gone into the archive and it's not clear what was being proposed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
It's now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 198#Proposal to add missing advice on geographical names. The feedback was basically that it was a little too simplistic; it needs re-drafting and re-proposal. It had nothing much to do with Canada in particular, other than mentioning to use "Toronto" or "Toronto, Ontario", or in a context where the full thing is actually needed, "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" – but not "Toronto, Canada", nor "Toronto, ON".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: If this is pressing, I can devote cycles to re-drafting it and trying again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Not pressing. A bit confusing since you seemed to agree with not using city, province, country above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Article names" section is mostly redundant rehash

About 85% of the section can be trimmed. It's just recycling what's found at WP:AT, WP:NCPLACE, WP:DAB, etc. We should just use cross-references to those pages, and retain the Canada-specific material, while axing the rest of that dense thicket of pointless verbiage. I started a copyediting pass and just gave up after a while ("putting lipstick on a pig"). And MoS pages are not the place for detailed article titles material anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with retaining it as is. I've observed the section being quite helpful in providing direction and settling disputes over my eight-year history on here. Directing editors to one location rather two to four locations is effective. Hwy43 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Hwy43. The biggest issue I often find with helping people is there are too many places to send them. In some cases, this being one, it is often more helpful to have what is needed in one place because they are more likely to read it when it is. -DJSasso (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bilingualism challenged

An editor has recently tagged a referenced statistic on the Ottawa Public Library article claiming it is the largest bilingual library system in North America. The tag asks "What is a bilingual library? Is it just a library with some books in another language or multi-lingual staff? What constitutes largest? Most volumes in two languages? Covers the largest geographic area? Employs the most bilingual staff?" While I personally think this tag is complete garbage and unwarranted, are we really expected to explain the bilingualism qualifications of every article that claims bilingualism? This will affect hundreds of Canadian articles. Saboteurest (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's probably not always necessary to clarify the "bilingualism qualifications" in every article that makes reference to bilingualism — but in the context of comparing the sizes of various institutional bilingualisms, it does require some added context to clarify what is being measured as the basis of the comparison. And that's especially true when the "source" for the statement is the library's own self-published website about itself, not a reliable source independently ascribing that status. The Montreal Public Libraries Network, for instance, can also quite credibly claim to be a bilingual library system, as well as a larger system than Ottawa's by some measures — yet our article describes it as a French-language system that also has English-language materials, without actually clarifying exactly what the precise distinction between a "French language library system that has English materials" and a "bilingual library system" would actually be. So the questions of how the status of bilingualism was determined, and how the various bilingualisms were measured, do require more context for them than the OPL article actually provides. Also, for the record, this is more of a WP:CANTALK question than a "Canada-related manual of style" question. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that Saboteurest has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the community-banned UrbanNerd. No doubt many members of this WikiProject recall UrbanNerd and the original sock master PhiltyBear. If any of you observe IPs or newly registered users suddenly appearing to make edits to articles or talk pages on which Saboteurest was active, please consider listing the IPs or users at User:UrbanNerd. Hwy43 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ridings and em-dashes

Hi... just curious as to why em-dashes (—) are specified for riding names (e.g. Burnaby North—Seymour as opposed to Burnaby North–Seymour) in MOS:Canada#Ridings. I get that that's the style that Elections Canada uses (actually, as per below that's not even consistently true) but given the type of dash used is a style matter, we should be following Wikipedia MOS conventions, which would use/specify en-dashes (–) as riding names are compound terms where the terms aren't modifying each other (as per MOS:DASH). I know there is often a misinterpretation of how WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME work but they do not cover how article titles are styled/rendered in Wikipedia. Elections Canada may have their own style (to use em-dashes, albeit apparently inconsistently), but that doesn't override our house style here, and this sub-MOS or MOS subsection can't just choose to ignore MOS:DASH. The "Ridings" section should be changed to line up with WP:MOS and to specify en-dashes.

And actually... I just checked Elections Canada and all ridings with compound names are rendered with en-dashes, whereas in the results document from the last federal election, they are rendered with em-dashes. This kind of inconsistency is exactly why we have a house style guide, so that no matter how the "outside world" may inconsistently style certain terms, we know how we should be styling those terms within Wikipedia articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability and naming of census subdivisions that are not municipalities

Hello again! I would like to also bring up Wiki's handling of unorganized areas in Canada, and their ilk. Each province deals with unorganized areas differently, so I thought we could discuss them together.

A fellow editor has pointed out that these are "subdivisions of municipalities, unorganized areas, etc. for statistical, electoral and/or other purposes" and are not entities in and of themselves. I think that having Statistics Canada data on these regions is enough notability to keep/create these pages (even if it may be the only reference for the page). And a number of these pages have become a catch-all for stub-quality community pages (see Unorganized North Algoma District, for example). How else are we going to treat these vast unorganized areas? Here's a break-down of unorganized territories, etc., across Canada:

And if they deserve pages, what naming convention should we adopt? StatsCan is a good bet, but I have changed some of the names to more natural forms: "Algoma, Unorganized, North Part" to "Unorganized North Algoma District", "Division No. 1, Subd. A" to "Division No. 1, Subdivision A" and "Division No. 1, Unorganized" to "Unorganized Division No. 1". Also, should BC electoral areas use A or "A"? FUNgus guy (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I've added the quantities of these geographies with external links to the StatCan source for the above. Also, Fungus Guy, I made two tweaks to the above. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for initiating this. I'll provide an opening comment to add to the above momentarily. Hwy43 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional context: there are also census subdivisions of the same ilk in PEI and NB. StatCan recognizes 67 townships and royalties (aka "lots") in PEI and 149 parishes in NB, both of which are not municipalities. It appears all the townships (lots) in PEI have articles (see List of townships in Prince Edward Island), while the parishes in NB "previously had political significance as districts" and also all appear to have articles (see List of parishes in New Brunswick). In short, these are similar to those listed above by Fungus Guy in that they are not municipalities, but they all already have articles, likely due to their notable historical significance. Hwy43 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: Fungus Guy, do you happen to know the amount of each you listed above already have articles? Curious to know what percent-complete there is if efforts have already been undertaken in creating articles for some of these. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hwy43, I do not mind at all, thanks! I have added progress above, not sure about the missing unorganized areas in SK and YK; StatsCan only lists Unorganized 18 in SK, Unorg. Yukon and Unorg. Whitehorse for YK. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Current situation is good as it is. Yes, these unorganized areas need individual articles. And current article names are already good also (at least for Quebec and Ontario). See also previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 14#Unorganized areas in Ontario and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 16#Renaming of Ontario unorganized territories. The reasoning I used in those previous discussions are still valid. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the read! It looks like you've hashed out some of my questions like, yes to notability (even as a permastub, maybe not for NL/NS); and the naming of index-card StatsCan names (I was wondering about dropping the "District" part, too). So I guess that leaves two questions:
FUNgus guy (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
P199, looks like this has been hashed out before. I have some reading to do. I'll review and comment when I have a free moment. Fungus Guy, I hope you don't mind me changing (i.e., reducing the length of) the title of this section. It is super long and its reduced length will make it more convenient to link to in the future. Hwy43 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

One of the biggest issues here is that I don't think there can be a one-size-fits-all naming convention that applies across the board — they're named in such different, mutually contradictory ways from province to province that essentially each province would need to have its own unique naming convention for its own unorganized areas. I entirely agreed with the "more natural" renaming of the Ontario ones, for example — some of their "official" (not really official, but I can't think of a better word for what I mean besides airquoting it) names are horrible, like the Sudbury District with its "North Part" and its total lack of any other part besides the "North Part") — and luckily Quebec gave theirs fairly conventional geographic names that don't really need to be treated any differently than the town/city conventions. But I have no insight into how to name the ones in other provinces at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I think that we should be using the official name. I ddon't believe we should be doing original research to come up with Wikipedia style names. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

recent changes to "Places" that don't seem to have consensus

Hi... just noticed that there have been some changes to the "Places"/WP:CANPLACE section, first by Bearcat and then Alaney2k, that change the previously established format, [[City, Province]], so I assumed there'd been some kind of definitive consensus established here. I don't see that, though... the last entry seems to be about 3 months ago and there was no formal close that supports the changes made starting on March 22, 2018, with this edit. So... am I missing something? These are fairly major changes to the WP:STATUSQUO that I feel require an official close in favour of by an involved party. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we reached a roadblock on the text, so I guess we were bold. The basic principles we seem to agree on. Do you have any objections? Certainly open to further discussion. Alaney2k (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Not really agree on. I don't think province is needed. We don't generally use the state in Australian subject or county in English subjects. We are simply using a knee-jerk reaction to our southern neighbours. We see "city, state" and conflate state with province simply because they're both sub-national areas. I don't agree with your changes, and have told you so. I will not follow your principle because it's misguided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There has never, ever, ever been any consensus that CANPLACE forced a link to go through "[[City, Province]]" even if the article about the city being referred to was actually located at just "[[City]]". The only thing CANPLACE requires, or has ever required, is that the province name be provided on the first reference to that city — it never imposed a requirement that "[[City, Province]]" was mandated over "[[City]], [[Province]]" or "[[City]], Province" as the form in which the province name was given. There was a recent discussion which revealed that some people misunderstood what CANPLACE was meant to convey, and were going around converting perfectly valid, CANPLACE-compliant things like "Toronto, Ontario" into "Toronto, Ontario" for no compelling reason — but the rule was not and still isn't that city and province necessarily have to be yoked together in a single set of wikibrackets even if that means you're linking through a redirect instead of the straight page title. The rule was and is merely that the province name has to be given somehow, not that one particular method of doing that is mandated over others. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
And I think that is the consensus position. Canadian writing usually uses provinces. If this country didn't follow the British model of allowing duplicate placenames, then it would be different. Alaney2k (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Uhm sorry... it used to say:

In article text
In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the format [[City, Province/Territory]], Canada unless the article text or title has already established that the subject is Canadian, e.g., it is not necessary to identify the "Parliament of Canada" as being located in "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada".

And I'm pretty sure it said that for a year or so before your changes, Bearcat, so that would certainly be why I changed various articles to use that format. Oh no wait... since August 2014 with this edit. You say there was no consensus... but if there wasn't, wouldn't someone have changed that wording long before you did? As for why that rule makes sense, it's to avoid WP:OVERLINKING. It's bad enough some people feel the need to constantly wikilink the country, ala [[City, Province]], [[Canada]], but it's frustrating when someone uses the [[City]], [[Province]], [[Canada]] "format". Surely it's clear that if the person is interested in the various macro levels of the city, they can click through to the city article and find easy links to the province and country. As for if that means redirects get used, well, that's fine under WP:NOTBROKEN. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It is certainly possible that the consensus was expressed unclearly. However, I am 100 per cent correct about what the established consensus was and is: the rule was that the province name had to be provided, but the rule never required you to yoke the city and province into a single set of wikibrackets instead of linking each term as a standalone entity. Linking through the redirect instead of straightlinking the page at its actual title, further, most certainly is not "fine under NOTBROKEN" — if you're going to convert every [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]] into [[Toronto, Ontario]] instead, thus resulting in the vast majority of all links to Toronto's article being through the redirect instead of the primary title, then you've completely defeated the entire purpose of the page ever having been moved to the undisambiguated title "Toronto" in the first place. Which means that doing that is breaking stuff. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
So let me see if I have this right: one sole editor is claiming that they are "100 per cent correct" about what an as-yet unprovided consensus from nearly four years ago "was" and "is" that happens to back up their recent self-admitted bold edit? That is awfully convenient. Do you think using italics somehow substitutes for citations? Please, documentation/sources: point us to this so far mythical consensus that somehow negates 3.5 years of how the rules read until a month ago. I too can claim I am 100% correct (using boldface, even) but that doesn't make it so, nor would I expect anyone who disagreed with my view of things to simply take my word for it because I stated my unsubstantiated opinion in an authoritative manner. If the consensus is as you say, there should be a record of it: where is it? And, perhaps more importantly, why did it take 3.5 years for it to make its way into this part of the MoS? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't make shit up. I know what the consensus was and is because I was there for the discussions that led to it. You're free to peruse the WP:CANTALK archives at your leisure, which is where the discussions about everything in this document have taken place — and I'd add that I don't think I've ever seen you participate in a discussion there before, which is why you don't get to claim that you know the existing consensus better than I do — but it's not my responsibility to do your homework for you. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2014 discussion that led to the creation of the "In articles" section of WP:CANPLACE is archived here. Bearcat is 100% correct in saying that it was not the intention at that time to standardize a format of "[[City, Province]], Canada", in preference to e.g. "[[City]], in the Canadian province of [[Province]]". On the contrary, participants all agreed that there were multiple legitimate ways it could be written. Similarly, wikilinking was briefly mentioned, but there was clearly no intention to impose one specific style, such as "[[City|City, Province]], Canada" instead of "[[City]], [[Province]], Canada". Bearcat's edits in March 2018 seem in line with clarifying the original discussion and consensus.

On the other hand, Bearcat is perhaps making shit up misremembering, when saying "The only thing CANPLACE requires, or has ever required, is that the province name be provided on the first reference to that city". The issue at hand was in fact whether the country name, Canada, had to be provided after "City, Province". Miesianiacal had commented that it seemed unnecessary and should be removed, similar to the common practice for American place-names where "United States" is typically omitted following "City, State". In the end there was a clear agreement and consensus to not follow US practice, and to retain "Canada" unless it's already obvious, as is the case with other countries.

I suggest that the following would more simply and accurately summarize the outcome of that discussion:

In articles that identify a Canadian location, its first occurrence in the body of the article should mention Canada, unless it is already clear from the context of the article or its title. For example, "City, Province, Canada", or similar wording, should be used in preference to "City, Province" alone.

Whether the specification of "[[City, Province]], Canada", or the advice to "use "Ottawa, Ontario", or simply "Ottawa" if Ontario is already established" accurately reflects an intended consensus to prohibit "[[City]], Canada" is doubtful. The usage of "City, Canada" was brought up, but Miesianiacal expressly noted that it wasn't the question: "What I'm asking, though, is: which is correct for a lede (especially when "Canada" is in the article's infobox)? "[X] is located in [city], [province], Canada" or just "[x] is located in [city], [province]"?". The subsequent comments supporting "[[City]], [[Province]], Canada" can be interpreted as opposed to "[[City]], [[Province]]" alone, rather than as prohibiting "City, Canada". Bearcat and Miesianiacal were opposed to "City, Canada", but others (Skeezix1000, Stepho-wrs, and Ground Zero) seemed to indicate it might be acceptable in some cases. Again it wasn't really the issue being discussed, and there doesn't appear to have been a consensus about it either way. Despite the wording of the final text, it seems that it didn't represent a consensus to impose anything other than mandating the mention of "Canada", in contrast to US practice. Given this, and in light of the very long discussion at "Our Provinces are missing", and above at '"City, Province (Territory)" format', it's highly debatable to maintain there is a clear status-quo consensus to prohibit the use of "City, Canada" in the MOS.

However, there is certainly no consensus to endorse it, and the recent edits that indicate that, I think were not the right thing to do: "In articles that are about non-Canadian topics, for example, sports figures, the format of City, Canada may be used as a convention, along with similar listings of other international locations" - this, including the idea to have different rules for "Canadian" and "non-Canadian" articles, was suggested and rejected in the 2014 consensus, and failed again to get consensus last year.

Finally, the new material indicating that province names should not be wikilinked should be removed immediately, see below. --IamNotU (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles/Archive_2&oldid=1048280185"