Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 3

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

Instructions about (not) wikilinking province names are contradictory

According to WP:CANPLACE, it seems clear we should not link to [[Canada]], which is in agreement with WP:OVERLINK (though apparently not everyone agrees, see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#City/Province/Country linking in infobox). That should also apply to infoboxes, as I couldn't find any indication to the contrary, and did find e.g. Template:Infobox journal that specifically says "country" should not be wikilinked.

On the other hand, the instructions about wikilinking provinces (in the case they're specified), which were added in March 2018, seem unclear and contradictory:

  • The example that either "[[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]]" or "[[Toronto]], Ontario" are acceptable.
This example was originally "[[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]]" or "[[Toronto]], [[Ontario]]" but was changed here, indicating the province should not be wikilinked, after the following edits were made:
  • "Do not overlink Canada or provinces when locations are mentioned. See WP:OVERLINK" (added with this edit)
This actually contradicts WP:OVERLINK, which says not to link "major examples of: ... locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia)". So we shouldn't link to Canada. But clearly Canadian provinces don't fit that description, just as US states don't.
  • "Major cities do not need to have the province linked." (added with the same edit)
This would imply that other cities do need to have the province linked, e.g., [[Montreal]], Quebec, but [[Saguenay]], [[Quebec]]. I don't see the logic to that. It also contradicts the above, which says not to wikilink provinces in general. Unless it's supposed to mean "Major cities do not need to have the province specified"? I think that was the subject of a very long debate that went nowhere, so it doesn't seem appropriate to add it.

The edits indicating that provinces should not be wikilinked appear to have been made without any discussion that I can find. I don't see any reason that Canadian provinces should be a special exception to the definition given in WP:OVERLINK. For comparison, US states are wikilinked. I did a random sampling of locations of buildings and found many cases of "[[City, State]]" and "[[City]], [[State]]", as well as many "[[City, State]] -> [[City]]" via redirect (the majority of Category:Buildings and structures in Boston for example), and a few [[City, State|City]], [[State]]. But I didn't find a single "[[City]], State".

It would be nice if there was more consistency about using "[[City, Province/State]]" vs "[[City]], [[Province/State]]" etc., with clear instructions in the Manual of Style. But if so, it should apply site-wide. There shouldn't be special instructions in the "Canada-related articles" section that prescribe a particular form. And definitely there shouldn't be instructions to use a form ([[City]], Province) that isn't used anywhere else, and contradicts the main MOS section about it. I think at minimum it should be changed to this:

"Note, however, that this rule does not impose a preference as to the format of the link or links; it does not, for instance, mean that you are required to choose the link format [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]], so that the city and province are piped together into a single link, over [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]]. Do not link to [[Canada]], see WP:OVERLINK."

But the whole WP:CANPLACE could be very much simplified. --IamNotU (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

[[Toronto]], [[Ontario]] should not be used because it is difficult to visually distinguish between the links - see MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point, and it's a reason to prefer [[City, Province/State]]. If MOS:OVERLINK creates a conflict with MOS:SEAOFBLUE, I'm not sure how best to resolve it, except by following common practice - and "[[City]], [[State]]" is very commonly used (though probably less than [[City, Province/State]]). But I am sure that where best to resolve it, if it should be included in the Manual of Style, is in MOS:LINK, as a general question, and not in MOS:CANADA. There's nothing Canadian about the question. It applies equally to US locations or any other place-name that includes a sub-national state. A blanket prohibition on wikilinking to Canadian provinces isn't a solution. I've spot-checked about a hundred articles, and there's a lot of variation, from e.g. [[Buffalo, New York]] to [[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|New York]]". But there were exactly zero occurences of "[[City]], State". --IamNotU (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
So your proposed solution is simply to remove guidance about linking or not linking from this guideline? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, unless there is some specifcially Canadian question being addressed, wikilinking style should be governed by the general Manual of Style, at MOS:LINK, and follow site-wide Wikipedia consensus and common practice. Arbitrary restrictions or specific formats that only apply to Canadian articles - especially if they contradict the above - aren't appropriate. --IamNotU (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay. If you want to remove all guidance about linking, do that. Don't do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I don't understand your concern. Could you explain what you mean exactly, and why? Do you mean I should rewrite the section as I see fit, or I should only revert full edits, or what? Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I mean that if you think we should leave guidance about linking to the main MOS, that means we should not have any guidance about linking here at all. Your edit changed but did not remove the guidance about linking. Nikkimaria (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean, thanks for explaining. I had left the first edit from March 2018 as it was meant to clarify that the original consensus wasn't to prescribe a specific form, or style of wikilinking, which I think is accurate from reading the 2014 discussion (see above). But you're right, there's no need to go into details about what the rule is not, it should be enough just to remove the previous linking example markup. I'll leave the one sentence about linking to well-known cities, as it purports to be a Canada-specific issue, i.e. that well-known Canadian cities are not well-known enough internationally to invoke MOS:OVERLINK. There may be more discussion about that, and the rest of the second paragraph, above... --IamNotU (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Using US practices as an example or a blueprint is not necessarily the best comparison, as there is a tendency there to think every single thing is so important it deserves a link. Also, WP:OTHER doesn't mean US practice is "right". I really don't see why, if we are specifying the city and linking to its article, we would then also need to link to the larger subdivision (province in Canada, state in the US) in which the city is located. On top of WP:SEAOFBLUE, it's just WP:OVERLINK, as in the case of avoiding linking "Canada": if we are specifying "City, Province, Country", only one of those needs to be linked, the most specific/precise one. Links to the other two can be found in the article for "City" if people are so inclined. So I certainly !vote for "[City], Province" or "[City], Province, Canada" if necessary. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't check only US articles. All across Wikipedia, from Argentina to China, when provinces and similar sub-national divisions are mentioned, they are always wikilinked. I honestly have yet to see a single one that isn't. A random sampling: Fayzabad Airport, Bost University, Astrodomi Observatory, National University of La Plata, Amalfi Coast, Ueno, Mie, Cabagan, Isabela, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Sriracha Tiger Zoo, Gent-Dampoort railway station, Lee Quo-wei, etc., etc. This is site-wide consensus and standard practice, in accordance with the Manual of Style at MOS:LINK. With respect to the statment "it's just WP:OVERLINK, as in the case of avoiding linking "Canada": if we are specifying "City, Province, Country", only one of those needs to be linked, the most specific/precise one ...", I can understand the argument, but that is definitely not what WP:OVERLINK says! It's generally about not linking common words that most people in the world are familiar with. That applies to Canada, but not Saskatchewan.
It's not specifically required to wikilink sub-national states, and there is a common exception when an article title is "City, Region" - it's often just linked directly. But even then it's very common to link them separately, as in "[[Dongxing, Guangxi|Dongxing]], [[Guangxi]], [[People's Republic of China|China]]" (in G7511 Qinzhou–Dongxing Expressway). Since there is no specifically Canadian issue here, there is no basis for a special style rule discouraging or prohibiting the wikilinking of Canadian provinces, nor saying it's acceptable or appropriate not to. The general rules and consensus apply. Furthermore, there's no basis to require a specific fixed format such as "City, Province, Canada" (regardless of the wikilinking style), as for example "City, in the Canadian province of Province" is equally acceptable, reads better as prose, clarifies that "Province" is a province, avoids WP:SEAOFBLUE problems, and is very common in many international articles. I'll comment more on that in the "recent changes to Places" section above. --IamNotU (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

recent change

This change by Bearcat is fairly substantive and I believe warrants reversion until it can be discussed more thoroughly here, specifically because it takes a passage where editors are asked to base their judgments on existing policy and changes it to imply there's no hard and fast rules, which is misleading. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The change was correct according to Wikipedia consensus. The old consensus that the notability of mayors was tied to an arbitrary population cutoff was overturned several years ago, in fact, and the notability of mayors is now purely tied to how well you can reliably source a genuinely substantive article that says a lot more than just "John Smith is a mayor who exists". This is not a decision I made myself, it's a decision that a consensus of Wikipedians made a long time ago in a lot of AFD discussions on bad articles about mayors. A mayor is not automatically entitled to keep a poorly sourced and unsubstantive article just because his or her city happens to have a population of 50K or more anymore — a poorly sourced and unsubstantive article about a mayor can be deleted, and a well-written and genuinely substantive article about a mayor can be kept, regardless of whether the city falls above or below that old 50K cutoff. So you're completely misrepresenting the reality: the change took an old out-of-date rule that was based on a deprecated former consensus, and changed it to bring it back into line with current consensus. The old wording was much more "misleading" than the current one, because the old wording reflected a deprecated consensus that does not apply anymore. You can even read both WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES if you have any questions — and as you'll plainly see, the current wording is much more accurately in line with those statements, when it comes to the notability of mayors, than the old wording was. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be more closely linked to WP:GNG. An arbitrary cutoff is not appealing. I don't believe that the it was a substantive, and we can discuss it. It seems that the linked locations support the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions for First Nations reserves

The name of Pomquet and Afton 23 seems to have been changed possibly in 2012 to Paqtnkek-Niktuek 23, Nova Scotia . Certainly the geographic names board [1] and the federal government [2] seem to be using the Mi'kmaq form. My question is, does this formal acceptance overide our norm of using English language? Would it be in order to make Paqtnkek-Niktuek 23 the main article, and have Pomquet and Afton 23 and Paqtnkek-Niktuek 23, Nova Scotia redirect to it? (I'm not sure why the Nova Scotia disambiguation was used in the first). Derek Andrews (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The rule here isn't that we invariably have to use the "English" form of a name; it's that we have to use the recognized form of a name. If a place changes its official name from an "English" form to an "indigenous" form, we follow their lead. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Form of past tense

Per the edit war here, in Canadian English, is the past tense of "spell", "spelled", "spelt", or both? Discussion on the article's talk page as well. We may want to spell this out as I could find no guidance, but all of my Canadian English spell-checkers are throwing an error for the latter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

People use both, so I guess you go with whatever was written first. Both are listed in the OED. I also have been 'corrected' for changing misspelt to misspelled. Grammarly wants me to change both spelled and misspelled. Alaney2k (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OED is British though. My spell-checkers agree with Grammarly. Possibly a case of the same spelling engine? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a shibboleth that "spelled" is American while "spelt" is British — so the "Canadian spelling should always be pushed to British norms to deamericanize it at all costs" cult (which IIRC the person you got into an edit war with has claimed personal identification with in other past conversations) is obviously going to try to bop you on the nose for using "spelled". In reality, however, that's not how it works — US English does certainly preference "spelled", but British English allows both spellings and does not actually demand "spelt" over "spelled" at all. Canadian English also does not preference "spelt", either: both spellings certainly exist, but "spelled" is by far the more common. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible date retaining issue

Talk:Made in Canada (TV series)#Date format for article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:CANNEIGH and non-primary city names

It seems like there might be a conflict with the naming of neighbourhoods, which I don't see specifically addressed in the guideline. Should non-primary city names be shortened when they are used as a disambiguation tag for neighbourhoods? Examples:

As far as I can tell, there is no justification for shortening the city names, even though that's what has been happening so far (except Prince Albert.) Thoughts? 162 etc. (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Article titles should be as short as possible per WP:CONCISE while being unambiguous. So unless and until there's a Newton neighbourhood in England's Surrey, etc., the shorter forms above are all correct and Carlton Park should be moved. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Content organization

As a Maritimer, I dispute the statement "Geographic L→R order makes sense to Canadians, because the provinces and the territories happen to be arranged in nearly perfect west to east lines [...]" I can't recall it being described west-to-east; all my life I've heard it as east-to-west, which would be R→L. When national media bother with geographical order, the East Coast seems to be the usual starting point. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the instances where the media make use of geographic order are oftentimes during the federal elections, where poll cut-off times are what dictate the R→L order. Although, an example to support your position would be the song "My Stompin' Grounds" by Stompin' Tom Connors used in a recent Petro Canada advertisment, where one of the lyrics is "From the East coast to the west".
In any case, the MoS does not recommend a geographical ordering for the provinces as that order would not be immediately clear to international readers, and suggests an alphabetical ordering instead.
I would agree, however, that that statement should be changed, as it seems unfounded. Blackjackrobo (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The statement is talking about in the context of a Wikipedia template, because those do have a marked tendency to get created in the order "BC at the left (→ AB → SK → MB → ON → QC → NB → PE → NS →) NL at the right" but are never created NL-at-the-left-to-BC-at-the-right, and is pointing out that organizing a template in geographic order is not desirable — so I fail to see what the problem is. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles/Archive_3&oldid=1198262453"