Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 1

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

Geography

Bear, actually the first river you mentioned should have been labeled Whitefish River (Kaministiquia River) and the other one should be Whitefish River (Round Lake) according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Multiple rivers with the same name. The WikiProject River protocols should take precedence. Deet (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers protocol is as clear as mud. It allows multiple naming styles and has no clear sense of direction. I don't think this is something we want to use. Atrian (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where WikiProject Rivers requires that format; it merely suggests that as one option among several. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, maybe we can come up with something for Canada and then port back to the river project if we can come up with something a bit better/clearer. I've always thought that what we need more than naming conventions is some sort of family tree editable chart tool that can map out tributaries (with links). Is there such a thing in Wikipedia? Deet (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm, good question. I don't know the answer to that. It would be worth potentially coming to a decision here about how to handle Canadian rivers, but it might also be worthwhile to solicit a clarification discussion at the rivers project itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed recently that someone had split the Highland Creek article into two pieces, one for the creek and one for the community. The creek article ended up as "Highland Creek (Lake Ontario)". I moved the article to "Highland Creek (Toronto) since its watershed falls entirely within Toronto boundaries. But I also noticed a disparity in naming conventions for other local streams. For example, Taylor-Massey Creek is DABed as (Don) since it is a tributary of the Don River but Black Creek, a tributary of the Humber is DABed as (Ontario). I think it would be good create a more detailed description of what is the correct disambiguation to use for rivers. Atrian (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Thank you for doing all this work. It looks great. My comments are minor, and are as follows:

Places

    • Point 1 states: "A city's international fame, or lack thereof, has a direct bearing on criterion b". I believe that the reference should be to "a city's relative international fame" or "a city's comparative international fame", or something to that effect. Fame or significance should not be assessed in isolation from other places that share the name. "I have never heard of Edmonton" or "Edmonton has very little siginificance on the world stage" should not be valid reasons to disambiguate Edmonton -- the question should be is Edmonton, Alberta more known or significant than places like Edmonton, Kentucky?
    • Point 3 worries me a bit. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and Windsor and Hamilton are perfect examples of where it is correct. However, the argument one faces sometimes from British editors is that the place in the U.K. is always more significant merely because it is older or is the origin of the name (when the New World place is more significant). I'm not sure that this point needs to be revised -- I am just kvetching, and fear that this clause might feed into that argument.
    • Point 5 - I would suggest that "...or geographical features in a city" be "...or geographical features in or related to a city".
    • Point 6 - Perhaps clarify that the discussion should take place on the article's talk page. We used to see the comment sometimes that this sort of thing should be kicked up to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), God forbid.

French names

    • I am not sure why we need the phrase "accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling" -- we should just leave it at use actual English usage. Otherwise, do we need to move Montreal West to Montréal-Ouest? I can't think of any other potential problems, but it's possible there are other instances that we have not foreseen, where French spelling and actual English usage differ.
My concern is that some people might claim that "actual English usage" dictates something like "Trois Rivieres" instead of Trois-Rivières, or "Riviere du Loup" instead of Rivière-du-Loup, or "NDG" instead of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Could we figure out a way to resolve both concerns? Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Although you and I know that actual English usage isn't Riviere du Loup or Trois Rivieres (and NDG is a nickname), I see your point. Perhaps the last part of that para. could be reworded: "However, usage for most smaller cities and towns in the province is less clear-cut, due in part to the lesser number of documented English references. Accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling, unless there is clear evidence of widespread use of a more common English usage."--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion above, I think it is helpful to see how they have worded it over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand):"If a New Zealand place name is unique (or likely to be unique) in the world, then it alone is used as the article's title - (for example, Otorohanga). This form is also used if the New Zealand place is not likely to be confused with places with the same name overseas, by virtue of its relative prominence (for example, Dunedin). Confusion has to be likely, not merely possible: for example, Wellington, the capital, is known all over the world, whereas the other 30 or so places with the same name have fairly local significance only."

I think their use of the term "relative prominence" is better than "international fame", because the latter simply begs the boneheaded comment "I have never heard of it". The former encourages an objective analysis, rather than a subjective assessment of a place's "fame".

I think the caution "Confusion has to be likely, not merely possible" is a good one to include in the Canadian naming conventions (think back, for example, to the odd suggestion that Vancouver ought to be moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, so as to avoid confusion with a suburb of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver Island). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thought, as I read the draft again. In point 1, wouldn't "primary use" be more objective and straightforward to assess than "most important use", and more in keeping with Wikipedia convention? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The" or not to "the"

What is to be used in the articles on Yukon and the Northwest Territories?

Based on looking at the NWT government site, Government of the Northwest Territories, it would seem to me that NWT articles should include "the". Looking at other GNWT sites they all use "the", Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and Languages Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. Also the Hansards call it the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Right now we have some odd articles like Symbols of Northwest Territories with the legislative assembly calling them Official Symbols of the Northwest Territories. As noted above the commissioner's site use "the" but our article is at Commissioners of Northwest Territories but the category is Commissioners of the Northwest Territories. Here's a line that I pulled from the NWT article, "Unlike provincial governments and the Yukon, the Government of Northwest Territories does not have political parties..." Now either way that is wrongly worded as the GNWT calls themselves the Government of the Northwest Territories.

On the other hand it appears that Yukon prefers to drop "the", Government of Yukon. However there is the Commissioner of the Yukon but in the throne speech tends not to use "the" and Interim Supply Appropriation Act 2006 - 2007 says that it's a "Statutes of Yukon". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in high school, I was taught that "the Yukon" and "the NWT" refer to the region (esp. in a historical sense, as in "The RCMP was created to police the Northwest Territories"), and that "Yukon" and "NWT" refer to the province/jurisdiction. I don't know where my teacher got that, or if it is even corect. I note, however, that the Ukraine article (and the NY Times article cited therein) suggests that the shift from "the Ukraine" to "Ukraine" largely occurred in the early 90s, as that country transitioned from a region of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union to an independent country (somewhat comparable to what my high school teacher believed to the case for Canada's territories).

As for Yukon, the Globe & Mail style book indicates that the gov't does not use "the" in its official name (Government of Yukon, or Yukon Government), adding: "although in practice even the government uses 'the Yukon' at least as often as it does 'Yukon'." The guide then notes that to further confuse matters, the feds call their official representative "Commissioner of the Yukon" (as mentioned aboive by CambridgeBayWeather). In the end, the Globe and Mail advises: "When using official names and titles, respect the official style. Elsewhere, favour Yukon in news stories, but either form is acceptable in features, lighter pieces and opinion pieces. Whatever form is chosen, it should be consistent within the article." The Globe & Mail style book has no discussion of "the NWT" vs. "NWT" (and uses both forms in discussing the NWT/Nunavut split).

On the other hand, the Canadian Press style book appears to favour "the Yukon" (and "the NWT" for that matter), but without any discussion and it arises only in the context of a comment on whether or not Whitehorse and Yellowknife can stand alone as placenames.

Finally, I would add that the Yukon Act, 2002, c.7, does not use "the", whereas the Northwest Territories Act, N-27, uses "the".

Based on the information provided by CambridgeBayWeather, as well as the official statutes giving legal status to the territories (not to mention the gist of the Globe and Mail advice for Yukon, esp. with respect to favouring the official form and being consistent), I would say that we should consistently use "Yukon" (not "the Yukon"), but "the Northwest Territories" (not "Northwest Territories"). That would seem consistent with most of the existing practice on Wikipedia, the official forms of the names (despite any inconsistent uses in practice), and for NWT would be consistent with past discussions on the issue here, here, and here. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What I've added at this point is that for the Yukon, either form is okay in article text, since I don't see that as being worth monitoring all that obsessively, but that the title should always be in the form Yukon-without-the. Feel free to offer further input if you disagree with that. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Bearcat, encouraging contributors to the article Yukon (and related articles) flip flop loosely regarding 'the' usage only causes confusion. Within the Wikipedia community consistency is a strong core value. The Wikipedia MoS recommendation in this case needs to differentiate between usage of 'the' for NWT because 'Territories' is an inherent component of the nomenclature, whereas 'territory' is not included in the nomenclature Yukon and Nunavut. The MoS in this case needs to differentiate usage for NWT versus Yukon and Nunavut. When these discussions first occurred, the elimination of 'Territory' from Yukon's nomenclature was still fresh. But three more years have rolled by and there has been plenty of time for people to adapt, and most have. It is an easy mental exercise, when in doubt, replace Yukon with Ontario.--Tallard (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian English

Should(n't) there be a section re Canadian English orthog/vocab? For example (but not limited to):

  • -re and -our endings (centre vs center, honour vs honor – but always honorary)
  • offence/defence vs offense/defense
  • -ize vs -ise, where applic (homogenize vs homogenise)
  • grade N vs Nth grade for schools
  • Second World War vs World War II
  • Tim's vs Starbuck's (just kidding)

Just a thought. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems covered sufficiently by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Maybe a link there? –Pomte 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for that. SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention WP:ENGVAR. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: places

I propose that place names where a common word is used as a suffix or prefix should not be considered for an un-disambiguated title. For example places that use Fort, Port, River, Creek, Lake, Ridge, Park and similar words in addition to another name that would be ambiguous by itself. This would prevent having misleading article titles. --Qyd (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Limerick Lake or Fort York could be misleading. While someone could think that these places are in England or Ireland, there doesn't seem to be any other notable place with those names, so they aren't likely to search or click looking for some other place (if they are, then they'll create a new article with no harm done). A compound name containing ambiguous parts doesn't mean the whole name is ambiguous. –Pomte 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Keyword is "misleading". Spruce Grove is not about spruce groves. Corner Brook is not about a bent creek. Sherwood Park is not about a park in some Sherwood, nor is it a tamed part of Sherwood Forest. Grand Prairie is not about a large prairie. Mountain Meadows is not about some alpine grassland. Country Hills is not about rural landforms. Sandy Beach is not any beach with sand. Fort Saskatchewan is not a fort, isn't even in Saskatchewan, and is not the only fort on the Saskatchewan River. High River is not a flood. Yellow Grass is not an autumn field. Eye Hill is not a horror movie. Echo Bay is not acoustics on water. South Dildo is not a toy. Northern Bay is not in the arctic. And so on. --Qyd (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
George Sand, Michael Learned and Rene Russo are not men, but we don't preemptively disambiguate them as "(woman)" just because their names, although unique, might be "misleading". Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that we have a convention, and here we point out possible exceptions. My opinion is that misleading names should not qualify for the exception to the rule. --Qyd (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
PS Limerick Lake is indeed about a lake, and Fort York is about a fort. When I said "place names" I meant settlements, communities, should have made that clear (it's just that it's listed as Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#Places). --Qyd (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I held off commenting on this one for awhile, to see if I could think of any instances where this could work. I just don't see any ambiguities in most of the examples given above, however, and can't think of any logical way (or need) to predetermine the issue in the manner proposed. In the end, I feel that pages moves proposals are better assessed on their own merits, rather than tryin to come up with a suffix or prefix rule. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And by tryin', I meant to type trying. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

French names

The para. in question reads:

For geographic names, again, the current practice is to reflect actual English usage. Specifically, the unaccented names Montreal, Quebec and Quebec City (not "Montréal" or "Québec") are the standard usages in English. However, usage for most smaller cities and towns in the province is less clear-cut, due in part to the lesser number of documented English references. Accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling. (bold added)

I don't believe that the last sentence (the one I bolded) is the product of any consensus. Not only is it not accurate (see Montreal West or Campbell's Bay), but the discussion above (from before this style guide was finalized) was left unresolved. And (correct me if I am wrong here), I don't think this sentence is the product of some past consensus. In my view, it's a little far reaching. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just kvetch, I propose that we modify the last sentence to read: "Accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling, unless there is clear evidence of widespread use of a more common name in English." Any comments? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Does Campbell's Bay even have a separate French name, or is it referred to in French as Campbell's Bay? Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, the guideline as previously written would have been interpreted no doubt as requiring Baie Campbell. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Diacriticals in English Canada

Should the style guide say anything about using French diacriticals on geographic names outside Quebec? In the last couple of months I have moved La Crête, Alberta, and Tête Jaune Cache, British Columbia, to add the accents, which appear in provincial and federal gazetteers. The latter move provoked some discussion, but it has not been reverted so far. The argument against the accents is that neither place is a francophone community, and the local residents don't write the accents. I think our style guide should put the burden of proof on those who wish to deviate from the spellings in the gazetteers. Indefatigable (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just have the more common usage, if it can be determined, rather than the relatively unused but probably more correct name? To use the diacritics on English Canada names, when they are not normally used, would lead to a rather odd comparison with Quebec names. Basically for names in Quebec the common English usage would be used, Montreal not Montréal, but outside it would be the official name not the common English usage, La Crête not La Crete. according to a quick search at the Govt. of Alberta site gave me one usage of La Crête and 202 usages of La Crete and the Chamber of Commerce also uses La Crete. By the way this would involve more than just French names, it might have an inpact on First Nations communities, Délįne and Łutselk'e spring to mind. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Things are actually much fuzzier than that, to be honest. We do use Montreal rather than Montréal and Quebec rather than Québec, but we also use titles like Trois-Rivières, Paspébiac, Gaspé and Rivière-du-Loup rather than the unaccented forms. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Given those Google results, and my interpretation of WP:ENGLISH and the section on English names in WP:NCGN, I believe that La Crete (no diacritics) is clearly the way to go. To put it another way, regardless of the French origin of the name, it has entered into common English usage without French accents, hyphens and the like, like so many other place names in North America. After all, a great many geo names in the U.S. and Canada are transliterations or corruptions of Aboriginal names, with their own various alphabets, but we wouldn't think to use those as main article names for, say, Massachusetts or Narragansett. This may seem like a strange analogy, but I think it holds: in both cases, a name started out in one language and got converted into a commonly used English adaptation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Montreal street template

  • A new editor refuses to recognize WP:CANSTYLE regarding English common use for the Montreal streets template, and I'm already at or past 3RR. Please see here. If other editors --or admins -- could get involved, that would be great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

People names

I can't believe I'm involved in a discussion about Talk:Celine Dion (not a fan). :) I support moving the article to Céline Dion using her correctly spelled name. When I referred to this MoS, I was asked to explain further. The guideline provides great examples on places and things, but nothing on people. I think it has to be nipped in the bud now as what's next; renaming the scores of Quebec music artists? Further, doesn't this MoS guideline trump all other policies flying about in the renaming request? Argolin (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods

It would be fantastic if we could add some guidelines to the Canadian style guide in respect of article names for Canadian neighbourhoods. As it is now, there are no standards whatsoever, so we end up with a smorgasborg of approaches, including:

In order to come up with a guideline, we need to address the following questions:

  1. In terms of disambiguation, do we take the same approach as we would for cities and towns (places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles)?
  2. Where disambiguation is needed, do we favour the comma convention or the bracket convention? Is the correct format Neighbourhood, Municipality/Neighbourhood (Municipality) or are there some instances where we would use Neighbourhood, Province/Neighbourhood (Province)? (I could not find any examples where the name of the Province was used to disambiguate the title, except in the circumstances set out in the next point, but I am sure some exist if we dig a bit).
  3. Given the wave of municipal amalgamations in the 1990s (not to mention those that occurred earlier), there are a number of former independent municipalities that have their own articles. Some of the former municipalities retain a small degree of autonomy (e.g. St. Leonard (borough)), whereas others have no independent legal status (e.g. North York, Ontario; Kanata, Ontario) and are now effectively akin to neighbourhoods. How do we treat these articles?

I hope this helps start the discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After doing extensive study (I looked at four articles) I think that the best way would be to use a combination of no disambiguation and comma convention in that order. If there is no need of a disambiguation then don't use one. Thus the Riverdale in Edmonton would need the comma convention to seperate it from all the other Riverdales but Rossdale would not. This would be in line with things like Edmonton, London, Tottenham, SoHo and Soho. The bracket convention should be done away with as that is used more often for lakes or rivers. If the neighbourhood has the ability to stand on it's own then it should do so. Look at List of neighbourhoods in Toronto. I think there are too many to be merged into the Toronto article and I suspect the same could be said of other cities. Each neighbourhood would need to be evaluated as to its suitability for a stand alone article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The bracket convention should be limited to geophysical concepts, for example rivers or mountains. The comma convention is used throughout (the english) Wikipedia for geopolitical entities, so we should use that in preference to the bracket version for neighbourhoods. I would select an article's name in the following order:
  • Neighbourhood
  • Neighbourhood, Municipality
  • Neighbourhood, Province
  • Neighbourhood, Municipality, Province
However, the first option should be restricted to well-known neighbourhoods, such as The Beaches or Downtown Eastside. That is, "yes" to your first question, and "comma" to your second question. An example where the province is needed to disambiguate is Pine Grove, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (see the dab page Pine Grove, Ontario).
I'll have to give some thought to the issue of amalgamations. Mindmatrix 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've stricken the last entry from my comment above - that point is actually unrelated to this discussion. However, this brings up the issue - how do we treat a community like Pine Grove, once a distinct entity which has now been absorbed into a much larger community (Woodbridge, Ontario. which is itself part of the city of Vaughan, Ontario)? Do we consider it a neighbourhood, similar to The Beaches, or is it a community that isn't sufficiently distinguished from other nearby communities to warrant that kind of treatment? That is, should we consider moving its article to Pine Grove, Regional Municipality of York (or something similar, per the standard we define here)? What criteria do we use to make that determination? Mindmatrix 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question. I would say that, with sources that Pine Grove currently lacks, it should have its own article. I would also dab it with the community it is most closely associated with. In this example, Pine Grove (Woodbridge). DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather go with Pine Grove, Vaughan, as it is administered and governed by the city of Vaughan, Ontario. --Qyd (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with Qyd — Vaughan is the actual municipality, and the thing that people who know very little about the area are more likely to at least have heard of. (Those are, after all, the primary audience for an encyclopedia article about it — the locals might be interested, but the primary purpose is to give information to people who don't already know it.) Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate that point of view but still argue that it belongs with the community dab more. Firstly, if there is not enough for an article about the neighbourhood, the info would go in the community article rather than the municipality article and if it was to be later broken out, it makes sense that the (dab) would be the community it just came from. Secondly, readers who are interested in learning more about a neighbourhood would most likely know it as an area in the community. I suppose I see it as concentric circles and it makes sense to me to use adjacent rings rather than skip over the community "ring". To illustrate from a further "ring" out from centre, even though there is only one London in Canada, we don't dab as London, Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pine Grove, Vaughan too, but I think I phrased my question incorrectly - what criteria do we use to determine that a community is a neighbourhood of a town or city, instead of a settlement of the province? (Pine Grove, Vaughan versus Pine Grove, Ontario) There are hundreds of these settlements, many of them with significant history but little current "community" - in Vaughan alone we have Woodbridge, Edgeley, Concord, Hope, Maple, Ontario, Kleinburg, etc. (The latter can be ignored, since it was essentially isolated from the others until a few years ago, so it wasn't truly a "neighbourhood".) While these all have "community" in that they are distinct from each other, I'm not sure we should be moving them to Woodbridge, Vaughan et al. Where do we set the bar? I think we've ruled out an article about Nashville, Kleinburg... Mindmatrix 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, now I think we might simply recognise the communities recognised by Canada Post as settlements of the province and dab with ", Province" and call others neighbourhoods of a community. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If it was autonomous once, it probably would make sense to use "community, province" (not for pine grove, where more dab is necessary). That would also prevent back and forth moves in cases such as de-mergers (like that that of Montreal).--Qyd (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that sometimes Neighbourhood, Province would be most appropriate. But "if it was autonomous once" should not be the test. For example, Yorkville was once a separate town, but absolutely no one calls it Yorkville, Ontario. The histories of our large cities are full of annexations and amalgamations, and it is surprising how many neighbourhoods were once separate municipalities. I like the idea of relying on whether Canada Post treats it as a separate postal address. It's objective and simple, and will capture those places that are typically better known by "Neighbourhood, Province" than "Neighbourhood, Municipality." Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Neighbourhood, Municipality rather than Neighbourhood, Community/Larger Neighbourhood. First, we need to keep the naming convention as simple as possible, and we already appear to be heading to a system whereby disambiguation would sometimes be Neighbourhood, Municipality and other times Neighbourhood, Province - we do not need to add other levels of disambiguation. Second, neighbourhoods do not have official, precise boundaries -- they are the subject of convention and common understanding, often change due to new developments and changing demographics (and real estate agents), and are often in flux and in dispute. I know in Toronto it would be contentious whether, say for example, Player Estates in part of the larger Riverdale community or not (just to name an example near my home). On the other hand, municipal boundaries are official - I would much rather tie DAB'ing to something objective and clear, rather than to something subjective and that could give rise to disputes. Finally, despite the good arguments put forward by DoubleBlue, diambiguation and the merger/spliting of articles are completely separate concepts, and the former need not be based on the potential for the latter. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
One could also say that the potential for disputes or changing boundaries need not affect the dab consensus but I do find that compelling. I indeed can see that more than one community might claim a (neighbouring) neighbourhood. Perhaps, using the municipality is then somewhat preferable. I still argue for a parenthesis though: Player Estates (Toronto). DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the bracket convention better too, but I can live with the comma given that the use of the parenthesis is reserved for geographic features. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would opt for the Neighbourhood, City convention. Smaller municipalities, with few neighbourhoods (4-6), could have a single article detailing all neighbourhoods. Larger cities, with hundred plus well documented neighbourhoods, would need articles for each neighbourhood. Using "The" to assume uniques is a stretch though. The Plateau or The Beaches can be anywhere. But then again, it is my opinion that un-disambiguated titles should be adopted in truly exceptional cases only. So far, Montreal is a mix of undisambiguated (accents, composed names) and brackets, Edmonton uses mostly brackets, Calgary uses comma convention throughout, Toronto uses comma and un-disambiguated titles, Vancouver and other BC cities use brackets and undis. --Qyd (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, neighbourhoods which don't need disambiguation should, as with any other topic, get plain titles. Comma convention when disambiguation is needed. In terms of the stack of disambiguation options, my suggestion would be this: "neighbourhood, province" if the community might actually be referred as such in the real world, such as if it has its own distinct postal code — frex, people do say Long Branch, Ontario and Manotick, Ontario, but nobody would ever say "Cabbagetown, Ontario" or "Billings Bridge, Ontario". "Neighbourhood, city" otherwise. "Neighbourhood, municipality, province" should almost never be necessary at all (it would require that two cities with the same name in different provinces or countries also contained neighbourhoods with the same name), but should be kept as an option under the "never say never" clause.

Re: amalgamations, former municipalities should generally be kept if they have substantial and well-referenced articles, but should be redirected to the new municipality if they have only stubs or redlinks. Another example is the former municipalities within Greater Sudbury, Ontario. Each individual neighbourhood within the city is currently a redirect to the main article on the pre-2001 municipality that it was a part of — so instead of having 40+ individual stubs on Whitefish and Coniston and Copper Cliff and Falconbridge, there are seven longer and more thorough omnibus articles in Category:Neighbourhoods in Greater Sudbury. Wanup still stands alone as a really bad stub, but there's no viable redirect target for it since it was an unincorporated standalone community prior to 2001. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I have much to contribute. I support undisambiguated titles for unique ones and "Neighbourhood, City" for others. --Kmsiever (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2¢:

  1. I agree with not using a dab when places have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant.
  2. When disambiguation is desired, I favour the use of parentheses as per WP:DAB but since the standard for Canadian municipalities was chosen to be Municipality, Province, I believe we should continue to follow the way people would expect to name/find articles. Thus, my order of preference is:
    1. Neighbourhood
    2. Neighbourhood, Province (though, as Bearcat says, if it would never be referred to like this omit)
    3. Neighbourhood (Municipality)
    4. Neighbourhood (Municipality, Province)
  3. I have no problem with neighbourhood articles, even good stubs, that meet NPOV, V, and NOR. The amalgamated municipality article can include very brief details and link to neighbourhood articles for more information. Well-sourced neighbourhood articles can be very interesting and useful and are more likely to be expanded when an article already exists but likely would be trimmed when it's only a section of a greater municipality article.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is sourced, though. Neighbourhood articles are very frequently unsourced and commonly on the approximate literary and informative level of "Foo is a neighbourhood in City. There is an arena that has had graffiti on it for ten years (insert slow-moving edit war over the phrase "because the city council are too incompetent to clean it up" here). Stub notice. Category." A good article on a neighbourhood, absolutely. But most of the articles we have on city neighbourhoods ain't good. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft

The comments were extremely helpful. I have tried to capture the emerging consensus in the following draft, which would follow be placed above the territories subheading under "Places" in the style guide. I have avoided using the word "community", due to recent efforts to distinguish between settlements/places and communities of interest (see WP:CANTALK for more details).

Neighbourhoods

[note to draft: edited as per comments below]

Article titles for neighbourhoods (and other areas within cities and towns) are subject to the same considerations as municipalities, as set out in points 1 to 7 above.

For neighbourhoods which do not qualify for undisambiguated titles, the correct title format is [[Neighbourhood, City]] (not [[Neighbourhood (City)]], as the "bracket convention" is generally reserved for geophysical features such as rivers and mountains).

Where a neighbourhood is recognized as a distinct and valid municipal address by Canada Post (see database here), the title may be at [[Neighbourhood, Province]] rather than [[Neighbourhood, City]] (e.g. East York, Ontario, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia). Such neighbourhoods were usually once autonomous municipalities that have since been annexed or amalgamated, or are semi-autonomous municipalities (e.g. Montreal's boroughs). Where the [[Neighbourhood, Province]] form of disambiguation would give rise to a conflict (see, for example, Pine Grove, Ontario), [[Neighbourhood, City]] should be used.

A neighbourhood article should never be titled [[Neighbourhood, Canada]], [[Neighbourhood, Former City]], [[Neighbourhood, Upper-tier Municipality]], [[Sub-Neighbourhood, Larger Neighbourhood/area]], or anything along the lines of [[Neighbourhood (Borough)]].

A discussion should take place on the article's talk page before any page move is undertaken to implement these guidelines (please see numbered point 6 above), except where the move simply converts a title from the "bracket convention" ([[Neighbourhood (City)]]) to the "comma convention" ([[Neighbourhood, City]]).

Neighbourhood articles are still subject to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V, and consequently a neighbourhood should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets those core policies and guideline. A neighbourhood whose article does not meet that threshold (e.g. an unreferenced three or four line stub) should exist only as a redirect to its city, or to an appropriate subpage of the city, until a properly referenced article can be written about the neighbourhood as an independent topic.

Comments? Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Looks good. It would take a large effort to move all neighbourhoods to the comma convention, it would be nice if that was concerted. --Qyd (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
We should do that. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think if we use the "Canada Post-recognised" rule, then we won't actually have the Pine Grove, Ontario, problem outlined here as they only recognise the Woodbridge one. I don't believe that Canada Post allows that sort of ambiguity problem but, if it should occur, then I would think we could make a rule then (and I think that [[Neighbourhood (Municipality), Province]] might actually be a better solution in that unlikely possibility). DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I didn't think that through. The sentence should probably be removed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd add a clause noting that neighbourhood articles are still subject to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V, and that consequently a neighbourhood should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets those core policies. A neighbourhood whose article does not meet those policies (e.g. an unreferenced three or four line stub) should exist only as a redirect to its city, or to an appropriate subpage of the city, until a properly referenced article can be written about the neighbourhood as an independent topic. Otherwise, though, I like this. I've also removed the current "communities" subsection from the guideline, since this will basically supersede it. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Very useful discussion. I'll be following this. For example, as a lifelong Montrealer I found Victoriatown, Quebec to be rather confusing when I first came across it. My first reaction was that it was off island, somewhere in the regions. According to the proposal, this would be redirected to Victoriatown, Montreal, is that right? I do feel it should be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears so. In that particular case, by moving the Victoriatown article to Victoriatown, Montreal, we'd also alleviate some potential confusion with Victoriaville, Quebec. The Victoriatown article is very interesting, BTW. I had no idea. Similar to Africville and Lebreton Flats. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that move would be a good idea. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since one article has already been moved in accordance with this discussion (The Battery, St. John's), I have inserted the revised text above into the style guide, since we appear to have general agreement on it. Obviously, it still remains subject to any additional comments. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the sentence "Where a neighbourhood straddles a municipal boundary and is located in two separate municipalities, the correct title format is [[Neighbourhood, Province]] (e.g. Thornhill, Ontario).". I imagine this point is not controversial. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, first I 'd like to dispute one of the points that I made. (I knew that, eventually, I'd have an argument with myself...) I stated that the bracket convention is used for articles about geophysical concepts, whereas the comma convention is used for geopolitical concepts. I've noticed recently that articles about parks (geopolitical) seem to use the bracket convention. I'm not sure if this is the result of a few editors doing their own thing, or if its more widespread. We should investigate this more thoroughly for all article classes that would fall within the scope of Canadian geography or geopolitics.

Second, are we making this rule an exception to the convention Location, Province, or is this a standard rule. I was under the impression that this would only apply to a small group of articles, but after reading the draft, it appears that most settlements in Canada would fall under the Neighbourhood rule, since they don't appear in the Canada Post database. For example, for the township of King, Ontario, only three communities are listed in that database - King City, Schomberg, and Nobleton. This leaves another nineteen that would be considered neighbourhoods of King, and possibly titled Settlement, King - this seems wrong to me, as most would simply regard them as settlements of the province, rather than neighbourhoods of the township. We should define the policy more clearly and rigourously. Mindmatrix 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the parks, I can guess why there appears to be some confusion. Although I understand why you consider them to be geopolitical matters (and are probably most appropriately treated as such), I can see why some editors may view them as geophysical concepts. It is certainly a new issue we should consider.

As for the other issue, three things strike me as I review the King, Ontario article. First, it seems to make sense to me that King City, Schomberg and Nobleton would be the only ones at [[Neighbourhood, Province]]. The others all seem incredibly tiny (references in the articles to "consisting of a few homes" or "sparsely populated" or "only a few buildings remain"), or seem more noted as environmental protection areas than as settlements (Happy Valley, Arnnorveldt, Pottageville), or the articles suggest that they are considered parts of the larger communities (such as Everslay, which is stated to have been "subsumed by King City", and Lloydtown which is described as often being considered part of Schomberg). The only ones that gave me pause were Kettleby, Ontario, which turns out to be on the Canada Post database, and Temperanceville, Ontario because it straddles and boundary (so the guideline would keep it at Province for that reason). It makes sense why Canada Post does not treat the others as separate postal locations. I think such settlements are better disambiguated with the municipality than the province. Second, I personally think that the Canada Post database is an excellent objective standard to be using. To borrow your wording, it is a very clear and rigorous manner in which to proceed. Determining whether settlements are considered "settlements of the province" versus "communities of the municipality" is not a workeable standard, in my opinion, as it is so subjective and would lead to grief (I can already foresee the editor who insists until he is blue in the face that everyone knows his neighbourhood as "Cabbagetown, Ontario"). Third and finally, I think based on the language that Bearcat drafted, some of the articles on the various hamlets in King Township should probably be merged into the main Township article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside: Regarding the fact that some of the community articles for King seem to reflect environmental issues more than the communities, well, that's because I was the primary editor for most of these, and I tend to focus on such things. I haven't (yet) bothered with other details, such as history, because it takes far more effort to research and verify facts in those areas. Don't infer things about those places based on the current state of their articles, which are far from comprehensive and do not adequately cover the subjects. Mindmatrix 21:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Although people often disagree, for what it's worth I honestly think that a significant number of unincorporated communities really don't need to exist as separate articles. Especially for small communities within townships, there's very seldom much of anything that can really be written about the local settlement as a distinct topic from the municipality, and most of the time the arguments in favour of keeping short stubs about individual communities really boil down to some variation on the logical fallacy that articles exist to serve categories — and thus if a category exists then everything that could possibly be filed there has to have its own separate article regardless of quality. Which isn't really how Wikipedia works, especially since it is possible to directly categorize a redirect. But I digress.
It should also be kept in mind that a redirect is not a permanent ban on the topic ever having its own article; the parent municipality's article can always be subdivided again at a later date when it's longer and more solid references are available. Some people respond to the redirect solution as though redirecting causes the topic to disappear completely, or makes it impossible to ever write a separate article — and neither one of those is the case. It's also much easier for us to monitor one article for quality and verifiability than it is to monitor twelve separate stubs about various aspects of the same municipal entity — I can't even tell you how many times I've come across uncaught vandalism and inappropriate/unreferenced edits about non-encyclopedic matters in the process of redirecting community stubs. FWIW, anyway.
I'd agree that coming up with our own standard for distinguishing "settlements of the province" from "communities of the municipality" is essentially setting ourselves up for a whole lot of grief, and we should basically agree to stick to a clear and unambiguous external source for that kind of thing. The Canada Post database is the best solution that I know of, but I'm not wedded to it if other useful resources exist that can serve a similar purpose. Parks, to me, are kind of a funny middle ground between our geopolitical and geophysical standards, being sort of both at the same time — their boundaries are defined under provincial law in a very similar manner to a municipality, but at the same time they aren't self-governing entities. So my own preference would be to err on the side of geophysicality. And, of course, a park which is either the primary use of its name or has an entirely unique name should remain undisambiguated anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested in assisting in the implementation of the guideline (e.g. moving neighbourhood articles from the bracket convention to the comma convention), please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide/Neighbourhoods. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed Bearcat's comment below about using the common rather than official name. I'm delighted, because one of the thing that's been bothering me about the Victoriatown, Montreal article that I just moved from Victoriatown, Quebec, is that no one ever calls it by that name. That's why I'd never heard of it. I know Goose Village. In fact, I had worked with David Fennario in the Black Rock Theatre group and we visited the Rock, out on Bridge Street, for a memorial. So I'll rename and redirect to Goose Village. Question: Can I just call the article Goose Village? Must I call it Goose Village, Montreal? There is no other Goose Village on WP and as my city's principal act towards the Village was to utterly wipe it out, I rather not give them the credit, if I don't have to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Bearcat, I had not noticed until just now that you were editing the Victoriatown, Montreal article at the same time as me, trying to resolve the image issues. Had I, I would have gladly stepped aside and waited for you to finish. Anyway, I've tried to arrange the images a little better, but there seems to be no way to get rid of that blank space, at least as it displays on my screen. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I see from the Talk page for Victoriatown, Montreal that there just was a confusion between this and some other Goose Village, so Goose Village, Montreal, it shall be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the discussion at Talk:Blossom Park, Ontario? One editor seems to have decided the guideline does not apply, and had unilaterally reverted a few page moves, without bothering to comment on the talk pages. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First Nations

While we're at it, I think we should also clarify a direction for how we write about First Nations. There's a bit of inconsistency right now, with two different directions taken in different cases: sometimes we have separate articles about the band and their reserve (e.g. Whitefish Lake First Nation vs. Whitefish Lake 6, Ontario), while at other times the reserve is just a redirect to the First Nation (e.g. M'Chigeeng First Nation vs. M'Chigeeng 22, Ontario).

The thing about this is, the number in a reserve's census division name is a purely bureaucratic feature which only rarely has any relevance to how the reserve or its band are actually referred to in day-to-day conversation, and may even be difficult to remember precisely because it's mostly irrelevant — in fact, most reserves which do have separate articles with the census number in the title also have redirects from the format "Plain Name Without the Number, Ontario". As a rare example where the number is relevant, the Northwest Angle 33 First Nation uses the 33 to distinguish itself from the Northwest Angle 37 First Nation.

There are occasional examples where a single reserve is shared by multiple distinct nations — but for the most part it's a one-to-one correspondence.

Personally, I really don't think most reserves actually need separate articles from the First Nations which occupy them — in practice, this mostly just results in having two separate articles about different names for the same thing — it's very comparable to having two separate articles on Toronto and Torontonians, which we obviously don't do. But obviously we need to come to a consensus. So I'd like to ask how we should treat these:

  1. Individual First Nations and their reserves should always have separate articles.
  2. Merged articles titled with the reserve name with the census number, in the format Foo 52, Ontario.
  3. Merged articles titled with the reserve name without the census number, in the format Foo, Ontario.
  4. Merged articles titled with the First Nation's name, in the format Foo First Nation. Separate article for a reserve only where a reserve is shared by multiple first nations and consequently can't be easily redirected.

Note also that the merged options could also entail merging the Category:First Nations reserves and Category:First Nations governments categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison with Toronto is a little off, because torontonians don't consider Toronto a nation (well... some do, but not officially). We don't have separate articles on Toronto and Torontonians, but we do have separate articles on, say, France, French people, and the Government of France. In some places (though not usually Ontario), a band government may have a reserve (or multiple reserves), and then there's the distinct nation/cultural group to whom that land belongs - each of which could get its own article.
Still, the issue you're concerned about is band governments and reserves, which are determined by the federal government, so they should be easy enough to standardize. We could, theoretically, merge most reserves into "government" pages. In such cases, we should drop the reserve number (unless it's necessary, like your Northwest Angle 37 FN example) and the Province. All the reserve names can of course be redirected. In cases where there are multiple governments on one reserve, I'm not sure what to do. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The reverse is also true in some cases, one reserve is shared by multiple first nations. Being as it is that the first nations are theoretically not administered or governed in any way by the provinces (but by the department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada instead), the province suffix is not appropriate (that's a no to "Foo, Ontario"). First Nation governments are something between an ethnic group (French Canadian) and local government (Calgary City Council), whereas reserves are communities/settlements, so in many cases separate pages would be required. Both governments (or tribal councils) and reserves are numbered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, so official names include the number. Statistics Canada also includes the number in their community profile pages. I would opt for Foo First Nation for tribes/bands/councils/governments, and for Foo Nation 123 for reserves. --Qyd (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder that Wikipedia isn't bound by or obligated to title an article with the topic's official name — the rule here is most common name. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder, there are 6 possible situations:
  • FN government without reserves, without settlement
  • FN government without reserves, with settlement(s)
  • FN government with reserve(s), without settlement
  • FN government with reserve(s), with settlement(s)
  • FN governments sharing reserve(s), without settlement
  • FN governments sharing reserve(s), with settlement(s)
and some settlements are reserves, some settlements are contained within a reserve. The key here is even if there are redirects to the article, the category should be linked to the appropirate article/redirect so that the settlement is correctly categorized as a community, while FN goverment is categorized as a government entity and the IR would be correctly categorized as such.
I agree that Foo First Nation should be the government article (with possible IR and village/settlement information as well if there isn't a separate article yet), Foo Indian Reserve 00 (with possible village/settlement information as well if there isn't a separate article yet) for the IR (with dedicated Foo 00, Province redirecting to the IR article), and Foo, Province for the village/settlement. Of course, as mentioned, some FN do have a reserve number in their name, some reserves don't have a reserve number in their name, some FN don't call themselves "First Nation". For these cases, the INAC name (i.e., the "official name" would be the best, with the FN's own name mentioned near the head of the article. Also, some FN are better known either by they IR or village/settlement instead of by their actual name, and yet others are better known by a totally different name (because of a carry-over of a historical Band name, because of the former location of the settlement, etc.). For these, redirects would be the most appropriate. CJLippert (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue is still that in practice, separate articles simply end up repeating the same information as each other, with very little differentiation. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[undent]Dropped by because wondering if a section on usage of indigenous names, either for natinos/peoples/gropus, villages, personal names, titles and geography; see this for a "quick" rundown relating to the use of Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish. I'll read the above discussion a bit more carefully later today but please bear in mind that this subject are crosses over with WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America ({{NorthAmNative}}) and there are content paramters there, and some naming preferences/guidelines as well, importantly the distinction between government, community, people and reserve articles (and language articles, but that's a given and most have been split off). I compltely disagree that a band government article should be the same as the community it's lcoated in, likewise there's a very important distinction between the "Indian act govenrment" (as user:OldManRivers calls band governments) and the people themselves; also many places that would wind up being only written as FN articles because they're community-location articles can also be non-FN neighbourhoods/localities, and these are many in British Columbia. The reserves themselves are different "artifacts" and have a land-title history and are not hte same thing as the people, whose existence predates them; reserves can have histories of their own, also, often very elaborate. On the US side of NorthAmNative a lot of articles combine all three, but that's just because the Wikiproject folks haven't gotten around to it yet, and soemtimes it's difficult to sort out; the Colville Reservation in Washington is run by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Agency and has a number of towns; as well as a number of peoples integrated into it; Colville (tribe) directs to the same destination article now but it shouldn't as the historic Colville tribe and the modern "tribe" 9which is multi-tribal) are different things. Mostly I dropped by about the preferred usage of indigenous names/spelling in BC even and especially in English, but there's good reason for separation of people, community and govenrment articles; they may "all be the same thing" east of the Rockies or in the North, but in BC more ofteh than not, they're not.Skookum1 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio stations

From the guide:


The note is wrong (CKUA, for instance, is neither an educational network nor a First Nations co-op, and I'm sure there are many other examples), poorly written (and/or?? There's a provincial educational network that's also a FN co-op?), and unnecessary. I suggest deleting it. --NellieBly (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CKUA is also the actual call sign of the stations in the network, so this doesn't really stand as a disproof of the statement. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Parks - geopolitical or geophysical?

Mindmatrix raised an issue above, in the neighbourhood/community discussion, that I didn't think should get lost in the context of that separate discussion

It had been earlier been pointed out that the practice in the English Wikipedia is to limit the "bracket convention" to geophysical concepts, such as rivers or mountains (e.g. French River (Ontario)), whereas the "comma convention" is used for geopolitical entities (e.g. Victoria, British Columbia).

Later, Mindmatrix noted:

I've noticed recently that articles about parks (geopolitical) seem to use the bracket convention. I'm not sure if this is the result of a few editors doing their own thing, or if its more widespread. We should investigate this more thoroughly for all article classes that would fall within the scope of Canadian geography or geopolitics.

Bearcat and I responded as follows:

Skeezix1000: In terms of the parks, I can guess why there appears to be some confusion. Although I understand why you consider them to be geopolitical matters (and are probably most appropriately treated as such), I can see why some editors may view them as geophysical concepts.

Bearcat: Parks, to me, are kind of a funny middle ground between our geopolitical and geophysical standards, being sort of both at the same time — their boundaries are defined under provincial law in a very similar manner to a municipality, but at the same time they aren't self-governing entities. So my own preference would be to err on the side of geophysicality. And, of course, a park which is either the primary use of its name or has an entirely unique name should remain undisambiguated anyway.

Any thoughts on this? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My only thought is pleasure at this being raised. I am preparing to move Parc Jarry to its still-commonly used English name Jarry Park, per WP:NCGN, and I suddenly realized I had no idea about what really should go there -- bracket, comma or nothing at all -- because I've seen 'em all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that Jarry Park is the primary use of that name and does not require any disambiguation. There is a DAB page at Jarry Park that currently distinguishes between the park and the stadium located in the park - that strikes me as unnecessary. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought the DAB page was unneeded, as well. When I do the move to primary name Jarry Park I'll see about getting rid of the DAB. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that they should be treated as geophysical entities. Most parks will simply exist at an undisambiguated name anyway. I'll support the bracket convention on this one. Mindmatrix 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
While generally set on geomorphological features (btw, geophysics does not refer to physical geography), parks are established and maintained by federal, provincial or municipal authorities. With very few exceptions (ex Glacier National Park), federal and provincial parks do not require disambiguation (especially since the title contains terms such as "Provincial Park"). When it comes to municipal parks though, I'd be more careful. If needed, the dab term should be the municipality. --Qyd (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador physical features

Regarding disambiguating information, are we applying the same rules to geophysical entities as we do for communities in Newfoundland and Labrador? For example, do we keep Marble Mountain (Newfoundland), or move it to Marble Mountain (Newfoundland and Labrador)? For these, a case can be made that the physical feature only exists in the one location, unlike communities which belong to the single geopolitical entity "Newfoundland and Labrador", which consists of two physical entities. I'm inclined to keep things as they are right now, but we should provide clarification in the style guide. Mindmatrix 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed over the current title, but I thought that we typically use the province for disambiguation, even for geophysical entities (unless I am mistaken). Yes, the feature exists in one location, which for the purposes of disambiguation that one location is the geopolitical entity "Newfoundland and Labrador". If we start disambiguating by geophysical entities, how do we decide which one is used? For example, this article could also be at Marble Mountain (Long Range Mountains).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, an exception could be made, and either Newfoundland or Labrador should be used in dab titles. It sounds weird and false to place a geographic feature in both such different locations. --Qyd (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
But that's one of the points I was trying to make (not very clearly as it turns out) - we wouldn't be disambiguating it with two separate locations. Newfoundland and Labrador is one place -- that's the name of the province. Just because the province shares a name with a region and an island, we aren't suggesting that Marble Mountain is somehow located in both the region of Labrador as well as the island of Newfoundland (although Marble Mountain, Labrador and Newfoundland are all geophysical entities located in the same geopolitical entity - Newfoundland and Labrador). I'm not sure how this is any different from a lengthy discussion we've already had, except for the fact we're dealing with a geophysical subject so would use the bracket convention. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of border-straddling entities

User:CambridgeBayWeather raised an issue on my talk page - what do we do about places that straddle borders (especially if multiple such places with the same name exist), and gave the example of Victoria Island, for which there is only one article about a Canadian location, at Victoria Island (Canada). However, there are other Canadian islands with this name, some of which overlap borders. Usually, we would use (Canada) as a disambiguator, but this can't be done for multiple islands. I've seen some articles use formats such as Victoria Island (Nunavut-Northwest Territories), but I'm seeking greater consensus about this. Ideas? (I'm OK with this format, but I'd support a better alternative.) Mindmatrix 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess one option might be to disambiguate by a larger geographic feature which surrounds the feature in question: for an island, the body of water that it's in (Victoria Island (Arctic Ocean)). I can foresee this method working most of the time, but there might be occasions when it fails because an island separates two bodies of water, instead of being surrounded by one. Indefatigable (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Indefatigable here; in most cases where disambiguating by country, province or territory wasn't sufficient, I'd go with the lake or ocean. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's quite clear that it refers to a major body of water and not something like Victoria Island (Amundsen Gulf), Victoria Island (Dolphin and Union Strait), Victoria Island (Dease Strait) or Victoria Island (Prince of Wales Strait). Though that would work with Indefatigable's comment above about islands separating two bodies of water. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Government Departments/Ministries

Discussion started here RE Saskatchewan...Naming conventions Government departments and ministries Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

style guide

How do contributors feel about these three ideas:

  1. changing the lead heading template from {{Wikipedia subcat guideline|naming convention|places}} to {{style-guideline}}
  2. adding "Canada-related articles" link to {{Style}}
  3. moving to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) like most others in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines

I've been thinking about it and leaning toward proposing all three but really haven't decided. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For (1), I would keep the naming convention template, but add a MoS template, as the guide is really both. Agree with your suggestions (2) and (3). Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox post-nominals

I've been trying to fix some post-nominals for politicians in their info boxes (and in the opining paragraph in the few places where acceptable). We should probably officially include herein a standard of which order these should appear in, as some people put awards (like CC) before educational (like MA) and political (like MP) titles, and some put them after. The easiest way of fixing this would be to say that all articles should follow the Canadian order of president as per here. We also need a standardization about which educational degrees replace others. If someone has a BA, MA, and PhD, do we only include the PhD? What if they have a few masters degrees, like an MA and an LL.M, and a PhD; does the PhD only replace one of them? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just noticed this post now. Discussion has mostly gone to the CWNB talk page but I'll add on education degrees that I think only the highest achievement needs to be included. The others can be added to the prose of the article and include mentioning where they went to school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Euro-Canadian

Please offer some assistance regarding this article. There's a discussion going on its Talk page. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation for Saskatchewan school division naming

Discussion initiated for Saskatchewan continuity in names/categories. Please comment on Saskatchewan school division, school district article naming and categorisation. Then could the result be put on the main page of Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide? Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

I'm conducting a new survey since the last was done 3 years ago (an editors lifetime on Wikipedia) at 2009 Vancouver Vs. Vancouver, Washington Survey. Your input would be most appreciated. Mkdwtalk 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Questioning a disambiguation name

Hi. I'm wondering whether the article Georgina, Ontario ought to be moved to Georgina. I didn't realize there was a styleguide specifically related to Canadian places when I first raised the question, so I placed it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/March#Unnecessary disambig?. If you have any feedback on the merit of the disambig, please share there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have relocated the move proposal to Talk:Georgina, Ontario. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mtns re geography section

I didn't want to just "be bold" and add this to the geography section, but suggesting here:

"Mountains, when in need of disambiguating beyond/lower than the provincial level, should follow the WP:Mountains guideline of classifying them by parent mountain range, or parent plateau in many cases, or by region if no mountain range or plateau parent is available."

There have been and are numerous exceptions or anomalies, e.g. of the four Granite Mountains in British Columbia, the one that's part of the Red Mountain Resort at Rossland I've red-dabbed as Granite Mountain (British Columbia) as it would be the primary reference/best-known of the four; Red Mountain, one of many, many, many like Granite, was created as Red Mountain (Rossland) whereas perhaps it should be Granite Mountain (British Columbia) (hmm..I may have moved that already, in fact...but in that case "the Rossland area" is an adequate geographical mini-region within the West Kootenay), and also the Rossland Range is the subrange of the Monashees it's in...; other Granite Mtns are Granite Mountain (Cariboo) (which could also be Granite Mountain (Cariboo Plateau) but that seemed redundant/unnecessarily long), Granite Mountain (Hozameen Range) and Granite Mountain (East Kootenay); the latter could be either Granite Mountain (North Thompson) or Granite Mountain (Shuswap Highland, the first specifying the region, the second specifying the range. None of these have been made yet, one of them maybe Rossland's could be the primary "British Columbia" or even "Canada" dab; if it's the Canada dab, then another one of hte summits, most viable the North Thompson one, could then have the British Columbia dab, if that's required. Contracted range names like Purcells vs Purcell Mountains and Monashees vs Monashee Mountains are standard fare in WP:Mountains; Sawtooth Range (British Columbia) or Sawtooth Range (Monashees) are the same place (can't remember which I used - one of those is a redirect; see Sawtooth Range disambibguation page). Note that since there's no other Sawtooth Range in Canada, maybe that should have been Sawtooth Range (Canada), I don't know. Mountains and mountain ranges and plateaus should NOT be classified by regional district, which is no more relevant than classifying them by electoral district or health region or court county; this hasn't happened in any disambiguations I've seen, though it does occur in ledes and in categorizations but is an irrelevant factoid; primary sources like CGNDB and BCGNIS classify them by Land District and in research literature, when not referred to by mountain range or plateau, they are generally described as being in such-and-so Forest District or Mining Division.

Also re lakes and creeks vs towns that have the same name, these shouldn't be the same article bcause of the different categorizations, infobox, wikiprojects, content involved. I just found Heffley Creek, British Columbia which I changed to Heffley Creek, Kamloops, since it's now in city limits (but now regret that, as it is a distinct place from the urban entity of Kamloops, still with its own post office), but Heffley Creek, for the creek, hasn't been written (yet). Christina Lake (British Columbia) and Christina Lake, British Columbia were separated a while ago, the former the geographic article, the latter the community one.Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Municipal population estimates

I have a concern about the wording of the style guide regarding population. No question we have to insist on reliable sources. However, Statistics Canada does not publish inter-census population estimates for municipalities. BC has its own statistics agency, BC Stats, which does publish population estimates for BC municipalities.

We are currently undergoing a Featured Article Review for the article on Vancouver. When I compare other cities that have Featured Articles, most use current population estimates (see, for e.g., comparably sized cities like Seattle, Minneapolis and Manchester). Because we are mid-census, if we have to rely on census data for population statistics, it seriously underestimates the population. Now, I know that style guides are not policy and if one has good reason to, one may safely ignore them. However, I think that the style guide should be modified to recognize provincial statistics agency estimates as reliable. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statistics Canada is the only agency in Canada that produces a population figure that's derived from a process of actually attempting to count individuals. Any other figure comes not from an actual census, but from applying statistical calculations to the StatsCan figure. That is, BC Stats doesn't actually go out and count people — it simply uses various economic indicators, such as housing starts and employment rates, to estimate growth rates between actual censuses. Note also that this guideline actually says that intercensal estimates can be added to the article as supplementary data, as long as they're properly sourced. We just can't replace official StatsCan census data by giving only the BC Stats number instead of StatsCan. Current estimates can be added to supplement the 2006 census figure, but the 2006 census figure doesn't get taken out of the article entirely until the 2011 census figure is actually released.
Basically, a BC Stats number can be added to the article, as long as it's (a) properly sourced (such additions frequently aren't), (b) described as an intercensal estimate, and not as somehow a more official or reliable or accurate number than the actual census, and (c) treated as supplementary information, not as a replacement for the 2006 census figure.
That said, I will try to rewrite the section to make it clearer what was actually intended, because what you're asking for isn't actually incompatible with what's written — but if you think it is, then perhaps it needs to be clarified a bit better. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've edited Vancouver's article with a sample of how this should properly be handled, and I've done an early rewrite on the section under discussion here. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Date format: Towards consistency: M D Y or D M Y ?

This is a continuation from Talk:Canada Day#Date Format wherein we have reached an impasse given that we here in Canada can't seem to stick a particular date format, be it M D Y or D M Y. It was generally agreed that consistency across Canadian articles regardless of the format would be ideal. So I think a simple straw poll would be in order here. –xenotalk 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

M D Y

e.g. January 15, 2009

  1. I would note that while many banks use DD/MM/YYYY on cheques and such, in conversation and news articles, the M D Y format prevails. –xenotalk 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Though I have no strong opposition to D M Y format, M D Y feels more natural in prose (as Xeno stated). I don't think that it's necessary to be consistent with condensed form; even if it was to be consistent, in my opinion the only viable condensed form is YYYY-MM-DD (no ambiguity, but that's a different matter) which would be silly to follow in expanded form. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

D M Y

i.e. 15 January 2009

  1. Feels ryght in prose and speech to haue þe day month year format. þt saydea, i am oft geuen to using what is now considered archaic English. I realise þt may not be common today but þe trend never interested me. Say NO to the Americanisation of English. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Leave it alone

  1. --JimWae (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC) I do not see any necessity to have all Canadian articles use the same format. Canadians use all 3 formats. To homogenize all Canadian articles would misrepresent the diversity that is Canada. Keeping diversity ensures nobody's least-preferred format becomes the universalized (for Canada) norm, and nobody's preference gets "shut out". There is already a procedure on an article-by-article basis for every article (not just Canadian ones): 1> to avoid "mish-mash", each article needs to be consistent with itself. 2>Once a date format is established in an article, that is the presumptive format for that article & it is not to be changed unless an explicit consensus to change is agreed upon by its editors.
  2. -- Wikipedia will inevitably have a variety of versions in use, so standardizing the relatively small slice of the article-base that qualifies as part of its "Canadian English sprachbund" isn't going to make for a significantly easier reading experience for anybody using Wikipedia, Canadian or otherwise. Consistency within articles is fine as-is. The Tom (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. -- While I have a preference for DD/MM/YY I think that the standard should be the same as is laid out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. If it were to be changed, I would lean heavily towards DMY as a far more natural flow. At present, though, there is no need to change the current status quo. --Ckatzchatspy 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  5. I'd have to agree that while American and British Englishes have a definite preference for one form, there isn't such a clear-cut case in Canadian usage. Both forms are regularly seen in Canadian English, and both forms are preferred by different users — there may in fact be distinct regional preferences, though I haven't explored that idea in any depth. Accordingly, I suspect that the only truly viable rule would be that either form is acceptable as long we keep one consistent usage throughout any individual article, and don't switch back and forth between the two. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  6. I agree with Bearcat. It should be in the interest of the article editors to select the style they choose. The fact that someone used a different style before shouldn't necessarily stand in the way of consensus of the current editors who wish to bring the article into a distinct style, ie Canadian method. For example the Canadian Standard Association selected ISO 8601 and so did the Canadian government. The primary reason we see MDY is our proximity to the United States. Much like we see iches and feet in every construction related industry despite the fact that we're officially metric. You can even accept American money in many parts of Canada like Vancouver, but that doesn't make it our national currency. Mkdwtalk 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. As far as the question is stated, normally leaving existing articles alone would seem the most realistic option for now. This would retain the existing MoS statement at WP:DATEVAR. As per Ckatz, if there is to be a standardisation, DMY would be better. This not just because of logical order and less punctuation but it is a more suitable format for an international project such as Wikipedia, whereas MDY is widely seen as an Americanism. The bias issue may be more pertinent to Canada Day than for say William Shatner, in terms of consensus discussions. However, that would be better left as a description of pros/cons of each format than a mandated editing campaign of existing articles at this time. Dl2000 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Polls are evil

  1. But sometimes a necessary one. Dl2000 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Polls are wonderful

  1. And most certainly a necessity. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  1. Date autoformatting, where editors and readers could select a preferred style, would be particularly useful in the Canadian situation. Too bad this was the subject of one of those protracted MoS holy wars, where the amount of time and effort in that debate was many times longer than it would have taken to properly implement this practical i18n feature in the Wiki. Dl2000 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. The only date format with a claim to strong national ties for Canada is YMD as in 2009-12-31 (and often as 2009-DEC-31). This has been adopted by the federal government for its official documents & website. This format is not presently accepted on wikipedia for the text part of documents. The Canadian Standards Association uses MDY on its web---site --JimWae (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

List of acceptable formats

On Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Other I suggested that a list should be made to indicate where each date format is acceptable. Other than the objections listed above does anyone see any problems with creating such a list here? The goal would be to list the various long and short formats and documents that support either format. I know that Canadian press style guide supports the long format of Month Day, Year, but I have read that others feel that the Day Month Year is "perfectly acceptable" in Canada, but have never seen a Canadian style guide support it. This would simply be an accounting only. WP:V would be required for all entries. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"British Columbian" (noun) v. "British Columbia" (as adj.)

Plase note Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics#Use_of_.22British_Columbian.22. This is an important distinction and should probably be in the formal manual of style; similarly the same may apply to "Ontario government" vs. "Ontarian government", and there may be contexts where the latter is appropriate; seemingly a Canada-wide style-item, but it's been cropping up in BC articles quite a bit lately ("British Columbian" when used as an adjective, which is 95% of the time completely wrong).Skookum1 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada Post municipality database

From what I gather, Canada Post's municipality database linked from WP:CANSTYLE#Neighbourhoods/communities doesn't work anymore. Looking around CP's website I can't seem to find it at another location; what do people think about replacing it with the Find a City function? -M.Nelson (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable to use the current searcg engine for CanPost's database. Deadlinks should not be lingering on article guidance pages such as WP:CANSTYLE anyway. Dl2000 (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to [[[Wikipedia:Subject style guide]] . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What about long date formats?

It seems this long date format is not uniform either. See Talk:Victoria Day#Long date format for the current debate. Canada Day has also be changed to use Day Month rather than the more common Month Day format. I see that there was a discussion on that page. We need to come to consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From the above straw poll, we already seem to have consensus to retain the current MoS advice regarding Canadian subjects. Dl2000 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that discussing the long date format isn't acceptable because the short date format has no consensus to change? Are you suggesting because there is no consensus on long date format that there is no need to gain consensus on long date format? Are you suggesting that the MoS on Canadian subjects that says both formats are may be used can't be changed under a rational consensus? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The above poll was for long-date format (see the specific examples). –xenotalk 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

List of date formats used

In the sections below, please indicate a style guide created in Canada or used by a Canadian body.

Long date formats

Month Date, Year ("American")
Date Month Year ("European")
No preference

Short date formats

MM/DD/YY(YY)
DD/MM/YY(YY)
DD-MM-YYYY
YYYY-MM-DD ("ISO 8601")
Other
No preference

Commas

It seems that a recent edit seems to introduced a few commas. Not being an expert in the rules of punctuation, and having read WP:MOS, I'm not sure if they are or are not necessary. If we could have a few editors review that would be helpful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We're gonna need somebody with strong eye-sight, to see the diffs in Mies's edit-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I looked at them was to copy each side into an external text editor--one that does not wrap the text--and viewed it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Yipes, that's beyond my abilities. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason to look at the diff of my edit; all I did was make the use of commas consistent throughout the article. What Walter's asking for is to have someone look at the article and verify that commas are presently being used correctly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I was actually interested in the changes, but what you're suggesting would work too! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Supplanting standard-usage hyphens with dashes

I'm more than a bit irked that, supposedly, CANSTYLE has ordained that hyphens used in organization names be converted to dashes; whehter in category names or in article titles. This not only makes them hard to use, when writing articles, and it's also NOT common usage, and defies and overrides existing standards that have been around for years. The example that brought this to my attention was recent across-the-board changes to regional district articles and categories; see this discussion, in which the curious reasoning is given that if websites use hyphens in compound names it's because the designer was too lazy to look up how to make a dash.....WHUH?? So this would apply to editors, too, that we're supposed to learn how to make a dash in mid-flight so that CANSTYLE can be conformed to, and if I don't like it, "consult CANSTYLE before making any changes to article titles". How about CANSTYLE consult reality before deciding to change it?? There's already a distinction between the use of the hyphen for provincial electoral districts - which is rooted in the source, BC Elections - and the use of dashes in federal electoral districts - also as rooted in the source, Elections Canada and the parliamentary website. BCGNIS, StatsCan, the regional districts themselves, the RBCM, BC Archives, the newspapers large and small, academia, et al. use hyphens in regional district names. Who are Wikipedians to tell them "we have a better way"? WHY is it a better way? Because it "conforms to Wikipedia's standards of design". Since when do design considerations trump most common usage, and long-standing convention??Skookum1 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If the components of the compound are single words, e.g. Loon-Gaunt Regional District, I'd prefer to see hyphens. If however, any of the components have spaces or hyphens in them already, an en-dash is the way to go, e.g. Upper Loon–South Gaunt Provincial Park. This separates the parts for clearer reading. If it had a hyphen, I would parse it as three components (Upper) (Loon-South) (Gaunt), do a double-take, back up and re-read it as (Upper Loon)-(South Gaunt). This use of en-dashes has been a recommendation of guides such as Chicago for decades. However, if you don't want to use en-dashes in your edits because it's disruptive to your train of thought, that's perfectly fine. The content you generate and the research you do are far more important to the project than typographical niceties. Other editors can make those minor tweaks eventually. It's not wrong to use hyphens, it's just slightly better in some cases to use en-dashes. Indefatigable (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question re naming (towns)

An editor recently renamed and moved several articles with the form "Xxxx, Nova Scotia" to articles named in the form, "Xxxx, Cap Breton", stating in the edit summary that this reflected "proper spelling on maps". The best place to see the series of moves is to look at the December 12 entries on this page: Special:Contributions/Chnou. I discussed the changes with the editor on his talk page, and understand why he changed some of the spellings; but the substitution of "Cap Breton" for "Nova Scotia" still puzzles me. The edits are - as best I can tell - unsourced, and contradict the naming conventions set forth here at WP:CANSTYLE. I'd move the pages back except that there seems to be a lot of nuance here and I'm not entirely confident that I've read things right. Can someone a bit more well-versed in these issues take a look? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the orignal page names for now. It might well be worth renamed for spelling, per Chnou's post on your talk page, but the page names should end w/"Nova Scotia". --Ckatzchatspy 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That's about where I was coming out on this but didn't want to go blundering in with my own edits if I was missing something either real obvious or real subtle. JohnInDC (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here. I forgot to note that I restored the original titles (without the spelling fixes) simply to allow for discussion; I didn't want to move the pages to a third location (ie "Corrected spelling, Nova Scotia") and thus create a string of double redirects. --Ckatzchatspy 20:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That was another reason I didn't undo it myself; I wasn't sure of state into which to "undo", because the spelling changes strike me as at least plausible. (I don't know whether they're proper or not.) While we're on this subject, would it not be appropriate to similarly move two other articles that began life under the "Cap Breton" name, to wit, Alderney Point, Cap Breton and Petite Anse, Cap Breton? I'm happy to do it but again don't want to get out ahead of myself -- JohnInDC (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Upon reflection I couldn't see any reason not to clean up those stragglers and performed the move myself. Thanks for your help. JohnInDC (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Places in Canada are disambiguated (if necessary) by the name of the province/territory. This has been pointed out to Chnou before. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Imposition of British English on Canadian cats

Please see my comments on this CfD where others have argued that Canada has no right to deserve an exception to the British standard chosen for the global parent, although an exception in an earlier CfD was made for the United States. I've argued that CANMOS overrides any arbitrary choice (as was the case) to use British English as an arbitrary global standard, to be imposed especially on articles about items in non-English countries (the example is "power station" vs the Canadian-widespread norm "generating station" - the US norm, used for their categories, is "power plant"). The insensitivity towards Canadian English in the CfD from others is really quite stunning.Skookum1 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic degrees in infoboxes

I while ago I added the degrees to the alma mater section of the infoboxes of Canadian politicians. I matched the style of the American politicians by making the degree names a smaller font than the university and putting them in parentheses (see Barack Obama for an example). It was later removed with the comment "This is what a normal infobox should look like". I think we should decide a standard Canadian policy: do we want to mention academic degrees in infoboxes, and if so, how should they be written? --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages_of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

CAD to CA$ ??

User:Jimp has made unilateral changes to {{CAD}} which now shows CA$, an abbreviation specifically rejected by CANSTYLE. Seems some "discussion" about this took place at Category talk:Currency templates involving only one other editor. Meanwhile, CANSTYLE page was corrected to use the less-susceptible {{iso4217}} template which is consistent with the existing guideline. Dl2000 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimp was doing some much needed work on all of the currency templates and the change from CAD to CA$ was an oversight. No change to the output format was intended. We will return it back to what it was.  Stepho  talk  02:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. CA$1.00  Stepho  talk  02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this; and in retrospect, it should be said there's nothing wrong with doing a WP:BOLD cleanup with the currencies in general. Dl2000 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of French-Canadian vs. Quebecer/Québécois

Should the guideline discuss it? Personally I use it to describe any Quebec (and expatriates, etc.) person who died before the 60s-70s, because the use of "Québécois" as an "ethnic" describer was not usual before that time. I would argue to keep it for people after the time too, because "Québécois" does not by any definition describe an ethnic group, and might cause further issues when describing Quebec-based immigrants. Circeus (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If a clear consensus has developed among Wikipedia editors on this point, I am not against incorporating it here, but last time I looked this issue tended to generate some controversy.Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
French-Canadian would be used in the same way as one uses Irish-Canadian or Chinese-Canadian (Ethnic based). Québécois refers to those born or living in Quebec or cultural products coming from the province (geographically/culturally based ie. 'He is Québécois' and '...a resurgance in québécois cinema'). Franco-Canadian refers to a Canadian who speaks French as their first language (language based). The three terms all have very specific meanings, and are not completely interchangeable. Trackratte (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Diacritic

I've placed the term diacritic into the MOS:CA. It is not mentioned on the page at all. Amazing! Being WP:BOLD, I've placed the first instance of diacritic into our guideline regarding the PQ. I've had to reword this fist paragraph. The guideline will need the additon of further diacritic examples into other sectons/paragraphs as necessary. I've not done this. Argolin (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Use English and French?

Does #French names only apply to French names? The article in question is ?Ejere K'elni Kue 196I. 117Avenue (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

CAD vs. CAD$

I'm not sure as to the level of activity here if can anyone explain why the dollar sign is not included for CAD but is for almost any other dollar currency. I formally propose that para 2 of the currency section be deleted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'CAD' is the ISO 4217 code for Canadian dollars. The 'D' stands for 'dollar' and so does the '$', which means 'CAD$' expands to 'Canadian dollar dollar'. So 'CAD$' is strictly forbidden. The first two characters in ISO 4217 is derived from the ISO 3166 alpha-2 country code ('CA' stands for Canada) and the third character can represent various currencies within that country. So 'CA$' is often used informally for people who prefer to see the '$' sign. Similarly, 'C$' is often used by newspapers and in other informal contexts. Note: I'm Australian, not Canadian, so I'll point out things and play the Devil's advocate but I won't actually vote on which code Canadians want to use.  Stepho  talk  06:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to delete all of para. 2. Obviously, CAD$ is not an option, but WP:$ would not appear to preclude CAN$ or something similar. Where did "avoid use of other available prefixes such as C$, CA$, CAN$, Can$, Cdn$ or CDN$ since there is no consensus for these" come from? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I am simply identifying that the current method is a failure as Canadians commonly employ the $ sign and the current position makes the use of the currency template rather useless as no symbol is employed an CAD is not a common currency notation. All other dollar using countries employ the symbol. As noted, Australia employs A$ not AUD. US employs US$. Brunei, Barbados and Bermuda and Hong Kong all employ similar typography. Canada really is the odd one out, for no real good reason. I also see C$ as being acceptable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just pointing out that 'CAD' is quite common in the financial community, especially when dealing with foreign currencies, as it is the official ISO 4217 code for the Canadian dollar. However, it is less well known among the general population. But there is no reason why it should agree or disagree with how other countries choose to display their currencies.  Stepho  talk  08:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that CAD is quite common. It's in the Globe and Mail every day. Not clear why the current system is a "failure". Having said that, I am not sure why we should be precluded from also using C$ if there is consensus to do so in any given article. Thus, my original question, how did the current guidance in this MOS originate? Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 1#CAD to CA$ ??, although this MOS sounds like it was already in its current form when that discussion occurred. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the 2009 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 10#New Canadian dollar value template turns put to be the origin of the current wording here. Apparently, I briefly advocated for "Canadian dollar dollar". At least we understand where it come from, and why it reads as it does. I'll let User:Dl2000 know of this discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As an accountant with (some) grey hair, I would support either "CAD" or "C$" - both should be acceptable, IMO. "CAD$" is redundant, and "CA$" is less used, if used at all. PKT(alk) 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Where I have a need to differentiate, I tend to use C$ vs. US$, A$, etc. Resolute 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
True that the Canadians mostly use $, but that's when in context you don't need to differienciate from any other currencies, when that is the case (like on most Wikipedia articles), CAD is preferred. Amqui (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


I think C$, CAN$, CAD, CAND are all OK. My only issue with C$ would be, is there really no other country starting with C that calls its currency "dollars"? CAD$ — obviously not, for the reasons pointed out by others. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think C$ makes any sense, the standard says "country two letters code", so it would be CA$ or CAD, CAD being most used (other than $ alone when there is no confusion possible). Amqui (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Skeezix1000 for the invite to this party - some observations:
  1. The current statement was a case of lacking consensus for a common abbreviation on the various abbreviations that were mentioned in the previous discussion;
  2. The Canadian dollar article indicates $, C$ and CAD in the infobox. Meanwhile, The Canadian Style indicates C$ [1];
  3. Seems short is sweet with the established Wikipedia abbreviations - A$ for Australia, S$ for Singapore, US$ of course;
  4. C$ seems reasonably unambiguous. The only potential conflict on the ISO 4217 list is with Cayman Islands dollar - that article suggests CI$ for its abbreviation and its ISO 4217 code is KYD;
  5. The notion of "country two letters code" plus symbol is not in WP:$. ISO 4217 does not refer to non-alphabetic symbology;
Dl2000 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph in question was originally added on 31 March 2009 by Dl2000 as a result of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 10#New Canadian dollar value template. It got tweaked a few times for discussing the use of the templates (which is when I came in) but didn't change much in substance.  Stepho  talk  02:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I prefer (1) "C$" (2nd) "CDN$" or (#3) "CAN$", finally "CAD$". Didn't we already discuss this several times? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
CAD$ is "Canadian dollar dollar". And it appears that the last substantive discussion was in 2009 (unless you are aware of a discussion we've missed). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
In terms of conflict, C$ is the symbol for the Nicaraguan córdoba apparently. Does that matter? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I like CA$. It may not be used in official capacities, but it does very well on the Google hits test, and it's the shortest combination of characters that still makes it clear what we're talking about. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose CAD$ for the redundancy (cf. PNS Syndrome), so the binary choice in the section title puts my support with CAD. However, I think CA$ should be at least acceptable; I would have slightly preferred C$ except for the conflict with the córdoba pointed out by Skeezix, a show-stopper IMO. I find Can$ and Cdn$ just as recognizable, but their length is a slight disadvantage.—Odysseus1479 00:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus wording?

This discussion petered out, and Labattblueboy never got any resolution either way. In rereading the past discussion, I would make the following observations:

  • CAD - Not only did this form find favour with our in-house accountant (PKT), but it is the ISO 4217 code for the currency. As such, it would seem odd for this MoS not to allow it as an option.
  • CAD$ - Given that this translates as the nonsensical "Canadian dollar dollar", I think we all agree it is off the table. A friendly Australian editor went so far as to say that it is "strictly forbidden".
  • C$ - While this form was popular with some editors, it is also the symbol for the Nicaraguan córdoba. We arguably should not be recommending a shortform that is used by two different currencies. While it was mentioned above that this is the preferred form in the Canadian Style, I note that the Globe and Mail Style Book (adding "(Canadian)" after the dollar figure) and the Canadian Press Stylebook (adding "Cdn" with no period after the dollar amount) each adopt completely different styles; it strikes me that all three style books are geared towards a largely Canadian readership, and the recommendations are not always transferable to an international encyclopedia.
  • CA$ - This style was popular among editors whose names start with the letter A (Amqui, Arctic Gnome), and it does not appear that anyone found any problems with it. The closest conflict is CI$ (the Cayman Islands dollar), which seems sufficiently remote so as to avoid confusion.
  • CAN$ and CDN$ - Neither seemed to capture anyone's imagination, except for one anon. Give rise to the question as to how many abbreviations we need.

Given the above, can we agree that articles can use either CAD or CA$? Such an approach would seem to address Labattblueboy's original concern, seems consistent with the direction at WP:$ which suggests a common English abbreviation/symbol and the ISO 4217 are both acceptable, yet still meets the objective of the MoS which is to standardize our approach (allowing too many abbreviations, or not giving any direction at all, would seem to run counter to that). Proposed wording (which largely mimics the existing wording):

"For Wikipedia articles not specifically on Canadian subjects, the Canadian dollar should be identified either in ISO 4217 format (e.g. CAD 123.45) or as CA$. Avoid use of other available prefixes such as C$ (also the symbol for the Nicaraguan córdoba), CAN$, Can$, Cdn$ or CDN$ since there is no consensus for these. Do not use the abbreviation CAD$ as CAD already means "Canadian dollar". CAD$ would be redundant since that would mean "Canadian dollar dollar"."

What do you think? Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no responses, so I assume the change is non-controversial. Thanks to everyone for the earlier input. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I will change all the currency templates to say 'CA$'. This includes the CAD template (it's name is meant to specify the ISO code of the currency, not what it's final output looks like, so it will act similar to {{US$}} and {{USD}} showing 'US$' and {{A$}} and {{AUD}} showing 'A$').  Stepho  talk  21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Took me longer than I thought to get around to this. Have updated {{CAD}} and {{currency}}. {{CA$}} was already in the right format.  Stepho  talk  05:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Elections: Brampton shouldn't be clumped in with Peel

Honestly, there needs to be an exception for communities larger than half a million, to let them have their own election pages. Brampton had 523,911 people as of the 2011 census, Mississauga had 752,000.

  • Population: This policy is written for smaller jurisdictions; we don't want Essex split into separate articles for Amherstburg, Tecumseh, and the Township of Pelee. But Ward 3/4 of Brampton has one city councillor, one regional councillor. There's 87,730 people just in that one older, low density area, half the total population of the entirety of Essex County.
  • Regional representation: While all Mississauga and Caledon councillors serve on Peel council, half of Brampton councillors do not. The article title might dupe people into thinking they have some direct connection to Regional politics.
  • Varying quality: More over, unless someone is interested in all the municipalities in a region/county/district, the article varies in quality and completeness. Until Bearcat merged the Brampton article into the Peel one, no one had updated the Mississauga section. No one yet has updated the Caledon section. So thus if I ever wanted to get GA or featured list status for Brampton months from now, I'm forced to get the other municipalities up to the same level.

Can there please, please be an out? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. I'm not sure how Brampton's population is relevant, but its form of municipal government certainly is. The fact is that Brampton is part of a regional form of government, where many of the municipal functions are handled by the upper level Regional government, and where at election time people elect councillors for both levels. If we split the articles, one needs to review two different articles to get a full understanding of those elected to govern Brampton, which makes no sense to me. The Region provides most of the big-ticket municipal services in Brampton (including water, policing, regional planning, garbage pick-up, arterial roads, etc.), and the votes of Regional councillors from Mississauga and Caledon help decide these matters for Brampton. So, I actually think splitting the article is less than helpful. Moreover, it's unclear to me how anyone could be "duped", and the third concern you've raised is an issue with all election articles (we often have editors whose interest only extends to updating information for particular areas, ridings or wards).

Talk this issue out with Bearcat, but I must say I am unconvinced. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely the last thing Wikipedia needs is a triple layer of Ontario municipal election articles, whereby we have an overview of the whole province, and a county/region layer, and a third layer of separate spinouts for a random selection of individual municipalities inside the counties or regions. We do not have the resources to properly maintain that much content, for starters — if you look at any year before 2010, our municipal election coverage is still appallingly inconsistent in format and quality, and even 2010 only just scrapes the bottom edges of "adequate" — and furthermore, while it is legitimately encyclopedic content, it's not a topic of broad enough interest outside of Ontario to justify such a massive profusion of spinoff content. Even in Ontario it's virtually impossible to drum up very much interest among Wikipedians in maintaining the volume of municipal election coverage we already have, let alone expanding it. (I can name exactly one editor besides myself who's ever even glanced sideways at Sudbury's municipal elections, for example, and that's one of the province's larger cities. And the fact that I was the first person to even touch Mississauga, a larger city of interest to more people than Brampton is, also rather strongly illustrates the point that we don't have a consistent level of editor commitment from one city to another.)
Accordingly, the consensus was established as of 2010 to keep all the primary content organized at the level of the county/region/district, with only the cities that aren't in a county, region or district, and thus don't have anywhere that they can be merged to, remaining as standalone election articles. We just don't have the level of editor commitment necessary to properly maintain or develop an even more narrowcasted layer for every individual city — and the difference between "city that gets its own independent article" and "city that gets handled in a merged county-level article instead" has to follow an objective and neutral and consistent practice. We can't let it be the case that the difference between "city that gets its own separate article" and "city that gets handled at the merged county/region level" comes down to regional variations in editor commitment. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Nor should it come down to an arbitrary population threshold. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Canadian English}} - proposed amendment

please see the talkpage at that template.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Places moves

Currently there is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities#Starting the primary topic discussion about amending the places section of this MOS. 117Avenue (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

City/town names in articles

From time to time I see the name of a Canadian city or town shown in the lede as "[city], [province], Canada". This not only seems clunky, but, is also out of line with the common practice I see elsewhere. I.e. the equivalent "[city], [state], United States of America" or "[city], [constituent country], United Kingdom" is not used; it's "[city], [state]" and "[city], [constituent country]" only. Often "Canada" is mentioned in the page's infobox. Whichh is correct? I cannot seem to find any guideline on this matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Officially, you're correct that the proper usage should be just "City, Province" in most cases — what you're seeing is usually the result of an edit war between a Canadian editor who was using that form and an American editor who insists for no particularly compelling (or ever really explained) reason on "City, Canada" instead. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with your first sentence. Where was it decided that "City, Province" is the "proper usage"? It seems to equally have no compelling rationale, just like "City, Canada". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be wrong (and just silly).
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]"? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
ISTM the City, Province form is normal. Where it may be deemed necessary, if not obvious from the context, I would prefer a form something like X is a Canadian Y located in City, Province to those that tack Canada onto the end of the location.—Odysseus1479 04:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not witnessed such edit wars in my five years (perhaps such occurred in WP's earlier years). I see no harm in articles stating "[city], [province], Canada". In fact it may be of benefit to our readers around the world. A reader from across the world likely knows California is an American state when reviewing a Californian town article, whereas the same reader reviewing a Manitoban town article may have no clue Manitoba is a province in Canada (of course "Canada" in the infobox will help). Sadly, the names of American states are much more internationally known compared to Canadian provinces. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, the sovereign state should always be included for the entire 'pedia. In the past however, I've ran into stiff opposition trying to push that inclusion, at the British bios. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
For Canadian articles, I would recommend [[city, province]] or [[city|city, province]].
For non-Canadian articles I would recommend [[city, province|city]], Canada or [[city]], Canada.  Stepho  talk  12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
For any city which is located at an undisambiguated title, [[city]], [[province]] is preferable to [[city|city, province]] (and while it's not as important an issue, for stylistic purposes even on disambiguated titles [[city, province|city]], [[province]] is still sometimes preferable to just [[city, province]].) And regardless of how anybody feels about "City, Province, Country", it's never appropriate to just use "City, Canada" on Wikipedia without reference to the province — which of the five Canadian Kingstons is meant by "Kingston, Canada"? Which of the three Canadian Windsors is meant by "Windsor, Canada"? Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with "City, Province, Country" in the lead, and I don't see a compelling need to treat "Canadian" and "non-Canadian" articles differently. I agree with Hwy43 -- unclear why anybody would assume that the worldwide audience understands in which country Nova Scotia or Manitoba are located, and frankly the country information is presumably just as important (if not more so) as the subdivision information. Not sure how it's relevant that the information is in the infobox - articles usually contain most of the infobox information in the body of the article. Odysseus1479 is correct that "City, Province, Country" is not the only manner in which to convey the information (he notes X is a Canadian Y located in City, Province as a good example), but there is also nothing wrong with "City, Province, Country" (there is nothing "clunky" with fully identifying a settlement's location). If anything, there are some U.S. and U.K. editors who need to take a more global view. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A brief review of some articles on large U.S. cities shows that they also seem to be moving in the direction of identifying the United States/U.S. in the first sentence. The U.K. is not a great precedent since their constituent countries aren't comparable to Canadian provinces or territories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We should be focused on what is the most useful information that we can provide to the global readership of Wikipedia. "Canada" is a more useful locator that "Ontario", "Manitoba" or "New Brunswick" for people who may never have heard of these places. Canadians will know that Toronto is in Ontario, so that is not useful information to add - it is being done for stylistic purposes only.
Identifying the province only and not the country is purported to be "proper" - according to whom? I know that Canada Post requires it, but they have no jurisdiction here. That style is common in Canada, but that is not a good reason for it to be the Wikipedia style. Similarly, adding the country seems "clunky" because we are not used to it in Canada, but when The Economist mentions Toronto, it does not add Ontario; it locates Toronto in Canada for its global readership.
With respect to US and UK articles, they would be improved by adding country locators too. Do we expect a reader in Harare or Guangzhou to know where Wiltshire or Wyoming are?
User:Miesianiacal has been removing "Canada" from some article leads as "unnecessary". How does removing that information improve the article? With regard to the argument that the country information is in the infobox, the article text should stand on its own. If the infobox is considered to be an integral part of the article text, then we should not repeat anything in the text that is in the box, i.e., any location info. I don't think that makes sense.
Finally, Bearcat should know that Wikipedia does not rank editors. An American is just as qualified to edit a Canadian article as a Canadian is as long as they are following Wikipedia policies. For the record, a toque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch, and I am Canadian. Ground Zero | t 15:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Removing information can improve an article; in fact, it's encouraged in certain circumstances. It seems that, if someone doesn't know where Ontario is, they can click on the link to Ontario. If the consensus it to include "Canada", fine. It's just there was/is no instruction one way or another in the MoS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You've linked to the section of a guideline on article splitting due to size. That guideline (nor any other guideline or policy of which I am aware) encourages the removal of key information, such as the country in which the settlement is located. Like you, I encourage good copy-editing, but not at the expense of basic information. The "readers can just click on links to find out more" response makes sense when one is deleting, say, information about Ontario population growth in the 20th century from the Kingston, Ontario article, but doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of a piece of important and relevant information comprising only one word. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of what I linked to and what it says and it proves that removing information can improve an article. At the base of it, WP:SPINOUT is about keeping articles concise.
It's an arbitrary line we're together drawing here. "[city], [province]"; "[city], [province], Canada"; "[city], [province], Canada, North America". What's too little and what's too much? People may not know where Canada is. Obviously, I'm being a little (though not totally) facetious to show the directive "the more information the better" has a limit. So, it comes down to: what's favoured by the majority? So far, it seems like "[city], [province], Canada". Not my preference, but, fine. I'll go with that from now on.
Should it be added to the MoS as a guideline? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where it says removing content can improve an article. It seems to be completely about splitting long articles. Having said that, I agree that concise is good. But not at the expense of key information. Don't really agree that the inclusion of the country is arbitrary - it's not unreasonable to assume that the global readership is more likely to recognize Canada than all of its provinces (and if they don't recognize Canada, pointing out that it's in North America is unlikely to help). But if you think it's arbitrary, maybe we should add it to the MoS.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a "rank", or a nationality test that one has to pass before one is allowed to edit a Canadian article; I differentiated between "Canadian" and "American" editors as a matter of context. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Conjures up this mental image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd include Canada, as this is an international 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

So I propose that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Places be amended by

  1. adding a subheading atop the current text of the section to identify it as relating to "Article titles", and
  2. adding another subsection, "Text", that says something along these lines:
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". For larger cities that are internationally known (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal) an editor should consider whether the Province identification is necessary.

I realize that the last sentence ("For larger cities...") is going to be controversial as some will argue that Winnipeg, Halifax, Edmonton are internationally known, but I want to see what other editors think. Maybe we should drop that. Ground Zero | t 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative, Ground Zero. I would drop that last sentence, if only because readers will presumably also be interested in a link to the subdivision in which the city is located, even if the City is internationally known (someone looking up Montreal may very well want to know it is in Quebec right off the top, and have a wikilink to the Quebec article). And by dropping the sentence we can, as you correctly suggest, also avoid debates over the international fame of Saskatoon and Moncton.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As there has been no further discussion for five days, I have implemented this change, which I think reflects the consensus from the above discussion. Skeezix: thanks for your comments . Ground Zero | t 15:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Parks

Do all provincial parks deserve articles? There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kledo Creek Provincial Park. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of French names in lede

I think we should discuss and come up with a Canadian model or a standard for including French names in the lede. Perhaps on a country wide, if not a province by province application. Currently many Ontario articles are having the French names removed by one self claimed French speaking user and one Montreal based IP user, Premier of Ontario, is one example. Multiple other users have reverted the removal of the French name for this office, but it does beg the question; why should the French names be removed and or included. I do not see a reason for the "Mayor of Chilliwack" to have in the article lede the French name or translation, but when there are official French names of departments, for what ever reason - legally obligated, provincially recognized, historical, federally mandated, regionnaly accepted, or other - or there is a significant use of the French name in national media - be English or French media - I think there should be no question that we include the French name in the lede. It costs us nothing, shows inclusiveness, helps with searches, and makes sense.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorporated municipalities or census subdivisions?

@Bearcat: in the "Article or redirect?" section, it states all incorporated municipalities should have articles, yet I've read you and others say census subdivisions (defined by StatCan as municipalities and municipal-equivalents) on deletion requests, etc. Was it intended that CANSTYLE say census subdivisions, or that it be limited only to those that are incorporated municipalities? Also, in the first paragraph, it ends with "... that it exists." Should it be amended to say "... that it exists or once existed."? Hwy43 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That section pertains to the distinction between an incorporated municipality and a neighbourhood or community within an incorporated municipality. Technically speaking, any named geographic place that can be properly sourced as existing is a valid article topic in principle — the only rule is that no place is entitled to keep an unsourced article that just asserts existence, and contains no other substantive information or sourcing at all, so the section exists to clarify that communities or neighbourhoods can be redirected to their parent municipality instead of standing alone as independent articles if they're falling afoul of that rule. It has no bearing on the question of census subdivisions — most of which are municipalities anyway, although there are certainly some unorganized areas which also have that status. But since they aren't part of a larger municipal entity, there's nowhere to redirect an unorganized area to — so the section simply isn't about the question of whether they warrant articles or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy model

The model for presenting names in the infobox seems quite redundant as written. It might make sense to include all three of name, type, and official name for instances where the official name is something other than "[type] of [name]", but otherwise it would seem to contradict "present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content" of WP:IBT. Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is referring to WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes. Using all three parameters is not redundant. The three fields all convey separate, unique and necessary key facts about the incorporated community in question. Without the [settlement_type] parameter we cannot assume that the [settlement_type] in "[settlement_type] of [name]" is the community's actual status (e.g., Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo). Similarly, with all but the [official_name] parameter in use, we cannot assume that the [official_name] follows the "[settlement_type] of [name]" convention (e.g., it is not "District Municipality of Delta). There are countless examples of municipalities across Canada that brand themselves as a certain type of municipality, but their true municipal statuses granted by their provinces are in fact different. Not only does the exception proposed cast doubt via assumption, it risks inconsistency with parameter usage on communities where their actual municipal status is different than the type they portray themselves as. As for WP:IBT, the usage of all three parameters for Canadian communities are necessary as they enable us to identify key facts about the municipality at first glance without having to hunt for it in the prose of the article. By no means does the perceived redundancy clutter the infobox of Canadian communities. I oppose making exceptions to WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes. Hwy43 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said, where they are in fact different it makes sense to include all of the parameters. However, the parameters are not labelled in display, so when they are the same they do visibly convey the same information twice. This results in the top of the box appearing as "[Name] - [Type] - [Type] of [Name]" - something readers will perceive as redundant clutter. What you identify as "inconsistency" is actually fairly standard practice: determine which parameters to use based on the situation at hand. This flexibility is preferable to the current model. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That is what you said and I already countered that in my previous reply. We both know where each other stand. Hwy43 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but while there are instances where such delineation is useful and desired, I look at the infobox for Calgary and am left wondering why a single, one line header of "City of Calgary" doesn't convey the entire point precisely. Adding "Calgary" then "City" then "City of Calgary" is certainly redundant and sloppy in my view. I am inclined to agree that inconsistency is not a greater problem than redundancy in this example. Resolute 17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Although it does appear redundant in some cases, I would like to stick to the WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes for reasons above. Specifically, it is important to demonstrate the municipality type which may or may not be in the official name, have consistency between wikipages for all municipalities in Canada, and to maintain the links to "list of..." pages which would be lost if we reduce it to the single name. Appearance aside, those are 3 distinct pieces of information that are useful to include. I oppose making exceptions to canstyle infobox guidelines. Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
While I understand what Resolute is getting at, I am inclined to agree with Hwy43 and Mattximus on this one and would oppose any change. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Mattximus, those links to "list of..." pages should be removed regardless of the results of this discussion - they are easter eggs. The cases in which the municipality type is not in the official name is far outweighed by the cases in which the redundancy occurs. As Resolute says, while there are instances where such delineation is useful and desired, this is not true for most articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the all of the perimeters should be used for all Canadian cities. The majority opinion is that it is best to be consistant and that the fields are useful. AlbinoFerret 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should use of all of |name=, |official name=, and |settlement type= be required for all Canadian cities? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. Uphold the longstanding consensus at WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes, which was recently reaffirmed in the above discussion that occurred last year. In short, making exceptions for certain cities was opposed above.

    Note this controversy was largely limited to Manitoba cities in late 2014 through March 2015. Since this discussion, the controversy has since been essentially limited to the Winnipeg article, which is a FA. Other Canadian municipality FAs include Dawson Creek, Lethbridge and Tumbler Ridge, while GAs include Edmonton, Moncton, Montreal, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador and Sarnia. All of these articles use all three parameters with the exception of Moncton that is missing |official name= (which, in full disclosure, I am about to add). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • No. One size does not fit all. While there are certainly cases where it makes sense (and I'm not proposing forbidding this formulation), in most instances it will be redundant. See above for more details. (The requirement seems to have been added some time ago without discussion, and since 3-2 above is not a strong consensus either way it's good to talk this through more broadly). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: I didn't previously realize that the initiator of this RfC was the nominator that successfully facilitated the Winnipeg article's FA status. The efforts undertaken to achieve FA status are commended. In hindsight however, this RfC appears to be more so about WP:IDL and WP:OWN of the Winnipeg article. This appearance is based on the behaviour of: repeatedly removing parameters against the original and reaffirmed CANSTYLE consensus; escalating the above nearly year-old, stale discussion to a formal RfC as a result of recently re-implementing the consensus at Winnipeg; and promptly removing the parameters at Winnipeg contrary to the CANSTYLE consensus pending the outcome of this (when they should rather remain due to the CANSTYLE consensus and only be removed if necessary arising out of this RfC). It is (and has been) a time sink to continue debating this for well over a year. Hwy43 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Your perception is mistaken. As I noted, the above discussion had few participants and a 3-2 split, hardly a "reaffirmation" of anything, particularly in the absence of any previous discussion on the matter; thus, an RfC is an appropriate mechanism to formally settle the issue through wider discussion. Further, it's not only the Winnipeg article where these parameters are redundant, but other articles as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. I commented above in the previous discussion with my reasons for support. I still believe that these are useful fields and the standardization of these fields makes for a consistent encyclopaedia. I appreciate the problem of pigeon-holing, but in this case all municipalities have all three criteria, so there is nothing lost by adding all three pieces to each page. Mattximus (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm also a fan of consistency. I agree with Mattximus's reasoning above. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, this information should be in the infoboxes. The only reason to omit or pursue a different path is in the case of disputed or unclear geographic boundaries. Infoboxes regularly provide redundant information, but they're present to do just that: give a just-the-facts-and-stats overview. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally though the information is redundant to the article, but not within the infobox itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: It appears that the yes votes are in favour 4-1, would this issue be considered formally settled? Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

City only or city, province in tables?

I request clarification in the MoS, but for non-Canadian articles. In the specific case I'm looking at, there is a table that includes locations. Some Amercian locations, and they of course, are City, State. Depending the location it can either be [[City, State]], [[City|City, State]] and there are some articles where it is [[City]], State, [[City, State|City]], State. European, African, Asian and South American locations are usually City, Country, formatted in similar ways. Canada usually follows the non-US format but I have one editor who claims that Canada should be the same and this MoS states that. I don't see it.

Could the editors here please clarify the rules or point me to the rules? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Another example from the same editor, but on a different article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The section that discusses this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#In article text. Or is your point that this does not necessarily apply to the article in question because the article is not solely "Canada-related"? I don't agree with your assertion that "Canada usually follows the non-US format". I think phrases like "Winnipeg, Canada" induce severe cringing and wincing in most Canadians. Indefatigable (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Many Canadians, like me, understand that outside of Canada, people aren't very interested in our provinces, and don't see the value in identifying the subnational jurisdictions. If you ask non-Canadians where to find Winnipeg or Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal, they will say "Canada". The province is really of concern only to Canadians, and we represent 0.5% of the world's population. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. There is nothing wrong with "Winnipeg, Canada". Sydney, St. John's, Lloydminster merit disambiguation to prevent confusion, but the major cities are not ambiguous without the province. Some people seem to think there is a tiresome and pointless "rule" that you have to include the province, but there isn't. Ground Zero | t 22:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused. I understand the Sydney and St. John's examples (Sydney, NS; Sidney, BC; St. John's, NL; Saint John, NB; etc.).. There is only one Lloydminster in Canada though. No disambiguation required. Hwy43 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to think that there a little Lloydminster in all of us. ;-) Ground Zero | t 01:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one Lloydminster? Having driven through Lloydminster, Saskatchewan on my way to Lloydminster, Alberta, I would have to say that there are two even if politically they are one ; )
And yes, I cringe when I see "Vancouver, Canada", but I also recognize that south of Seattle, few refer to it as Vancouver, BC.
The final issue is that the editor in question is pointing to the article naming convention to address the issue of naming in tables. I would suggest that we add a section to the effect of what has been discussed above: in Canada-related articles, use City, Province, and if necessary add country, while in non-Canada-related articles, list as City, Country. The linking should only be of the city, and piping should be used where appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
With regard to tables,I agree: non-Canadian articles absolutely follow the "City, Country" format, unless the province is also needed for clarity. In a table of the summer Olympic Games, Calgary, Canada, should precede Albertville, France, and Lillehammer, Norway. This is clearer to an international readership than Calgary, Alberta; Albertville, Savoie; Lillehammer, Oppland.
Walter, if our article about Lloydminster is correct, it seems that there is one city in two provinces and they seem to like it that wsy. I had assumed there were two Lloydminsters, too. Ground Zero | t 14:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As a consultant that has done work for the City of Lloydminster, I can assure they like it that way. ;-) One Lloydminster became two in 1905 when the provinces were created, splitting the community, and then the two Lloydminsters became one again in 1930. Hwy43 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions for First Nations reserves

Hi! I have noticed that there does not seem to be a consensus regarding the titles of First Nations reserves. Reserves in eastern Canada tend to be titled "Name #" (e.g., Sydney 28A), while those in western Canada tend to spell out the full name, "Name Indian Reserve No. #" (e.g., Aitchelitch Indian Reserve No. 9). I prefer the former, as I feel the term "Indian reserve" is woefully outdated, and both INAC and Statistics Canada use this convention. But what do you think? FUNgus guy (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I believe there may also be a smattering in the format of "Foo No. X", to further complicate things. Also, despite the term being outdated, unfortunately legislation still uses that term in general, and the official legal names of the reserves contain the term, which is probably why some articles in western Canada follow the "Foo Indian Reserve No. X" format. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The reserves themselves may be moving away from the "Indian" name. Recently Stony Plain Indian Reserve No. 135 was renamed Enoch Cree Nation No. 135. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to be careful however if name changes such as this is to the name of the First Nation or the name of the Indian reserve. Most times there is a one-to-many relationship of First Nations to reserves, while there are also instances where there is a one-to-one relationship, such as the case is for the above example, if I recall correctly. I also recognize this could be an instance where the IR's name was changed to match that of the First Nation (i.e., FN is "Enoch Cree Nation" and IR is "Enoch Cree Nation No. 135"). Hwy43 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Upon further research, INAC tends to use the Foo X format, but can be inconsistent. See this list of reserves for Muskowekwan First Nation, with most reserves titled like "Muskowekwan 85-11", but a few are like "Muskowekwan No. 85-46", and one is titled "Muskowekwan Reserve No. 85-68". Or these reserves of the Flying Dust First Nation, where the numbered list starts "Flying Dust First Nation 105D", but then add a space for later numbers, "Flying Dust First Nation 105 H". Then maybe we could talk about this list of Ochapowace First Nation reserves, with 132 of them named "Ochapowace 71-###". FUNgus guy (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: All reserves deserve a page, unless their FN only has one reserve, then the FN and reserve pages can be one. All reserves should be titled with the "Foo X" format, dropping the few errant "No."s and "Reserve"s found within INAC. Any abbreviations used by INAC (e.g., Saugeen and Cape Croker Fishing Isl. 1) should be spelled out. Any other changes to format (e.g., extra space in "Flying Dust First Nation 105 H") should remain[, unless it can reasonably be assumed to be a typo]. All pages should list the legislative name, most likely "Foo Indian Reserve No. X", in the |official_name= field.
Let me know what you think! FUNgus guy (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My one initial thought is with respect to the "105 H" example. For all we know, the space could just be a typo. All letter-suffixed IR numbers should be in a consistent format, and by far scenarios without a space are more common than those with a space. Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Changes made to proposal to allow discretion. In that instance, it may be a typo, as they are numbered "105D", "105E", "105F", then "105 H", "105 I", "105 L" and "105 O"; maybe another source can confirm typo/not a typo. I added that line because there are a few other format examples dotted around, Sisipuk Sakahegan (A), Red Sucker Lake 1976 A, Peigan Timber Limit "B". FUNgus guy (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
When there are so many reserves with the same name, but with sequential numbering, I've got to ask what is the physical size of them, and what is their population? I think there are a lot small reserves with no populations. A large-noncontiguous reserve was created to cover an originally scattered population, but the lists you are using list them as separate reserves. Yes, every First Nation (or Band) deserves an article that lists its reserves, but I must disagree that all reserves deserve an article. If a town or county has a not notable exclave, would that exclave have an article? No, because it has the same local government, and is included in the same census division. 117Avenue (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Some are vast, some are only a few dozen hectares. I would bet that most are uninhabited, in the official sense. But that is a good point, are they parcels of a single, non-contiguous reserve, or reserves in their own right? INAC treats them as separate entities, but they are administered by one band government (with a few shared reserves). I still think that each "reserve" deserves a page, but during my research, a few of the reserves listed on INAC sounded very much like a subdivision or even parcel number ("Cross Lake 91X06", "Norway House 17C-46", "Keeseekoose KK 66-ST-04", "Muskowekwan 85-69", "Ochapowace 71-132"). In these circumstances (I suggest anything beyond Name Number Letter), we could make them sections in the "reserve" page to which they belong (Cross Lake 91, Norway House 17C, Keeseekoose 66, Muskowekwan 85, Ochapowace 71). That would save me from having to create 132 Ochapowace pages. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles/Archive_1&oldid=1090632574"