This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following text is from Constitution Act, an article which now redirects here. Please merge any relevant information into this article as appropriate. Rossami 22:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are the two 1949 acts cited with commas in Canada? Kurando | ^_^ 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The following was copied from User talk:T. Mazzei at 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello; I’m curious why you saw the need to rewrite [1] the intro to British North America Acts. The article was okay as it was before [2], wasn’t it? Your new version is generally okay too; there are a few minor problems with it that can be easily fixed, but first I would like to know your rationale for re-writing that part of the article. Also I am wondering what your source was for your new version. -- Mathew5000 ( talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The above was copied from User talk:T. Mazzei at 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better summary now, thanks.-- T. Mazzei ( talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the BNA Acts were only renamed in Canada -- see subsection 53(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the U.K. the ones enacted by the U.K. are still the British North America Acts and properly cited as such. Not just in the bound annual or sessional statute books which obviously never change. For example, the BNA Act 1867 should be cited (even in Canada) as either The British North America Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.) or either simply as the Constitution Act, 1867 or as the Constitution Act, 1867 with reference to its consolidated reprint at R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 11. In my opinion, it should not be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, even in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebbgd ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following text is from Constitution Act, an article which now redirects here. Please merge any relevant information into this article as appropriate. Rossami 22:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are the two 1949 acts cited with commas in Canada? Kurando | ^_^ 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The following was copied from User talk:T. Mazzei at 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello; I’m curious why you saw the need to rewrite [1] the intro to British North America Acts. The article was okay as it was before [2], wasn’t it? Your new version is generally okay too; there are a few minor problems with it that can be easily fixed, but first I would like to know your rationale for re-writing that part of the article. Also I am wondering what your source was for your new version. -- Mathew5000 ( talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The above was copied from User talk:T. Mazzei at 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better summary now, thanks.-- T. Mazzei ( talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the BNA Acts were only renamed in Canada -- see subsection 53(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In the U.K. the ones enacted by the U.K. are still the British North America Acts and properly cited as such. Not just in the bound annual or sessional statute books which obviously never change. For example, the BNA Act 1867 should be cited (even in Canada) as either The British North America Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.) or either simply as the Constitution Act, 1867 or as the Constitution Act, 1867 with reference to its consolidated reprint at R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 11. In my opinion, it should not be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, even in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebbgd ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)