This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Thank you for doing all this work. It looks great. My comments are minor, and are as follows:
Places
French names
That's it. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 15:16, 20 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)
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)
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)
Should(n't) there be a section re Canadian English orthog/vocab? For example (but not limited to):
Just a thought. -- SigPig | SEND - OVER 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
I hope this helps start the discussion. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 19:17, 11 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¢:
DoubleBlue ( Talk) 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Mind matrix 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
[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)
From the guide:
“ | In such cases, all of the call signs should be redirects to a single article about the network itself. (Note that in actual effect, this practice only pertains to provincial educational networks and/or First Nations community radio co-ops.) | ” |
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)
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)
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. Mind matrix 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
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.) Mind matrix 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion started here RE Saskatchewan... Naming conventions Government departments and ministries Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How do contributors feel about these three ideas:
{{
Wikipedia subcat guideline|naming convention|places}}
to {{
style-guideline}}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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Mkdw talk 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
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 didn't want to just "be bold" and add this to the geography section, but suggesting here:
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)
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)
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)
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. – xeno talk 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
e.g. January 15, 2009
i.e. 15 January 2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the sections below, please indicate a style guide created in Canada or used by a Canadian body.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Noetica Tea? 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This discussion petered out, and Labattblueboy never got any resolution either way. In rereading the past discussion, I would make the following observations:
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):
What do you think? Skeezix1000 ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
US$}}
and {{
USD}}
showing 'US$' and {{
A$}}
and {{
AUD}}
showing 'A$').
Stepho
talk 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)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.
Can there please, please be an out? -- Zanimum ( talk) 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk this issue out with Bearcat, but I must say I am unconvinced. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
please see the talkpage at that template. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
[[city, province]]
or [[city|city, province]]
.[[city, province|city]], Canada
or [[city]], Canada
.
Stepho
talk 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd include Canada, as this is an international 'pedia. GoodDay ( talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
So I propose that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Places be amended by
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|official_name=
field.This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Thank you for doing all this work. It looks great. My comments are minor, and are as follows:
Places
French names
That's it. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 15:16, 20 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)
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)
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)
Should(n't) there be a section re Canadian English orthog/vocab? For example (but not limited to):
Just a thought. -- SigPig | SEND - OVER 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
I hope this helps start the discussion. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 19:17, 11 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¢:
DoubleBlue ( Talk) 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Mind matrix 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
[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)
From the guide:
“ | In such cases, all of the call signs should be redirects to a single article about the network itself. (Note that in actual effect, this practice only pertains to provincial educational networks and/or First Nations community radio co-ops.) | ” |
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)
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)
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. Mind matrix 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
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.) Mind matrix 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Discussion started here RE Saskatchewan... Naming conventions Government departments and ministries Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How do contributors feel about these three ideas:
{{
Wikipedia subcat guideline|naming convention|places}}
to {{
style-guideline}}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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Mkdw talk 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
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 didn't want to just "be bold" and add this to the geography section, but suggesting here:
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)
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)
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)
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. – xeno talk 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
e.g. January 15, 2009
i.e. 15 January 2009
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the sections below, please indicate a style guide created in Canada or used by a Canadian body.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Noetica Tea? 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This discussion petered out, and Labattblueboy never got any resolution either way. In rereading the past discussion, I would make the following observations:
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):
What do you think? Skeezix1000 ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
US$}}
and {{
USD}}
showing 'US$' and {{
A$}}
and {{
AUD}}
showing 'A$').
Stepho
talk 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)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.
Can there please, please be an out? -- Zanimum ( talk) 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk this issue out with Bearcat, but I must say I am unconvinced. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
please see the talkpage at that template. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
[[city, province]]
or [[city|city, province]]
.[[city, province|city]], Canada
or [[city]], Canada
.
Stepho
talk 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd include Canada, as this is an international 'pedia. GoodDay ( talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
So I propose that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Places be amended by
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|official_name=
field.