Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

List of Canadian project articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Currently, this project has about ~66 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, please check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined for doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These articles could use some attention

If someone could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list, down to 44. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Results" vs "Results breakdown" of federal elections

Every one of Canada's federal elections has a page titled "Results of the (election year) Canadian federal election", except for 2021 which has the Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election. It is my opinion that since the scopes of these articles are essentially identical, their names should be consistent. Looking at the election articles from the United Kingdom, I think we should follow their convention by renaming these supplementary articles with the "Results breakdown" prefix. This confusion has already led to what is essentially a duplicated article (Results of the 1984 Canadian federal election and Results breakdown of the 1984 Canadian federal election) which now need to be merged. Here are all the articles that would have to be renamed:

Alternatively, the 2021 article could be renamed for consistency, although I prefer the "results breakdown" titles. Any thoughts? RedBlueGreen93 06:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be argued that there is room for both types of articles: in the UK, see Results of the 2010 United Kingdom general election and Results breakdown of the 2010 United Kingdom general election for examples.Raellerby (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the colour coding I've been using to identify incumbency and other factors in articles such as Results breakdown of the 2021 Canadian federal election argues in favour of the more detailed orientation of "Results breakdown".Raellerby (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has been raising any objections, I've gone ahead and created Results breakdown of the 1980 Canadian federal election as well.Raellerby (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the scope of the "results" articles as they are currently written and the "results breakdown" articles as you have written them are essentially identical, should we just rename the remaining "results" articles, and redirect the 1980, 1984, and 2021 "results" articles to the "results breakdown" articles? That way we don't have unecessary duplications of information. For example, in the way that they are currently written, it doesn't make sense to have both the Results breakdown of the 1980 Canadian federal election article and the Results of the 1980 Canadian federal election article. We can then revisit making the synopses of results their own articles (like Results of the 2024 United Kingdom general election) at a later date. RedBlueGreen93 08:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition - beginning and end of term (part 2)

Back in November, there was a discussion about the start and end dates of Canadian leaders of the Opposition. Unfortunately, the conversation was derailed by users who were more worried about when to add the information, rather than which dates should be published. So maybe lets try this again, but no more arguements about anything except for the dates at which leaders of the Opposition take and leave office.

When a new leader of the Opposition is recognized due to their party changing their status to second-most represented, when does that party leader actually take office as leader of the oppostion? For example, John Rustad's Conservatives went from third to second in the 2024 British Columbia general election, while the incumbent Official Opposition party (BC United) led by Kevin Falcon withdrew from the election. At what point does Falcon's term end, and when does Rustad's start (which doesn't necessarily have to be the same day).

We should probably try to keep it to one of these 4 options, although I'm open to other considerations if anyone would like to add and explain a different rationale:

1. End date = Parliament dissolved, start date = first day of the first session of the new Parliament

2. End date and start date = date of general election

3. End date and start date = date candidates are sworn in (e.g. in 2024 in BC this was on November 12 and 13, despite the Legislature only re-opening in February)

4. End date = Parliament dissolved, start date = date candidates are sworn in (this option is currently the one being used for Rustad and Falcon)

I think we should use the first option, as @Bearcat: described it during the first discussion: "leader of the opposition's entire job takes place in the legislature, and doesn't have outside-of-the-legislature duties at all, being an officer of the legislature doesn't work the same way as being a member of the legislature in that regard. The legislature doesn't have to be in session to be a member, but it does have to be in session to establish officers." RedBlueGreen93 17:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but I think one of the main points of the first discussion is that there didn’t seem to be any consensus prior to this. RedBlueGreen93 20:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Bearcat's advice. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Canada

I have started a discussion on the talk page for this template regarding adding an importance parameter for the provinces, input would be appreciated. MediaKyle (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant ridings

There have been a number of accounts going around today changing MPs to "vacant" for ridings being contested in the upcoming election. I'm not watching very many of them and it could be a law of averages thing but it seems to only be affecting ridings currently held by Liberal incumbents. I don't know if we've had a discussion about this (there is kind of one at Talk:2025 Canadian federal election#Dissolution of Parliament but didn't lead to consensus; courtesy ping Robin S. Taylor who started that discussion) but it seems like it's time.

For electoral districts where the incumbent is running for re-election, is the district considered vacant during the writ period? Or does the incumbent remain the member of parliament until they actually resign or a new member is elected? And if there is a change from the election, does the change happen as of election day or is it when the incoming member is formally sworn-in?

I don't think we necessarily need to base this in historical precedent or statute or parliamentary convention or whatever (although I'm interested as a policy wonk), but we should establish a consensus for how to handle this on Wikipedia for future elections. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of dumb to remove them only to add them back again (if they win) in a few weeks. I doubt these editors are going to remember to do so. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Canadian parliamentary system, based heavily on the British one and others on the Westminster model, the old Parliament dissolves some weeks before the general election from which the new Parliament is formed. During those few weeks there is no legislature, and therefore there can be no members thereof. Every constituency/riding/electorate/division is vacant and those seeking re-election are mere candidates, not incumbents. Any Wikipedia page which describes a candidate as still being an incumbent member, or a riding as still being filled, is inaccurate during this period.

In earlier legislative elections involving a dissolution period I and some other editors rushed through hundreds of articles removing any reference to incumbency. Latterly I hit upon the idea of creating a disclaimer template that could be slapped at the top of the article and whose text could be centrally updated at different stages of the election. This practice has been accepted for British general elections but I'm struggling to get it adopted for Canada or Australia. This is not because the legal reality is actually different (as my sources indicate) but simply because press sources are less stringent in recognising it. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a massive waste of time in my opinion.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with Earl Andrew. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliament of Canada website is very clear on this matter. Although Parliament is not in session "Members of the House of Commons at the time of dissolution are deemed to remain so until the date of the general election" ([1]). So no the articles are not innaccurate, you just have a profound misunderstanding of how Canadian parliamentary systems work. RedBlueGreen93 08:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cut out a key part of the sentence. Here, let me give the entire line: "For the purposes of certain allowances payable to them, Members of the House of Commons at the time of dissolution are deemed to remain so until the date of the general election." (My bolding). As I said earlier, they are deemed to be members for the purpose of receiving salary and moving allowances. That does not mean they are members of Parliament, just that they get paid until election day. It would be hard if the government falls unexpectedly, and suddenly you don't have any income to pay the mortgage, especially if you're on the hustings full time during the election and can't seek any other income. And the moving allowance is important for a member who decides not to run, cleans out their office and Ottawa apartment, and wants to ship all their stuff back home. None of that financial arrangement means that they are members of Parliament. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence then states that Members’ offices, both in Ottawa and in their constituencies, remain open in order to allow Members and their staff to provide services to constituents. This implies that their responsibilities as MPs or MLAs do not cease while parliament is dissolved. RedBlueGreen93 19:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems conclusive. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only question about the pro-vacancy argument. If there's vacancies? why do we retroactively ignore them, when incumbents win re-election? GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pro vacancy arguement is nonsense. We don't retroactively ignore them, because there is nothing to ignore. RedBlueGreen93 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedBlueGreen93: The lethargy at this WikiProject about this topic, appears to be the only thing that has consensus. FWIW - I too, think we should use the 'election date', rather than the 'dissolution date', as for when an MP/MLA etc, tenure ends. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Confederation Line#Requested move 2 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Confederation Line#Requested move 2 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project update

Hopfully all have noticed a project design update on many pages.....done for better mobile view layout/access. Pls let me know if any bugs.

Moxy🍁 06:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Outreach

Good day folks. I've been in contact with the Genealogical Association of Nova Scotia, which publishes a bi-monthly newsletter to about 600 people, with the next issue coming out in May. They're interested in publishing a bulletin in their newsletter regarding contributing to Wikipedia, specifically in the area of Nova Scotian history. My goal is to increase awareness of the Nova Scotian corner of Wikipedia, and draw in quality editors who may have previously come to the erroneous conclusion that their contributions are not welcome here. I'm looking for input from the community as to what information would be most beneficial to readers of this bulletin, to give people the best shot at a successful start here. Perhaps we might be able to make our own introductory page, to direct folks towards the various tutorials? My start here was perhaps unconventional, given I've used MediaWiki long before ever stumbling into Wikipedia, so I'm relatively unfamiliar with the experience a new editor would have today. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown article: assassination?

The infobox for George Brown states that his cause of death was assassination. I question that. He died as the result of a shooting, but there is nothing in the article to suggest it was politically motivated, but rather a dispute with a disgruntled employee. It has never been clear if he intended to kill Brown, or rather was threatening him with a pistol, which escalated into a shooting. There is nothing in the body of the article which refers to it as an assassination; only the headline for one cite, which is now a dead link. I realise that "assassination" can be a subjective term, but I generally associate it with killings for political or social motives. I would suggest changing the cause of death line in the infobox to a more neutral term like "death resulting from a firearm wound" (Brown didn't die from the bullet, but rather from infection in the wound). Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal of the designation as assassination. Everything I know of the instance would point away from it being assassination, and you likewise make a good case. Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request: Menu with Canadiano

Hi,

I'd like to request a photo of a menu listing a Canadiano for the article Politically motivated food name changes.

Thank you! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Canadiano? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_motivated_food_name_changes#Canadiano i know you're a dog (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney MacDonald

Can we get a few more sets of eyes on this article please? Definitely needs some work, but we have an IP removing what seems to be the most well-sourced section. MediaKyle (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Paperboys

The Paperboys has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animation fails MOS accessibility standard

Resolved

- let's end this time sick it has been removed. If you wish to remove the other thousands of banners I suggest you do it at the village pump.Moxy🍁 03:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The animated banner is a problem. Since the information could be in text form, animation isn't needed.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Animations which says: "To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either: Not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element)[12] or Be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play)[13]"

I have flagged it because I don't want to meddle with a project page. However, I ask someone familiar with the page to change it promptly.

Humpster (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need the page has just been upgraded to be accessible in every aspect. As an accessibility score of 100%. But I'll look into these odd claims. Moxy🍁 00:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only problem was no alt text -WP:NOTPART] - Wikipedia:Project namespace#Content Moxy🍁 13:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again. Animations present problems for many people with visual/brain disturbances, me included. Such difficulties often result from head injuries. Imagine you've taken a hit to the head and you are temporarily "seeing stars", but it doesn't get better. Consequently, people with visual disturbances find looking at moving images on a screen unpleasant. In many situations, this means that the activity is impossible. I haven't been able to watch a movie in years. Some pages on Wikipedia are so bad that I must exit immediately.

While a project page might be exempt from many standards, I think they should be considerate of all users. Specifically, the guidelines for [[WP:Project namespace|project pages]] state "Nevertheless, these pages, as with all pages, should be accessible and must comply with Wikipedia's conduct and legal policies."

"Everyone does it" is a convenient excuse for anything from littering to slavery to invading your neighbour. "It only bothers a few people" is another convenience, unless one happens to be one of those few people.

My request isn't frivolous. Animations are a problem for me and many other people. I tagged the article for accessibility and posted to the talk page. See the information page "Tagging pages for problems#Removing" tags for guidance. Granted, you didn't recognize a problem and my description may not have been explained it sufficiently for someone whose brain is fully functional. But since you think it an odd claim, perhaps your enjoyment of animation also presents a conflict of interest.

I have restored the tag, in good faith, and seek some discussion and resolution of the problem. Since the banner does nothing more than rotate a few words of text, would it be easy to make the page fully accessible with a static banner?

Humpster (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Humphrey Tribble I believe you can adjust your settings so such images won't show up. Help:Options to hide an image. MediaKyle (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can also disable animations by going to Preferences -> Appearance -> Disable animations in the interface MediaKyle (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to see these ads, you may hide them by adding the following code to your common.css file:

qxz-ads { display: none !important; }

Moxy🍁 02:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands and thousands of these on the backside of Wikipedia. I don't really see this as an accessibility problem..... as it's accessible to everyone just maybe an annoyance for a few. It might be best if you bring this up at the village pump or Template talk:Wikipedia ads or similar. Many of these are official project logos that are trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation used throughout the project. As for the article namespace tag to this page the purpose of the article namespace tag is to initiate a conversation which has been done it will be removed again on this administration page. Moxy🍁 02:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, Moxy... Apparently your enjoyment of animation presents a conflict of interest. You're not related to Steve Wilhite, are you? (joking) MediaKyle (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My enjoyment of animation?..... in my 20 plus years I've only ever dealt with two of them. Both related to this project that we're not created by me or implemented by me originally. Moxy🍁 03:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the above comment But since you think it an odd claim, perhaps your enjoyment of animation also presents a conflict of interest. ... luckily a quick skim of "What is conflict of interest?" says we're probably in the clear. MediaKyle (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done..... not worth anyone's time. Moxy🍁 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have left it, honestly. We've already determined there's a method for users who don't want to see ads to disable them. There's clearly no consensus for removing it, and if an editor wants to try to drag out a discussion about it, they can go right ahead. Not disputing your decision though, doesn't make much of a difference either way. MediaKyle (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have banners all over the Canada project and portal pages..... we can simply make this talk as plain as possible. They are free to pursue removing these from thousands of Wikiproject and Wikimedia Foundation pages if they wish. It's a pointless debate that I don't want to be involved in...... But I've been doing the project updating for a couple of decades now and I feel obligated to be involved.Moxy🍁 03:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does Canada have a prime minister or an interim prime minister?

Please see discussion at Talk:2025 Vancouver car attack#Interim. Can we get more input over there please? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a clear consensus by now so I don't think more input is needed. Unless of course it would bring you joy to answer a really easy question. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Saskatchewan Highway 5

Saskatchewan Highway 5 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election "swing"

I have a question about the swing statistic that we report in election results. I have a general idea of what it is, but for multi-party races, do we always calculate the change in the winning party's vote versus the second-place-finishing party? Or is it change in the second-place result from whichever party was second place in the previous election?

As an example, take the Northwest Territories (Northwest Territories (electoral district)). Results from the last three elections:

Party	2019	2021	19-21 +/-	2025	21-25 +/-
Liberal	40.0	38.2	-1.8	53.8	+15.58
Conservative	25.8	14.4	-11.39	33.2	+18.79
NDP	21.8	32.3	+10.54	12.0	-20.34

For 2021 the NDP placed second, and we have swing of -4.16. I calculate the swing between the Liberals and NDP as [(-1.78 - 10.54) / 2] = -6.16. The swing between the Liberals and Conservatives (who placed second in 2019) I get as [(-1.78 - -11.39) / 2] = 4.81, but I don't think that's right. If I do "winner" vs. "second place" and ignore which parties those are, then I get [(38.2 - 40) - (32.3 - 25.8)] / 2 = 4.15, and that's a precision error to what's in the article, but is that the right way to do it?

For 2025 we're currently reporting a swing of +14.01, which doesn't make sense to me at all. I think Lib vs Con would be -1.61, or Lib vs NDP would be 17.96. "Winner" vs. "second place" I think works out to [(53.8 - 38.2) - (33.2 - 32.3) / 2] = 7.35, another different number.

What's the proper math here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well into the realm of WP:OR. We need reliable sources establishing what sort of analysis is relevant to Canada’s multi-party electoral system and how stats should be calculated. If sources calculating swing exist, we should just cite them. If they don't, it isn't a number we should be including.--Trystan (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might come up. It seems to be that we report these numbers on the basis that swing is a commonly reported statistic for other Westminster-style parliaments, and for American elections, but I don't recall ever seeing a Canadian source report on swing for a Canadian election. In my view swing is a statistic and we don't need to cite specific calculations, and we report on plenty of statistics that we calculate from reliably-sourced data such as a party's vote change from the previous election at the riding level, I guess because it's relevant and can be calculated indisputably, even though I doubt you'll ever see any source of any sort report on how much the PPC's vote changed in Cardigan from the previous election. Swing is kind of an edge-case there, since there could be different ways to calculate it, and I guess that's what my question is: what formula do we use? It's fine by me if the answer is "we don't", I'm just looking for consistency. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the NWT riding example you cite above, for 2015 and earlier, the two-party swing is calculated as the one-party swing of 1st place minus the one-party swing of 2nd place, divided by 2. For 2019, it is 1st-2nd without dividing by 2. No idea where the number for 2021 or 2025 came from.

This UK source discusses the very limited relevance of two-party swing in a multi-party system. So it's a number of dubious relevance that we aren't calculating with any consistency or clarity, making it meaningless at best and misleading at worst.--Trystan (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is common in Australia for political pundits to refer to the two-party-preferred vote because we have ranked voting system. You can find sources in that article if you need them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the context of UK elections, then you calculate the swing by the second place party, unless it is a gain from a party that didn't place second. In that case, you calculate the swing from that party. That's the way I've been calculating it, anyway. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a concept that comes up in Canadian election coverage at all — it's a concept that people have tried to add to Canadian election articles on the flawed reasoning that we have to slavishly follow the structure of British election articles, but it's just not a thing in Canada in anything like the same way that it is in Britain. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, Canadian analysis only discusses the change in each party's vote (one-party swing), and how any parties that gained support took voters from parties that lost support. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Crerar

I have the article on Harry Crerar up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Crerar/archive1. Reviewers are desperately sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could commit to doing so, but not until the weekend after this one. Kwkintegrator (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kingsmith

Came across Ray Kingsmith, a curler and unelected political candidate whose article is quite poorly sourced and unsubstantive. There's obviously a basis for notability, as he's been inducted into numerous sports halls of fame and has had a Curling Canada achievement award named in his memory — but the article, as written, just jumps directly to those honours themselves while completely glossing over anything he actually did in the sport during his lifetime to even earn any of them in the first place, and references that content almost entirely to the self-published websites of the directly-affiliated organizations rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him — and having run for election to political offices he didn't win doesn't pass WP:NPOL, so he can't be claimed as a notable politician in lieu of properly establishing his notability as a curler either.

So could somebody with more knowledge of curling history than I've got take a stab at adding some actual content about his curling career to establish the reasons why he would have earned those posthumous honours in curling? Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, just ping me. I'll take a look.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regional district

Should Stikine Region be included on List of regional districts of British Columbia and Regional district or not? The number in the infobox would be 29 if included, 28 if excluded, also the infobox would be affected by not listing it as the least population and greatest area. Should the first page be renamed to List of census divisions of British Columbia? 11USA11 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nakusp Secondary School

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Clark photo

I welcome all editors to voice their opinions and help decide a consensus on the infobox photo for Joe Clark's article at Talk:Joe_Clark#Infobox_photo PascalHD (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Mark Carney image should we use

Can we get some experience editors over at Talk:Mark_Carney#Image. I'm not sure why people going out of their way to find a horrible image. Please join the conversation give your opinion. Moxy🍁 13:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Toronto Argonauts

Toronto Argonauts has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carney's seat infobox style?

Moved from Talk:2025 Canadian federal election § Carney's seat infobox

– Only further discussion was moved. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 02:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will affect many pages: the federal election, provincial elections, etc. Therefore, we should discuss here instead of there - as suggested by Kawnhr

Pinging all those in that discussion: @ZlatanSweden10 @GhostOfDanGurney @Politicsenthusiast06 @331dot - hope no names were missed.

Please see what happened at that discussion if you didn't see it. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 04:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support GhostOfDanGurney's proposal of ''Ran in [[Nepean]]<br>(Won)''. I think its the most logical and clear. Other's such as ''[[Nepean]](+ footnote)'' or just ''[[Nepean]]'' I don't think suffice.

Regarding Pierre Poilievre's, I think ''Ran in [[Carleton]]<br>''(lost re-election)'''' is best. Curious what others think though! Such as if they think "lost re-election", "lost seat", or just "lost" is best. As these are the 3 I've seen used in Canada's and 2025 Australian federal election pages (with "lost re-election" being used on Canada's election page, while "lost seat" is being used in Australia's). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "lost re-election" or "lost seat" (I don't have a particular preference between those two) to simply "lost"; I think the extra word helps distinguish this tag from the leaders making their first run and not getting in, like Pednault (or Bernier in past elections, and so on) and I likewise think there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between being defeated for re-election and just being defeated. True, Pednault's tag is Ran in Outremont (lost), so one could say that the different format should clue the reader in — but I think it's better to actually spell out the difference instead of simply making a difference and leaving the reader to know what that's supposed to mean. And plenty will see the difference, but not get why and only see it as an inconsistency, and helpfully change one or the other to match — that's why we, on that page, switched to "lost seat/re-election" over "defeated", because it was causing misunderstandings. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should save "Ran in" for leaders who aren't the incumbent in their riding; "lost seat" perfectly describes an incumbent defeated in their own riding. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wary of shoving more detail into the infobox, but this is probably okay, since we're already noting election loses. I'm not necessarily in favour but I won't really vote against it. But: what about when a leader had one seat but ran in a different one, like Chrétien in 1993 — is that also a Ran in riding (won), but with the addition of a footnote? That is, do we want to be noting every time someone runs for a riding they weren't incumbent, or is it just when someone joins parliament? — Kawnhr (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you guys decide make sure you don't put a <br> in the info box MOS:NOBREAKS Moxy🍁 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2024 BC election the Green leader has "Ran in Victoria-Beacon Hill (lost)" with a note that she was the incumbent in Cowichan Valley. I think this way of doing it makes sense and works. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Portal: yea or nay?

I've realized that portals are something of a contentious topic here compared to other Wikipedias, but I've wanted to see a Nova Scotia portal put back up since I started overhauling WP:NOVASCOTIA and I decided to throw one together in my userspace the other day: User:MediaKyle/sandbox/portal

My question is, if this portal came up at MfD today (as it did in 2019), would you vote to delete it and why? Should I wait until Nova Scotia has more FAs and GAs? I don't want to send it to mainspace just for it to get eaten alive. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally made portals for every province and territory and another 20 or so for the Arctic, the great lakes etc....these were all deleted during a mass purge of portals many years ago. They all contained an old format that didn't use transclusions.... thus where massively outdated. That said I don't see why people would randomly want a portal deleted if it's maintained...... the user who went around causing a fuss has been blocked..... I'm not really foreseeing a problem. If you believe it will help our readers navigate the topic I say do it. Moxy🍁 21:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic LeBlanc's infobox title(s)

I've started a topic in Talk:Dominic LeBlanc to discuss how to manage his many constantly changing titles and portfolios in his infobox. Hopefully we can figure something out before it changes again. WildComet (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Square (Dartmouth, Nova Scotia)

Please add reliable sources. I might have an additional photo or two from my trip in summer 2022. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried... Couldn't find much that was very good. I get the idea there was some hullabaloo about it when it was first built but can't find any newspaper articles or anything to back that up. MediaKyle (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmau5 article in need

Heyhi, for the past quarter of the year I have attempted to improve the quality of the Deadmau5 article. I've failed to attract the attention of editors with similar leanings so if anyone here is interested in improving the article I encourage you to come and check out what I've done with it. :) Thank you!! ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]