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]

St. Mildred's-Lightbourn School

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party abbreviations in infoboxes

I have noticed that in infoboxes (for politicians, cities, etc.) Party affiliation for Liberal and Conservative representatives generally do not have their party name abbreviated, while New Democrat representatives do. For example “John Doe (Liberal)” instead of “John Doe (LPC)”, as opposed to “John Doe (NDP)”. Is there a MOS rule about when to abbreviate vs when not to in these circumstances? I couldn’t find it Platttenbau (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it just matches the colloquial forms of their names — Liberal, Conservative (PC in provinces with Progressive Conservatives), NDP, Bloc/BQ, Green, PPC. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article for NDP leadership candidate Rob Ashton

A draft article, Draft:Rob_Ashton, has been proposed for the NDP leadership candidate (one of the three so far who are "official"). He appears to be independently notable as president of the Canadian section of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, having led a major strike in BC in 2023, but the submission has been declined. I'm wondering if one or more editors can go over the article and strengthen it, particularly the sourcing, and get it up to standard? Wellington Bay (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure being the president of a Canadian union, even a prominent one, confers notability. The union is notable, but that doesn't mean the president is. If there is significant coverage then sure, but routine coverage of folks that ran (and didn't obtain office) or are currently running and have not yet obtained office does not give rise to notability per WP:POLITICIAN. I have been seeing more of this lately. I also question the notability of Dimitri Lascaris which you recently created, but I am not sure I care enough to start a deletion discussion about it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously whether it gets approved depends on whether the sources are reliable and independent and show him to be notable. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And whether there are enough of them after disregarding routine coverage of political campaigns. Lack of significant coverage is usually the stumbling block for unelected campaigners.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:St. Mary's First Nation (British Columbia)#Requested move 15 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:St. Mary's First Nation (British Columbia)#Requested move 15 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Addressing Notability Challenges for Canadian Artists

Hi — I’ve noticed that many notable Canadian artists (e.g., Juno winners, national broadcast contributors) get rejected at AfC because of lack of traditional media coverage. This seems to be a systemic gap in coverage for Canadian arts. I’m working on the Draft:Lou Pomanti page and would appreciate feedback and possibly support. Could we discuss ways to address these notability gaps more broadly? Mkaram99 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to some of these rejected AfC's. Maybe there are other reasons. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember attending an online talk years back where one of the panelists was a Canadian wikipedian (maybe in Montreal?) who had been working for years to try to create and protect articles about Canadian women artists and found it quite an uphill battle due to fewer sources and people not being familiar with them. Even if they had won awards and were technically notable. Dan Carkner (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caretaker

An editor seems to be insisting that we put 'Caretaker' into NL Premier John Hogan's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political sidebars

Have noticed that Template:Conservatism in Canada (a huge link spam template) is being added to bios - example. Do we want this in bios in or outside the lead? or do we want them at all per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS. Alongside the newly created Template:Liberalism in Canada these have been made huge trying to link every sub related article. We have previously deleted these for bios like Template:Justin Trudeau series and Template:Harper sidebar. What do others think - keep? delete? just keep out of bios? add all over? Moxy🍁 16:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude them, as they're merely decorations. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, sidebars are only a helpful navigational tool when used on an overview article, i.e. at Culture of Canada or similar. There's no good reason to include them in biographies - it's unnecessary clutter, and the effort is better spent maintaining the navboxes and making sure article sections have appropriately placed hatnotes. I see why some like them, they look nice sometimes, but they serve no real purpose. MediaKyle (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed these from biographies..... As I see another new one is being placed in BIOS all over Template:Democratic socialism in Canada. These boxes giant boxes in the middle of articles is a good runaround of our WP:See also protocols.... Please join ongoing related chat Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Convert sidebars to navbars for political ideologies? Moxy🍁 01:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National NDP page including provincial wing results.

Several months ago there were lengthy discussions on whether to include the results of provincial New Democratic Party wings on the page of the national party. The conclusion was to exclude them on the basis of each wing already having their own page and supposedly it was mutually exclusive to have both. This claim was made on the basis that no countries that have it included in their national page also have separate pages for regional branches. Having done more research I have found that claim to be false. First example of a party that has both is the Labour Party (UK). As you can see on it's page it includes tables for subnational results for the party. Simultaneously each wing of the party has its own page Scottish Labour, London Labour, Welsh Labour. It is the same for the Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK). This is also true for political parties in the United States e.g. Michigan Democratic Party, in Germany (though most of the state pages only exist in German), and in Australia e.g. Australian Labor Party & New South Wales Labor Party. With this mountain of precedent and evidence, I believe there is no justification for this information to be excluded from the article, and should be added back immediately. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend bringing this to Talk:New Democratic Party - the discussion would be better had over there. The noticeboard is ideal for notifying of such discussions. MediaKyle (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the UK or Australia. With that in mind, we've decided (multiple times) to not include the provincial/territorial wings. PS - We already have a section in prose, concerning those wings. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has begun a discussion at the NDP talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder of the discussion-in-queston. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Calgary Hitmen

I have nominated Calgary Hitmen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario premiers, govt pages

Should these pages be deleted?

GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We've got pages for federal ministries and many other provincial ministries (eg: Eby ministry) already, these don't seem out of place. They all look like they're in need of citations, but that's not a reason to delete. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the only provinces, with such pages? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I previously made a page for each of the Alberta Executive Councils (see for instance: Brownlee ministry, Notley ministry). All of the dates and positions were imported from the Alberta legislature website listing that information. I believe these are valid pages that should not be deleted. The pages provide the composition of the provincial executive at various points in time. In theory they could be expanded to include other content related to that particular executive as well. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Kinew ministry, and tables on Executive Council of Manitoba that would justify splits the preceding three Manitoba governments. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Drummond (businessman)

Please add reliable sources to this article. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert sidebars to navbars for political ideologies?

As seen above #Political sidebars related to Template:Conservatism in Canada and the newly created Template:Democratic socialism in Canada and Template:Liberalism in Canada. Should we nip this link spam in prose area of articles to loosely related to articles - by simply converting these to footer navbars before things get out of hand as seen in American articles? As mentioned at the Template:Harper sidebar deletion discussion - more descriptively.. In Canada we simply don't follow the American example of 'mass internal link spam' on every related page in the middle or beginning of articles. I think another concern is that these take up space for educational images.... especially when they're in the lead where they are not seen by those using mobile view (over 60% readers) anyways ...thus leaving the lead blank for most readers. We might as well get ahead of the curve considering sidebars are being deleted on mass all over Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 8#Culture sidebars part 6. What do others think should we take the time to clean up these articles? Moxy🍁 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I'm glad that you brought this up. I agree with getting rid of political sidebars altogether - for one thing, these navigation templates are far too large. When there's so many links, they cease to be a useful navigational tool for the user. In fact, these sidebars have so many links, that many of the articles included do not even use the sidebar template, making them frustrating for readers. Including or excluding certain things from these political sidebars could also be seen as problematic, especially when we get into listing politicians under these sidebars. We cannot include every topic under the umbrella of conservatism, for example, so by what metric do we decide what to include? Further, their scope is duplicated by navboxes, which are in general a much tidier way of presenting a navigational aid - multiple navboxes can be nested together when things get out of hand, and they have greater flexibility for organization via subgroups. My attempts to trim the bloat from the Conservativism and Liberalism sidebars has received some resistance from RedBlueGreen93 so I suspect they will have something to say on this matter. MediaKyle (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries would have been nice from them so we could have discussed things before it was all over. Tried before to bring them into a conversation to no avail. Moxy🍁 02:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted those edits because I think the sidebars should keep notable politicians. I am not opposed to discussing higher notability standards (especially on the Liberalism and Conservatism templates) so to avoid an excess amount of links, but I don't think we should be removing them entirely. RedBlueGreen93 20:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about converting them to footers so we don't have random link spam in the middle of prose text....does this sound ok to you? Many dislike the WP:Seealso runaround especially when it takes up room for something educational. I take it your aware that there is an ongoing campaign to get rid of these sidebar templates entirely (not by this project) Culture sidebars part 1, Culture sidebars part 2, Culture sidebars part 3, and Culture sidebars part 4. See also Culture sidebars part 5. Think it may be best to convert before they're simply deleted. On a side note thosez creating these should review MOS:COLOUR.Moxy🍁 21:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clean'em up. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Moxy makes good points. I'm not opposed to converting these sidebars into navboxes, as long as those resulting navboxes have added value and are not just a bunch of linkspam. I was about to just nominate Template:Democratic socialism in Canada for outright deletion for multiple reasons (which I'll explain) until I saw @Moxy's invitation to come and discuss it here. So here I am. :)

I'm gathering my future TfD plans for the Category:Canada politics sidebar templates here:

>> Chat at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Convert sidebars to navbars for political ideologies?
Merge Template:Alberta topics (sidebar) into Template:Topics on Alberta (footer navbox)
Merge Template:Politics of Ontario (sidebar) into Template:Ontario politics (footer navbox)
Merge Template:Pre-confederation Canadian legislative bodies (sidebar) into Template:Canadian legislative bodies (footer navbox)
Merge Template:44th Canadian Parliament series (sidebar) into Template:44th Canadian Parliament (footer navbox)
Merge Template:45th Canadian Parliament series (sidebar) into Template:45th Canadian Parliament (footer navbox)
Convert Template:Politics of Canada to navbox
Convert Template:Conservatism in Canada to navbox
Convert Template:Liberalism in Canada to navbox
Convert Template:Democratic socialism in Canada to navbox?

^ Most of the sidebars above are almost entirely duplicative of the footer navboxes next to them, or should be converted into a footer navbox for the reasons mentioned by Moxy and @MediaKyle, or in my nominator's rationales at the Culture sidebars TfMs linked above (WP:LEADSIDEBAR, WP:LINKBACK, WP:BRINT etc.).

For Template:Democratic socialism in Canada I'm not so sure it could be readily converted into a navbox:

It has only 4 transclusions, meaning it's not really useful for navigation between the c. 75 (!) articles it links to;
It has many generic links under "Schools" and "Principles" that are not Canada-specific;
It has a rather long list of active and defunct parties in a sidebar, whereas a category would suffice much better. Per WP:TG no. #6, Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function.;
Etc. etc.

So unless there is a large-scale overhaul to a navbox which is properly transcluded in all articles it links to, I'd rather just delete this sidebar. Template:Liberalism in Canada has similar issues, and is also poorly transcluded. Template:Conservatism in Canada seems properly transcluded, so conversion to a navbox shouldn't give us much trouble. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, that all sounds good to me. the Democratic Socialism sidebar is quite recent, I see no reason why we can't just delete it, especially given it was never really implemented properly. Seeing the way the tide is going, I'm going to start converting the Nova Scotia sidebars as well before I'm forced to clean up merges. Already redirected Template:Culture of Nova Scotia. -- MediaKyle (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for also taking the initiative!

I could nominate the Democratic Socialism in Canada sidebar for deletion, but I'd like to leave the possibility open for improvement if anyone wants to have a go. After all, Template:Conservatism in Canada is properly transcluded, it just should be a navbox rather than a sidebar. The Democratic Socialism and Liberalism templates are not unfixable, but rather than trying to salvage it by converting it into a navbox and overhauling it with transclusions, starting over from scratch might be a better idea (WP:TNT). @Moxy what do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got an email about concerns that some of these are being made/expanded by User:Charles lindberg. Moxy🍁 21:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangential note, Template:Ontario topics and Template:Ontario seem like they should merge. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 6#Template:Ontario topics. NLeeuw (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More portals?

Back in May I recreated the Nova Scotia Portal, and I would describe its rollout as a resounding success - diligent application to high-traffic articles has brought it up to 435 views in the past month, in contrast to 297 views for what should be the more popular Portal:Ontario, but still a far cry from 3,671 views at Portal:Canada. I think this is a good sign for the future of provincial portals, and I would like to create another one soon, as long as nobody is vehemently opposed to it. Which province should receive a portal next? Are there any other editors who would be interested in maintaining the featured content section for a specific province? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Conservative leadership election?

Howdy. @Batong1930: has been repeatedly putting "2025 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election" into the infobox of 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. AFAIK, there's no such leadership electioin planned. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians start dates

See User talk:Rushtheeditor#Adding unreferenced biographies. They have added that the newly elected MLAs in the 2025 Nunavut general election took office on 27 October 2025 as soon as the election was over and this is standard throughout Wikipedia. JTtheOG and myself have been removing them. On page 5, section 12, Oaths oOfficial Consolidation of Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act it says "Every member shall, before assuming any duties of office, take an oath of allegiance in Form 1 and an oath of office in Form 2 of Schedule D in the presence of the Commissioner." My reading of that, is they are not officially MLAs or can assume office until sworn in.

So do we put in the date of the election or wait until they are sworn in. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, we use the election date for the start of a term. You'd have to get a consensus (for all Canadian politicans) to change that. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying I need a consensus to add sourced material to BLPs but I don't need consensus to add unsourced information that directly contradicts a valid source? Can you point to where a consensus was formed to allow original research to be added to BLPs? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Bearcat's response. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, legally speaking, an MP's start date is backdated to the day of their election, in order to simplify things like payroll and record keeping. Pinging Bearcat, who is most knowledgeable about MP start and end dates. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this argument about what is or isn't the start date of a Canadian politician's term in office before — but for most politicians, we have no consultable sources to tell us what the person's official swearing-in date even was. The "swearing-in" date falls sometime in between election day and the first sitting of the legislature, and isn't always even the same day for every member, but media don't generally report the swearing-in dates as any kind of news, and even the legislature websites don't make any special point of recording the dates of individual members' swearings-in for posterity either. So even if we wanted to use the swearing-in dates, we rarely ever have any sources of any kind to even tell us what date that even was in the first place.
So literally the only dates it's even possible for us to use are either (a) election day, or (b) the date of the first formal sitting of the new legislature, because those are the only dates we can reliably and consistently verify for the vast majority of Canadian legislators — so while there are legitimate arguments in favour of both of those options, the consensus decision, when it came up for discussion here in the past, was to go with the election date.
The rule also absolutely cannot be that we use the election date for all other legislatures in Canada while using a later date only for Nunavut — the rule has to be the same for all Canadian federal, provincial and territorial legislatures across the board, because this is one of those things where it's incredibly important for us to be consistent.
So, unfortunately, the choices here are either (a) we use the election date for Nunavut whether you like it or not, or (b) you personally commit to gnoming your way through every single person who's ever served in any Canadian legislature to change them all to "first sitting of the new legislature" across the board, because this absolutely cannot be a "one rule for everybody else and a different special rule only for Nunavut alone" thing. Nunavut has to follow the same rule as all other Canadian legislatures when it comes to this. It's either "always the election date for all legislators" or "always the opening of the first legislative session for all legislators", not "the election date for some legislators and the opening of the session for others". Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you and GoodDay are saying is that there isn't a site wide consensus to allow original research (OR) and to avoid Wikipedia:Verifiability? Note Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
and at the top of {{Infobox officeholder}} (and others of this type) it says
The design and content of biographical infoboxes must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as well as the infobox and biographical style guidelines. All content displayed by this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy when applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed, especially if it is potentially libelous.

Which means that start dates can be removed as per Wikipedia policy.

As to me going through all office holders and changing it to the date of the first sitting I'm not about to change one type of OR with another. If there is no source to say when they assumed office they no date should be put in. However, if a site wide consensus is achieved, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would probably be the place to start, then an agreed upon date can be entered.

"The rule also absolutely cannot be that we use the election date for all other legislatures in Canada while using a later date only for Nunavut". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we use sourced dates where we have them and no dates where there are no sources. In other words we follow established policy. "the rule has to be the same for all Canadian federal, provincial and territorial legislatures across the board, because this is one of those things where it's incredibly important for us to be consistent." No it isn't important to be consistent. If possible it should be consistent but accuracy is more important. Wikipedia, and Canadian articles, are full of inconsistencies when it would compromise accuracy. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be your end date for legistlative members' term? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Failing a source then it would also be subject to a site wide consensus. See above for a possible suggestion as to where that could be achieved. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask here. Will you please fix up your usernam, so that it doesn't read as three seperate names in your posts? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked at my talk page first and I've responded there. This is just a distraction from the matter at hand. Short answer, no. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a consensus for the changes you want? so be it. Until then, it's likely any changes you make, will likely end up reverted. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already have consensus. See the links to the three policies I provided above. You need to obtain consensus to allow original research and ignore verifiability. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reason not to use unsourced start dates. There are going to be three judicial recounts so that's three people who didn't take office right after the election. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true there is ambiguity on the exact moment an elected representative takes office. (The Library of Parliament actually has a short (four page) essay about this.) But regardless of when it happens, the legal option seems to be using election day as that date, backdated. It is what Parlinfo does, at least, including for provincial and territorial politicians. Look at their pages for Hunter Tootoo and Leona Aglukkaq: under "Provincial / Territorial Experience", their start date as a Nunavut MLA coincides with the 1999 Nunavut general election and 2004 Nunavut general election, respectively. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the dates? I won't be reverting you. There's well over 1,000 bios to change. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to start an edit war. However, now I'm curious as to the start date of the premier. Our former premier, P.J. Akeeagok, didn't run in this election. Based on the above comments he ceased to be an MLA and also as premier as of 27 October 2025. So will the new premier's start date be the day the regular MLAs choose them or will it be backdated to the day of the general election? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akeeagok's tenure as premier ends, when he resigns as premier. That occurs on the day the new premier is appointed. You don't have to be an MLA, to be premier GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Data duplication in the lead

Pls see Talk:Religion in Canada#Pie chart (of census data) in the lead? Moxy🍁 01:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass editing to BC politician bios

A new editor, User:Totesonthecoast, has mass edited the voting choice of several BC politicians, regarding the first reading a bill. Wondering how other feel about single-purpose, mass edits like this. Thanks. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a classic case of POV-pushing to me, and the speed at which the sections are being added doesn't inspire confidence. I trust your judgement to handle it. MediaKyle (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Beguiling

The Beguiling 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) 00:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floor crossing

See Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada & related pages. Not certain how to handle this situaton. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed... What is there to handle? The news is coming out now: [1] ... I imagine we'll have plenty of good sources to clean up by tomorrow. MediaKyle (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... Not like this hasn't happened before anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The timing. He hasn't crossed 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has resigned from the Conservative caucus and told CBC News he'd be joining the Liberals. That'll probably be done before the House of Commons website updates his status. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CBC says it's "imminent". This statement from the Liberals just came out 30 mins ago, too. I don't think we have to worry about going around reverting everyone just yet. MediaKyle (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris d'Entremont attended the Liberal caucus meeting today. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another man down. The Conservatives are having a rough week. MediaKyle (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada

Mass changes to Liberal Party of Canada, concerning provincial/territorial election results. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Culture of Canada sidebar merger

Pls see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_5#Culture_sidebars_part_8. Moxy🍁 22:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers

If anybody's looking for a project, a (non-Canadian) editor whacked a whole bunch of Canadian newspapers with prod tags earlier today, including several that already have WP:GNG-worthy sourcing in them to establish notability — and while some others were admittedly poorly sourced or unsourced, the ones I've looked at so far have proven almost painfully easy to repair with simple searches in Proquest and Newspapers.com. But there are comsiderably more than I can tackle by myself, so if anybody wants to help salvage some Canadian newspaper articles they're in Category:Proposed deletion as of 5 November 2025. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how Wikipedia:Does deletion help? - Wikipedia is one of the places people start their search for old newspapers in regards to researching local history. If AI doesn't take over information spreading the articles will eventually just be rewritten.....as we have a few Canadians that deal just journalism articles. This happened to a few university papers I remember 10 years ago but I see that most of them are back anyways.Moxy🍁 00:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm on the case :-)

In a perfect world, newspapers above a certain circulation would have inherent notability. Its very useful to be able to wikilink newspapers in citations so readers can know where the information is coming from, and have an idea of who the publisher was (and thus the paper's bias). Maybe someday... MediaKyle (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it's clear as per List of newspapers in Canada page views (such an obscure article) ... that thousands of people are trying to locate local newspapers. Very odd we would deny local researchers this information. Moxy🍁 01:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of female first ministers in Canada

A discussion, as to whether or not opposition leaders should be included. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal fighter or shock puppet investigator?

See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Temporary account IP viewer Moxy🍁 03:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sofia Camara#Requested move 17 October 2025

The following was posted at the talk page for WP Ontario, but it will get more readers in from this talk page:

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sofia Camara#Requested move 17 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK T(alk) 12:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]