Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians’ notice board: Difference between revisions

	Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

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]

This has been unreferenced for almost 16 years. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to The Canadian Encyclopedia, that’s about all I got. Not sure if this needs to be a standalone article? Can probably be summarized elsewhere, but I wouldn’t know where. MediaKyle (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s actually fine for now. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:1816 in Canada for a discussion of the reversion of removal of a long list of no-context material. The material appears to have contravened multiple guidelines. The editor who added the material has added similar material to 1817 in Canada and 1818 in Canada, and possibly other articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this user on social media and tried to talk to them about how the style didn’t match the articles it was being added to, or the overall wikipedia style guide. I think it’s being done in good faith but isn’t being done right, it’s adding clutter and is hard to follow. Dan Carkner (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve started going through Category:Years in Canada in AWB to catch pages that had this kind of content on them — I’m finding a lot, but I’m also finding that this has been going on for years without really being noticed before. I just spotchecked when the section was first added to 1770 in Canada, and it happened in 2022.
  But yeah, I have to agree that it’s unwarranted — the sections largely consist of links to archived primary source documents, often about trivial things like “person writes letter to family back in home country” and “person describes local geography and/or wildlife of town” and “Canadian place mentioned in guide to observing the stars” and “random non-notable person reported missing” and “inscription on sarcophagus of dead guy” and “500 acres of land cleared in place” and “people disagree about thing in public debate” and “priest delivers sermon” and “items on menu at restaurant” that have no important reason whatsoever to be documented for posterity in an encyclopedia, and even the relatively few things that do represent legitimately encyclopedic events should be (and/or already are) simply incorporated into the existing chronological timeline sections rather than being set apart as a standalone “historical documents” section (and need to be sourced to coverage and analysis about the significance of the event, rather than primary source documentation, anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then I hit the strangest thing I’ve seen in all of this: the section added to 1778 in Canada included a sourced-to-YouTube list of “unfamiliar words” in the lyrics of the 20th-century song “Barrett’s Privateers“. Like, not really useful content there, eh? Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make that the second strangest thing. New champion: obituary of Rexy’s dog. (Yeah, yeah, I know. But come on, it still falls short of enduring historical prominence.) Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yukon Real Estate Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 9 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Association that lobbies for four (4) businesses.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Hull 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) 23:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this edit where the rank is change to reflect the estimated population. So two questions.

1. Should the ranking be last census or current StatCan estimates?
2. Either way, should an explanatory footnote be added so the reader knows which of the options it is?

CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say census data. This would be much simpler if the rank attribute appeared before recent population estimates. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Census data per WP:CANPOP. Hwy43 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’ve changed them back and added a link to Population of Canada by province and territory CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this organization notable? If yes, please add reliable sources. If not, then maybe we can propose deleting it. Bearian (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve only noticed today (and thus deleted) that on May 5, 2025, someone added ‘provincial and territorial wings’ to the infobox of the New Democratic Party. As I understand it, the consensus is to exclude provinicial/territorial parties from that infobox. PS – Has this consensus changed? GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No change, to my knowledge ……. PKT(alk) 14:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Munsch has chosen medical assistance in dying. His article is in incredibly rough shape, and we can expect a great deal of pageviews soon (already spiked yesterday). Might we be able to band together to bring this article up to par? Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Canada Systems Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. Tagged last month for Notability concerns. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fails WP:NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of you nice people please add reliable sources to this article? Bearian (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for bringing it up. MediaKyle (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CTV 2#Requested move 5 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 17:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing splitting the list into separate sub-pages joined by a compact table of contents. It’s over 240K in size and I am sure a lot for a browser to generate. See the talk page Talk:List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto#Splitting proposal. There have been several suggestions in the past to trim the list, but I suggest we just have separate sub-pages. I created a couple of samples. Looking for some consensus that this is ok Alaney2k (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roland Michener Secondary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 7 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. There is no French language article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]