Talk:Canada/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Culture

The subsections Art, Music, Sport, Symbols have been brought in place at this article. It ensures quick access to these issues and underline the importance of the already existing main articles like Canadian art. Because of the extensive length of the section a split seemed useful. It is in line with the layout practice of several other high profile country articles. Italiano111 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The section isn't all that long, and splitting it into the many subsections causes the prose to become choppy and degrades from the quality of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree took along time to make it flow nicely and keep the FA satuts. No need to have it divided up for no reason, we actually went out of our way to make each section not divided if possible. All the links are provide in the text and are divided in the manner that Italiano111 likes in the main culture article. Moxy (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Canada is north of the U.S.A. in the year 2010 Vancouver in Canada hosted the winter Olympics games. It was awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.110.111 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

We seem to be trying to jam 2 pictures in a section ...we should try not to sandwich text inbetween pics ..To me this is a bit sandwiched ..anyone else see it like this ...and if so should we pic just one picture for the section?Moxy (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Science and technology

The Canadarm in action on the Space Shuttle Discovery during STS-116

Main article: Science and technology in Canada

Canada is an industrial nation with a highly developed science and technology sector. Nearly 1.88% of Canada's GDP is allocated to research & development (R&D). The country has eighteen Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and medicine. Canada ranks 12 in the world for Internet usage with 28.0 million users, 84.3% of the total population.

The Defence Research and Development Canada is an agency of the Department of National Defence ,whose purpose is to respond to the scientific and technological needs of the Canadian Forces. Over the years, DRDC have been responsible for numerous innovations and inventions of practical application both in civilian and military world. It has also contributed in the development of the most advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array in the world as part of an international effort involving Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Artist's impression of Canadian Northern Light Lander on the surface of Mars with robotic arm deployed to search for evidence of photosynthetic life.

The Canadian Space Agency conducts space, planetary, and aviation research, as well as develops rockets and satellites. In 1984, Marc Garneau became Canada's first astronaut, serving as payload specialist of STS-41-G. Canada was ranked third among 20 top countries in space sciences. Canada is a participant in the International Space Station and one of the world's pioneers in space robotics with the Canadarm, Canadarm2 and Dextre. Since the 1960s, Canada Aerospace Industries have designed and built 10 satellites, including RADARSAT-1, RADARSAT-2 and MOST. Canada also produced one of the most successful sounding rockets, the Black Brant; over 1000 have been launched since they were initially produced in 1961. Universities across Canada are working on the first domestic landing spacecraft: the Northern Light, designed to search for life on Mars and investigate Martian electromagnetic radiation environment and atmospheric properties. If the Northern Light is successful, Canada will be the third country to land on another planet.

Three of top ten in World's most livable cities

It appears that someone from Toronto is interested in making a point that Toronto is the 4th most liveable city in the world. So far there is no section in this article for such a statistic. If that person or anyone else has any ideas how this can be properly incorporated into the article about Canada, please bring your ideas here, and discuss them before inserting them willy-nilly into the lede or anywhere else in this article. It is a worthwhile concept, but without any proper introductory sentence, the fact alone is just trivia, interesting but for what purpose? Let's not insert chunks of random facts into this article, without a proper context. Furthermore, the lede is supposed to be a summary of what's in the article, not introduce new material that has not yet been discussed in the article. It's the same with the lede of a newspaper article.

There is already a full Wiki article on this topic called World's most livable cities. The facts are already there for all to see. Does Canada have to toot its own horn too? --Skol fir (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call..yes there is an article just for this topic...This info was here before - but was removed due to the new FA guidelines on the matter (well new at the time).Moxy (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out too, the term should always be used in quotes, i.e. "most livable city". That term is the headline used for the Mercer and Economist Intelligence Unit's human-resources surveys, which do not actually measure "livability". They are used by business and governments to negotiate pay differentials when relocating workers to other cities. The EIU survey in fact used to be called the "hardship index". Housing costs are not included in these surveys, whereas availability of foreign-language schools is. The "most livable city" term is just the teaser these companies use to market their full surveys. As you perhaps can tell, I am not in favour of article-by-headline, and I do not believe these listings rank cities for livability by their residents and should not be trumpeted as they are. </rant> Franamax (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Moxy and Franamax, I already wondered about that ranking, even before reading your assessments. I also agree that a headline should not make an article, just because a certain individual likes the "ring of it." "Bells and whistles" are very nice, but they might signify nothing. Remember the quote from Macbeth: "It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” --Skol fir (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Languages for motto

Would it be possible to put the moto: From sea to sea...in both official language?? And the phonetical pronunciation too? Because the french article does, and as a french canadian, I would like to see the same from my fellow citizens....d'un océan à l'autre.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.79.85 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The French version does not present the country's motto in English anymore. What is usually done for the Spanish article, for instance? Since the motto is in Latin, would it just be translated into Spanish, or would it also be translated into the country's official languages (French and English)? Only, if the latter is the usual course of action, I would suggest that the English and French versions present the motto in both official languages. --Silentrebel (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dh66, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Scratch the previous request, I checked the link for "drives on the:" and it refers to traffic, not how the world commonly speaks of left and right hand drive vehicles. Perhaps all links to "drives on the:" should be changed to: Driver position: Left Hand or Right Hand drive?

Dh66 (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I looked at the previous request, too, and I don't understand this. The phrase "drives on the" refers to side of the street that people drive on. I'm not sure what is confusing here; the parameter doesn't say "left hand drive"; rather, it says "drives on the left", which seems quite grammatically distinct (and thus with the intended meaning) to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Right-hand drive vehicles MUST drive on the same side of the road as left-hand drive vehicles - no matter what country they are in. Throughout Canada, people must drive on the right side of the road - even if their steering wheel is in the middle or on the right.--JimWae (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

I have a couple suggestions to clean up the demographics section.

“Canada's Aboriginal population is growing at almost twice the national rate, and 3.8% of Canada's population claimed aboriginal identity in 2006. Another 16.2% of the population belonged to non-aboriginal visible minorities.[175] The largest visible minority groups in Canada are South Asian (4%), Chinese (3.9%) and Black (2.5%)”

The second sentence excludes aboriginals from the list of largest visible minorities. In the previous sentence, it does reference non-aboriginal visible minorities. I am having trouble finding a better way to write this.

“According to a 2005 forecast by Statistics Canada, the proportion of Canadians belonging to a visible minority group in Canada could reach as much as 23% by 2017.”

This is one of two different forecasts in the paragraph about the future visible minority population. Is this significant enough to have two sentences devoted to it. Also, the statistic is out of date. It is now 2011 we are just as close to 2017 as we are to 2005. I want to remove this sentence.

“Post-secondary education is also administered by provincial and territorial governments, which provide most of the funding; the federal government administers additional research grants, student loans, and scholarships.”

This does not seem significant enough to be in the main article on Canada. Also, it is a jurisdictional matter not relevant to the demographics of Canada. It should be removed.meitme (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok think we need some more info as to the problem you see. Aboriginals are NOT a visible minority. For the 2017 numbers we dont use projections when a real number is available (old or not). As for education it could be reworded - what did you have in-mind.Moxy (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on visible minorities. The previous sentence "Another 16.2% of the population belonged to non-aboriginal visible minorities." seems to imply that aboriginals are a visible minority. But, the senetence is not actually incorrect and a definition seems unnessasary so, I'll leave it alone.

I'm not sure what you are saying about the 2017 projections of visible minority population. It seems I may have been unclear. The quote I used comes from the article. I don't think this sentence belongs in the article. I want to remove it. There is another projection that makes the exact same point in the article. There is no need for repitition.

I do not want to reword the sentence I selected on education. I want to take it out. This is not the right place for details on the juristicion between the federal and provincial governments.meitme (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a valid argument to me --lets see what others have to say.Moxy (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For your latter two points (education and projection), I agree that those two sentences are unnecessary. As for your first point (aboriginals vs visible minorities), I can't think of a better way to word that paragraph than what exists right now. The current wording is clumsy, but I think that's largely because the idea it's trying to explain is difficult to describe (natives are apparently neither a visible majority nor a visible minority. Uh. Ok.). The sentence is clumsy because the concept itself is clumsy and nonsensical. But there's nothing we can do about that, so we just have to do our best to lay out the facts as they exist, even when they don't lend themselves to sensically constructed sentences. Gopher65_talk 07:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the two senteces previously discussed. There did not seem to be much controversy. meitme (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Demographics (languages)

I started a new section here out of not wanting to disrupt the non-related debate about another part of the demographics section.

Anyway, is it me or does the following passage not make sense? "Over six million people in Canada list a non-official language as their mother tongue.[204] Some of the most common non-official first languages include Chinese (mainly Cantonese; 1,012,065 first-language speakers), Italian (455,040), German (450,570), Punjabi (367,505) and Spanish (345,345).[205] and the languages most spoken at home by 68.3% and 22.3% of the population respectively"

Surely the 68.3% speak an official first language as their native tongue, do they? The only other alternative I can think of is that that bit is meant to read 'languages most spoken at home by the...of the population which does not speak an offficial language as their mother tongue. That sounds cumbersome, of course, but if that is correct, there needs to be some clarification there. I asked on this page because as a non-Canadian I honestly cannot make sense of the wording. If I knew what it was trying to say, I'd have changed it myself.

Thanks, Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this version at Canadians#Languages any easier to understand ?? - perhaps we cant combine the 2 .Moxy (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party of Canada in 1995

Under the title "Modern times", We can read: " This led to the formation of the Bloc Québécois in Quebec and invigoration of the Reform Party of Canada in the West."

I think it should be made a bit clearer that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada are federal political parties and not regional parties. Maybe we could read:" This led to the formation of a federal political party named "Bloc Québécois" and the invigoration of the Reform Party of Canada in the West."

Maybe the phrasing isn't right, but I think that the way it is now leads to believe that the bloc Quebecois is a provincial party.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symonak (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.27.21.157, 28 April 2011

Canada now has 11 provinces not 10. pls update thanks

190.27.21.157 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't - it has 10 provinces and 3 territories. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

urls for books

Why have the urls for books at books.google.ca & books.google.com been removed? They sure help to check on refs--JimWae (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Some books can be previewed and some cannot. Why add many extra steps for people who want to check sources?--JimWae (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not an awful lot of extra steps to click on the ISBN and then click on "Find this book on Amazon" (or Google, or whatever). --Boson (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on the ISBN rarely works right for me. Plus, how does one know in advance if there is a preview or not? --JimWae (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on the ISBN works right for more people than do GBooks links. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a click, then a scroll down, then an eyeball search, then another click, then another click. Then I find out there is no preview OR then I must hunt for the page number. Why? What is the advantage to editors? What's the advantage to READERS - who may not even get past the first click?--JimWae (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Three total clicks to GBooks, and then if there's no preview go back one page and you can look at another site. Simple, works for (almost) everybody, very little clutter, doesn't negatively impact page-load time. Plus, if they're not going to get past the first click, then what possible advantage does a GBook link have over an ISBN link? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding urls does not conflict with WP:CITEVAR. Changing from APA to MLA would be an example conflicting with CITEVAR--JimWae (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing citation style/format conflicts with CITEVAR. Adding URLs changes citation stlye/format. Ergo, adding URLs conflicts with CITEVAR. ISBNs are much more useful, are available to all editors, add much less clutter to the page, and don't add nearly as much raw kB (which affects load time). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not an example given of changing cite style. The only change I see is that the title is linked - and in just one click one can see the page with text highlighted - even better than with { {cite web} } - which has been citation style in article for years. I think whether it is or not is something that needs to be decided by a wider group, and until that is decided, the urls should remain--JimWae (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's not given doesn't mean it's not an example - they can't very well include every possible example on that page, it'd be too long. Per WP:CITEVAR, the original citation style (ie. without links) remains unless and until there is consensus here to change it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding a link is not changing the style. The styles mentioned are APA & MLA & Harvard & parenthetical --JimWae (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC) The original citation style included links when available (having links is NOT a style change)--JimWae (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PAGELINK: "Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview; they will not work with snippet view. No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed; see the October 2010 RfC for further information." --JimWae (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now actually look at the RfC. Read the arguments, it'll help you gain a better understanding of the issues at play here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you voted - so you likely already knew the outcome, which was "if another editor adds them, they should not be removed". The tribe has already spoken & said thatt adding links is NOT a style change - and nobody documented any disadvantages. HOW can you possibly think you have any justification for removing urls? How have you been sincere in your assertions here? --JimWae (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

{{cite book}} says "URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced" yes its says "The ISBN link is a much better alternative" but its clear that there is the paramater that can be filled. The argument that since some cant see them - thus all should not benefit from it is not at all what we are here to do. Limiting all because of "some" is not proper. Whats better is to offer may ways of verification to our readers - not just the one way "some" prefer because "some" dont like the other that is allowed as indicated by the description of fields. I have at no time seen any MOS/Guideline for there removal - I do see a few pages for there inclusion. Canadians has recently be upgraded to GA and when i did this i use many many many book links and think its one of the better sourced pages here on Canada and could sever as an example of how books (scholarly publications) can be used and are better in quality then web pages that go dead in a few months. We are lucky in Canada our Universities publish lots for us to use as seen at Bibliography of Canada and Bibliography of Canadian history (that has taken me a year to build). Moxy (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You folks are speaking as though everyone knows the implications of the choices, but not all of us do. Does including the Google Books links remove the ISBN links? Do the Google Books links remove some functionality from the ISBN links? If not, then it's hard to understand why we should not provide links that will enable more readers to verify claims for themselves. I guess what I'm looking for is precisely what the harm is in providing the links. I'm not asking about conflict with guidelines; what I want to know is how including the links detracts from process of reading or editing the article. -Rrius (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I cant see any ill affect except load time (but this would apply to all ulr's - so i don't see y this are different) Having the book ulr's added does not affect the functionality of the ISBN link (its just a secondary way of linking the subject). The uls links cant be used if you wikilinked the title. ISBN links are not user friendly - were on the other hand a direct book link were possible is very very user friendly. The 3 outcomes bellow...Moxy (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wells, Spencer; Read, Mark (2002). The Journey of Man - A Genetic Odyssey. Random House. p. 142. ISBN 0812971469. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) (basic - version currently implemented)
• Wells, Spencer; Read, Mark (2002). The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. Random House. p. 142. ISBN 0812971469. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) (with inter wikilink - were the book is linked in the article)
• Wells, Spencer; Read, Mark (2002). The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. Random House. p. 142. ISBN 0812971469. (linking the digitized book - version that was removed and y we are here)

In addition to load time, it also adds clutter to the edit window. In addition, GBooks links are not available to everyone - they depend on a number of factors, including geographic location (as some countries have stricter copyright laws than others - Google limits viewing capabilities to comply with local rules) and how much you use Google Books (if you use it too much you'll run into a viewing limit, in which case these links could not work at all or could (in the case of page-specific links) lead to the wrong page). ISBN links provide access to GBooks and to a number of other sites, and involve much less clutter and added length in the edit window. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The last argument, that some people won't benefit from the links, is unpersuasive. The clutter argument is probably the most persuasive for me, especially because Google Book links tend to be especially long. The load-time argument would perhaps be more so if there was any evidence that adding external links has any noticeable impact on load times. In any event, I tried the ISBN link provided above, and after three or four clicks, I still found myself without any text. The Google Book link led me straight to page 142 of the book with just one click. I think that makes the extra text worth it. -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

GBooks links would add nearly 15 kB of raw text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on that? -Rrius (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

15 kb is not much in a page of this size with such a broad topic - well worth it for the easy of use for our readers. Wikipedia:Article size. This article in fact is pretty small considering its topic --many articles are way way bigger WP:SIZERULE Moxy (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(although SIZERULE refers to "readable prose size", which explicitly does not include things like references and links...just FYI). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada - Document statistics

• File size: 560 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 100 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
• Wiki text: 135 kB
• Prose size (text only): 47 kB (7318 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1194 B

Nikki, on the BRD front, you are wrong. The article was stable with Google Book links going back at least as far as February. When something sits around for that long, removing it is the bold edit. You were reverted at least twice, and must cease until you persuade fellow editors to your side. I have restored much of what happened after you removed the GB links, but some of what you felt was overlink just didn't make sense. For instance, why unlink French language? Why turn two links about relations with the Netherlands and to Netherlands in to a single link with ridiculously long display text? Finally, why delink beaver, but retain Canada goose and loon? If your answer is that some of them had already been linked to elsewhere in the article, that's not good enough. Links are allowed to be repeated, indeed should be repeated, in an article this long. -Rrius (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear an edit made 3 months ago is no longer a bold edit (as tens of thousands have seen the edits since there inclusion 3 months ago)- There removal 3 months later however was the bold edit - as the edit (removal of links) has been contested by 2 editors in a reasonable amount of time (now 3). Also lets be clear that at no time has the format been changed as being suggested by way of WP:CITEVAR. Think it would be best to simply listen to what has been said here and realizes that the removal of the ulrs is causing this whole problem. I see no policy/guideline for there removal - but do see an RfC that is quoted above and a few other pages that mention how to use the urls in the templates like at WP:PAGELINK and {{cite book}}. So at this point i am very surprised to see they have not been reinstated - by the person that has removed them. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Moxy (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly found the URLs useful in the past, and there's no real advantages to removing them. - SimonP (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SimonP above, Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Date Format

There is no single date format used in Canada. Canadian checks must carry a notation as to which of THREE correct date formats are being used. If Canada has strong national ties to any date format it is to YYYY-MM-DD, which appears on a great many official Canadian government documents and websites (and is also the easiest to sort and shortest to write).

These, and many more, are year first:

• http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2/t2-10e.pdf
• https://www.pptc.gc.ca/service/contact/stat.aspx?lang=eng
• http://www.pptc.gc.ca/form/pdfs/pptc054.pdf
• http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/5000-g/README.html

The Canadian Style Guide also discusses YYYY-MM-DD & mentions it may be appropriate for bilingual documents - which does increase its having a claim to STRONGNAT. However, YMD is unfortunately not accepted by WP for use in body text. The very first entry for this article is formatted MDY, and no consensus has been established for any other. Thus, the default date format per WP:DATERET remains MDY. WP does accept YYYY-MM-DD in accessdate=. There are presently 199 instances of accessdate= in this article. I changed 10 of them (some of which were MDY and some DMY) to conform with the other 189. --JimWae (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DATEUNIFY says "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD". Btw, YYYY-MM-DD is not properly called ISO. Its best "handle" is "YMD" or "international"--JimWae (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On the mdy-vs-dmy thing, I wasn't making a great big point. I picked dmy because I was looking at dmy in the edit window. Suggesting that Canada somehow has strong national ties to ISO because you found some instances where it is used there is silly. It is used quite a lot in US military and certain US academic circles; does that somehow mean ISO has strong US ties? Frankly, you are misconstruing the point of the Canadian Style Guide. Anglophone Canadians tend to use one format, and Francophones another. ISO is a neutral choice to not piss either side off, not a format with strong natural ties. Your "WP does accept [ISO] in accessdate=" argument just doesn't make sense. It used to be autoformated, and the citation templates used to use ISO for examples; neither is any longer the case. There is no rational argument that one format should prevail in both the body and for the "date=" parameter, but not the "accessdate=" parameter. What possible benefit is gained by using inconsistent formats side by side? And to whose benefit is it to make people read the unfamiliar format? People accustomed to dmy and mdy are able to switch between the two easily as long as slash dates (i.e., 1/2/2009) aren't used. For both groups, ISO is far more distracting than the other standard format. So again, what is the benefit to be derived from using ISO in "accessdate"? -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if you had used YMD from the start, that would have been fine, but "properly called" or not, "ISO" is certainly preferable to the 10-digit monstrosity you pulled out. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: MOS:DATEUNIFY says "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD". It is not up to individual editors to decide that what the style guide explicitly states is acceptable - is not acceptable. --JimWae (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict I neglected to flag up; sorry to make you repeat. Do you have any better argument than there were more of one than the other to justify actually using YDM when another format is used just a few characters away and when the latter is so much easier for people to read? -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean something like: YYYY_MM_DD has been the established date format for accessdate for over 5 years and that changing established date formats without consensus is explicitly not allowed? Btw, did you not even notice the HUNDREDS of date formats you were changing before? Individuals "deciding" something is not acceptable (when it is explicitly allowed - and changing it is explicitly disallowed) is what was happening with the urls for books --JimWae (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was thinking more along the lines of "YMD is good because X" and "The lack of consistency with the date parameter and the prevailing format on the page is beneficial because X". A justification based on the fact that it has been that way in the past is not terribly strong, especially when the now defunct date autoformatting was the reason. So, again, do you have any actual justification for the inconsistency? I really don't give a flying fig that change is "disallowed" because guidelines that have zero justification need not be followed. One of the pillars of MOS, and any style manual, is to be consistent with style choices, so the completely unexplained and seemingly unexplainable rule that it is okay to use inconsistent formats side by side is incompatible with a basic element of the Manual of Style. If you can justify the seemingly irrational, go ahead and do it. -Rrius (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the date format used (and I believe it should be the same as that used throughout the article), edits like these, that, amongst other inappropriate changes, remove the accessdates alltogether, aren't helpful. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Accessdates were removed only for the gBooks links, because such dates are not used for convenience links to print-based sources. The other formatting fixes included in that edit seem to me to be helpful, can you explain why they are "inappropriate"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we reach an agreement on what date format to use for the "|date=" parameter in citation templates? The article currently uses a mixture of YYYY-MM-DD and MDY, and it should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The first ref to use a date, as best I can tell, used the format "November, 2005" (it was inserted around that time). Since the original ref spelled out the month, I would suggest that MDY should be used. -Rrius (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re removal of accessdate= for book urls

This is from Template:Cite book

accessdate: Full date when url was accessed. Should be used when url field is used.

Someone has claimed ("because such dates are not used for convenience links to print-based sources") the exact opposite & removed the accessdates --JimWae (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If the concern is article length, MOS does not always REQUIRE spelling out "percent"

per MOS:PERCENT: The percentage symbol (%) is preferred in scientific or technical articles, in complex listings, and in articles where many percentages are reported.

Presenting numerous percents, such as in a series of parentheses, could easily count as a complex listing. We could put: "X (4%), Y (5%), Z (5%)" instead of "X (4 percent), Y (5 percent), Z (5 percent)"--JimWae (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change those particular percentage listings if you so choose. Template documentation, on the other hand, is simply incorrect, as it contradicts the relevant guideline (WP:CITE), and certainly should not hold any sway over what is done in articles. Accessdates are not included for convenience/GBooks links. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I changed "%" to "percent", I was restoring an edit that had been caught up in reverting another edit. When to use the one versus the other is a judgment call, and I was willing to allow the other editor's judgment to stand. -Rrius (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do us the courtesy of specifying where WP:CITE contradicts Template:Cite book, OR says anything about not having accessdates. I've looked pretty thoroughly, and all I see is that is not listed as COMMON for books with no url to begin with. --JimWae (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it's not listed under "Book", you'll notice it says that access dates are used instead of publication dates for web-only sources that lack the latter - books clearly do have publication dates. You'll also notice that the page provides examples of GBooks-inclusive citation formats, none of which include access dates. In addition to WP:CITE, you can also look at the standards applied at FAC - since this article is an FA, it must meet those standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is NOTHING at WP:CITE that contradicts Template:Cite book regarding accessdate=. There is just less mention of accessdate at WP:CITE. WP:PAGELINK, which you chose to ignore before, just omits discussion of accesssdate=. A contradiction would say "do not use accessdate= if...". Links and ID numbers does not say do not use accessdate= if a webpage HAS a publication date. Please review what a contradiction is. --JimWae (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a contradiction, though:

WP:CITE#Links and ID numbers says, "For web-only sources with no publication date you should include a "Retrieved" date instead, in case the webpage changes in the future." (Emphasis added.) The "Web pages" subsection of "Examples", and only that subsection, lists among things typically to be included "the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown)".

Template:Cite web says, "Full date when item was accessed. Should not be wikilinked. This should be given if the publication date is unknown; see Citation styles." The link is to the portion of WP:CITE that contains the "Examples" section noted above.

Template:Cite book says, "Full date when url was accessed. Should be used when url field is used. Should be in the same format as other dates in citations in the same article. Must not be wikilinked."

Clearly, the parameter was added with no regard to why the accessdate= parameter exists, either because they weren't thinking of it or the provisions of WP:CITE weren't the same back then. This is perfectly understandable as before this part of the debate began I'd always assumed it was also supposed to give a little information about when the link was last known to be good if it later died. Further evidence that it was developed without much thought about guidelines is that it says accessdate= should be in the same format as "other dates in citations in the same article", which is rational, but conflicts with the baseless guideline Jimbo noted above that allows accessdate= to be inconsistent with the dates around it. This is further supported by one of the first discussions in the [[first archive for the Cite web talk page, in which User:Ligulem said, "The accessdate is the date when an editor checked the link works and points to the correct info." Just because there is this contradiction doesn't mean we should be quick to remove accessdate= from {{cite book}}. It may be better to have a discussion about whether WP:CITE should take such a limited view of the parameter. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are all clear the accessdate= parameter gets filled in automatically by Reflinks and Checklinks and is y its there because it will be filedin in time anyways. Its removal will be revert (persay) the next time someone runs this here.Moxy (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That we have these well-known tools acting on the assumption that accessdate= is used for something other than what WP:CITE says suggests that perhaps the guideline should be changed to reflect reality. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The accesdate parameter is part of the Template:Citation/core for ALL of the styles at Template:Citation and would take a huge talk to change this. But if one comes up let me know i would love to say a few words about its uselessness in many of the cite templates. I think what should in its place is a date of when refs were added to Wiki - would be a great way of keeping track how old refs are ..accessdates change all the time.Moxy (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Book links

I notice that urls for books are still being removed, AND being shortened to not link to pages. What will it take to get these repeated unilateral changes in opposition to the MOS (& to other editors) -- made without explanation here -- to stop? --JimWae (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, per WP:PAGELINKS: "if another editor adds them, they should not be removed"--JimWae (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As seen by my edit summary i am also concern here - did not revert because there are 3 different ways of linking this books (as seen bellow). The reason they were the way they were (linking to full page book covers) was because of what is says at WP:PAGELINK (Page links should only be added when the book is available for "preview") and Template:Cite book (URL of an online location where TEXT of the book can be found) . Perhaps i am reading to far into this but i see this as us saying to try and link to the "preview" were there is "text" to be found - and not the description page with ads, reviews and snippets. I think we should do our best to avoid linking to any ads even if this means a few more kb due to link length. We should also not put another barrier (step) in between the books "TEXT" and our readers. And yes 2 links are gone due to a merger ..they still can be linked in there current format.Moxy (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The 3 ways we can link this

• E. Riendeau, Roger (2007). A brief history of Canada (2nd ed.). Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-6335-2.

(links to the main page (contains all the ads, reviews, snippets etc.. and requires readers to click links to view book text)

• E. Riendeau, Roger (2007). A brief history of Canada (2nd ed.). Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-6335-2.

(version that shows the cover - but still has ads on the page - So a direct link to text of the book)

• E. Riendeau, Roger (2007). A brief history of Canada (2nd ed.). Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-6335-2.

( link to full page cover of book - that's it no ads nothing - Also a direct link to text of the book)

I think you're overthinking things, Moxy. When you're referencing the book as a whole (as we are in Further reading), linking to a specific page in the book (even the title page) doesn't make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps i am - But the reason we are linking the books to begin with is because they can actually be seen. What link above do you think is more beneficial and easier for our readers and editors to see the books in question? The first one that links to ads, reviews other books and requires more clinking to get to the books text. Or the other 2 that link to the books themselves? I also think that linking to just the disruption page will led others to add the same type of links even though there is no preview to be had. Moxy (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Nikkimaria, would you please explain why you're making the changes to references that you are, particularly in the "Governemnt and politics" section? Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? The Marleau ref discusses provincial politics, and the sentence I moved it from already has two other refs supporting it. The 1983 ref is outdated, and its information is already covered by the other two refs covering the same information. The GG ref covers the information from both of the refs it replaces, neither of which were particularly vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes pls explain why you keep removing the url's??????? Have we not talked about this before or is it's you did not understand what has been said? Are you making these removal reasons up as you go?Moxy (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean all the deleted refs, the moving of refs, the changing of the publishers, & etc. But, pertaining specifically to that diff you link to: The Commonwealth Secretariat ref was valid; you simply deleted it. The Montpetit ref speaks about more than just the provinces; you moved it away from information it supported. The Russell ref was valid; you simply deleted it. And there's no such publisher as "Government of Canada". When those changes you made were undone, you simply reverted back to them again. And I still see no real rationale for why you did so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Russell ref is nearly 30 years old, and given that the fairly uncontroversial sentence that it was used for already has two valid refs I see no reason to include it; similarly, the Montpetit ref was supporting uncontroversial information already well-cited, so I moved it to support other information that was less so. The Commonwealth Secretariat ref was valid, but the one that replaced it was equally valid and also served to support the parenthetical information, which the Commonwealth ref didn't. The Government of Canada is a publisher in this sense - it publishes information on its website, among other things. If there's another change you're unsure about, feel free to ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to delete these references. And the Government of Canada is not a publisher; all federal government material is published by the Queen's Printer for Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Further: it's not entirely clear why you're deleting Google books urls from references. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Most printed government material is published by Government of Canada Publications on behalf of Queen's Printer - see here. Most web material is published by individual government departments, often listing simply "Government of Canada". On another note, can you explain why it is necessary to cite uncontroversial statements to 4+ different sources? Or why you want to retain 30-year-old non-canonical sources when newer high-quality sources are available? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The material isn't as uncontroversial as you seem to think. There have been significant edit wars over that section in the past. The fact that a book was published 30 years ago is irrelevant.

Looking over this and various other talk pages, I see you've been raising others' ire with similar edits. I'm sure you've broken WP:3RR here, as well. You've already been made aware of WP:BRD. I think you should put its principles into practice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, date of publication is not irrelevant. Yes, I am aware of that essay. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how removing those perfectly good references serves any purpose. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

NHL teams

need to add winnipeg, from the 8th largest metropolitan area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.177.57 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NHL Board of Governors, haven't aproved of the re-location, yet. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

CBC?

I'm wondering if the CBC should be added to the Canadian page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.249.73 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Canada = constitutional monarchy

The source that is being provided in the box where it's being claimed that Canada is a constitutional monarchy clearly states: "Given their shared political inheritance, common philosophical background, and federal systems, it is remarkable how different the two countries are. The United States is a republic and Canada is a parliamentary monarchy." Which is exactly correct. Canada is a parliamentary monarchy, see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy: "Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power." The emphasis is on MOST here. I think this should be cleared up, since not all constitional monarchies are parliamentary as well! 132.230.86.103 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Joe King

So, if I understand this, you do not think Canada is a constitutional monarchy? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think xe means that while Canada is a constitutional monarchy, that phrase is very broad and includes a large number of possibilities. Parliamentary monarchy is a more specific phrase, the use of which precludes several other possibilities, and leaves readers unfamiliar with the term the more general term constitutional monarchy a more exact picture of what's going on.

Personally I have no opinion either way. The use of either constitutional monarchy or parliamentary monarchy is fine. Gopher65_talk 13:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What I actually meant was that it should be changed to show that it is not only a constitutional monarchy, but a special form of that, namely a parliamentary monarchy...of course I don't doubt that Canada is a constitutional monarchy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.86.103 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy standS in contrast to an absolute monarchy ; I think parliamentary democracy than parliamentary monarchy is better because it gets the same point across without repeating monarchy and making it clear that we have an elected government. soulscanner (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Labour Unions?

Maybe I'm just missing it, but is there any mention of unions in Canada? This could be a separate article, but at least brief mention of what % of the workforce is unionized would be helpful. (My recollection is that it's more than 25% in Canada, vs. only 11% in the US [9% of private sector].) Current unemployment in the US: 9%, vs 7% in Canada. Teeparty (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't nearly as much info on this subject banging around the net as I'd have thought, but it looks like the number of unionized workers in Canada is somewhere between 27 and 30 percent. It varies from quarter to quarter, of course. Gopher65_talk 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Those numbers are correct. At least, according to my Labour Studies course. But you should bear in mind the actual number would appear much smaller. The total number for workers in a union isn't at 27% to 30% but rather it's the union density which is at 27% to 30%. Unfortunately I cannot find a source for said numbers. I'm operating on a system of trust, I suppose, with my professor. Druid126 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Establishment as opposed to Independence

Is there any particular reason the infobox uses "establishment" instead of "independence from United Kingdom"? I find it a little odd as independence is used in the Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland infoboxes and all took, more or less, the same path to nationhood as Canada. I'm not demanding uniformity or anything, just wondering why the standard format for former colonies isn't being used here. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The term may be more appropriate in Canada's case than the others'. Canada was the first Dominion, and this new process of making a colony independent was worked out over decades. Some of the stages likely happened more quickly for Australia, and the other Dominions.

E.g. The British North America Act of 1867 was an Act of the Westminster Parliament, not of the Canadian Parliament, and remained so until 1982. Thus for 115 years, the constitution of Canada could only be amended at the initiative of, and by, Westminster. This awkwardness was avoided as other colonies were granted independence.

London retained control of Canada's foreign affairs for a number of years after 1867: Canada had no foreign representatives until the 20th C. And in 1914, Canada entered World War I when the Imperial government declared war. Canada's insistence on signing The Treaty of Versailles separately from the UK was an important development. Full legislative independence for the Dominions did not come about constitutionally until The Statute of Westminster in 1931.

See the Canadian Encyclopedia articles on constitutional history and external relations. – Epanalepsis (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some would even dispute the 1931 Statute of Westminster as granting full independence, as jurisdiction over foreign affairs remained ambiguous. That's why the declaration of War on Germany in September 1939 several days after Britain represents an important step in Canada asserting it's independence[1], as does the establishment of Canadian Peacekeepers in the 1956 Suez crisis in which Canada declared itself neutral in a battle where Britain was one of the belligerents.--soulscanner (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no ambiguity post-1931. The Statute of Westminster was absolutely clear: No act of the British parliament would have effect in Canada unless the Canadian government gave its consent to such. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It remained unclear whether the Canadian Parliament could advise the King on matters of War (i.e. whether Canada could declare independently of Britain). That's not my opinion, but the consensus among Canadian historians:

"Even though each of the Dominions was asserting and practising the right to conduct independent (though co-operative) foreign policies by the late 1930s, one crucial Imperial tie remained to be severed. Right up until the outbreak of the Second World War, it was not certain that the Dominions could take any independent stance on the declaration of war or neutrality. In this one vital aspect the unity of the British Empire lingered on, and it was based for the most part on the doctrine of the indivisible Imperial Crown; it was felt that anything less than the unity of the Empire would mean that the King could be advised to declare war on himself with respect to another of his territories. It was not at all certain that Britain had lost its unique right to advise the King on matters of war and peace for the whole Empire."[2]

That's a very important ambiguity and why Canada's independent declaration of war in 1939 represents another step in the long process to independence. --soulscanner (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been more clear: there was no ambiguity in Canada, at the time. The ambiguity belonged to the other dominions; Canada was at the forefront of getting the Balfour Declaration accepted and the Statute of Westminster passed, and, unlike Australia and New Zealand, who delayed for years, accepted it as law as soon as was possible. Mackenzie King then, eight years later, pushed to have George VI tour Canada and made every effort to make sure everyone knew he was in Canada and the US as King of Canada, precisely to illustrate that Canada was a fully independent country. When Mackenzie King later that year gave his recommendation to the King that he declare war on Germany on behalf of Canada, the prime minister obviously was already well aware of the appropriateness of the action. The declaration of war, as the first to be made by a separate Canadian monarch, was certainly important; but it didn't mark the point where Canada first asserted its post-Statute of Westminster sovereignty. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to back up this story with references. It is contradicted by Canadian historians and MacKenzie King himself.

"both Mackenzie King and his Justice Minister, Ernest Lapointe, made long speeches to the House of Commons in March 1939 in which they strongly stated that Canada had no accepted capacity to declare war independently of Britain." [3]

Mackenzie-King clearly did not believe that Canada had the sovereignty to declare war. --soulscanner (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, it seems that was the case; and our own article History of monarchy in Canada agrees with this (using the same source you link to). This is odd, though, given King's very clear desire to use the royal tour of 1939 as an illustration of Canada's independence from the United Kingdom; it was almost the entire reason behind the tour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the opposition

Recent events around the position of Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition seem to have revealed some confusion amongst editors over just what qualifies one to occupy the post. This source indicates that an interim party leader may be Leader of the Opposition: "If that party leader does not have a seat in the House, the caucus of the Official Opposition may designate another of its members to act as Opposition Leader." There may still be some unsurety about what the situation was between Jack Layton's stepping aside and his untimely passing; however, it would seem that presently - since there is no NDP leader in the House and she was chosen (unanimously) by the NDP caucus as interim leader - Nycole Turmel is presently the Leader of the Opposition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the pary caucus needs to appoint someone to that position. When Tumel was appointed as interim party leader, the NDP specifically had Layton keep the title as Leader of the opposition. So I'm not sure if Tumel enters that position automatically without an appointment by the party caucus. It's all academic really - I'm sure the party will address the issue in the next day or so. Singularity42 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of origin of the term "dominion"

This article and Canadian Confederation both point out that the term "dominion" also appears in the Bible. Was that somehow a factor in selecting it as Canada's title (or relevant in any other way to Canada)? If not, I suggest that the reference is trivia and that it be removed. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See Dominion, the term was used to signify that Canada remained (at least de jure) under British sovereignty and was for a time used as the country's official title de facto (though it is debated whether this was actually the case legally). The fact that "dominion" also appears in the Bible is trivia and unrelated.(Connolly15 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC))

OK. I have now removed the reference from both this article and Canadian Confederation. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree that it's mere trivia, because the biblical verse in question is believed to be the origin of the offical motto for Canada, and also was thought to capture the nation-building enterprise. Psalm 72:8 in the Authorised Version reads: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." "From sea to sea" translates into "A mari usque ad mare"; see the entry at the Canadian Encyclopedia: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0000001 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see; thank you. The motto wasn't mentioned in the previous text at all. In that case, I would suggest that this belongs in an article or section dealing more directly with the motto (for example, Arms of Canada, which already mentions the link). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 October 2011

Is there Karachi in the list? 184.145.53.72 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean more elaborately as Karachi is a city in the country of Pakistan. Perhaps this has been misplaced and you require help in some fashion?Moxy (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Space sciences impact

There is a citation (presently it's reference 146, but this may change) that seems initially to support the assertion in the article that, "Canada was ranked third among 20 top countries in space sciences." (for quick access, citation 146 is [4]) Unfortunately, despite the misleading Times Higher Education title, when the cited table is inspected rather more closely, the league table ranking is dependent on an arbitrarily defined impact factor. In considering the impact factor, it reflects something approximating toward an estimate of the average quality of the various national space science papers (Impact = # Citations divided by # Papers) rather than reflecting the breadth of real world impact globally. (And as such the Thomson Reuters term "impact" is quite unjustified.) I do not mean to unfairly demean the calculation or Canada, but in my view the derived ranking in the table is fairly meaningless as an estimate of real world ranking in space sciences, and I feel it receives undue weight here. (For example, a rather different ranking would emerge if the number of papers was then multiplied by the impact factor that Thomson Reuters expounds, and another would emerge if the number of citations were used as a raw number. Either of these can be argued to be as meaningful as the league table using the impact factor per se.) Unless someone wants to take on the role of expounding why this impact factor ratio has any real world relevancy, I propose that the sentence can either be removed in its entirety ( I recommend) or be reformulated to reflect what the ratio actually justifies (in distinction to the brief but inaccurate Times Higher Education title): "The impact factor of Canadian space science papers was ranked third among 20 top countries." Sorry that this accurate statement is kind of boring, but that's my view of what the citation actually supports.(By the way, I don't have an axe to bear on the matter and I have no undisclosed biases. I just dislike facts and figures being metaphorically mashed to bleached pulp and then rolled out on paper as unjustified synthetic conclusions.) Up for input from other editors. Propose to modify in 7 to 10 days, unless the input is blisteringly hot.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit made in accordance with above discussion. Add back with explanation if a convincing reason is put forward.FeatherPluma (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the source and changed the wording to (hopefully) better reflect what it is actually saying. [5] Whether or not the whole thing is appropriate for the overview article is appropriate, different question. Canada does punch above its economic weight in space science (communication, robotics, SNO and the MOST experiment), but I'm not sure a THE rating is the best illustration of that. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Franamax. I can see what you have tried to acheive with your 2011-10-18 edit, and how you got there. In carefully and at length considering our sentence of interest, I think it's a huge improvement. I also see that your comment gives fair consideration to my main point about whether the THE rating is a good illustration of the real world relevancy / impact of Canada's space program. Without undue detail, as there are actually surprisingly complex issues with this sentence that I would like not to get into, I would like to offer my opinion in some initial additional thoughts as to why this citation and the sentence it supports, both as currently written and as I think it could be conceivably modified, are unsatisfactory. By the way, I usually try to edit fairly lightly, especially in prominent articles, and conceptually I would have preferred to improve it rather than redact it outright. And I had come close to a "formula" similar to yours before concluding that the sentence is best dropped altogether. First, to get us on track on the sentence of interest, WP now reads, "In a 2011 review of academic institutions, Canada was ranked third among countries in the impact of space science research publications."
Again, I do see this as an improvement over the previous, however, some points to consider:

• IMO, the sentence should not read "In a 2011..." (sic, this is what WP presently is saying), it's essentially a tabular data report in 2009 of certain proprietary data that the citation source (THE, printing Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators) clearly points to having specific inclusion/exclusion criteria (that are not validated) of publications from 1999 to 2009.
• IMO, the citation is not a real "review" (sic, this is what WP presently is saying), because this term would usually (for me at least) suggest that data of some type had been duly considered and contextualized against other benchmarks, and that a reliable conclusion had been published. What we have here is raw data, not what is usually considered to be a review, which I'd think of when speaking of a well considered article that integrated many aspects into a contexualized and integrated whole that reflected the domain of interest (although I do concede that the data was "put together so that it could be reviewed..."). We have a math manipulation of that data, to arrive at a proprietary ratio, that is given an Important Capitalized Name (Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicator). I completely agree with your point that the citation does not point to a "review" of Canada's "economic weight in space science..." BUT IMO the present sentence can readily be construed as such. In brief, the sentence misinforms by giving a tabular ratio undue weight.
• The cited source does not report a ratio that pertains directly to "academic institutions" (sic, this is what WP presently is saying) (this is not the Times Higher Education World University Rankings) but purports to be a tabular ranking of an 'impact factor' (that is being floated by the source as a conceptual surrogate for something like "average publication quality") of academic papers in space science "from" (sic, the source) Canada. I readily concede that using the term "institution" is sort of logical, since it is quite likely (but not confirmed for us) that this was the descriptor in the database, but from a WP point of view, "institution" isn't what the source says, and while we are probably right, we don't know (at least not from this source as written). The source uses a vague term, "from" and that's what we can cite (if the source in all it's considered aspects is adjudicated as providing material of encyclopedic character, and not of undue weight.) IMO we could arrive at... " In 2009, Thomson Reuters collated data in a proprietary index of academic papers from 1999 to 2009; those from Canada ranked third in impact... ..."
• The cited source does not itself purport to look at "research" papers only (sic, this is what WP presently is saying, and by saying it, WP implies that was all that was indexed, and that's not what the source says), but at a composite of "...only journal articles (original research reports and review articles) indexed by Thomson Reuters..." So correcting that point, and simplifying a little (by losing excessive words), and using the source itself, we get something like, " In 2009, Thomson Reuters, collating data from 1999 to 2009, ranked Canada as having the third highest national average of citations per academic space science paper..." or simpler, we have "Canada has the third highest number of citations per academic space science paper..."" ... That's close to what you have, BUT...
• IMO, after thinking carefully, the two principal problems with the citation and the wikipedia sentence it supports are 1. an inappropriate source ("unreliable" in wiki-speak) that is 2. given undue weight. Wikipedia content guideline uses 3 meanings for "source:" 1. piece of work itself (here in our case, this refers to the cited THE report, which seems to be an unmodified pass through of primary source, undigested, unfiltered, non-contexualized tabular data from Thomson Reuters) 2. the creator of the work (the writer, author, editor, or journalist; here we arguably dealing with none of these, or at best with an editor who didn't discard the tabular report) and 3. the publisher of the work (here it's THE, but again basically as a pass thru of its partner Thomson Reuters calculated score. Arguably, and this isn't a crucial contention, just a thought: this report might border on advertising of a sort - THE is a close business partner of Thomson Reuters, whom it has also used as its source for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings), a major publication event for THE.) The WP content guideline notes that all three can affect reliability. Of note, in discerning the reliability (as used in WP) of this particular citation:
  • our citation is a brief, primary source, not particularly noteworthy tabular data report; as I said, it's not a review.
  • in our case, we lack "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject", (although we do have a respected publication in the field).
  • "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication, or both." Here we have raw primary source data passed on to publication, in a way that IMO is essentially absent of contextualization, and essentially absent any published validation of the proprietary score.
  • as such, our citation does not possess nor demonstrate requisite WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and we are not relying on the guideline's stated preference for "...secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper (emphasis added here)...." IMO, we are not even dealing with a "primary research paper" because we do not have a proper peer review, nor do we any validation process for this ratio. (Without getting into this too deeply, a perusal of THE editorials will have you unearth how contentious these ratio rankings are generally. I don't think we need belabor this unduly at this location in open wiki space, but this theme could be expanded substantially.)

What I said initially IMO still stands: [with new inserted comments to emphasize and clarify the thinking]

• "I don't have an axe to bear on the matter and I have no undisclosed biases." [insertion: The problem here is a poor reference, as per criteria.]
• The source [insertion: if it were reliable] seems [insertion: on a provisional brief inspection] to support, "The impact factor of Canadian space science papers was ranked third among 20 top countries. [insertion: But I am now making additionally clear that the source is not reliable according to the WP elements in the guidelines.] Sorry that this accurate statement [insertion: of what the citation actually does say] is kind of boring...
• I thought about, "Space science papers from Canada have a high impact." But IMO it's not enhancing the Canada article. To make one aspect of this sentence's multiple problems clear by slight hyperbole, let me stretch things just a very little, but stick very closely to the source. This is a little too much in some ways, as the principal issues here are those I've already stated:undue weight given to a derived mathematical ratio from a citation that lacks author or contextualization, or peer review, or subsequent general acceptance and dependability by the world community. However, to help illustrate this aspect of why this citation itself is inappropriate for the overview article on Canada, consider:
• A "slightly strange" way of reading the current citation and the present Wikipedia sentence is to say that "A proprietary source indexed certain data from 1999 to 2009, using its in-house categorization scheme, to generate a tabular ranking of academic review and research papers on space science. By calculating the average number of citations per citation (a mouthful, but that's what it is) Canada had the third highest ranking in the ratio league, but Scotland had an impact factor that was almost 117% of Canada, and had an impact ratio that was far in excess of the US or Europe taken as a whole; the source shows that the impact factor of academic papers from Russia and China, whether taken individually for each nation or taken together, was nearly a quarter of Scotland's impact factor. Even if every other nation on earth was taken together, Scotland still had a higher impact factor than all of them put together." By performing this "slightly silly" thought experiment, IMO an observer can see what essentially happens with ratios in league tables like this. You "could" arrive at, "In a 2009 review of academic institutions, Scotland was ranked first, and the impact factor of its research was higher than the entire rest of the world." IMO, an observer can see why we don't have a quality dependable source (I mean some other better reference that actually uses this ratio, and writes it up in a scholarly reliable secondary source review) for the wikipedia sentence as presently written, or as it could be reasonably modified. If editors DO have such a reference, I'd concede the issue. So there's the challenge: "add it back with reliable secondary source citation if such exists."
• There are already many important well-cited and wiki-linked points made in the WP article about the importance of Canada in space. IMO, the Canada article is better off without this sentence. IMO, reliance should not be put on this ratio league. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Question? is all after Franamax's last post by one editor or a conversation between more then one editor? ?Moxy (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, it's one compulsive long-winded overblown post. I know it's just one sentence in the article, and just one citation, but I felt that if I merely said that the problem is undue weight it would be argumentative and trite. I judge the sentence to be horrible and thoroughly misleading. But Franamax added it back, so I've laid out what I judge to be reasons to remove it again. I was a little tempted to remove the sentence myself, but instead I chose to let the wikipedia community act collectively to take it out, or leave it in. While I fully sympathize with what Franamax arrived at, and have explained I came close to that at one point too, I have thought about this sentence a lot. I will be very interested to see what is collectively decided, and the quality of public reasoning on this. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this overnight, it seems to me that the "impact factor" is too apt to be conflated with "impact." I am unaware of any reliable secondary source that validates that conflation. Wikipedia material that makes that leap is misusing the citation. The only way of fairly incorporating the "impact factor" data is to call it just that, not "impact." FeatherPluma (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What is it you would like to add or remove? could you state exactly what is to be added or removed. Sorry i am a bit lost.Moxy (talk)

Moxy, I am suggesting removing (not modifying) the sentence, "In a 2011 review of academic institutions, Canada was ranked third among countries in the impact of space science research publications." as well as the citation (currently citation # 147). Independent of the merits of removing it, as discussed in exquisite detail above, the commentary at the top of this Discussion page makes reference to the overly lengthy article. I also placed a message on Franamax's talk page as a courtesy to encourage participation in this decision. Anyway, I am of the strong opinion that the sentence is inappropriate. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that the "2011 review", which wasn't in 2011, and wasn't a review, is still cited as supporting third highest national "impact" ranking of "institutions" when in fact the source merely reports a Citation/Number of Papers Ratio, and calls it "impact" counter to prevailing use of the word "impact, and doesn't directly have anything to do with "institutions." The sentence is wrong, and badly wrong. Wondering when we might see a publically reasoned explanation of why the sentence should not be removed. Have tried to attain consensus before removing sentence; said removal is looming in the absence of said explanation.FeatherPluma (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The following table shows the data and ranking in the Times Higher Education (THE) table. It has been augmented and modified to show the ranking based on other metrics that are at least as relevant as ways of ranking the "impact" of national space programs. The ranking in the original table is more a reflection of the AVERAGE impact of EACH PAPER than it is of NATIONAL standing of all space publications in aggregate. Canada was 11th in number of publications, and was 7th in number of citations. It is clear that asserting Canada as nationally 3rd in impact is misconstruing the original data.

Notice for example that the US has about 10 times (actually 9.69 times) as many publications, and almost 10 times as many citations (actually 9.3 times as many), but the ranking based on the RATIO of publications divided by citations places it firmly below Canada. The ratio is quite clearly not an appropriate metric for NATIONAL publication output or overall impact.

The title given by Times Higher Education to their table, and the use of the term, "Impact Factor" are both considerably misleading, and neither is an adequate basis for an encyclopedic assertion as is presently made in the Wikipedia article. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am leaning toward an RfC on this issue, since the material was added back fairly promptly after my first redaction. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sentence now edited to conform to source. This at least removes the most glaring outright wrong assertions, such as "2011" and so on. This is not where I think this sentence needs to end up (basura) but going at things patiently step by step. FeatherPluma (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

After the series of edits to carefully make it conform to the primary source (despite the issue that the source is questionable- see above detailed exhaustive reasoning) the sentence is changed again, and there are now 2 "soft" problems.... 1. the tabulation is now a "global survey." Well, it was not a global survey. It was a ranking based on a proprietary database of entries in a retrieval system. The exact criteria for inclusion in the proprietary database are unclear and were NOT surveyed, nor was the accuracy of the database itself "surveyed." It is quite obvious that there was no cognitive "survey" - if there had been, the ranking wouldn't have been published. 2. Nor did "Canada rank third" exactly. Canada WAS third in a ranking (the point being that the special methodology used in that ranking is rather capricious). These aren't the same precise meaning. Sure, the new wording reads easier. But it misses the nuanced point. Alright, neither problem is actually horrible and I am going to let them bubble in the article for a bit. But the ranking is seriously flawed (see above expanded table and prior discussions.) Since the sentence has at least been cleaned of its outright outlandish errors I'll be patient.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sentence simplified. Gets rid of the "survey" problem. Leaves the "Canada ranks" issue, but fair enuf, even if based on a particular peculiar perverted ratio. Politicians sell this flawed stuff all the time; maybe wikipedia doesn't have a process to cull itself of this "pseudoratio" and needs to espouse this "pseudostatistic."FeatherPluma (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The redaction of my edit was explained by a comment that it was "too vague." Well, I was trying my best to leave the sentence in the article, but phrase it in a simple but unemphatic way. But it just will not do to claim it is a global survey. By adding "global survey" the subtle but chauvinistic impression is being given that this source was a substantial and scholarly assessment. This stretches the source in a way that will mislead most casual readers. It is undesirable to transform a "wobbly ratio on a table" into a full-fledged "claim" or "fact...": it's quite far from that, as the expanded tabulation above shows. Despite expansive reasoning here, the wikipedia editing process is NOT following the appropriate procedure of using proper scholarly sources for "big claims." This source does NOT justify this sentence. Again, it is only a global survey by stretching the meaning of these terms. In brief, Canada most emphatically is not the third most important space publication country, nor is Scotland (!) the first.FeatherPluma (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is felt that the sentence and its citation should be restored, please discuss that fully here, so that the thinking can be properly considered, and a proper consideration and consensus be derived. Please address / explain the reasons / elements that this citation meets in comparison to the standards articulated in wikipedia guidelines.FeatherPluma (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the offending sentence has not reappeared, which is a good thing. And just in case you want another example of this type of phenomenon, look up http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Canadian-authored space publications, but which eloquently talks about tortured ratios and fitting data to conclusions. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

English used in Canada?

I might have missed this (couldn't find it in the article), but which English (British or American or something else?) is most commonly spoken in Canada? Colour or color? Aluminium or aluminum? Football or soccer? Bobfreshwater (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We speak Canadian English. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Which in practical terms means "colour" but "soccer" - it's a rough hybrid of AmEng and BritEng, with some Canadianisms thrown in. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you think this should be included (or made more prominent) in either the present article or in Languages of Canada? Bobfreshwater (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - It is linked in the lead here- but your right its hidden so... fixed here and fixed there.Moxy (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

The current picture for the Parliament building Canadian parliament MAM.JPG isn't very good right now. It's barely in half the picture. May I suggest to use Canada Parliament2.jpg, used on the Parliament of Canada page? 96.52.208.214 (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other pics as well, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-_%E2%80%A6trialsanderrors_-_Parliament_buildings_from_Major_Hill_Park,_Ottawa,_Canada,_1901.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:March_of_Hearts_crowd_on_Parliament_Hill_2004.jpg that might be better than the parl2 pic. They were on wikicommons.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

personally, I like the current picture, because it's a perspective of Parliament that you don't get so often, including the beautiful Library. If there were a change, I wouldn't suggest using the first one linked to by P0PP4B34R732, because it's not the current Parliament - it's the old Centre Block, which burnt in 1917. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And the second picture is just horrible. Crooked and has a bunch of protesters out front. Hardly a nice picture to showcase the beauty of the building. I think the current one is significantly better. 67.193.253.196 (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Census 2006

New census out. 2006. 2011 will be out in Feb, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.84.213 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)