Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:British Columbia/Archive 3) (bot |
Trackratte (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
The [https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/41st-parliament/5th-session BC Hansard] is another source that uses "Parliament" for the provincial legislature. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] ([[User talk:Indefatigable|talk]]) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
The [https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/41st-parliament/5th-session BC Hansard] is another source that uses "Parliament" for the provincial legislature. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] ([[User talk:Indefatigable|talk]]) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:The Constitutional Act 1867, for the initial provinces, says that the respective Legislatures consist of the Lieutenant Governor (i.e. representative of the sovereign) and the Legislative Assembly. So there is a distinction that is often loss in terms of conflating legislature and legislative assembly. |
|||
:For practical purposes though, a legislature within a Westminster Parliamentary System ''is'' a parliament which is why you see many provinces officially use the term. |
|||
:Either way, a Parliament / Legislature in the Canadian system is made up of the Queen, the lower house, and the upper house if applicable. So to say that the Legislature ''is'' the Legislative Assembly is factually incorrect. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:19, 30 September 2020
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Severely Bloated Introductory Section.
The first section of this article is, for lack of a better word - a total mess. Compare it to the articles for other provinces, and all of them state basic facts about the province that would give someone a brief idea of the geography, demographics, economy, capital/major cities, and in some trivia/points of interest. Meanwhile, BC's article jumps from basic geography and population facts to a lengthy paragraph about pre-Confederation history that simply rewords information from the "History" section of the article. It should be completely cut. The third paragraph mentions a population estimate that is six years out of date, and gets into provincial politics from 2017, the final paragraph goes onto talk about Native land issues, all of this is completely unnecessary for an overview of the province. I cut most of this content in an edit, added some lines covering the places BC borders (in line with most articles on countries and subnational entities). I hope someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works or how to write these kinds of articles will give this some more attention and add any other relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The lede section should summarize all articles. It seems as though it is doing so here. If it is not doing so for other provinces, that should be changed there; our lede should not be simplified to reflect those of other provinces simply to have consistency. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The lead section is excessively long, and goes into details that should be limited to the body of the article. The anonymous edit was a definite improvement.Vgy7ujm (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Anonymous contributor from before here, just want to say first that I'm not angry or frustrated by the edit being reverted, I'm not well versed with Wikipedia, and we're both clearly just trying to do what we feel is best for a good article. However, I disagree, the lede should summarize the subject of the article, but as it stands, it does not do so.
- Here are the major issues with the article intro:
- 1. The lede does not sum up every part of the article, there's no mention of the province's major industries or say, the size of its economy among provinces. The only political facts offered are overly specific. and states information that could quickly become irrelevant with a provincial election, why in the summary of the province, do we need to know how Premier Horgan came into office? Or that the NDP are in a minority government?
- 2. There's a lengthy section that outlines Richard Clement Moody's contributions to British Columbian history, in the second paragraph. Is he relevant to British Columbia? Yes - but it's incredibly tangential to have all this information about him in an introductory section. Why do we need to know before the capital and largest city about his titles, that he was "handpicked" by the colonial office, or the poetic reasons for why he was to found the colony of British Columbia? Why do we need to know right away in an article about the entire province that a small city in Greater Vancouver is named after him, or that he designed the provincial coat of arms? These are more appropriate for the article on the man himself, or at most, in the history subsection of this article.
- 3. The third paragraph feels like it should follow the line about the founding of the Colony of British Columbia. And why do we need a line about the province's Latin motto when that can be found in the info box a few centimetres to the right?
- 4. The final paragraph of the lede starts on a redundant note - "British Columbia evolved from British possessions that were established in what is now British Columbia by 1871." we already know that thanks to the second and third paragraphs.
- 5. The final paragraph is also the very first mention of the First Nations who inhabit the area. It seems like an afterthought - "First Nations, the original inhabitants of the land, have a history of at least 10,000 years in the area." It's poorly written and provides little information, there's an entire paragraph devoted to a single man involved in the founding of the colonies and one line that gives any general information on BC's native peoples - what tribes inhabit BC? Where are they mostly located? What languages do they speak? Finally, the paragraph takes on a very "unwikipeida-like" tone, jumping into "long ignored" treaties and mentions one specific tribal group's legal victory in 2014.
- In my opinion, a better summary of the province's history would start with the native peoples, then the first settlements by the British, the colonies being united, and when the province joined confederation. Logical flow, easy to follow, basic information. Paragraph four would become paragraph two, and the political information would be simplified as well, if not taken out entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Infobox languages
The French name of British Columbia should not be included in the infobox since it does not have official status in the province. Having the French name in the lede should suffice. The Official Languages Act concerns only the federal government and its institutions, and does not apply to the provinces. The only officially bilingual province is New Brunswick. Furthermore, French is the 7th most common spoken language in BC behind Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi, German and Tagalog. [1] TrailBlzr (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:BRD, please revert yourself now. Also, again, BC is an official subdivision of Canada, whose official languages are, last time I checked, French and English. So as a subpart of Canada, we list its name in both official languages. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- French is not an official language in BC. Every province and territory chooses its own official languages. For instance, this explains the official languages of Nunavut. Notice in this document, it lists the official languages of Canada, not BC. The fact is BC has no official language. However, as was linked to above, English is the de facto common language.
- So if TrailBlzr were to self-revert, I would remove it as French is not an official language in BC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Will not self-revert. Per federalism, provinces are not subdivisions subordinate to a higher authority like constituent countries in the UK. They exercise exclusive powers that are distinct from the federal government. One of these is the right define the status of languages in the province. In the case of British Columbia, they have no official language, but the government makes it clear that English is the dominant language: "you should be able to speak, read and write in English if you plan to live, work or study in British Columbia" per above link. TrailBlzr (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- No one is saying French is an official language of BC. The French name is listed, and has been listed for years, because BC is a part of Canada. Yes, provinces have exclusive powers, but to claim the provinces are somehow not subordinate to the nation is ludicrous, no matter what Quebec and Alberta might like to believe. They are not nations in and of themselves. In Canada, the official names of BC are "British Columbia" and "Colombie-Britannique". —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Using the "is a part of Canada" logic, every subject that "is a part of Canada" should have a French language entry in their infobox. That is not a requirement.
- No is arguing that "provinces are somehow not subordinate to the nation" other than you. Each subdivision gets to choose its own official languages. BC has none and so to enforce French is inappropriate. New Brunswick is, to the best of my knowledge, the only officially bilingual province in the nation. It makes sense there. Quebec is officially French, so it makes sense there. It makes sense nowhere else. Feel free to raise this at the Canadian project though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Do not include the French translation, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English and MOS:FIRST. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Colombie-Britannique is not an official name of BC, as you claim. Adding it to the infobox is akin to adding Mâchoire D'orignal to the infobox at Moose Jaw. TrailBlzr (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- No one is saying French is an official language of BC. The French name is listed, and has been listed for years, because BC is a part of Canada. Yes, provinces have exclusive powers, but to claim the provinces are somehow not subordinate to the nation is ludicrous, no matter what Quebec and Alberta might like to believe. They are not nations in and of themselves. In Canada, the official names of BC are "British Columbia" and "Colombie-Britannique". —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Every other Canadian province and territory with a name that is translatable into French has the French name listed in its infobox regardless of whether French is an "official language of the province", ie. Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador, Île-du-Prince-Édouard, Territoires du Nord-Ouest, etc, because Canada has a whole, is a bilingual country, a third of the population speaks French, and the names are official at a federal level. It doesn't matter whether the provinces are or are not subordinate to the Federal government, Wikipedia isn't Ottawa, it supplies information, and the established norm as far as the other articles go, any province with a name that differs in French, an official language of Canada, has the French translation in its infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.82.195 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I can understand Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba having it. I can't speak to the official language of other provinces so I can't explain why they would. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would have a look at the |Geographical Names Board of Canada which "is comprised of members from each province and territory and various federal departments concerned" and whose role is as a "national coordinating body are the development of standard policies for the treatment of names and terminology, the promotion of the use of official names, and the encouragement of the development of international standards in cooperation with the United Nations". Further, to answer a point someone brought up about who gets to decide what the official names are: "until 1961 decisions were ultimately made in Ottawa. At that time, the responsibility for naming was transferred to the provinces". I looked at New Brunswick and there is a link to the Provincial Toponymy board, so it seems that the GNBC as an authoritive organization, draws it's information from whomever has jurisdiction, in this case the province of BC. trackratte (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well I was there anyways so figured I might as well look it up. The link you folks want is |here. trackratte (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The GNBC entry for BC links to BC's own BC Geographical Names Office whose own entry is located |here, and states ""British Columbia" and the approved French form, "Colombie-Britannique", identified as names of pan-Canadian significance per Treasury Board Circular 1983-58, 23 November 1983". So, it seems to me that the offical language of a province is not entirely relevant to the discussion, but instead that Canada has an authortive database, with each jurisdiction feeding into it. In the future, these databases can be used to resolve any issue such as this (as they crop up fairly often), and further official references can be used to avoid the same issues resurfacing. Should make everyone happy I hope. trackratte (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Both official names have been included in this page's infobox since 2002, so an 18 year-long consensus standard cannot be overturned on a whim by one or two editors, particularly as such a change affects multiple other pages. Multiple attempts to 'steamroll' longstanding consensus through continued reverts on multiple pages without first gaining consensus is disruptive editing. Maybe I'm getting attached to long-standing norms since I've been editing here since 2003 and getting a bit crotchety, but there are established norms for a reason. I'd also like to point out that the lack of effort to engage in discussion is evident also by the fact I appear to be talking to myself here on the Talk while reverts continue to be made on the main page. trackratte (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is wikilawyering, but approved is not official. They are different terms. I'm sure there's an approved German, Japanese, Mandarin and even Tagalog version of the name, but none are official and none should be included in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I will point out that British Columbia (and indeed all provinces and territories) are subdivisions of Canada. Canada is officially bilingual, so there are "official" names for its provinces and territories in both French and English. Still not seeing what is so hard about this. If we were trying to say "Britisch-Kolumbien" should be listed because that's what the Germans call it/translate it as, then obviously that wouldn't hold water. But the Canadian federal government is bilingual, has laws and official documents that, in French, refer to the province, and the province is therein referred to as "Colombie-Britannique". You cannot get any more "official" than that. Which is no doubt why that has been the status quo for years. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I will point out that while Canada is officially bilingual, not all provinces are. In fact, one territory is trilingual with Inuktut being the official language along with, English and French being recognized. That is not the case of the province. Federal signage is mandated to be bilingual (English and French) in the province, but provincial signage is not. Federal bilingualism does not apply. The point I was making was that where there is an "approved" French version of the province's name, there is no "official" French version of it. There are likely "approved" versions of the province's name in other languages. So you can get more official than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Again, I will point out that British Columbia (and indeed all provinces and territories) are subdivisions of Canada. Canada is officially bilingual, so there are "official" names for its provinces and territories in both French and English. Still not seeing what is so hard about this. If we were trying to say "Britisch-Kolumbien" should be listed because that's what the Germans call it/translate it as, then obviously that wouldn't hold water. But the Canadian federal government is bilingual, has laws and official documents that, in French, refer to the province, and the province is therein referred to as "Colombie-Britannique". You cannot get any more "official" than that. Which is no doubt why that has been the status quo for years. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is wikilawyering, but approved is not official. They are different terms. I'm sure there's an approved German, Japanese, Mandarin and even Tagalog version of the name, but none are official and none should be included in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Both official names have been included in this page's infobox since 2002, so an 18 year-long consensus standard cannot be overturned on a whim by one or two editors, particularly as such a change affects multiple other pages. Multiple attempts to 'steamroll' longstanding consensus through continued reverts on multiple pages without first gaining consensus is disruptive editing. Maybe I'm getting attached to long-standing norms since I've been editing here since 2003 and getting a bit crotchety, but there are established norms for a reason. I'd also like to point out that the lack of effort to engage in discussion is evident also by the fact I appear to be talking to myself here on the Talk while reverts continue to be made on the main page. trackratte (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would have a look at the |Geographical Names Board of Canada which "is comprised of members from each province and territory and various federal departments concerned" and whose role is as a "national coordinating body are the development of standard policies for the treatment of names and terminology, the promotion of the use of official names, and the encouragement of the development of international standards in cooperation with the United Nations". Further, to answer a point someone brought up about who gets to decide what the official names are: "until 1961 decisions were ultimately made in Ottawa. At that time, the responsibility for naming was transferred to the provinces". I looked at New Brunswick and there is a link to the Provincial Toponymy board, so it seems that the GNBC as an authoritive organization, draws it's information from whomever has jurisdiction, in this case the province of BC. trackratte (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The Geographical Names Board of Canada is a definitive and official source, where the Government of Canada, all of the provincial, and all of the territorial governments lodge official geographical names. And the source, in the right hand column, clearly shows "official" next to both, so stating they're just "approved" and "not official" is independent synthesis and directly countered by both official and verifiable sources from the Geographical Names Board of Canada in addition to the Government of British Columbia's own official geographic names database.
In summary:
1.Trailblzr's point that BC does not have an official language is irrelevant and missing the point. Any assumption about the name of something based on an officially designated language or lack thereof is synthesis.
2. Joeyconnick's point that Canada is bilingual and therefore all names are bilingual is also irrelevant here and missing the point. Assuming that all names must be bilingual is also synthesis.
3. Walter's point that the ref(s) do not say that the names of the province are official is factually incorrect.
4. Geographical names are officially managed by the relevant authorities and lodged in an official national government database, and are designated as "official" or (I assume) other categories such as proposed or alternative. So usage here seems stupefyingly simple: look up the name on the Names Board database to see what name(s) is official, if it's listed as official then it is, if it's not then it's not. No synthesis or debate is required. Which makes this entire discussion seem a bit crazy really. trackratte (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, the Geographical Names Board of Canada is a definitive source for Canada, but it has absolutely no effect on determining if there is a legal French name for the province. In summary, you've provided absolutely no facts that support that the Legislature of the province British Columbia has legally adopted a French version of its name. We have other sources that provide a French name for the province and notwithstanding the fact that Canada is official bilingual, there is no legal name for it French. Anything else is therefore anecdotal and factually incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous and bordering on xenophobic. Canada recognizes English and French names for every province and territory. There is absolutely no harm of including the French version of the name of this province recognized by the Government of Canada in this article, whether the province has one, none, or two official languages. Period. I'd hope those on French Wikipedia would be amenable to the inverse. Looks like they are. Hwy43 (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Bit of a red herring. No one is talking about legislation, and having a name passed in law by a legislature is not required for determining what something is called, particularly here. What is required, and under discussion, is the official name, meaning by definition the name "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body". And as mentioned, the Board is the authority in this matter.
- Second, the convention of including the official names in the infobox has existed here, unbroken from what I can see, for 18 years straight. I fail to see any compelling reason to change this extremely long standing standard, and quite a few to keep it, chiefly that it is verifiable one of two official names designated by both the Federal and Provincial governments for the purpose. Focusing on legislation is missing the point once again.
- I mean, this is mind-boggingly simple, the sources cannot be more explicit or clearly laid out. It is the definitive source and shows two names with the words official beside them. trackratte (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- And if anyone wants to play the legislation card, simply look at the French version of the Canadian Constitution. It translates British Columbia to Columbia-Britannique. It does not retain its English name. There is no legislation more official than our country's constitution. Hwy43 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Not xenophobic in any such way. While the government of Canada is officially bilingual as a legal body, individual provinces are not. Some have elected to be so, others are uni-lingual, and Nunavut is tri-lingual. It's nice that the French project officially recognizes the native name of the province. There is no legal French name for the province. If there is, I'll be glad to see the legislation that shows it.
- Yes, I am talking about legal name as that's where this started. You may not be talking about it, but that's clearly the problem. Anything short of a legal name is WP:OR and should be ignored. I mean, this is mind-boggingly simple: the sources are not legal names. There is no legal source.
- There is no question that BC is part of Canada, but clearly neither of you understands federal-provincial boundaries of jurisdiction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the interests of avoiding carrying on ad nauseum, there is quite clearly no consensus to dispense with the current status quo of having official names noted within provincial infoboxes.
- 1. The threshold of consensus here is very high in that the current standard applicable here has been in place for at least 18 years, which as Wkp was started 19 years ago, is quite nearly as long-standing a consensus as one can get here.
- 2. There are official and verifiable sources referenced supporting the status quo.
- 3. By my account, there are two advocating to dispense with the extremely long standing standard, and three against, making it overwhelmingly clear that there is simply no consensus to change the enduring status quo. trackratte (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I wasn't arguing for a change in the silent consensus of years, but you still have no clue about the facts of the actual issue. There are absolutely no sources to support it as an official name. In fact, BC has no legally official language. By my count, you don't know much and you're grasping at straws looking for anything to support a commonly known French spelling of the name. They're all moot as BC has no official language. The French version is not an
AlternateName
, it's a French version of the name. There is no documentation at {{Infobox province or territory of Canada}} but it's amockery of the template to include the French name here, particularly since it is not an official name for the province. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)- See Justice Canada for using names in legislation here, "However, there are well-established policies and practices governing the writing of geographical names in federal documents, and it is only logical that federal legislation abide by them...TB Circular 1983-58 identified the CPCGN, known today as the Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC), as the body responsible for authorizing the geographical names to be used on federal maps...Today, the GNBC and the Bureau, along with the Gazetteer of Canada, are the most authoritative sources of information on the writing and translation of Canadian geographical names...Canadian Geographical Names Data Base: This is the national and most authoritative repository of official Canadian geographical names, including those authorized by the provinces and territories".
- And here you can see the Government of British Columbia entry for "Colombie-Britannique" which states "Status: Official" and "'British Columbia' and the approved French form, 'Colombie-Britannique'...source: correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office".
- I'm sorry, I wasn't arguing for a change in the silent consensus of years, but you still have no clue about the facts of the actual issue. There are absolutely no sources to support it as an official name. In fact, BC has no legally official language. By my count, you don't know much and you're grasping at straws looking for anything to support a commonly known French spelling of the name. They're all moot as BC has no official language. The French version is not an
- There is no question that BC is part of Canada, but clearly neither of you understands federal-provincial boundaries of jurisdiction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- In British Columbia's GEOGRAPHICAL NAMING PRINCIPLES, POLICY AND PROCEDURES, it states that "The Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is responsible for naming geographical features in British Columbia. The Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office. Reference Land Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 245; Order in Council 652, 2010; Privy Council Order 1969-1458; Privy Council Order 1990-549 and Privy Council Order 2000- 283....The Geographical Names Board of Canada (formerly known as the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) is the coordinating body for provincial and territorial geographical names authorities in Canada. As a member of this committee, British Columbia endorses the geographical naming principles and procedures established by the committee".
- So yes, the Government of British Columbia has designated Columbie-Britannique as an officially approved form as clearly referenced here (so you cannot say there are no sources), and this authority is legally held by the Minister and is rooted in law (as can be seen in the quoted source just above), and further the "names authority" repository is the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base (as can be seen sources just above once again). trackratte (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- The government of British Columbia is the legislative body and it has passed no legislation to the effect. A branch of the government has stated this is an acceptable French term to use to describe the province. As I've stated, they likely have translations for most other languages on the planet.
- You clearly have no understanding of the legal system and what I'm discussing. I'm moving on as you don't understand and I doubt you will in a reasonable amount of time. In short, Canada is officially bilingual, but this is not binding on any province and BC has no legally binding French name. Anyone who tries to convince you that there is a nexus between the federal languages act and provincial naming is either confused, lying or selling you falsehood out of whole cloth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of ad hominem and attacking of strawmen. The legal system has nothing to do with the infobox, I never said that bilingualism is binding on a province, and I never said there was nexus between the federal languages act and provincial naming (in fact I've never mentioned a Federal statute at all). Perhaps take the time to read what I'm saying and actually look at the references.
- What I did cite, however, is British Columbia law immediately above. So you have the BC Land Act which states in Chapter 245 "The minister is responsible for geographical names in British Columbia, so this is legislated in BC statute law. As you can see above, the "Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office" (of British Columbia), and whose database and decisions I've linked above. So, yes, the BC "legislative body" has indeed passed legislation to that effect. The BC Geo Names Office is the legal authority for names in BC, and they list two official titles, all of which is verifiable fact.
- As an aside, the Geographical Names Board of Canada in which all the Provinces' legal naming authorities coordinate and synchronize with, is also a legally established body in law constituted by Order-in-Council 2000-283. trackratte (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There's inconsistency across all the provinces & territories infoboxes, concerning this matter. Some using the French version, while others not. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- All of the provinces have all official spellings (plus some non-official maybe, I haven't looked up to see provinces showing aboriginal spellings). Obviously provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec only have one as it's the same in both languages. trackratte (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- We should use only the english names in all these articles, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Quite certain, the english names aren't used in the French language Wikipedia, concerning the Canadian provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- That proposal would affect 1000s of Canadian topic pages and will have to be brought up somewhere like the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board and be treated in a formal manner, as something like you are proposing is way beyond the scope of this Talk page and this limited audience.
- The French language version of this article has both official English and French spellings and this has been the case since the article was first created in 2003, so has had the official English title literally since its inception. The same longstanding consensus exists on the French versions of all the Province pages as the English versions. trackratte (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- What ever ya'll decide. I hope it bring consistency to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- The only consistency is that the province's legal name in English should be displayed as this is the English project. If there is an official alternative name, it too should be listed. If there is nothing in legislation, leave it out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- What ever ya'll decide. I hope it bring consistency to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- We should use only the english names in all these articles, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Quite certain, the english names aren't used in the French language Wikipedia, concerning the Canadian provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Take a look at the Prince Edward Island infobox, which has 3 language versions. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I get it. Other stuff exists. That doesn't make it correct. I don't know if any of those are legally official languages of the province, but if they are, then excellent. if not, they should be removed as unnecessary decoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would discuss PEI at the PEI talk page, but PEI legally has two official titles only, which is to say the third language version isn't official or recognised by the competent legal authority. However, there is no rule that names included within the article lede sentence or infobox have to be legally recognized or official. So, I would look at how long the third language title has been included (i.e. there is a significant difference if an Anon added it yesterday, vice it having been there for the past 10+ years). Also keep in mind that I believe a few provinces and territories use aboriginal titles and I think Nova Scotia has/had gaelic. So a consensus has to be arrived at for all of the provincial/territorial infoboxes so that a common standard can apply (obviously with deviations possible for good reason and with consensus). trackratte (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Trackratte, if I am reading the room correctly, this discussion is now over. It is time to move on. Hwy43 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Trackratte, no, the page you linked to is a federal website, and they are legally bilingual. Why can't you understand the difference between a federa-provincial division of responsibility. In PEI, all of the signs related to federal jurisdiction are bilingual. Most signs are simply in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll copy and paste from above since you either don't bother to read the references or purposefully attack strawmen:
- You have the BC Land Act which states in Chapter 245 "The minister is responsible for geographical names in British Columbia, so this is legislated in BC statute law. As you can see above, the "Minister delegates this responsibility to the Geographical Names Office" (of British Columbia), whose provincial database and decisions I've linked above. So, yes, the BC "legislative body" has indeed passed legislation to that effect. The BC Geo Names Office is the legal authority for names in BC, and they list two official titles, all of which is verifiable fact.
- And I believe Hwy43 is attempting to end this entirley odd conversation, as I had already attempted earlier. trackratte (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- The minister can call a city or region whatever he wants. The ministry can call a city or region whatever they want. This has no bearing on any official status in legislation. Do not conflate a ministry with official legislation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would discuss PEI at the PEI talk page, but PEI legally has two official titles only, which is to say the third language version isn't official or recognised by the competent legal authority. However, there is no rule that names included within the article lede sentence or infobox have to be legally recognized or official. So, I would look at how long the third language title has been included (i.e. there is a significant difference if an Anon added it yesterday, vice it having been there for the past 10+ years). Also keep in mind that I believe a few provinces and territories use aboriginal titles and I think Nova Scotia has/had gaelic. So a consensus has to be arrived at for all of the provincial/territorial infoboxes so that a common standard can apply (obviously with deviations possible for good reason and with consensus). trackratte (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I get it. Other stuff exists. That doesn't make it correct. I don't know if any of those are legally official languages of the province, but if they are, then excellent. if not, they should be removed as unnecessary decoration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is B.C. the westernmost province in Canada?
Why is B.C. the westernmost province in Canada? The westernmost land in Yukon is slightly west of the westernmost land in B.C. 208.59.132.152 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yukon is a territory and not a province. Calidum 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I take it that was from the edit you added and I reverted. Yes, BC is a province while Yukon is a territory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Parliament of British Columbia
Regarding this revert, there is in fact a "Parliament of British Columbia"; we even have an article on it. BC and QC are the only two provinces (I think) that formally call it "Parliament" rather than "Legislature".
The BC Hansard is another source that uses "Parliament" for the provincial legislature. Indefatigable (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Constitutional Act 1867, for the initial provinces, says that the respective Legislatures consist of the Lieutenant Governor (i.e. representative of the sovereign) and the Legislative Assembly. So there is a distinction that is often loss in terms of conflating legislature and legislative assembly.
- For practical purposes though, a legislature within a Westminster Parliamentary System is a parliament which is why you see many provinces officially use the term.
- Either way, a Parliament / Legislature in the Canadian system is made up of the Queen, the lower house, and the upper house if applicable. So to say that the Legislature is the Legislative Assembly is factually incorrect. trackratte (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)