![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
![]() |
---|
Discussion of Canada's official name Future TFA paragraph |
Freedom Convoy 2022
I think the Freedom Convoy 2022 is relevant enough to include a mention of it in the paragraph aboout disruption due to the COVID pandemic. There are hundreds of sources in the article about the convoy itself. --CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think Terry Fox has had a greater, lasting impact on the nation and its psyche, yet he is not mentioned. Why in the world would we ignore WP:RECENT to add a discussion about a convey fuelled with foreign cash to this article? I also see that you are a WP:SPA and your only concern, to date, has been the protest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Too early to tell if this is actually a significant event, and since it doesn’t appear to be achieving anything it doesn’t appear it will be significant. It may change in the future but right now we’re not news. Canterbury Tail talk 02:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Freedom Convoy isn't relevant enough to Canada as a country to be included. User:Aem111607 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- It lacks weight considering how little the article discusses covid. TFD (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Claim about Lower Mainland and Calgary-Edmonton Corridor population
This sentence: "An additional 30 percent live along the British Columbia Lower Mainland and the Calgary–Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.[313]" is untrue. It is true that about 30% of Canada lives in Western Canada, but only about 16% of Canadians live in the Lower Mainland and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. 2001:569:7E7F:8000:A938:EF27:3B40:30AE (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Province and territory
Content trying to be added....
Each province and territory establishes elected local municipal governments. The powers assigned to these governments varies across the country. Most provinces have only a single tier of municipal governments, but Ontario and Quebec use a two-tier system where there exists both a town government and a county government. In the Maritimes, Quebec, and Alberta, all land is part of an urban or rural municipality, but the other provinces and territories have large areas of unincorporated land.
So i see a few problems with this....Although there is alots here it really is very gernerlized. Its not sourced (think easy to do). The content leads to no info by way of links. I think what is at the main article would be more info.--Moxy- 14:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Theoretically, provinces have a great deal of power relative to the federal government, with jurisdiction over many public goods such as health care, education, welfare, and intra-provincial transportation.[1] They receive "transfer payments" from the federal government to pay for these, as well as exacting their own taxes.[2] In practice, however, the federal government can use these transfer payments to influence these provincial areas.[2]
References
- ^ Mahler, Gregory S. (1987). New Dimensions of Canadian Federalism: Canada in a Comparative Perspective. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-8386-3289-5. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
- ^ a b Peach, Ian (2007). Constructing Tomorrows Federalism: New Perspectives on Canadian Governance. Univ. of Manitoba Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-88755-315-8. Archived from the original on May 10, 2016. Retrieved November 22, 2015.
Overlinks
@Walter Görlitz: You're actually one of a handfull of editors I think are exceptional, which is why you left me scratching my head as to why you linked North America, the United Kingdom, the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the United Nations, NATO, and Federalism. I'm not sure reading these articles is particularly relevant to understanding the article Canada, and some of the links are listed as specific examples of what not to link at MOS:OL. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- My edit history shows I am very much in favour of respecting OVERLINK. I even remove links to Canadians on biography articles because of what I have discussed and seen discussed at that MoS. However, the guiding principles are whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked and what follows are the nations, etc. Articles about places have generally been considered valid articles to contain links to geographic content, and this certainly falls into that category.
- I would be be pleased to hear if we have let this go too far and if the following topic should be linked in this article or not.
- North America
- United Kingdom
- Pacific Ocean
- Arctic Ocean
- United Nations
- NATO
- Federalism
- I assume there are links to them in similar articles so comparison is not rationale, instead focus on where there is any benefit to readers to have the link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
For the first time, Canada is the No. 1 overall country
- University Canada West -Chart--Moxy-
21:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Sea of Blue
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&curid=5042916&diff=1083483944&oldid=1083476669 Typical WP:SEAOFBLUE no? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @TheEncyclopediaReader:...No need to link USA main article in this lead.....as it leads to ZERO info on this country. TheEncyclopediaReader is new and needs some help.....looking over a few edits .....lots of guess work and changes to long-standing consensus text.Moxy-
02:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Think shock... quite a knowledgeable edit. Moxy-
03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Think shock... quite a knowledgeable edit. Moxy-
Drop clutter from infobox
So lets talk about this again.....I vote to drop "Religion" and "ethnic groups" from the info box as it just regurgitates whats already in the article that is in prose formate.--Moxy- 16:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem oddly prominent for what it represents I do admit. Ethnic makeup and religious groupings are far from the most important pieces of info I'm looking for in a country's infobox, although I'll admit it's fairly common. I think having it so prominent in the infobox makes an implication that it's important to Canada to know these boxes, perhaps too much influence from the US on this sort of stuff? I wouldn't be upset to lose it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's important for some readers to know this and not really a waste of space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not only does it take up a bunch of prominent space for something that is not really a key fact, the details are quite outdated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, the information regarding a country's ethnic/racial as well as religious makeup is very important for many readers, that's why it's listed in the infobox of almost every Wikipedia entry dedicated to a specific country. In Canada's context, this information is even more useful since being a country of immigrants, its composition is rapidly changing as evidenced by the censuses held every 6 years. If this information is indeed as irrelevant as Nikkimaria claims it to be, than I urge them to remove similar information from infoboxes of other countries too such as United States, Russia, Belize etc without facing any resistance or criticism from other editors.
- Secondly and most importantly, the details are not outdated as Nikkimaria claims them to be. They are in fact the most comprehensive and latest statistics sourced directly from Statistics Canada. The latest census was held in 2021 and details about ethnicity/religion will be released in a few months, so the information will be updated accordingly. Until than this information is the most reliable insight into Canada's demographics. Neplota (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that this minute detail is "very important for many readers". It does not provide information as to changes in composition, being a point-in-time snapshot of very broad categories from 6 and 11 years ago; it doesn't indicate anything to do with current immigration or other trends, being extracted from context; and it doesn't warrant this level of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that this minute detail is "very important for many readers". There is also no evidence that most readers including me are interested in knowing what percentage of Canada is water or what date format they use, yet it's still there in the infobox, because that's what infoboxes are for! It does not provide information as to changes in composition, being a point-in-time snapshot of very broad categories from 6 and 11 years ago; it doesn't indicate anything to do with current immigration or other trends Yes it does! It highlights the multicultural identity as well as ethnocultural diversity of Canada, which is what Canada is known for around the globe being a country of immigrants. By the way, why are you obsessed with 6 & 11 year time periods between censuses? Literally every country in the world conducts census every 10 years instead of every other year & the important thing is that the reader knows that the data is from 2016 or 2011, so they aren't being mislead in any way. As I already stated, the ethnic and religion data from latest 2021 census will be released in a few months and the infobox will be updated, so your entire premise is based on a false assumption. and it doesn't warrant this level of prominence. Again that's your own POV which isn't shared by everyone else here. You made a bold edit and failed to achieve a consensus here to justify it. Meanwhile I am here defending a version of the infobox that has been there for years now & resembles the infoboxes of other Wikipedia country related articles.Neplota (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." (MOS:INFOBOX). Infoboxes are not for overloading with every available stat, particularly lists of stats. If you want to argue that other stats should be excluded, go ahead; the presence of other stats does not require inclusion of these ones.
- A single point-in-time snapshot cannot by its nature demonstrate anything about change or trend; your argument does not disprove that. Nor does it speak to "multicultural identity". All it provides is very broad information about ethnicity, and about religion (the latter of which is not supported in any way by your arguments but only by your own singular purpose).
- You are not defending "a version of the infobox that has been there for years now"; you're defending one that was in place for less than a day two weeks ago. Where have you established consensus for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @NikkimariaYou are not defending "a version of the infobox that has been there for years now"; you're defending one that was in place for less than a day two weeks ago. Where have you established consensus for that? The information in the infobox has been here for years under collapsible lists. However, I agree someone has changed the list format recently. But you are here justifying the removal of this information all together from the infobox, but you have failed to justify your stance or reach a consensus as evidenced here on the talk page. So the a reasonable middle ground here is to add collapsible list same as before, in this way most readers will not be exposed to this "overloading" information, but at same time interested readers can access it with a single click. RegardsNeplota (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- You may disagree with my rationale, but at the moment it appears no one supports your proposed compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- How do you say hyperbole in a way that you understand? I agree, but recognize current consensus is against its inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- You may disagree with my rationale, but at the moment it appears no one supports your proposed compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "the purpose of an infobox [is to] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." If these elements are discussed in the article, then a correct summary would include the details. We do not add content to the infobox not summarized in the article, but we should give readers a good overview. Under the demographics section we list both ethnic groups and religious composition, and since the infobox supports providing a summary, we should utilize those parameters. I do not see the driving side discussed in the article, so that makes perfect sense to remove based on INFOBOXPURPOSE. Are there other things in the infobox that we should remove because they are not discussed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- INFOBOXPURPOSE means that things not discussed should generally not be included; it does not mean that everything discussed must be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not quite right. It means both, 1) the infobox should not contain material not discussed in the article, and 2) it should summarize the article. If the infobox parameters allow for it, it should be summarized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not consistent with what the full guideline says - after the portion you quote, we see "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". So the principle embodied is not "provide every bit of data possible in the template", but "be concise". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again, out of context, but I did read that. Full context is that the infobox is to summarize the article. So the principle is "if it's in the article, include it". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- The full context makes it abundantly clear that it is not that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, the first sentence of MOS:INFOBOX tells me An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. (emphasis mine). Right at the top. Overarching purpose. So once again, your WP:IDHT and "I don't like that" arguments fall flat. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- That you do not like it or think it is a key feature of the country is irrelevant as the creators of the infobox think it is important enough to help explain the key features of a country are enough to accept that we should summarize it in the infobox here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)`
- The parameter exists != the parameter must be filled in wherever conceivably possible. That's not an "I don't like it" argument, it's a very standard and well-established principle, which can be backed up by many specific examples (eg WP:INFONAT). If you want to argue that these stats are key facts for this article, you're going to need to do more than note that the parameters exist in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, missed the point.
- The first well-established principle here is that if you don't like something you argue tendentiously until the editor you're arguing with walks away. Not going to happen here, and I will not argue with you, I will simply state and restate that you're wrong. Now let other editors voice their opinion.
- The well-established principle of infoboxes is that they are to summarize the article. That is not happening in your version of this infobox.
- The final well-established principle is that if it can be used, do it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The parameter exists != the parameter must be filled in wherever conceivably possible. That's not an "I don't like it" argument, it's a very standard and well-established principle, which can be backed up by many specific examples (eg WP:INFONAT). If you want to argue that these stats are key facts for this article, you're going to need to do more than note that the parameters exist in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- That you do not like it or think it is a key feature of the country is irrelevant as the creators of the infobox think it is important enough to help explain the key features of a country are enough to accept that we should summarize it in the infobox here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)`
- Exactly, the first sentence of MOS:INFOBOX tells me An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. (emphasis mine). Right at the top. Overarching purpose. So once again, your WP:IDHT and "I don't like that" arguments fall flat. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The full context makes it abundantly clear that it is not that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again, out of context, but I did read that. Full context is that the infobox is to summarize the article. So the principle is "if it's in the article, include it". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not consistent with what the full guideline says - after the portion you quote, we see "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". So the principle embodied is not "provide every bit of data possible in the template", but "be concise". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not quite right. It means both, 1) the infobox should not contain material not discussed in the article, and 2) it should summarize the article. If the infobox parameters allow for it, it should be summarized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- INFOBOXPURPOSE means that things not discussed should generally not be included; it does not mean that everything discussed must be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @NikkimariaYou are not defending "a version of the infobox that has been there for years now"; you're defending one that was in place for less than a day two weeks ago. Where have you established consensus for that? The information in the infobox has been here for years under collapsible lists. However, I agree someone has changed the list format recently. But you are here justifying the removal of this information all together from the infobox, but you have failed to justify your stance or reach a consensus as evidenced here on the talk page. So the a reasonable middle ground here is to add collapsible list same as before, in this way most readers will not be exposed to this "overloading" information, but at same time interested readers can access it with a single click. RegardsNeplota (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that this minute detail is "very important for many readers". There is also no evidence that most readers including me are interested in knowing what percentage of Canada is water or what date format they use, yet it's still there in the infobox, because that's what infoboxes are for! It does not provide information as to changes in composition, being a point-in-time snapshot of very broad categories from 6 and 11 years ago; it doesn't indicate anything to do with current immigration or other trends Yes it does! It highlights the multicultural identity as well as ethnocultural diversity of Canada, which is what Canada is known for around the globe being a country of immigrants. By the way, why are you obsessed with 6 & 11 year time periods between censuses? Literally every country in the world conducts census every 10 years instead of every other year & the important thing is that the reader knows that the data is from 2016 or 2011, so they aren't being mislead in any way. As I already stated, the ethnic and religion data from latest 2021 census will be released in a few months and the infobox will be updated, so your entire premise is based on a false assumption. and it doesn't warrant this level of prominence. Again that's your own POV which isn't shared by everyone else here. You made a bold edit and failed to achieve a consensus here to justify it. Meanwhile I am here defending a version of the infobox that has been there for years now & resembles the infoboxes of other Wikipedia country related articles.Neplota (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's no evidence that this minute detail is "very important for many readers". It does not provide information as to changes in composition, being a point-in-time snapshot of very broad categories from 6 and 11 years ago; it doesn't indicate anything to do with current immigration or other trends, being extracted from context; and it doesn't warrant this level of prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not only does it take up a bunch of prominent space for something that is not really a key fact, the details are quite outdated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's important for some readers to know this and not really a waste of space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- In agreement. Drop'em. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
First settlement by Vikings
New published research pins down the date of the first settlement to the year 1021 using a known cosmic ray surge in the year 993 CE to get the year precisely. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03972-8) My edit was properly cited using a reputable journal.
Why did my edit to include that get reverted back @Moxy: to say "approximately 1000 AD" and excluding the citation? Are we rounding all dates to the nearest 1000? Approximately 1000 AD *was* the best available information prior to this research. It wasn't shorthand to be vague intentionally. We don't say Columbus left Spain in approximately 1500 hen we know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada&oldid=prev&diff=1080551682
SSherris (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is it the first date when they got there that may be after Leif Erikson death??? or just when some building were made when they had been there for a few seasons?? Best to use mean carbon date from all indicators ...not just one study about the trees cut,,...and let the main article explain.... as I have writen at L'Anse aux Meadows {pls read the sources below that are in the lead that I have quoted for all to see.}. pls also be aware that the date of 1021 is not new ..its from the late 1980s as seen below......nothing new here with this source you have presented that I used in the lead of the main article.Moxy-
19:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
L'Anse aux Meadows (/ˈlænsi ˈmɛdoʊz/ lit. Meadows Cove) is an archaeological site, first excavated in the 1960s, of a Norse settlement dating to approximately 1,000 years ago (carbon dating estimates 990–1050 CE).[1][2][3] The site is located on the northernmost tip of the island of Newfoundland in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador near St. Anthony.
With tree-ring analysis of three structures at the site dating to the year 1021[4] and a mean carbon date of 1014 overall,[2] L'Anse aux Meadows is the only undisputed site of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact of Europeans with the Americas outside of Greenland.[3] It is notable as evidence of the Norse presence in North America and for its possible connection with Leif Erikson as mentioned in the Saga of the Greenlanders and the Saga of Erik the Red,[5] which were written down in the 13th century.[3] Archaeological evidence found at the site indicates that L’Anse aux Meadows may have served as a base camp for Norse exploration of North America, including regions to the south.[6]
References
- ^ Nydal, Reidar (1989). "A Critical Review of Radiocarbon Dating of a Norse Settlement at L'Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland Canada". Radiocarbon. 31 (3): 976–985. doi:10.1017/S0033822200012613. eISSN 1945-5755. ISSN 0033-8222.
With an assumed total systematic error of 30 ± 20 years, as a mean for various tree rings, the calibrated age range of L'Anse aux Meadows is AD 975–1020. This agrees well with the assumed historical age of ca AD 1000, a result which has also been recently corroborated by high-precision accelerator dating at the University of Toronto.
- ^ a b Cordell, Linda S.; Lightfoot, Kent; McManamon, Francis; Milner, George (2009). "L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site". Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-313-02189-3.
This is a substantial base for analysis , which yields an entirely credible range of dates between 990 and 1050 and a mean date of 1014 CE , which is popularly rounded off at 1000 CE .
- ^ a b c Ledger, Paul M.; Girdland-Flink, Linus; Forbes, Véronique (15 July 2019). "New horizons at L'Anse aux Meadows". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116 (31): 15341–15343. doi:10.1073/PNAS.1907986116. eISSN 1091-6490. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6681721. PMID 31308231.
Modeling results were remarkably consistent, and model A suggests Norse occupation began Cal AD 910–1030..... A weighted mean of twig dates—notwithstanding issues associated with combination of 14C ages from multiple individuals—provided a result of AD 986–1022
- ^ Kuitems, Margot; Wallace, Birgitta L.; Lindsay, Charles; Scifo, Andrea; Doeve, Petra; Jenkins, Kevin; Lindauer, Susanne; Erdil, Pınar; Ledger, Paul M.; Forbes, Véronique; Vermeeren, Caroline (2021-10-20). "Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021". Nature. 601 (7893): 388–391. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03972-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 8770119. PMID 34671168. S2CID 239051036.
Our result of AD 1021 for the cutting year constitutes the only secure calendar date for the presence of Europeans across the Atlantic before the voyages of Columbus. Moreover, the fact that our results, on three different trees, converge on the same year is notable and unexpected. This coincidence strongly suggests Norse activity at L'Anse aux Meadows in AD 1021. In addition, our research demonstrates the potential of the AD 993 anomaly in atmospheric 14C concentrations for pinpointing the ages of past migrations and cultural interactions.
- ^ Wallace, Birgitta (2009). "L'Anse aux Meadows, Leif Eriksson's Home in Vinland". Journal of the North Atlantic: 115. ISSN 1935-1984. JSTOR 26686942.
- ^ Kuitems, Margot; Wallace, Birgitta L.; Lindsay, Charles; Scifo, Andrea; Doeve, Petra; Jenkins, Kevin; Lindauer, Susanne; Erdil, Pınar; Ledger, Paul M.; Forbes, Véronique; Vermeeren, Caroline; Friedrich, Ronny; Dee, Michael W. (January 2022). "Evidence for European presence in the Americas in ad 1021". Nature. 601 (7893): 388–391. Bibcode:2022Natur.601..388K. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03972-8. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 8770119. PMID 34671168.
Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022
Add | iso3166code = CA
to ″Infobox country″ block Benmanns (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done Please get consensus for this change before using the edit request. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Land Border.
Hello all, I know there is a general guidance to reduce the length of this thread. Today it was announced that Denmark and Canada will share a land border increasing by 100% the number of countries that Canada shares a land border [1]. I am relatively inexperienced and do not want to add to an adult thread without checking in with all of you first Carter2tired2taco (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Carter2tired2taco, where in the article were you wanting to add that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
References
New land border with Denmark soon?
According to this article, Canada and Denmark have reached an agreement to divide the long-disputed Hans Island in the Arctic between Canada and Danish Greenland, creating a land border between the two countries for the first time (a maritime boundary previously existed, but no land crossings). While this is an extremely minor change, the creation of a land border itself seems like it would warrant a mention in the Geography section, considering that as of now Canada only shares a land border with one other country, the United States. The deal is expected to be formally unveiled tomorrow. If so, should we be prepared to make an edit soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:200:14C7:190D:705:2C87:12BF (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"ھنھدھ" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ھنھدھ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#ھنھدھ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Does Canada currently border Greenland / the Danish Realm?
Please see Talk:Hans Island § Does Canada currently border Greenland / the Danish Realm?. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Inconsistencies
Not to beat a dead horse, but I fail to understand the inconsistency of Canada’s infobox not including ethnic demographics, when likeminded countries like the United States or United Kingdom have them included.
Understand the issue of overcrowding, but ideally there would be a universal standard for what is, and isn’t, included in a country’s infobox, certainly for comparable countries like Canada and the US.
Obviously one of the flaws of “consensus making” around here. Bizarre standards applied differently to similar articles. Maybe a WikiProject in geopolitics could get to this eventually… StevenBjerke97 talk 22:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Best not jam the infobox with stats that are presented in the same manner in the article because most will only scroll a few times...thus a smaller infobox allows readers to reach the TOC (most used navigational aid) DATA... this POV is what you will see in a few well maintained FA country articles that leave out somtimes religion and/or ethnicity and/or languages stats Japan, Germany. Well some FA articles like India do ... but in general does not care about accessibility in the same manner as we do here... with mass size..text sandwiching..odd sized images all over with undue weight in some sections ..lead jamed with sources ...etc. We try to do what is best for readers here,,,,that all said I bet an RFC on the topic would go your way.Moxy-
23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand your point. Won’t push anything for now. Ideally, infobox formats should be more consistent in likeminded articles, at least in my opinion. Won’t happen overnight. --StevenBjerke97 talk 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @StevenBjerke97 I agree with your assessment here. I don't understand what exactly is the issue here with the overcrowding because infobox itself allows us to add data about ethnicity and religion. Using Moxy's logic anything in the infobox can be considered as "crowding" it and can be removed in an instant. For example statistics about the economy are also mentioned in great detail in the relevant section of the article, therefore if I think they are overcrowding the infobox, I can remove them too. Infobox is a snapshot of an entire country, and religion and ethnicity are a part of that snapshot especially when they are referenced from a reputed source like statistics Canada. I think the problem here is that a few editors have an oversized impact on the decision making, therefore I am starting an rfc.Neplota (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
RFC: Ethnic and religious distribution in the infobox
Should the infobox in the lead outline the ethnic & religious diversity in Canada which is referenced from a reputed source i.e., Statistics Canada, similar to other country related articles like United States, Lithuania etc? Neplota (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Almost every other Wikipedia entry about a particular country e.g, United States, India, China etc has statistics about ethnicity and religion in the infobox, therefore I see no reason why Canada shouldn't. Previous discussions on this issue reveal that a few editors are against it because from their perspective it amounts to "overcrowding" the infobox. However, that's a subjective feeling. Infobox is a snapshot of an entire country, and religion and ethnicity are a part of that snapshot. Furthermore, if religion and ethnic data is overcrowding the infobox than this rule should be consistently applied across all Wikipedia country related articles not just Canada and using this logic anything in the infobox can be labelled as overcrowding it, therefore susceptible to deletion.Neplota (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'No Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.... listing five or six or several groups does not give the proper overall impression of the countries ethnic diversity and heritage. It also just makes the info box larger that will limit the amount of viewers that will see the full lead. Years ago we had are own info box with parameters relevant to Canada. Always knew the mergers of these boxes would lead to more and more jammed in the box. It's too bad project's loss their own boxes all over. Content editors versus template editors is a hard balancd.Moxy-
05:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- So just because Canada is super diverse, we should remove statistics about that diversity from the infobox?! That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Those "five or six" groups you are talking about are broader categories i.e., European, Asian, Indigenous, Latin American, African etc and encompass all those diverse ethnicities under them. Using that logic, statistics from United States' infobox should be removed too, because it's even more ethnically diverse than Canada. Furthermore you still haven't addressed the reason behind the removal of religion related figures from the infobox too.Neplota (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Need a proper overview per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Is the field of value?" Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?"....what are we listing just the top European Canadians? Dispite the fact the vast majority of Canadians for the past 50 years are, , Vietnamese, Nigerian, Filipino, Haitian and other visible minority.? Shoukd have a straight forward rule like WP:INFOBOXETH in my view Moxy-
07:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I can't understand what exactly you are trying to say here. European Canadians are listed on the top because they are the majority (72.9% as of 2016 census). Vietnamese, Nigerian, Filipino, Haitian and other "visible minorities" aren't the majority! Are you doubting the Canadian census?Neplota (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope not doubting anything ...like I am doing something wrong ....looking where we can summarize the information best and believe WP:Prose is the best solution for over 250 ethnic groups with a main article hatnote. Moxy-
08:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those 250 ethnic groups are already summarised into 5 major groups by Statistics Canada in an extremely easy to understand manner! Just like United States includes countless native American ethnicities into a single category. Same goes with Asian Americans and Canadian Americans. Than why do we need to change this or go against this classification? Moreover, you still haven't explained why you are against the inclusion of religion related data, there are only a handful of major religions with significant following (> 1%) in Canada and can be easily summarised in the infox.Neplota (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Adding to article prose now....
- List of ethnicities
- 72.9% European
- 17.7% Asian
- 4.9% Indigenous
- 3.1% Black
- 1.3% Latin American
- 0.2% Oceanian..Moxy-
08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- This rfc is about the inclusion of this information in the infobox not the prose. Moreover, you still haven't justified your objection to the inclusion of the religion related data too. Furthermore, as per you "Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.... listing five or six or several groups does not give the proper overall impression of the countries ethnic diversity and heritage", yet you used the same statistics in the prose, meaning you don't even stand by you own argument.Neplota (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yup info is there. No need to say it 2 times added links See below See below in infobox...this way its still there linking to a proper overview. Moxy-
16:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am open to the idea of adding collapsible lists, in this way the infobox won't be "overcrowding" and the interested people can still see the list with a single click.Neplota (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted as the list is not collapsed for 70 % of readers. When editing always a good idea to view things in mobile and desktop. Moxy-
15:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted as the list is not collapsed for 70 % of readers. When editing always a good idea to view things in mobile and desktop. Moxy-
- I am open to the idea of adding collapsible lists, in this way the infobox won't be "overcrowding" and the interested people can still see the list with a single click.Neplota (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yup info is there. No need to say it 2 times added links See below See below in infobox...this way its still there linking to a proper overview. Moxy-
- This rfc is about the inclusion of this information in the infobox not the prose. Moreover, you still haven't justified your objection to the inclusion of the religion related data too. Furthermore, as per you "Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.... listing five or six or several groups does not give the proper overall impression of the countries ethnic diversity and heritage", yet you used the same statistics in the prose, meaning you don't even stand by you own argument.Neplota (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those 250 ethnic groups are already summarised into 5 major groups by Statistics Canada in an extremely easy to understand manner! Just like United States includes countless native American ethnicities into a single category. Same goes with Asian Americans and Canadian Americans. Than why do we need to change this or go against this classification? Moreover, you still haven't explained why you are against the inclusion of religion related data, there are only a handful of major religions with significant following (> 1%) in Canada and can be easily summarised in the infox.Neplota (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope not doubting anything ...like I am doing something wrong ....looking where we can summarize the information best and believe WP:Prose is the best solution for over 250 ethnic groups with a main article hatnote. Moxy-
- I am sorry but I can't understand what exactly you are trying to say here. European Canadians are listed on the top because they are the majority (72.9% as of 2016 census). Vietnamese, Nigerian, Filipino, Haitian and other "visible minorities" aren't the majority! Are you doubting the Canadian census?Neplota (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Need a proper overview per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Is the field of value?" Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?"....what are we listing just the top European Canadians? Dispite the fact the vast majority of Canadians for the past 50 years are, , Vietnamese, Nigerian, Filipino, Haitian and other visible minority.? Shoukd have a straight forward rule like WP:INFOBOXETH in my view Moxy-
- So just because Canada is super diverse, we should remove statistics about that diversity from the infobox?! That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Those "five or six" groups you are talking about are broader categories i.e., European, Asian, Indigenous, Latin American, African etc and encompass all those diverse ethnicities under them. Using that logic, statistics from United States' infobox should be removed too, because it's even more ethnically diverse than Canada. Furthermore you still haven't addressed the reason behind the removal of religion related figures from the infobox too.Neplota (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No Just because some countries do this, does not mean every country should. Info-boxes are handy for simple information. TFD (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- But that's not a valid justification in support of not keeping well sourced and informative material away from the infobox. If it's not going against the Wikipedia guidelines and the infobox template allows it, than why should I be prevented from adding it, especially when there are no convincing arguments against it?Neplota (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is valid or a convincing argument iis subjective. The same protocol page has been referenced for both inclusion and exclusion. I am more concern with a proper overview and accessibility for are readers over matching less quality articles. I see Japan another FA article having same recent edits..Moxy-
08:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am more concerned about the fact that 2 editors are pushing their "subjective" POV on multiple articles. The editor who removed long standing religion and ethnicity data from this article is the same one who is having problem[1] with the inclusion of religion related statistics on the article Japan's infobox, despite it being well sourced and not against any guidelines. After reverting the edit, they engage the other editors in an endless discussion on the talk page with no clear end result until the other editors back out.Neplota (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no guideline or policy necessitating the inclusion of any particular piece of sourced information. CMD (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- But there are guidelines against removing a well sourced piece of information without giving any valid reason apart from subjective feelings. Using that logic what is preventing me from removing information about total population and it's density from the infobox by saying it's causing overcrowding too? If infobox template is allowing me to add that particular piece of information and it's well sourced, than such vehement opposition from just 2 editors seems to be borderline bullying at this point. They simply don't own this articleNeplota (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no guideline or policy necessitating the inclusion of any particular piece of sourced information. CMD (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am more concerned about the fact that 2 editors are pushing their "subjective" POV on multiple articles. The editor who removed long standing religion and ethnicity data from this article is the same one who is having problem[1] with the inclusion of religion related statistics on the article Japan's infobox, despite it being well sourced and not against any guidelines. After reverting the edit, they engage the other editors in an endless discussion on the talk page with no clear end result until the other editors back out.Neplota (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is valid or a convincing argument iis subjective. The same protocol page has been referenced for both inclusion and exclusion. I am more concern with a proper overview and accessibility for are readers over matching less quality articles. I see Japan another FA article having same recent edits..Moxy-
- But that's not a valid justification in support of not keeping well sourced and informative material away from the infobox. If it's not going against the Wikipedia guidelines and the infobox template allows it, than why should I be prevented from adding it, especially when there are no convincing arguments against it?Neplota (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'No My comments are about including these figures anywhere. They are ALWAYS misleading, and tend to maintain archaic, even simply false views of differences among humans. A quick glance at the list of ethnicities above from Moxy looks more like the confusing racial labels the USA gives its citizens, NOT ethnicities. (Whatever that word really means.) Are Latin Americans and Europeans really mutually exclusive? Why is one of those labels a false description of skin colour, when it really means something entirely different. (Someone whose ancestors were slaves from sub-Sharan Africa? I'm not sure.) Declarations of religion are also notoriously inaccurate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you are calling official Canadian census figures inaccurate? The list of ethnicities is given by the StatsCan itself. Moreover, people self identified as belonging to a particular religion in the census, so how can that be inaccurate?Neplota (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Censuses are always inaccurate. Statcan has a whole page on various potential issues and how they try to manage them. CMD (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Using your logic we shouldn't use the total population figures & other valuable data derived from the Canadian census across all Wikipedia pages because that can be inaccurate too. It simply doesn't make any sense! Nothing is ideal but that doesn't mean we should discard it. But just to be sure that people aren't being misled in any way, we can put a footnote. However, there is no doubt that official census figures are the best for getting a glimpse into the demographics of any country.Neplota (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Religious parents inevitably claim their children are the same religion as the parents. That's a lie. Many people still declare the religion their parents told them they were as kids. Many people say they are Catholic just because they were confirmed as Catholics as children, even though they haven't attended mass for decades. And rather than telling where the list of ethinicites comes from, try to defend the list. Try answering my questions! HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry to break it to you but that's how the world works. People usually follow the religion of their parents. If a person hasn't gone to church his entire life but claims he's Catholic, than I will believe him instead of making my own assumptions regarding his faith. Using your logic we should delete all Wikipedia religion related articles because the statistics they contain can never satisfy your standard of "accuracy".Neplota (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Censuses are always inaccurate. Statcan has a whole page on various potential issues and how they try to manage them. CMD (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you are calling official Canadian census figures inaccurate? The list of ethnicities is given by the StatsCan itself. Moreover, people self identified as belonging to a particular religion in the census, so how can that be inaccurate?Neplota (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- No - Also, they should be removed from all sovereign state infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral - Then why is Canada being focused on? The US and UK are as diverse if not more so. I don’t see any of you commenting on the British and American talk pages, to change their infoboxes? Why? Because their equivalent “cliques” would probably show you the door. Unfortunately cliques and the guardian class around here set ridiculous double standards to different articles. Feel this is very ideological in nature too, believe me, I know Canadian politics. Don’t have the energy to push it. Done. Unfortunate. My rant is done. --StevenBjerke97 talk 04:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually on going tlaks about a few articles all with same problem Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neplota. Moxy-
14:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize for what I wrote earlier, I got a bit too intense about the topic. Clearly the consensus is to exclude it for now, will see how it evolves elsewhere. Again I apologize, wasn’t appropriate what I wrote. --StevenBjerke97 talk 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually on going tlaks about a few articles all with same problem Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neplota. Moxy-