Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

Main
pageTalk
pageArticle
alertsNew
articlesVital
articlesRequested
articlesFeatured
contentCanada
10,000Portal

Welcome to the talk page of WikiProject Canada

---

Start a new topic

---

Kensington Park (Burnaby)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

added a provincial environmental monitoring station citation WindBorneListener (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Working on this right now. Laylatamar (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Archive.today cleanup

I was wondering if there would be interest in setting up something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service for this project as well in order to coordinate cleanup. InfernoHues (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Press

From CBC News: Dal takes on Wikipedia for National Indigenous Heritage Month (Video). About Dalhousie University hosting an edit-a-thon recently. I wish somebody had told me this was going on. MediaKyle (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:W. R. Myers High School shooting#Requested move 13 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:W. R. Myers High School shooting#Requested move 13 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dean Bosacki

The article Dean Bosacki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 9 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced BLP. A Google search found only passing mentions, Grok, CrunchBase, and TV Guide. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Graphite Ventures (Canadian VC firm) Draft Review

Hi fellow Canadians! I have submitted a draft article on Graphite Ventures, a Canadian seed-stage venture capital firm based in Toronto, for review through AFC.

The draft can be found at: Draft:Graphite Ventures

I have disclosed a conflict of interest as an employee of the firm on both my user page and the draft talk page, and have submitted through AFC accordingly. I'd love any feedback, and most importantly, to adhere strictly to the COI regulations.

Graphite Ventures is a Canadian Venture Capital firm, investing in only Canadian businesses. The draft is supported by sources including The Globe and Mail, BetaKit, Venture Capital Journal, The Logic, and CVCA reports. I would welcome any feedback or review from you all.

Thank you very much! Freefish123 (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2025 Canadian federal election § First sentence wording

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2025 Canadian federal election § First sentence wording, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Michael Shanks#Requested move 25 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Shanks#Requested move 25 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Bill Oliver (politician)

Some extra eyes at Bill Oliver (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would be helpful. New Brunswick MLA who had an oopsie and read an AI prompt into the legislature. It's picked up on social media, I was alerted to it by seeing it on Vatnik Soup, and subsequently a couple of users have tried to ram it into the article without regards for sourcing or WP:WEIGHT, or whatever other P&Gs you can think of. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Kitchener meetup in August 2026

Hi fellow Canadians. I'm helping run this event on August 8. Feel free to join me or to spread the word elsewhere. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Austin Clarke (novelist)#Requested move 29 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Austin Clarke (novelist)#Requested move 29 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-41916-30 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Canadian Constitution infoboxes

Hi, I’ve long been bothered by the use of British statute infoboxes to describe the Constitution Acts. As BNA Acts, they were enacted by the British Parliament, but as Constitution Acts, they only apply in Canada and can only be amended in Canada. As Constitution Acts, they are not British statutes.

So I was BOLD and substituted new infoboxes, based on the general legislation infobox template, for three major ones: Constitution Act, 1867, Canada Act 1982, and Constitution Act, 1982. Please take a look and let me know what you think. If people think they are an improvement, I can add similar infoboxes to other Constitution Acts. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Constitution Act, 1867
Part of the Constitution of Canada
Long title An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith
Citation	30-31 Vict. (UK), c. 3 (original citation)
Territorial extent	Canada
Considered by	Parliament of the Province of Canada Parliament of Nova Scotia Parliament of New Brunswick Parliament of Prince Edward Island Parliament of Newfoundland
Enacted by	Parliament of the United Kingdom
Enacted	March 29, 1867
Assented to by	Victoria
Royal assent	March 29, 1867
Commenced	July 1, 1867
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended
Status: In force

I like this style...Canadian centric. Moxy🍁 14:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq names

So yesterday I added a bunch of Mi'kmaq names (with sources) to the articles about places where they lived (reviewing my edits I did make at least two mistakes). However, against what I see as longstanding convention to include them, they were removed. Indigenous names are encyclopaedic, just as much as info for (in Canada's case) French in some cases. In one instance, a sourced spelling for the name of Bear River, Nova Scotia was removed, which I think goes clearly against Wikipedia policies. I would also like to note that MOS:LEADLANG does say that relevant other names should be included. Indigenous names are definitely relevant as they are, typically, the original names. Schestos (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

We have been through this so many times... We don't include these names in the lead or the infobox, but they do belong in a "Name" or "Etymology" section. See Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 34#RfC: Inclusion of significant Indigenous names in lead sentences (WP:CANSTYLE) for the most recent timesink. MediaKyle (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be pinned on the Talk page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see much consensus. I'm just confused as to why the names in the original languages are not deemed valuable (especially in cases where the Indigenous language is commonly spoken) when IPA for French that's pretty much just a French accent is included. Schestos (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we can mention this in MOS:CANADA? It seems to come up frequently. InfernoHues (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

"Relevant" seems to be the key word here. Check out the policy on due weight. Just because a native name exists, doesn't mean it's important enough to include in the lead. Follow what reliable sources say. That said, native names are having sort of a renaissance in the Maritimes now, so sources might be in the process of upheaval. (I haven't read the previous discussions, so sorry if I'm rehashing anything.) — W.andrea (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) edited 20:57

I would suggest that unless there is some evidence the Indigenous had a settlement at that location, nothing should be mentioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's possible for groups to have had names for a place without a settlement there. I think it's fine within the body, but should only be in the lead if it's a commonly used name. InfernoHues (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just follow sources! If reliable sources about the location mention the native name, then you can include it in the article.

I say "about the location" because some of the sources Schestos used were dictionaries (e.g. Jipugtug for Halifax from the Mi'kmaq Talking Dictionary). There could just as well be, say, a Hungarian name for Halifax, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to the topic of Halifax.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Indigenous names are obviously more relevant than Hungarian. I think it makes sense to put them in the history section if the name isn't used today, the etymology/background section if it is used but rarely, and in the lead if it's in common use. InfernoHues (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

These websites have lists of translated names for thousands of rivers, creeks and places. Just because we can unearth an Indigenous name, why include it if there's no evidence the nomadic Indigenous people ever did more than just pass through. I think evidence of a settlement should be a condition for inclusion. I've deleted "Washington slept here in 1772" from hundreds of US articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You're over-complicating this. Just follow sources. This policy may be relevant: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and links from there. — W.andrea (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Nope. This happens all the time on Canadian and US articles, and every time someone deletes an Indigenous name there's pushback. This should go to an RfC. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following - what do you mean by "this" and what are you saying "nope" to? — W.andrea (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but if it were that simple this argument wouldn't be repeated endlessly. I think it makes sense to get some agreed upon baselines.

I tend to be inclusionist in terms of what's in an article; I would've kept the Washington stuff as well. InfernoHues (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak to this argument being repeated, but it really is that simple. If people keep arguing about it, I suspect they're misunderstanding the policies. I mean, I've been on Wikipedia for 15 years and I'm still realizing just how important sourcing is. — W.andrea (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's well worth getting a consensus to update MOS:CANADA, if for no other reason than to have something to point to when this comes up again. InfernoHues (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just because the Indiginous had a name for some place, should not guarantee inclusion. In the same way every poem written about a lake should not be included in the lake article, per MOS:POPCULT. Why? Because it's trivial. And Indigenous names without evidence of ever living there is trivial and is of little benefit to readers. Worse...it's performative. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we have different editing philosophies here and so won't convince each other. I don't think it's performative to include the name a place was called for hundreds of years before it had an English/French name.

I'll starting workshopping RfC wordings in the next couple of days. InfernoHues (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

What I'm saying is there's already policy about this: Neutral point of view, Encyclopedic content, and the paragraph in Verifiability I linked — those are all policies, so we don't need a new consensus about them. That said, if you want to interpret those policies and condense them into specific guidance about this situation, by all means, and the wording could be brought to an RFC. — W.andrea (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC) edited 23:25

Sorry, I just read back my previous comments and they come off a bit more intense than I intended. I meant them in a friendly way but tone is hard online :] To be clear, I like your initial comment, and I meant Hungarian as an extreme, where a more complicated situation would be something like, say, a novel Gaelic name in northern NS that no one actually uses. I can't think of a real example off the top of my head. — W.andrea (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be whether or not the name is relevant to the area, and the infobox should be for common use. Even if 1% of the town is Indigenous, the name was once used by the original inhabitants. Schestos (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

About the Renaissance thing, I'm not even tryna sound political, I just think it's an important part of history and culture. Schestos (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

For an RfC, I would suggest something like..."translated names for groups can only be included in the lead, infobox, or etymology, if there are prose in the article supporting a significant connection by that group to the article"...like a settlement or archaeological evidence. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, just follow sources; don't over-complicate it. I already said this above and you replied, but you weren't clear. — W.andrea (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion in lead should makes sense ...for example ...Matapédia, Quebec may derive from the Mi'kmaq word matapegiag'.... so inclusion in lead makes sense. Newfoundland was visited by Mi'kmaq, Innu and Inuit so no name connection just a modern translation so adding only the Mi'kmaq term in the lead 2 times very undue Beothuk 😔.Moxy🍁 23:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)