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

---

Requested move at Talk:Baker Lake, Nunavut

For those interested, there's a move request at Talk:Baker Lake, Nunavut. Masterhatch (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Over 300 FAs

I just wanted to highlight a milestone: there are now over 300 articles with featured article status attached to this project! Congrats to everyone who helped contribute to a Canadian FA.

Feel free to post articles below or on my talk page that might be close to FA status: I'm happy to take a look or collaborate with editors who want to co-nominate at WP:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Photograph of St. Stephen Rural Cemetery

Does anyone happen to have or be able to take a photograph of the St. Stephen Rural Cemetery in New Brunswick? Edlectro28 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sports_in_Canada#Requested_move_29_August_2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sports_in_Canada#Requested_move_29_August_2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Whizz40 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Mass deletion of new regional district electoral area (British Columbia) articles

Do these articles meet WP:GEOLAND? Your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberni-Clayoquot A. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Canadian party colour § Proposal regarding the colour of the Parti Québecois

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Canadian party colour § Proposal regarding the colour of the Parti Québecois. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Is Tom Pitfield actually a senator?

Posting this here because it will affect several pages (Tom Pitfield, List of current senators of Canada, List of senators in the 45th Parliament of Canada, every page and template that has standing counts, etc).

Back on July 7, Carney announced four new senators: Richard Martel, Geeta Tucker, Rodney Ouellette and Tom Pitfield. But the thing is, nearly two months later, it's not clear whether Pitfield has actually taken office. He isn't listed on the Senate's website nor does he have a profile on Parlinfo (searching for "Pitfield" only brings up his father Peter). This, despite Martel, Tucker and Ouellette all appearing on both sites.

Some delay in posting is understandable, and apparently Martel didn't actually join the Senate until the 24th. But we're in September now, and Pitfield is still not here. Should we take that to mean his appointment is still pending? Should we keep listing him as a senator under the belief that, well, it'll become official sooner or later? Or should we remove all references to this for the time being? — Kawnhr (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The fall session of Parliament doesn't start until September 21. Let's wait and see if he's seated by then. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: According to Blacklock's Reporter, the appointment is "in limbo": (note: this is a paywalled article and I have not read it). Notice that the news release announcing Pitfield being named to the Senate () says "the following individuals will become senators upon confirmation of constitutional qualifications". In the case of a senator appointed for Quebec, it has to be for a specific "Electoral Division" and the prospective senator needs to be resident in the electoral division or own real property in it worth at least $4,000. (See , sections 22 and 23.) So (I'm just speculating here), it may be that Pitfield is in the process of purchasing land in the particular electoral division, and it's possible a transaction like that could take more than a couple of months to close and be verified in order for the formal summons to be issued.

In the meantime, his name should be deleted from List of senators in the 45th Parliament of Canada and List of current senators of Canada, in my opinion. The four names announced on July 7 () should not have been added to those articles until we had a reliable source confirming they had been summoned to the senate by letters patent. (In the case of Rodney Ouelette and Sampageeta Tucker, for example, see the notice in the Canada Gazette here: .) Mathew5000 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Pitfield now appears on the Senate website with a nomination date of 2026-09-18 and a retirement date of 2050-08-07. His name should not have been added to Wikipedia's lists of senators, until it was confirmed that he is already a senator. Mathew5000 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad this is finally resolved. I've gone and edited all the pages I believe were affected by this error (all four of Carney's appointments were listed with the appointment date of July 7, which was evidently wrong even for Tucker and Ouelette). — Kawnhr (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dave Nystrom

The article Dave Nystrom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for over 8 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced BLP. Created by a SPA, probably the subject himself.

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) 13:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Frost Building

Is anyone interested in sourcing this? Bearian (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirects from postal abbreviations

Just a heads-up: we have now {{R from Canadian postal abbreviation}}, a category template for redirects from two-letter postal abbreviations (e.g. Toronto, ON), based on {{R from US postal abbreviation}} used south of the border. As of 2026, there are currently hundreds of such redirects, but many are without a redirect type template; a few have just "postal abbreviation" following the redirect link or were tagged with the general-purpose {{R from postal abbreviation}}. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

As for redirects from postal abbreviations, it looks like most such redirects are on communities in Ontario and Quebec, and much of Canada (Western Canada and the Territories in particular) lacks such redirects; most of such are in some of the larger cities and some towns (e.g. Calgary, AB, Vancouver, BC, Saskatoon, SK, Winnipeg, MB, Whitehorse, YT, Yellowknife, NT). It was a reason I have added hundreds of such, usually of smaller towns and cities in a spree from 2021 to 2022. I would like to see if that can be taken care of by a bot, similar to the effort south of the border back in Wikipedia's early days. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025–2026 United States trade war with Canada#Requested move 9 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025–2026 United States trade war with Canada#Requested move 9 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Justin Smith (soccer)

Your feedback at Talk:Justin Smith (soccer)#Requested move 11 September 2026 would be appreciated! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Vancouver International Airport, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

High schools and secondary schools

Please comment Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_September_18#Category:Alumni_by_high_school_in_Alberta.--User:Namiba 13:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Labrador § Requested move 18 September 2026

An editor has requested that Labrador be moved to Labrador, Canada, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. MediaKyle (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Start date for Senator terms

We have long used the parliamentary website as our source for the start date for Senators and MPs and there is a long-established WP:CONSENSUS for this. For Senators, dates are provided on this list https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/?v=tiles as well as on individual Senator biographies. The Senate website uses nomination dates as the start date. @I dont like cricket I love it: has been changing these dates at Rodney Ouellette, Tom Pitfield, Geeta Tucker and Richard Martel. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me we should do what we do for MP: backdate the "assumed office" date to formal nomination (in an MP's case, election), because a) that's what Parlinfo and the Senate website do, so it seems to be semi-official and b) swearing-in dates are going to be difficult to pin down for many historical senators. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hell, it's often difficult to pin down the exact swearing-in dates of even some recent and/or current senators, since their swearings-in aren't always consistently covered as news. So, yeah, I'd agree that we need to stick with whatever date is listed by the Senate website, regardless of whether anybody thinks that's right or wrong. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@I dont like cricket I love it: is declining to join this discussion and is edit warring instead. See this exchange at User_talk:Wellington_Bay#Canadian_senators. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are being obstructive by demanding ‘a consensus’ to magically override or weirdly affirm the facts as supported by reliable sources. Absolute nonsense carry on. In addition your ‘website’ is an undated list of biographies. As compared to what I have added that is the Senate Hansard and a formal Senate announcements calling the four in question ‘new senators ‘ with their swearing in videos in each article linked. Demonstrating all this other crap is just build up and you are not a Senator until sworn in. You can be announced, gazetted and whatever else. Until sworn in you are not a senator. Before being sworn in you can withdraw and you were never a senator. After being sworn in you resign as a senator. Swearing in is the final constitutional part before you officially become a Senator. You are being intentionally pointy here for no good reason. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It is actually not that simple. The Library of Parliament actually has a quick paper on the ambiguity on this exact issue: "Becoming a senator : when and how it occurs". (Direct link) The very first line: There is no statutory prescription of a decisive date on which a person can be said to have become a senator. This is further complicated by the language of different laws and oaths seemingly contradicting each other, but notes that, historically, the date on which a senator takes his or her Oath of Allegiance and Declaration of Qualification is not considered the date on which he or she was deemed to have become a member of the Senate.. Instead, it concludes, Historically, this date [summons by letters patent] has been employed as the date on which an individual has been considered summoned to be a member of the senate and a senator. This is reflected in the Library of Parliament's database; Rodney Ouellette's profile, for example, dates his senate career to July 9th — not September 28th. Following the LoP's lead makes sense if for no other reason than our own sanity; I don't want to be the one tracking down hundreds of dates senators formally took the oath and their seat, especially since it might not have been recorded at all. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Then ok we have clearly from your addition no set time we do have the prime ministers officer stating here

“This context, Prime Minister Carney today announced that the following individuals will become senators upon confirmation of constitutional qualifications.”

Being sworn is a constitutional requirement

The Constitution Act 1867 contains s24:

“The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator”

Then you have s128 of the Constitution Act 1867 :

“Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule.”

s128 is clear not sworn in not a member of the Senste so therefore nit a senator.

The swearing in is the final Constitutional requirement and you must complete them all before you become a senator. Thus logically follows you start your term as a senator when sworn in as that is the completion of the constitution requirements. Not when websites are updated or individuals claim they started because they were announced on a set day to become a Senator at some point in the future.

s24 and s128 must be read together, only on the mandatory completion of “subject to the constitutional requirements governing taking their seat.” Makes clear swearing in is a constitutional requirements and you must complete all constitutional requirements or you are not a Senator.

In simple terms s24 establishes the Governor General's summons as the constitutional appointment mechanism, but expressly makes the resulting status subject to the other provisions of the Constitution Acts. s128 imposes mandatory constitutional requirements, here an Oath of Allegiance and Declaration of Qualification, which must be completed before the person may take their seat and become a Senator. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

First, section 128 is not clear that a member who hasn't taken the oath is not yet a senator. At least, that is not how Barnes interprets the language: However, the language of this section (i.e., "Every Member of the Senate ….. shall before taking his for her] seat therein take and subscribe... the Oath of Allegiance") is a clear statement that the person is considered a senator before taking his or her Senate seat, with the Oath of Allegiance and the Declaration of Qualification merely conferring the right of the senator to be seated in the Senate Chamber. (Emphasis mine.) Second, Parlinfo is not just "a website", it is a website maintained by the Library of Parliament and their researchers — their practice certainly holds weight. More importantly, though, you seem to be ignoring that Barnes specifically points out that the common practice is not to use the date a senator takes their oath but the date of the summons by letters patent. I really cannot see why Wikipedia should be ignoring precedents and one of our major sources for our own unique reading of the Constitution. That seems totally at odds with WP:OR. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry mate, but you are just wrong. You are being unreasonable in your interpretation and taking provisions in isolation, not as a whole, which leads you to a perverse outcome.

Being sworn in is a constitutional requirement. It is literally written into the Constitution Act 1867 at s128.

s24 states clearly that a person summoned to the Senate becomes a member “subject to the Provisions of this Act.”

This Act being the Constitution Act 1867.

You therefore have to read the whole of the Constitution Act 1867, not take s24 in isolation and treat the summons as the end of the process.

s128 of the Constitution Act 1867 sets out the constitutional requirement to take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance before taking your seat in the Senate.

s128 is a “Provision[s] of this Act.”

So you cannot simply say, “They were summoned, therefore they are a Senator,” and then treat the constitutional oath as some entirely separate matter.

The summons under s24 is expressly subject to the other provisions of the Act. Taking the oath is one of those provisions, and taking your seat is part of actually assuming the office.

You cannot simultaneously say someone has assumed the office of Senator while accepting that they have not yet completed a mandatory constitutional requirement for taking that seat. That’s the absurdity in legal and practical terms of what you are saying.

Put it in ordinary terms: if you are appointed to be a police officer but the law requires you to complete mandatory training before you can actually take up the office and perform the functions of a police officer, you don't say, “Well, you're already a police officer, you just aren't allowed to be one…yet.” You have been appointed, but you have not completed the requirements to assume the office. You must complete the police training to go from recruit or applicant or trainee, to being a police officer. Same applies to the Senate of Canada.

That is the distinction you are ignoring.

As for Parlinfo, it is undated and it is not itself an authoritative source of constitutional law. Simply saying “look, they appear here” is not a legal basis for establishing when someone became a Senator. Who knows when those records are updated? What happens if a Senator is accidentally omitted? Does that mean they were never a Senator? Obviously not. What if Bugs Bunny is somehow added to the database, does that make Bugs Bunny a Senator? I think not.

The database may be useful evidence of parliamentary practice, but it does not determine constitutional status. Stick to sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia rather than treating an institutional database as though it creates or establishes a gotcha.

As for the claims about precedent, that cannot simply be used as a reason to preserve the existing dates because changing them would create a lot of work. That is not a sensible argument, that would lead to going oh well to much work means we do nothing. Which is ludicrous and an appeal to laziness.

If there is an established constitutional or parliamentary practice that the summons date, rather than the swearing-in date, determines when someone became a Senator, then show the actual authoritative source for that proposition.

You cannot answer simply by saying, “That is how the records have always been maintained.” If the existing practice is inconsistent with the constitutional requirements, the fact that changing it would create a lot of work is not a reason to preserve the practice, that is not grounded in the accepted principles of this encyclopaedia. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not "my" interpretation, it's the interpretation of Andre Barnes, a researcher for the Library of Parliament. You are free to take it up with him…

You ask for a source that it's an established parliamentary practice to use the summons date, but I believe I have provided one: the Libary of Parliament's research division and database. So let me turn this around: do you have a source that the oath is used as the start date for a senator's term? Not your own reading of the constitution, a third-party source. Because Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. It's not Wikipedia's place to publish original thought or research, it's to reflect what others say. Maybe the LoP and other researchers and scholars really have erred in their interpretation of the law, and you have blown it open. But Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Wellington Bay, it's obvious from the exchange on your user page alone that you're dealing with a problem editor. Best just to report them for edit-warring and let an admin deal with it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the attack the contributor and label those you have decided you are going to attack. Very well done there. Care to try again. Additionally there is no edit warring. Just one user deleting sourced content and demanding their preferred version. Additionally a boomerang would hit Wellington square in the face. I dont like cricket I love it (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually you are edit warring. You made an edit, you were reverted, and then you proceeded to insist you were right and continued edit warring to reinsert your view on it. The onus is on the person attempting to insert the information or edit to obtain consensus if reverted. You are not doing that, you are instead insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong and edit warring for your preference. I pass no opinion on which is correct, but consensus IS REQUIRED. There is an established consensus, and it's up to you to convince people to change that consensus not edit war for your preferred version not pretend that consensus doesn't matter. If you are not willing to abide by consensus and ignore everything being said to you, I'm quite willing to remove this thorn in your side for ignoring Wikipedia's rules and policies. Your call. You either engage in a collaborative project, or you go somewhere else. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I have warned the editor, for their edit warring and for their behavior here. User:Canterbury Tail, perhaps you'd like to see if they're recent relevant edits in article space need to be reversed: they clearly do not have a consensus here. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yup, 4 edits were edit warred in against consensus. They have been reverted. No predujice against reinstating them if they obtain consensus here for said edits. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, friend. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Nunavut

With the office of Commissioner of Nunavut being currently vacant due to the end of Eva Aariak's term earlier this year, it seems to me that we should probably get an article in place about the deputy commissioner, Lew Phil(l)ip, since he's who performs the role in an interim capacity pending the appointment of a permanent replacement. But I'm having some trouble trying to start one myself, as the sources are wobbling back and forth about whether his surname is Philip with one L or Phillip with two L's.

He also appears to have a significantly sourceable career history as a carver, police officer and holder of other government roles, including as an elder advisor to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut — but while it seems pretty obvious that the past sourcing does relate to the same person, I also can't find any sources which explicitly confirm that it relates to the same person (i.e. by discussing the career background of the deputy commissioner in the specific context of his being the deputy commissioner). There isn't even an actual biography of him that I've been able find on the commissioner's office website itself, and the closest I've been able to get is the Hansard statements upon his assuming the role of deputy commissioner, where he's just generically described as "no stranger to this House" with nobody actually mentioning any of his career background to lock in the reasons why he's no stranger to the House (which could potentially have far, far more explanations beyond just having been appointed to an advisor's role per se.)

So I was wondering if anybody would be willing to help out on this. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Charles Stewart (premier)

Although this page is listed as one of the best, I'm hoping to get someone's assistance with adding some important missing information to the table in this article about Stewart's cabinet positions beyond Mines and the Interior. Stewart was also Minister of Immigration and Colonization and Secretary-General of Indian Affairs, and historically-important legislation was passed in these portfolios under his leadership. I've looked up the tutorial on how to edit a table, but this one seems to be a different kind. Can any experienced editors help this rookie out? I've compiled all the info from appropriate sources, I just don't know how to do the edit. Thanks for considering! OatmealForever (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral

Would be grateful for any insight as to if the Mary, Queen of the World Cathedral is the third or fourth largest church in Quebec. The English and French articles do not agree. Comment at the article talk page. papageno (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)