Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

List of Canadian project articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Currently, this project has about ~66 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, please check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined for doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These articles could use some attention

If someone could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list, down to 44. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition leader's infobox

I've noticed that someone 'recently' has added the prime ministers into the infoboxes of opposition leaders. Why is this done? The opposition leader isn't a member of the prime minister's cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it being done pretty inconsistently throughout articles about both federal and subnational opposition leaders. My guess is that some editors want to clarify who the opposition leader was providing opposition to, although I agree that its unecessary and potentially misleading. I don't think that the monarch and viceroy should be added either, as the role of opposition leader is derived from the House of Commons or a legislative assembly, and it is my understanding that they are not selected by, nor do they report to a monarch or viceroy. With that in mind, I would also endorse removing first ministers from the infoboxes of speakers of Canadian legislative bodies. Has there been a previous discussion to establish concensus on this? RedBlueGreen93 06:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these matters have been overly discussed, before. If there's no strong objections from the others? I'll begin the deletions. This includes deleting first ministers from the speakers infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach, with one qualification. The GovGen and the PM should be kept for info boxes on the Senate Speakers, since the Senate Speaker is appointed by the GovGen on the advice of Cabinet. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And same for Speakers of Legislative Councils, if any have bios. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gojetsgo55:, we no longer list monarchs or vice-regals, into infoboxes of prime ministers, premiers, oppsition leaders, speakers, etc. Also, we no longer lists prime ministers or premiers in the infoboxes of opposition leaders or speakers. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes to the infoboxes for Canadian legislation

An editor, Lukepowerll (no user page or talk page) is making mass changes to the infoboxes for Canadian legislation, substituting coats of arms for images of the Parliament and provincial legislatures. I think part of the reason they are doing this is that last fall, a different editor unilaterally amended the template for the general legislation infobox so it would no longer display images, and sometimes would not dispaly coats of arms , so there was nothing but text in the infoboxes for some Canadian legislation. I think Lukepowerll is trying to fill the gap, but without seeking any consensus.

I raised that problem, about the unilateral change to the infobox template, here and on the talk page for the template, but no-one seemed to be worried about it.

Net result is that we no longer can choose an image for Canadian legislation, based on the unilateral decision of one editor who changed the template. I think the template should be restored so that images other than coats of arms can be used, if that is the consensus. I don't know anything about templates so can't do anything.

This is, of course, exacerbated by the ongoing Request for comment about the use of the Canadian Royal arms and whether it is a copyright violation when used generally. If the conclusion is that it can't be used generally, then there will not be images for federal legislation, at least in some cases.

I'm raising the issue here, but I likely won't participate further. I tried to raise it last fall and no-one seemed bothered by it. Maybe that's the case still. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the template and examples of the changes? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted one... Very unclear what the rationale for the changes is. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ford ministry#Requested move 2 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ford ministry#Requested move 2 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Memory of the World Register

I notice that although there are articles for Brazil Memory of the World Register, UK Memory of the World Register, and other national Memory of the World registers, there isn't one for Canada Memory of the World Register. UNESCO Memory of the World registers record documentary heritage which is highly culturally important which needs to be preserved. There is an official list at [1], mentions in some existing Wikipedia articles, and a Google search or news search for "Canada Memory of the World Register" brings up lots of results. I am working on representing the Memory of the World International Register (which is separate; it's possible to be on both the national and international registers) so this article isn't in my scope, but it seems a quick win for an overview of Canadian cultural heritage. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cadottes (Might be of interest)

I am writing biographies on the Draft:Cadotte Family. These biographies might be of interest to you people.

From my research it appears members of this family played a big part in the history of Canada. It appears Draft:Jean Baptiste Cadot is important to French Canadians. One issue I am facing is that there is sources out there that are written in French, I can't read french so I honestly help in regards to using sources written in French.

Would this be of interest to anyone? CycoMa2 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mill River Fun Park

This page has been unsourced for 15 years. Can someone please add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few sources to this, but couldn't find one for some of the details. It's better than nothing. -- MediaKyle (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of North American Labour Party

The article North American Labour Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. This political party's share of the vote is a rounding error. WP:SOAP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a deletion discussion on the talk page at the moment. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been redirected to Party for the Commonwealth of Canada. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Prince Albert alternative education programs should have been merged into Saskatchewan Rivers School Division literally decades ago, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Albert alternative education programs. Can we do it this week? Bearian (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s to be merged, it needs to be merged into both the Sask Rivers article and the PA Catholic School division article, as those are two separate bodies. However a quick skim makes me wonder if these articles are still current. The Catholic school division article doesn’t have any cites and has had no major changes for about a decade. The PA Alternative Ed article has been tagged as “no cites” since 2009. That’s an awfully long time in education programs. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Jamaal Westerman

Jamaal Westerman has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ottawa French Seventh-day Adventist Church

The article Ottawa French Seventh-day Adventist Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 14 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Appears to be a run of the mill church with unremarkable architecture.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The building is definitely more notable than the church itself, as it was the city's second synagogue (according to the article), and it's a heritage building. I wonder if we should move the article. Anyway, I'll find some sources.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men#Requested move 23 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men#Requested move 23 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles

Can we get eyes watching Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles Moxy🍁 12:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need some Canadians looking over this..... as most are where we fix this a few years ago and now they want to reverse it..... thus will have thousands of biographies linking to nothingness I guess. Moxy🍁 16:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of ReBoot

Requested move at Talk:Re·ac·tor#Requested move 7 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re·ac·tor#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

There is a requested move discussion going on at Talk:Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which may be of interest to editors on this project. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for watchlisters

It just today came to my attention that sometime in 2023, an anonymous IP edited our articles about singer-songwriters Kate Maki and Frederick Squire to half-assedly (but not completely) erase them from each other — in particular, the collaborative single that they released together in 2011 was presented as a collaboration between the subject of that specific article (i.e. Squire in Squire's article, Maki in Maki's) and an unnamed "fellow Canadian singer-songwriter". Maki's article, meanwhile, still contained some instances of the word "Squire" despite the total removal of any "Fred/Frederick", so that it was unclear to the reader who "Squire" even was.

It's certainly possible that they've separated or divorced, though I can't find any sources to verify that — but the fact that the IP number does resolve to EastLink (i.e. Sudbury) does suggest that either Maki or Squire did this themselves. But even if they have broken up, it's obviously inappropriate for them to be completely disappeared from each other's articles, and that's not how we would handle writing about such a thing.

But since the articles each only have a single-digit number of watchlisters, who obviously missed all of this crap at the time, I wanted to ask if a few willing project members could add them to your watchlists to monitor in case this comes back in the future. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spenard

We seem to be missing an article on one of the top Canadian racers of the 70s/80s, Richard Spenard [2] -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overstory Media Group and AI articles

Just posting this here as a general PSA for editors who might be citing publications like The Coast and The Georgia Straight - Overstory Media Group publications written by "Staff" or similar nondescript authors are very likely no longer reliable as of recently, because there is strong evidence to suggest they are using AI to generate their content. See an article from The Walrus, also reported on by the Halifax Examiner. -- MediaKyle (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton University Students' Association

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at Carleton University Students' Association since it seems to be heavily edited by COI editors over the years and seems (at least to me) to contains lots of WP:CRUFT. I'm not sure there are many university students' associations that would be considered to meet WP:NORG for a stand-alone article and content about them would in most cases be found in the main article about the university itself. The article was created way back in 2004 when WIkipedia was just starting out and things like WP:N weren't being too rigourously applied (if they existed at all) simply because everything was new. I'm asking about this here because WP:OTTAWA and WP:EiC are respectively described as being "semi-active" and "defunct". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the notability issue, while many of the articles referenced are from the Carleton student paper (The Charlatan) CUSA does appear to have received significant coverage (distinct from coverage of the university) in the Ottawa Citizen, the National Post and CBC News. It would appear, therefore, to meet WP:NORG. That's not to say that there isn't a problem with cruft (there is), but it doesn't look, to me, that this extends to it failing notability. Of course, it might still warrant deletion as a case of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Robminchin (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]