closed as "Keep" Meters (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who's sovereign of each provincial legislature?[edit]
I need some help concerning the infobox at General Assembly of Nova Scotia (where I think I kinda butchered it & have since reverted) & other provincial general assemblies, with complicated histories. Who's sovereign in each provincial general assembly? The monarch, the lieutenant governor or both? Is there consistency among the provinces or none, on this matter? GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So which provincial general assemblies do we include "The King in Right of..." & which do we exclude? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 in my view.Moxy🍁 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The provincial legislatures are generally constitutionally defined as consisting of the Lieutenant Governor of the province and the legislative assembly. (This is different to the composition of the Parliament of Canada, which is defined as the King, Senate, and House of Commons.) For example, section 69 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states: "There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of One House, styled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." Very similar wording is used for Quebec (Constitution Act, 1867), Alberta[1], Saskatchewan[2], and Manitoba[3]. (BC and the four Atlantic provinces all had pre-existing legislatures that were continued when they became a province, so I haven't checked those ones.)
I think saying that the legislature consists of the legislative assembly and the "LG (acting in the name of the King)" is more reflective of the actual constitutional structure than saying the legislature consists of the "King (as represented by the LG)".
As for whether the legislature and legislative assembly articles should be merged, that would probably be fine, and might reduce confusion by clearly explaining everything in one place like at Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I note that Legislative Assembly of British Columbia currently says that the LG is part of the Legislative Assembly, which is incorrect; the LG and the Legislative Assembly together make up the Legislature.--Trystan (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: & @Trystan:, I've added the "The King in Right of..." to the infoboxes of the general assemblies of British Columbia, Nova Scotia & Newfoundland and Labrador, to bring consistency among the nine existing pages. Are these additions correct? GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to standardize all the provincial legislature infoboxes to reflect the actual constitutional language, which would mean stating in the text and infobox that the Lieutenant Governor is a component of the legislature. The text of the article can explain that the LG assents to legislation in the name of the King. (Here are the relevant statutes for PEI and NS to add to the list in my post above.)--Trystan (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also disagree with getting rid of the Legislature articles, because that is the legislative body. The Legislative Assemblies, by themselves, cannot pass a law. Better to use the term from the Constitution, that each province has a Legislature composed of the Lt Gov and the Assembly, rather than get rid of the Legislature article and create an incorrect assumption that the Legislative Assembly is the legislature. (Note that in Quebec, the terms are the Parliament of Quebec and the National Assembly, rather than Legislature and Legislative Assembly, but it's functionally the same; the Parliament of Quebec is composed of the Lt Gov and the National Assembly.) My preference is always to stick as close as possible to the language of the Constitution. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the expression "king in right of ..." is appropriate in the LG and legislature articles. It's my understanding that "crown/king/His Majesty in right of <jurisdiction>" is used in legal proceedings when more than one jurisdiction is involved, or to distinguish provincial crown land from federal, and so on. But it's an abstract legal concept not a person, and it's not correct to call Charles III "king in right of BC". His only Canadian titles are King of Canada and Head of the Commonwealth. But I'm not a lawyer, so set me straight if I'm wrong. Indefatigable (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Indefatigable. I’ve generally only seen the term « in right of » used in land titles, contracts, and the style of cause for court cases, to distinguish the government entity that is involved. It’s not a title, but a clarification that the king of Canada is acting in right of a particular government.
I think all of the legislatures should refer to the Lt Gov, since that is how they are defined in their constituent document.
For example, the fully elected BC Legislature was created by the provincial Constitution Act, enacted by the BC Governor and Legislative Council in 1871, in anticipation of joining Confederation. Section 6 of the Act provides that legislation can be passed by the Governor and the new Legislative Assembly. See: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/1799836107
I will do some digging, but I’m pretty sure that none of the Atlantic provinces constitutent docs referred to the Crown as part of the colonial legislatures. Those legislatures were established by the royal commissions to the governors of each colony, directing them to establish legislative bodies, with the governor being part of the legislative process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s an example of an SCC case that uses « in right of » in the style of cause: Her Majesty in right of the Province of Alberta v. Canadian Transport Commission. This terminology was presumably used because it was litigation between the province of Alberta and a federal Crown agency, so necessary to distinguish. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5987/index.doMr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever knows the correct way & implements on the nine pages-in-question? 'Tis fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have consensus. I'll start some edits. Indefatigable (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question. Should we include or exclude the monarch into/from the infoboxes of the House of Commons of Canada, the Senate of Canada & the ten provincial & territorial legislative assemblies page? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. The king is not part of those bodies (but he is part of Parliament). Indefatigable (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the King & the Lieutenant Governor from the infobox of Legislative Assembly of Ontario, because like the other legislative assemblies, neither the monarch or his representative is a part of it. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question came up at Government House (Prince Edward Island) which I think actually concerns all of the government houses in Canada. I initially started a discussion on the talk page of that article but since this possibly affects many articles I'm going to redirect the discussion here.
We have a source defining government houses as the official residences of the Canadian monarch when they are in those provinces (and Rideau Hall when they are in Ottawa). Up to today we had a category Category:Royal residences in Canada but user Wellington Bay has cleared the category today as well as the same category for Australia, on the basis of there being no source explicitly describing them as royal residences, and that an official residence of a monarch is not the same as a royal residence.
I'm not sure that there's value to an encyclopedia in distinguishing "official residence of a royal" from "royal residence", but I also don't think there's value in having the royal residences category in parallel to Category:Government Houses in Canada with presumably exactly the same content. We don't have a description for "royal residence"; our title royal residence is a redirect to Palace, which also has a section for the Canadian government houses. I'd like more opinions on where to go from here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give added background, "Government House" is a term that originated in the colonial era for the official residence of the colonial governor and, as colonies evolved into states, of the governor general (or lieutenant governor) so in our article Government House, it is defined as "the name of many of the official residences of governors-general, governors and lieutenant-governors in the Commonwealth and British Overseas Territories." More elaboration is given in Government Houses of the British Empire and Commonwealth which states "When King Charles III or a member of the royal family visits a Commonwealth nation, they will often stay at the Government House" - so these structures are also considered "official residences" of the monarch when the monarch is visiting. Does this make them "royal residences" though? We did have a discussion in Talk:Governor General of Canada on whether or not Rideau Hall (and by extension the other official vice-regal residences) are "official residences" of the monarch. There appears to be a consensus that there are, but we also found no sources for them being "royal residences" per se and that term is not used in government sources, even those which say they are "official residences of the monarch". The term generally used for these buildings is "vice-regal residence" or "vice-regal estate" rather than royal residence) see, for example Parks Canada webpage on Rideau Hall which refers to Rideau Hall as "the vice-regal estate of the Governor General of Canada". The term vice-regal is a form of the word viceroy meaning governor general or lieutenant governor in our context. It's reasonable to refer to Government Houses in Commonwealth countries (and British overseas colonies) as "vice-regal residences" but not royal residences per se - that term is simply not used either in Canada or the Commonwealth in regards to these structures, nor do any official websites of the monarchy list Government Houses as "royal residences", a term which is generally associated with palaces (which is also where royal residence redirects in Wikipedia) - and yes while the palace article does list Canadian government houses, I think that's an interpolation by an overenthusiastic editor as a) no other Government Houses from any other Commonwealth country are listed b) the section does not refer to Canadian government houses as palaces or royal residences - nor are there any sources that support such a description. Indeed, it was added on November 2, 2016 with no explanation or sources to support inclusion[4]. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the United Kingdom as the obvious exception. It's interesting, that there's any resistance concerning Canada, when there's no resistance concerning Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington Bay this may be a topics you need to do more research on from what I can see.Moxy🍁 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can provide a source that states these or other Government Houses are "royal residences"? Wellington Bay (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been over this already. There were extensive discussions here and here among other places. The Government of Canada's publication A Crown of Maples says that all Government Houses are official residences of the monarch.[1] Countless discussions of this on other pages is not helping.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that actually uses the phrase "royal residence"? Crown of Maples does not use that term at all. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is an official residence of the monarch, that's what "royal" means.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is the term "royal residence" used in Crown of Maples or any other government or credible source, instead, the term "vice-regal residence" or "vice-regal estate" is used. Nor do any sources, including the official monarchy website, refer to any Government House in any Commonwealth country or British overseas territory as a "royal residence". Furthermore, there is no need to have both Category:Royal residences in Canada and Category:Government Houses in Canada as the contents are identical. Having two categories is redundant. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the monarch to the intro at Rideau Hall, as that's what the last RFC there, called for. It also makes it consistent with the intro at Citadelle of Quebec. I think it's best that all these government houses-in-question, be consistent. Whether it's to include the monarch or exclude. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthords, a user who previously caused a ruckus at Teryl Rothery (see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_27#Teryl_Rothery) is at it again on Eve Harlow, where they're basically vetoing any source whatsoever that describes her as "Canadian", and forcibly reverting anybody who tries to diffuse her out of Category:Film actressesorCategory:Television actresses, even though those are container categories that are not allowed to have any individual articles filed directly in them, and are only allowed to contain subcategories. Obviously this is not acceptable, but they're revert-warring anybody who makes any edits to the article that don't fit their agenda — and, in fact, the article is very poorly sourced and not really demonstrating that she would actually pass WP:GNGat all, as it's referenced almost entirely to directory entries on Rotten Tomatoes rather than proper media coverage, and even what there is for media coverage is coming primarily from Screen Rant (a marginal source at best) rather than real GNG-worthy media of record.
So I wanted to ask if anybody's willing to help repair the article with better sourcing that would properly support getting her out of the container categories, and/or willing to back me up on an WP:AFD discussion if the sourcing can't be improved. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, an editor recently changed the IPA pronunciation for “Regina” on the article page. Could someone who is familiar with IPA take a look at it? The current pronunciation has been stable for quite some time, so I don’t know if the change is correct? (There have been previous edits by non-Canadians who think “that can’t be right!” Is it is. Really.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There, I fixed the English phonetic to sound like the IPA. I've never heard it sound like ridge-EYE-nuh before. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed from /rɪˈdʒaɪnə/ to /rəˈdʒaɪnə/, the difference being the weak vowel in the first syllable. It doesn't matter much - Canadian English speakers wouldn't notice this difference, in fact I think very few English speakers worldwide would notice. The vowels in first and third syllables are the same, so /ə/ is a better choice. In Canadian English, we have only one kind of schwa in our phonemic model. Indefatigable (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Youtube channel for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario seems to have put most, if not all, of their videos under a compatible Creative Commons license. This includes all question periods and member statements. Just posting this here in case anyone wants to add images to Ontario MPP articles that don't have photos. I've already done a few. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added about 10 more. I'm pretty sure the articles of all current Ontario MPPs now have an image. If not, please lmk. Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation of Canadian electoral districts[edit]
Could you help to disambiguate the hundreds of links to Canadian electoral districts? It is sometimes unclear whether the federal or provincial district is the intended link and they now point to disambiguation pages. Examples include:
There are probably more on this list. It is almost always better, for the reader, to link to the specific article rather than the dab page, but if the dab page is the intended link then the guideline at WP:INTDAB should followed. Any help appreciated.— Rodtalk 07:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Names of Wikipedia articles for old Canadian court cases[edit]
Hi, I've started a discussion about the best way to name Wikipedia articles about old Canadian court cases. It's at Case Citations: Historic Canadian cases. It's not a full blown RfC. Would welcome comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody take a look at Draft:British North America Revolution of 1844? I have deep suspicions that it's an outright hoax, but want to get a second opinion before taking it to MFD.
The article claims that there was an unsuccessful rebellion in 1844, which was covered up by the British and not declassified until 2014 — but firstly, there's absolutely no coverage of any such thing being "revealed" in 2014 at all, and I don't just mean it's absent from the article, I mean it's in a state of total failure to exist even after extensive checks of databases. But even more importantly, one of the only two sources cited in the article is a 2018 reprint of a book that was originally written in 1905 — or 113 years before this "event" was "declassified", so how could William B. Munro possibly have known about it? — and even more importantly, Munro's article actually features an offsite link to a complete readable copy of that very book, which I checked and rather unsurprisingly failed to find verification of anything this article says there either.
So it's very likely bull droppings, but I'd like some other editors to take a look at it as well. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Munro book on Internet Archive. I searched for "LaPlante", "Scott", "Carter"; "Douglas"; "Peterborough"; "Scugog"; and "1844". No hits for any of the narrative in the draft article. Plus, if there was a battle north of York (now Toronto) in 1844, with cannon from a "crashed British ship", there is no way that could be hushed up. There were active journalists and newspapers. I would say it's entirely fictional. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple DYKs set for Canada Day. If anyone has another they'd like to run for 1 July, nominate them soon! – Reidgreg (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Oxtongue River is done! Pick one of my hooks or suggest another one. I recommend to review it quickly to have it ready in time. -- P 1 9 9✉ 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Structure for Provincial / National Parks articles[edit]
Hey folks, the BC Wikiproject doesn't have much going on, but if there is interest I'm curious to get input on a more unified structure for articles about Provincial or National Parks. Feel free to check out this post on the Template talk:British Columbia parks. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following year, in 1771, Jens Haven, his new bride, two other married couples and eight single men founded the first permanent Moravian settlement in Labrador’s north coast. They chose the Inuit gathering area known as Nuneingoak as the site of their new home and named the station “Nain.” Nain was the first Christian mission for the Inuit in Canada.
You could specify Nuneingoak, if you want. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What article is this about?Moxy🍁 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of them really since they are all being targeted. The one I am looking at is the one about the gravesites, which... is pretty close to unspeakable, but I noticed tonight that the one about the Kamloops school has also been getting hit really hard. Maybe "less subtly" is the wording I am looking for.Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "being targeted"?Moxy🍁 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some anons have axes to grind, talking points to spew, and vandalism to perform, based on a quick check of the Canadian residential schools history.
All I can think of is taking it to the page protection board. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all anons, is the problem, although a lot of what I see at the Kamloops school page is IPs. I can ask for that page to be protected, and any othdeers that people notice. The guy who ... I don't think I am allowed to describe what he did -- but the guy who just rewrote the gravesites article is currently at AE for doing the same thing at Hunter Biden's laptop so that might take care of that, maybe. I'll do an RfPP for the Kamloops school article right now though.
latest round of attacks was three weeks ago so it doesn't look good. [5] I am going to try anyway based the premise that it is exhausting to rewrite these articles over and over again. But this has been going on since they found those graves in Kamloops. Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
