I just created a draft for Apt613, a news website that covers arts and culture in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. I’d appreciate any help finding sources. I expected to find some from a quick search, but didn’t immediately find any. Thriley (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the recent BC election, when exactly does BC United leader Kevin Falcon cease being the Leader of the Opposition in that province? (See [1]) and when does Conservative leader John Rustad become Leader of the Opposition? Do both events occur on the same date and are one or both of the dates: a) September 21, when the previous legislature dissolved b) October 19, when the subsequent election occurred c) upcoming date when the new legislature is reconvened d) some other date in between? Wellington Bay (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being leader of the opposition ends when the legislature dissolves, so September 21 is the correct end date for Falcon. But since a person can't lead the opposition until the legislature is in session, Rustad's time doesn't start until the new legislature reconvenes — because the leader of the opposition's entire job takes place in the legislature, and doesn't have outside-of-the-legislature duties at all, being an officer of the legislature doesn't work the same way as being a member of the legislature in that regard. The legislature doesn't have to be in session to be a member, but it does have to be in session to establish officers. However, since we know that John Rustad will be the new leader of the opposition, you were entirely correct that Rustad's name doesn't need to be entirely commented out of the successor field in Falcon's article — visible name with "pending" after it is indeed the correct way to handle that. In the extremely unlikely event that something changes in the interim, so that Rustad doesn't actually get installed as leader of the opposition and some other Conservative MLA gets that job instead, then we can just change the name in Falcon's successor field if and when that happens. But the legislature does have to convene before there can be a leader of the opposition, so the start date on that job is the date of the legislature convening. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm wondering if we have the correct dates in the transition of Leader of the Opposition in Alberta from Notley to Gray. Currently our articles say it happened in June, when the NDP leader Nenshi announced it to the media, but although the legislature was in session, it was during the long summer adjournment. Should it be dated to when the fall sitting began in late October? Indefatigable (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We keep the successor in an office infobox hidden, until they've taken office. An RFC on this matter was held a few years ago & the result was to "hide". GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: It's somewhat pedantic to not allow an incoming LOO to be included in LOO lists or as the successor in an infobox. If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. Given that we have the LOO position included in the infobox of the person in question as "succeeding" on a future date TBD it's absurd not to have them named in their predecessor's infobox or in general lists of LOOs. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't pedantic, its what the RFC on the topic called for. But you're free to re-open that topic, as the 2024 US prez election is soon be take place. There, it'll be argued over whether or not to have "Kamala Harris (elect)" or "Donald Trump (elect)" shown in Joe Biden's infobox, for roughly six weeks. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is how it's pedantic: the infobox in Glen Savoie indicates he is "assuming office" as NB LOO on a TBD date but the Susan Holt infobox lists no successor for her as LOO and the list of LOOs at Leader of the Opposition (New Brunswick) has had Savoie's entry commented out. This is inconsistent and makes no sense. If the next LOO is known they should be listed in both articles, with a qualification that their appointment is pending or starts at a future date. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it at the moment. But if you don't like it, then open up a new RFC. The matter covers all political office/positions. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but if you're going to cite an RFC for your actions you need to provide a link rather than expect people to rely on your recollection and interpretation. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it usually you, who can't leave well enough alone? Anyways, I'm gonna have to go through my edit history to find it, now. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the position your are enforcing is inconsistent, as explained above, and you have reverted multiple editors claiming in edit summaries that this is how "we" do things- but when you're the only one who has voiced the position, it looks like "we" may just be "you". Wellington Bay (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer. I wasn't questioning your honesty or good faith. I just prefer to see the discussion or RFC being relied upon for myself rather than rely on anyone's recollection or interpretation of a discussion that occurred years ago, including my own recollection. 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion in the RFC is almost entirely about elected officials, in particular the President of the United States, rather than parliamentary officers or officials. The LOO is the leader (interim or other) of the largest opposition party provided that individual is a sitting member of the legislature. The incoming LOOs we are talking about are their party's leader and are also MLAs. That they are not "officially" LOO yet is a purely pro forma issue as the legislatures have not yet been recalled. I think this is an area where we can have a Canadian consensus rather than automatically apply a much broader RFC. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about all offices. Bring your objections there & see if you can get an exception for Westminster system-based political positions. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the presidency of the United States, not about all offices in general. A consensus around the presidency doesn't map to a Westminster system at all — no matter who wins the presidential election on Tuesday, Joe Biden will still be the incumbent president until late January 2025, while there is absolutely no valid argument that Kevin Falcon was "still" the incumbent anything one minute after the BC election writ was dropped in September. And admittely we're not quite as quick about it as the UK is, but Keir Starmer became officially the prime minister of the United Kingdom — not just a presumed "prime minister designate", but the actual honest to god real thing — within a few hours of the UK election results being finalized back in July, because Westminster politics just doesn't work like US presidential politics does at all. Kevin Falcon simply isn't "still" the "incumbent" Leader of the Opposition as of right now, regardless of whether John Rustad's been sworn in yet or not, so there's no reason for us to follow a USian practice that doesn't fit how Canadian politics works. So a consensus about how to handle US presidential successions has nothing to do with Canada, and nothing in that discussion says it does — the system in the US works very differently than the system in Canada does, so absolutely nothing that Americans do on American political articles ever has any relevance to Canadian political articles at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about all political offices. If you disagree, you're free to open that argument at the WikiProject mentioned, about what's covered & what isn't. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is very incredibly crystal clear that only American politics was considered or discussed at all, and there's absolutely zero evidence that even one person in the entire discussion raised even one single solitary Canadian example for consideration at all. So no, playing the "my way or the highway" card doesn't get you the win — especially not playing it against me, the guy who's quite famously been around here pretty much forever and knows every last nook and cranny of absolutely everything WikiProject Canada has ever done for both good and ill — so until there's a consensus of Canadian editors that such a practice fits the Canadian situation, nothing that American editors decide about American politics is applicable to us at all. Again, American politics works very differently than Canadian politics does, so we would need to see a consensus of Canadians that American practice was relevant as a model for us to follow, not just a consensus of Americans discussing their presidency and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was here, not somewhere else, so I commented here because this is where the discussion is taking place. I didn't say it was a "pro-USA WikiProject", I said only American politics was considered in that other discussion, and that other discussion doesn't feature even one person offering even one word of consideration to the fact that different countries have different political systems that work differently. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an RFC consensus in the past to comment out the successor in these cases we can revisit it now since I don't see anyone else currently holding this view of what "we" do. From a process standpoint, that's just a terrible argument. We don't have to recall all of the RfC participants to ask them if they have changed their minds. Settled is settled, and consensuses don't require periodic "refresh". If we're talking about {{Infobox officeholder}}, the RfC consensus applies. ―Mandruss☎18:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, what I thought was being referred to was a specific RFC for Canadian Leaders of the Opposition, not a broader RFC for officeholders in general. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RFC was about the use of the infobox parameter during the period between being elected and actually taking office. Although obviosuly a reaction to events in the US, it was not limited to the US or excluding of any other country. While consensus can change, absent solid evidence that it already has, the consensus there ought to be respected, to avoid prolonged avoidable arguments exactly like this one. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: could you please comment in how consensus is applied in this situation: the infobox for John Rustad indicates he will be "assuming office" as leader of the opposition on a date that's TBD while the infobox for his predecessor, Kevin Falcon indicates he vacated the office of leader of the opposition on September 21, 2024 but gives no indication that John Rustad will be his successor despite the fact that Rustad's infobox indicates that he is. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They too, shouldn't show the next holder in the predecessor's infobox, until next holder takes office. That too occurs, only when the next parliamentary session convenes. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. There seems to be inaccuracies in start/end dates for opposition leaders. Over at Tom Mulcair (for example), the end date as opposition leader is shown to be 4 November 2015, rather than the 2015 election date or the 41st parliament's dissolved date. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to be careful about assuming the post is tied to the term of the Assembly in any particular jurisdiction. Sometimes the Rules or Standing Orders may provide that officers continue to hold their position even though the assembly has been dissolved. The most common example is the Speaker, since the Speaker is responsible for running the Assembly building and legislative precincts, and it’s not good to have a vacancy in that post during the election. I think we should check the Rules/Standing orders/Legislative Assembly statute on a case-by-case basis for each officer. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a few things that are mentioned to be missing from the Doug Ford article on his talk page and its archives. I can try to fill in some of the stuff, but I don't think I have the time to finish everything on my own. Examples include the bike lane legislature (which I have previously commented on), and the Ontario Science Center stuff, both of which are well covered by reliable sources. 137a (talk • edits) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with PKT. Those things have a lot more to do with Doug Ford's government than they do with his biography, so they should be discussed in the more appropriate spinoff article so as to avoid overloading the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Act, Nunavut - need move and disambiguation?
Hi, I've got a question on the article on the Nunavut human rights act, currently named: Human Rights Act 2003. The first issue is that this is not the correct name; "2003" is not part of the name, as shown here: https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/laws/astat/snu-2003-c-12/latest/snu-2003-c-12.html . The act is just "Human Rights Act", which suggests that "2003" should be deleted. However, if we were to move it to "Human Rights Act", that is very general; there are a number of articles about human rights acts, with a disambiguation page: Human Rights Act. That suggests moving it to a new name, with the jurisdiction in the title: "Human Rights Act (Nunavut)". Does that make sense? If we do that, is there a way to italicise it the way I've shown here, so that the title is italicised, but not the disambiguation in parentheses? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Chief Justice of Canada and a francophone rights group have got into a dispute over the fact that the SCC judgments before the Official Languages Act in 1968 were published in English only, and were on the SCC webpages. Net result is that the SCC has taken down all the pre-1968 decisions until they can be translated. That means that links in a Wikipedia article directly to the pre-1968 SCC cases are returning 404s. However, all is not lost. The SCC shared the pre-1968 English versions with other online reporters, so they are still available. I would recommend using CanLII as a substitute, since it’s open access. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this is in the wrong place--I was directed here by the article request page--but I was hoping that an article could be created for the Cascade Institute, a Canadian research centre addressing urgent and entangled global problems, located in Victoria, BC and founded by Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon.
I've disclosed this on my user page, but I am an employee of the Cascade Institute and therefore want to avoid trying to draft the page myself so that we can avoid any potential COIs and biases (and because I'm fairly new to the editing side of Wikipedia). I've read through the COI-related help pages and I understand that Wikipedia is not intended to promote, but I do believe that our organization is notable enough to merit a page of its own. With this in mind, I have located several, high-quality, reliable secondary sources that I am happy to provide links to upon request, if need be.
There is currently a request for the Cascade Institute submitted to the general Wikipedia Article Request page, but it's over a year old at this point and I'm hoping that by making this request here, I can at least generate some interest.
Happy to discuss further and answer any questions. Thank you!
@Rainwood13: Hi! It would probably be better if you wrote the article yourself and submitted it through WP:AfC. Unlike you, we are not being paid to edit articles so unless an editor is interested in this topic, most would not write an article just because you asked. Instead, you can start a draft through by clicking on the following link: Wikipedia:Article Wizard. Once it is ready, click submit and an editor will review it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what or why we are getting these old railway charts that info ends in the 60s in BC articles as seen at Coalmont, British Columbia#Railway Does anyone else think these are odd additions with no value in explaining the topic of the articles? I have removed a few as seen here.....but asking because they have been added all overonly being removed by a few editors.Moxy🍁 15:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: Tables are commonly listings of raw data. The info ends in the 1960s, because this was when passenger service ceased as stated in the respective tables. The "stop" table outlines variations in the relative significance of the place over time in relation to other more immediate places. This provides a clearer and more accurate understanding than the "preceding and following station template", which is widely used. The table also clarifies the geographic context of these other places when they are mentioned in the article. The infrastructure table will ultimately be an essential subset of a broader picture, but also helps explain the significance of the specific location. For those familiar with such places in the BC interior, the key historic identity of the place required the existence of the railway station. A WP article should not just be a snapshot of recent times. Various tables, such as demographic or climate ones are not of interest to all readers, but for those seeking such information, they serve some purpose. The objective of any table should be to help tell the whole story of a location. If there is a better way to achieve this aim, I am happy to be enlightened. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then write a draft about railway timetables and see if it's accepted. Don't just dump this highly-specific, out-of-scope raw data into multiple city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: You appear to have missed the whole point of the above discussion. It seems a very odd conclusion to reach that it has anything to do with the topic of railway timetables. Please provide actual advice on how best to handle the issues raised. DMBanks1 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply not seeing any value in them.... Data chart letting me know that you had to raise your hand to stop a train in 1910 in a specific location.... is that what this is about? The whole thing is odd and convoluted. Let's see what others have to say.Moxy🍁 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: Sorry, I addressed the last comment to the wrong user. These tables in the various articles have nothing to do with raising ones hand. A regular stop indicated a place of sufficient importance to always stop, usually because of a larger industrial enterprise. A flag stop was of much lesser significance. The table reveals the chronological periods of significance of these isolated communities. Over time, places rose and diminished, often associated with the presence or departure of the principal employer. Consequently, the table provides an easily understood overview. DMBanks1 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the value to them either. Just clutters up the article on the town of Coalmount. No need for all that data. Just say that there was train service and it gradually declined until it ended. And I don't agree that the "table provides an easily understood overview". Far too much data that the reader needs to try to analyse to get any conclusions out of it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OMG...have a look at Spences Bridge, an unincorporated community that has been bombarded with irrelevant train info about derailments and boulders falling on tracks...and so many train schedules. Someone needs to have a conversation. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the table is basically a data dump, and old, obsolete data at that. It's not worth keeping. ..... PKT
Kamloops Airport 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) 17:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ujjal Dosanjh 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) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Progressive conservatism, which until an edit today by an IP editor was linked in the article on the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. On the Talk:Progressive conservatism page, there is a note that there was a discussion in 2014 which resulted in a consensus to delete the article. It looks as if the deletion was never carried through, but it's not that simple, and as a result I don't think that consensus still applies:
The net result is that the current version of the article is not what was blanked in 2014 as a result of the deletion discussion. However, the Talk page for the current article still has the deletion tag, making it look like it should now be deleted. It strikes me that the deletion consensus from 2014 is no longer valid, since it was for a different article. The new article has broader scope than the version that existed in 2014, and better references. I don't know what the rules are for a case like this, but I think the Deletion tag should itself be deleted, since it applied to a much different version, that was blanked 10 years ago. Or, if the old deletion consensus is retained, as part of the history, there should be some explanation of the subsequent history and recreation of the article. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user showed me this link to come here, I would recommend that the article as it currently exists be evaluated for whether its content merits an article titled "Progressive conservatism". There is an article that addresses what has been claimed to be "progressive" conservative ideas, and that is Paternalistic conservatism. In British conservative politics such paternalistic conservatism since Benjamin Disraeli's government has been called One-nation conservatism and in Canada as Red Tory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.60.200 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like it's largely original research and synthesis. It's not the same article that was AFD'd before, except in name, so I'd suggest a new AFD if editors think it should be deleted or merged with Red Tory. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you or someone else arrange for this to be done, I don't know how to do this.
Hello. In August 2024, @RedBlueGreen93: added provincial & territorial seat totals & premiers (all of which, I've since deleted) to the infobox of the New Democratic Party. As I understood it, we've chosen to exclude provincial/territorial branches. Has this changed? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, United Kingdom, and many other countries, the political parties have their status in subnational legislatures or other offices included in the main articles' infoboxes. I was under the impression that articles on Canadian political parties did not follow suit because in most cases, the provincial and territorial political parties of Canada are not wings or official affiliates of federal political parties. However, this is not the case with the NDP, as their constitution clarifies that the NDP in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon are legally the same entity. In that case, the NDP does have representation in provincial and territorial legislatures, and that should be represented in the infobox. The Liberal Party is the same, although they only have affiliates in the Atlantic provinces. RedBlueGreen9321:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me in the direction of the discussion where this standard was established? Because that is inconsistent with basically every article about a political party in the world. RedBlueGreen9323:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly small and informal discussion to be cited as lasting consensus 6 years later, just saying. If that's the only prior conversation about it, I'd say @RedBlueGreen93: wouldn't be out of line if they wanted to start an RfC on the question. Safrolic (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for revisiting this, although I'm not entirely sure how to get that started. I don't see how showing a party's status in legislatures in which they are rperesented is somehow giving them special treatment. RedBlueGreen9309:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate in the case of the Liberal and Conservative parties, as the provincial parties are their own standalone things and not chapters or affiliates of the federal parties — but it's also inappropriate to single out the NDP for different treatment than the Liberals and Conservatives are getting. It's the kind of thing where either we do it to all parties across the board despite the "provincial Liberal/Conservative parties are not affiliated with the federal parties" problem, or we don't do it at all for any parties, and there's no "do it for some parties but not for others" option. There's never, ever any rule that we have to do everything the same way as some other country even if the other country's system is completely different — the rule is that we make our own decisions based on Canada's own situation, and what the US does is irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also had to delete provincial/territorial election results. We have separate provincial & territorial NDP pages, for such info. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes let's keep provincial and federal party separated as they are in real life. Perhaps time to review these articles and see what can be moved to the main articles.Moxy🍁 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding these stats to the infobox is potentially confusing, due to how each of the federal parties has a different relationship to their provincial counterparts. That is to say, if we list the NDP's provincial seats in the infobox, but not the Conservatives', I expect that many won't understand there's an organizational difference there, and well-meaning editors will try to add something for the Tories. Or look at the Liberal seats and go "huh, looks like they forgot a few provinces" and adjust the numbers. Yeah, we can add notes in the code to warn people off… but anybody who's ever watched these pages knows that the notes urging caution about changing the political position or ideology are widely ignored. It's much better to just leave it out and explain these things, if relevant, in the prose.
The other thing is that even when federal and provincial parties are formally affiliated, they are still de facto independent. The provincial parties aren't an extension of the federal party, can pursue a slightly different ideological position, and even clash with other branches (most famously, in recent memory, was the tense relationship between the BC NDP and AB NDP over the question of pipelines). It's also often the case that a province will vote for one party provincially, then turn around and vote for another federally (Ontario is famous for this), so the provincial seat count doesn't speak to the strength of the party federally (one way or the other). This in stark contrast to UK politics, for example, where the local elections are often seen (by voters and pundits both) as a gauge on how people are feeling about the national government. Canadian parties just don't have that relationship. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather keep it redirected to Prime Minister. When people think of Canada's President, they're probably thinking of the PM, not the monarchy. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!19:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more of international precedents and usage over theoretical Canadian republicanism.. Something akin to Prime Minister of Spain who is actually called the president and is also only head of government and not head of state.Moxy🍁 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Agree that may be best.... Do the RFC right below this discussion. This way I think more people will be involved. I was unaware of the two previous discussions if they were here I would have participated.Moxy🍁 20:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it as a disambiguation page with the multiple possible interpretations, which it was until a 2022 AfD found otherwise. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!20:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if we have another RFC.... We should have four or five selections not sure. prime minister of Canada, monarchy of Canada, republicanism in Canada, constitution of Canada, government of Canada?Moxy🍁 20:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rwood128 suggested on my talk page we should just delete the damn thing.... Page protection from creation perhaps? This could also be an option in an RFC. If delete and the page is protected from recreation I think it would help a lot with edit wars in the future. Moxy🍁 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to suggest thsat this idiotic re-direct was a joke or maybe Chinese interference, when the above comicall suggestions about protecting the page appeared. Only a senior editor would be able to remove the original. Hope there is one with the gumption to do so. Do something more than chatter!! Rwood128 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a plausible search term someone might have, and redirects from incorrect names are valid. If you asked me to identify the office that is head of state and head of government for every country in the world, I am certain I would get many wrong. The goal of an encyclopedia is to connect readers with the article they are likely searching for, not to judge them for being “misinformed” or “illiterate”[4]. We should strive to be as accessible as possible to a wide range of readers of different levels of education and cultural backgrounds.
At any rate, WP:RfD is the proper venue for opening a discussion to delete or change these redirects.--Trystan (talk)
@Rwood128: Please do not simply blank pages as an attempt to delete them, as you did here. As for the redirect itself, it was redirected there as the result of this RfD, which included both President of Canada and President of canada. As for those who have tried to change the target (@GoodDay and Rwood128), it would be best to start another RfD about the target that makes the most sense instead of making any further changes. While I did not participate in the previous RfC, held in March of 2023, I do actually support the current target. We obviously don't have a president, but I think those who are searching for a president of Canada are actually looking for the prime minister's page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tedious commentary? Well that's certainly not a helpful way to dismiss someone's input on a subject. Keep it simple then and end this discussion, nominate it at RfD Rwood128. Note that I'll be voting keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if it is to be kept, I would suggest « Republicanism in Canada » to flag that there is no such position at present. Alternatively, it should go to the Gov Gen page, because in a parliamentary system, the president is the formal head of state. A redirect should refer to the closest analogue, which is the Gov Gen, who fulfills the same role in Canada as the president of Ireland and the President of Germany, to give two other parliamentary examples. We should not base the redirect on a misguided comparison to a presidential-congressional system, as that would be misleading. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any target risks some level of confusion for the reader, depending on what they are looking for. It could be a reader who is unaware of Canada's system of government and is looking for the political leader generally, in which case they want Prime Minister of Canada. They could be looking for information about the head of state, in which case the best response would be Monarchy of Canada, or Governor General of Canada for the individual who carries out those roles. They could be looking for proposals for Canada to have a presdient, in which case Republicanism in Canada is best.
While being redirected to a different page than what they searched for should flag for the reader that the specific target of their search doesn't exist, I think the best option would be a DAB to make that explicit. This would be quite different to the one that previously existed. This would say: "As a parliamentary democracy, Canada does not have a president. For the head of state see..., for the head of government see..." (similar to President of Japan linked below).--Trystan (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Canada can't be the only country where people confuse title of the political leader, I thought I'd have a look at where other "President of…" pages redirected to, so that we could use that as a prececent. Instead, what I found is that none of them exist: President of the United Kingdom, President of Jamaica, President of Australia, President of New Zealand, President of Belgium, President of Sweden. That even Australia is a redlink surprised me, since Republicanism in Australia is a big subject. So since it seems like editors haven't felt the need to clarify any misconceptions or provide reading (on the constitution or the republicanism debate), I don't see why Canada and Canada alone needs this redirect.
Well, if we're going to make pages all of these, I would prefer the President of Japan dab approach that actually clarifies things for the reader rather than a simple redirect that has to guess at what they were looking for. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key thing the President of Japan dab has that the previous President of Canada dab didn’t is a brief explanation that the title being searched for is an office that does not exist. I think it would be worth revisiting the dab option in an RfD, as it counters the common argument that any potential redirect would be confusing. A dab that explicitly and concisely clarifies the situation seems like it would have the least potential for confusion of all possible options.--Trystan (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we like it or not, there has, historically, been consensus against deleting redirects which are the incorrect usage of president and prime minister:
no brainer to me...we should simply guide our readers (an editors) to an article that educates them on what position is equivalent to president in Canada.Moxy🍁 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we like it or not, there has, historically, been consensus against deleting redirects which are the incorrect usage of president and prime minister
@Kawnhr: I clicked them. There were 3 AfD discussions about DABs, not redirects. Did you see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Canada, which resulted in redirect to Prime Minister of Canada? I've given you a number of instances where relevant redirect discussions have ended in keep or, in one circumstance, retarget while keeping a hatnote to the incorrect name. G7s are contextually irrelevant for what it's worth, and just because other entries don't exist doesn't invalidate the idea that someone might mistakenly search for the wrong title. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
