Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Governments of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page does not require an assessment on the quality scale.
Governments of Canada
This article is part of the Governments of Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Calibration of importance ratings

Here is a list of suggested ratings using immigration as an example:

Any views on how to handle old ministries or other historical government articles? I suggest we tag them as historical rather than Government of Canada, which I deem to refer to the current government.

Deet 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks about right. We should probably add a history tag to the WikiProject Canada template. When you were making that ranking, did you know that for whatever ranking you give it for Government of Canada, it gets that ranking on the general Canada project? I don't think that we need to split up the importance rankings, but it means that Government of Canada will probably be the only item in this project that has top importance. -Arctic Gnome

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian Forces

Category:Canadian Forces is up for merging with Category:Military of Canada, which is odd, since Category:Royal Canadian Air Force and Category:Royal Canaadian Navy are not being considered, even though CF is a force structure just like the RCAF, RCN, and CA it replaced. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_18#Category:Canadian_Forces

70.51.8.140 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Departments

The governmental departments need a lot of work. I'm trying to expand Natural Resources Canada and related pages as much as I can. However, we should really put it somewhere on the todo list. See Template:Government_Departments_of_Canada for a list of them. → Icez {talk | contrib} 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MP lists

About three months ago, I proposed a potential reformatting of the alphabetical MP lists into tables, but to date my proposal has had no response either way. Could I get some feedback on whether the proposal is worthwhile or not? See Talk:List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons - A. Thanks. Bearcat 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal looks good to me. I was thinking that some of those list needed to be re-worked, but they've never made it to the top of my todo list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament FAR

Parliament of Canada has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell 08:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian House of Commons FAR notice

Canadian House of Commons has been nominated 14 September 2007 for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --copying the FAR notice from WP Canada here also SriMesh | talk 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to standardize coverage of PMs

The link Harper government redirects to 28th Canadian Ministry. I think that is wrong.

If you look at the other major democracies covered by WP articles of this type, they tend to be histories of that person's administration, and not just a list of their ministers. For example see:

(just histories)

compare Canada:

One probem is that Harper is getting more coverage that Laurier and Macdonald put together and probably more than Churchill, and that's not right. Another is that we're not being consistant, either with the other countries or with previous PMs.

What I propose is that the main Stephen Harper article be stripped down as much as possible to just biographical information. Harper government would be a history of his time in office and his policies (with the possibility of sub-articles on certain areas if they get too big [e.g. foreign policy]). 28th Canadian Ministry would be a fork from "Harper government" that would only list the ministers.

AND most importantly, we would do this for all PMs.

Now I realize that WP is inheriently biased in favour of recent events, so could we at least standardize the other PMs (Macdonald government, Trudeau government, etc.) and deal with Harper later. Kevlar67 12:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those articles could stand to be sorted out, sure, though I don't think all of the policy stuff would fit in one page, we'd already need to have some sub-articles. I also agree that Stephen Harper should be mostly biographical. However, I'm not sure whether the 28th Canadian Ministry need only be a list; note that Clinton cabinet redirects to Presidency of Bill Clinton. I always thought that it was sort of an American thing to focus on the president, whereas Canada (at least formally and legaly) focuses on the cabinet as a whole. The 28th Ministry is the Harper ministry; it and his prime ministership are the same thing. That being said, we do have enough information about his policies and the history of the government to fill more than one article. If we do create a separate article for them, I'd recommend calling it Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper rather than Harper government, seeing how it's technically the Queen's government, not his. Alternatively, we could just make an article called Policies of the 28th Ministry of Canada and lump all of those policy articles into it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the title doesn't have to be "Harper government" (although that would make common usage), but it needs to be consistent for all PMs, and clearly separate biographical information from the history of policy and politics. Kevlar67 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the inordinate amount of Harper coverage, however, instead of Harper government, I'd follow the British example and call it Premiership of Stephen Harper, as, in reality, that's what it is. --G2bambino 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Jeez - after seeing that Premiership of Stephen Harper actually links somewhere, I found it led to yet another Harper article: Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. There must be a lot of repetition out there. --G2bambino 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw that too, after I wrote this. I still thing we should be mergist about this and not have 10 different pages about the Harper government. Kevlar67 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I think we all have the same general idea about what should be done. How does this sound:

Does that sound about right? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the three page topics, although the names I'm less sure of. (esp "Premiership": too British, confused w/ Prov. premiers) But, that's basically what I would support. Kevlar67 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper over both Premiership of Stephen Harper and the current Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada; but the term "Prime Ministership" might make someone accuse us of making up words. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One think I know for now, is that we will probably have to move some parts of the domestic articles into sub-articles because it has 77k and not even 2 years has passed since Harper has been sworn as PM (and probably several months away for an election considering the Liberal problems which force them to not vote or support any legislation). I think the environment and economic elements should have there separate articles with still some resumes in the domestic article still but no more then one or two short paragraphs. I though doing the same think like they are doing with President Bush.

A template for Stephen Harper would possibly be required to facilitate navigation as there are several articles about this current government. A category does exist (like GWB has a template and category), but a template is also needed.

I definitely agree that Harper's article should be only biographical with maybe a separate page for his early political (or pre-PM) career. Like Bush, there should be a page for his general PM term but with resumes and links to main pages. JForget 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example Template

This is a VERY rough outline of what I'd like to see. Notice that it is VERY different from {{George W. Bush}} or {{Tony Blair}}. I purposly neglected their personal history and instead focused on the government as a group.

v • d • e
Harper Government
People:
Prime Minister: Stephen Harper · Cabinet: 28th Canadian Ministry · Parliament: 39th Canadian parliament · Party: Conservative Party of Canada · etc.
Policies:
Foreign policy · Economic policy · Environmental policy · National unity policy · etc.
Legislation
Related
"Canada's New Government" · Five priorities · 2006 election · etc.

The exact same thing could be done to Trudeau allready as we have articles like the NEP and FIRA and The Charter to link to. But I would purposly leave out Fuddle Duddle or Margaret Trudeau or Trudeaumania for examples because all related to PET personally, and that's what Category:Pierre Trudeau is for. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Kevlar67 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would include links to the various "personal" Stephen Harper pages, whatever becomes of them after the various merges and reorganizations that have been proposed. The main Stephen Harper page is already very long and having visible subpages would encourage the development of those, as well as facilitate navigation. Random89 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've already split the environmental policy section into its own article. See: Environmental policy of the Harper government--JForget 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor name change

Would anyone have a problem with me changing the name of this project to "WikiProject Governments of Canada" to show that we are interested in both the federal and provincial governments? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Province of Saskatchewan Government....This, I think answers my question...Started the article Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (Saskatchewan), which I think may now belong to WikiProject Governments of Canada...Likewise... Category:Saskatchewan government ministries and agencies, Template:Infobox Saskatchewan government ministries and Template:SaskMinistries. Similarly, Royalguard began Crown corporations would they also be under Wikiproject Governments of Canada, as they are owned and operated by the Government. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

On Canadian federal elections articles, e.g., Canadian federal election, 1993, there are at least two templates at the bottom: the "federal elections" template, which lists all of the elections since Confederation, and the "Federal Parliaments in Canada" template, which lists all of the Parliaments since Confederation. In my view, the second is not appropriate because the article relates really only to the parliament formed as a result of the election, and not to any previous or subsequent parliaments. I propose to remove the "Federal Parliaments in Canada" from the election articles in order to reduce template creep, and clean up the articles. Ground Zero | t 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Support:

  • As above Ground Zero | t 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the shortcut to WP:TCREEP, but otherwise agree with this. The visual arrangement of these templates also leaves much to be desired, for what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this, though we could customize the template so that for each election, the appropriate parliament for that election is listed in the template. (Then again, the link is in the infobox, so it may be superfluous in the template.) Either way, certainly remove the parliaments template. Mindmatrix 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

[edit] Conclusion

I'll take this as a "yes", and begin work. Thanks everybody. Ground Zero | t 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Stephen Harper with Stephen Harper out of Parliament

I came here from the link to Discuss, but I don't really see any coherent talk about why you should or should not merge the articles. Obviously they should be merged, is it the Stephen Harper the Politician article? No, it is the Stephen Harper article, which means it covers his birth, childhood, family life, schooling, work (which in this case is Politics). Even with a job as important as the Prime Minister of Canada, that is not the core of his being, the most descriptive part of him. Furthermore, while you might be trying to Standardize all Canadian PM articles (I'm not sure if this is part of your new standards), its more important that all biographical articles on wiki are standardized to some point, I have never seen another article where they try to seperate the different pieces of a person's life and leave the actual article about the person hollow. Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Member of Parliament

In hopes of making Canadian MPs infoboxes content correct. When does a MP assume his/her seat? if their predecessor is still in office & if the seat is already vacant. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From section IV.50 of the Constitution, a House goes from the return of the writs of one election to the dropping of the writs of the next election. Note that there is therefore a time when there are no sitting House MPs, unlike for cabinet ministers who keep their minister title until the day that they are replaced. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So anybody who was elected to the House (for example) in the 2006 Federal election? He/she became an MP on February 6, 2006? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that was the day when the people in Harper's cabinet were made members of the Prvy Council and took the places of their old counterparts as ministers. They, and the rest of the House members, were already the members for their ridings, although none of the House members would take their oaths or seats until after the first session opened. The return of the writs doesn't make the news because it makes no difference, we already know who's getting in and they can't do anything until after the thrown speech anyway.
  1. Election
  2. Writs returned (All elected people become MPs)
  3. Privy Council swearing-in (Ministers, including Prime Minister, get their titles. eg. February 6, 2006)
  4. Throne speech (MPs take their seats and the first session starts)
  5. Any number of prorogations, new thrown speeches, and new sessions. (Usually 3-4 sessions per parliament)
  6. Writs dropped for a new election (All House members stop being MPs. This includes Ministers, but they keep their Minister titles despite not being MPs)
That is how I understand it. I can't remember when MPs take their oaths, but I think it is the first day that they take their seats. I'm not sure where to go for something to use as a citation for all that, because it is a mixture of constitutional law and historical precedents. For back bench MPs, it might be best just to use the election date; that is what readers are going to care about. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What's got me wondering, is the article Jack Layton. It says he assumed his seat upon his election (June 28, 2004). Basically, they're inconsistancies among the Canadian MP bios (past & current). GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They do have to be standardised, I agree. For MPs, I think that we should use the election date rather than the return of the writs or the opening of the first session, mostly because this is what the reader is most going to want to know, plus it lets us throw in a link to the election article. However, on the infobox we would then have to change "assumed office" to "first elected". Okay, that template is more widely used than I thought. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The same (of course) would have to be done for the MPs who've acquired their seats via by-elections. Use 'by-election' date, under first elected. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter MacKay

Since nobody has answered me at the MacKay article? I'll ask it here. Is MacKay still deputy leader of the Conservative Party? or did that post get abolished upon Harper becoming Prime Minister? MacKay's party status isn't clear at his article. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Senate of Canada FAR

Senate of Canada has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.