Talk:Caretaker government of Canada

Suggested moved

None of the article's sources use the phrase "caretaker government" in the context of Canada. I certainly never heard it referred to as such, and I'm pretty involved in this area (although I am not trying to rely on my personal knowledge). The sources do repeatedly use "caretaker convention". I would suggest renaming this to the Caretaker convention of Canada. Singularity42 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no objection there, was just following the format of Caretaker government of Australia (who also generally use Caretaker Convention over Caretaker Government). WanukeX (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you might need to respond to the WP:G12 tag first that has been added by another editor. Singularity42 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure my suggested move is right, but it is where I'm leaning. Let's keep it the status quo for now and wait to see if any other editors have thoughts about the correct name for the article. Singularity42 (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I know just who to ping for assistance on this one. Any thoughts on the name of this article, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz? Singularity42 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in replying; saw the ping but then forgot the name of the article. Yes, I would support changing the title to include "convention" somewhere, but I think "government" still needs to be there. "Caretaker convention in Canada" doesn't immediately let the reader know that it's about a government issue. Who knows, maybe janitors have conventions in Canada? or adult children looking after infirm parents? :) How about "Caretaker government convention in Canada"? Sorta clunky, though. There's an interesting example right now in Alberta: is Kenney in caretaker mode? To the extent there is a convention, it's not written about a lot. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There actually is a pretty decent amount written about it when you dig around. The issue I can think of with the idea that Kenney would be in Caretaker mode right now, is that then Dave Hancock would have been in caretaker mode his entire term in 2014, or Kelvin Goertzen in Manitoba for his whole term in 2021? I would assume formal "caretaker mode" for Kenney would only kick in at the point the next premier (whoever) is invited to form a government. WanukeX (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Running through the copyvios reports from the three websites, The second two can be removed from the article easily (they're both in relation to examples given), so the removal of the entire #Caretaker Convention in Operation Section ought to remove any copyright issues with those two.

The first one I find a bit odder, I had not seen that source before (the https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/ one), but checking through I see what has happened. The Caretaker government of Australia page has unambiguous copyright infringement of that source, and I copied and edited the content of that page for the purposes of this page assuming I would be in the clear under WP:COPYWITHIN by attributing to that page.

Overall, disagree with speedy delete as an unambiguous copyright infringement just on the grounds that I think this article warrants at least some importance and can be overhauled to remove copyrighted material from lawyersnjurists.com. Regardless, if there is the decision to speedy delete, the Caretaker government of Australia should also be appraised under G12. WanukeX (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@WanukeX okay, thanks for explaining. I have removed your G12 tag from Caretaker government of Australia, as the page that it appeared to be copied from actually took its content from the page (see WP:MIRROR). I've removed the tag from this article, and I'll delete the #Caretaker Convention in Operation section and request a cv-revdel instead. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 22:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and making sure this was handled quickly. WanukeX (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)