Jump to content

User talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of discussions from July to December, 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10


Apology re your Nov/06 Wiktionary entry

Hello Arctic.gnome -- Last year I dropped you a message saying that I was challenging the definition you added to the Wiktionary entry for "zombie". As a result of my rfv, in Summer/07 your definition was removed from the entry. Further research confirms the accuracy of your entry and I have restored it, with apologies. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

Could you maybe help me with getting more info for the references so it could be more visable on the NOTES Kelvin Martinez (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Honorific titles in popular music

Canada Talk page Template

Hello there. Yourself and User Qyd have made major contributions to the Template:WikiProject Canada. User:Mr C.C. has been making improvements to the SK communities and Neighborhoods branch of Saskatchewan wikiproject. Saskatchewan wikiproject which is now as a province, is included in the Canada template. There is also a department in the Canada template for communities. Mr. C.C. would like to be able to see how the Sk communities are coming along in regards to their ratings and assessment, and has also already received requests for review regarding ratings.

My query is In your humble opinion, should we start another talk page banner devoted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods/Assesment?

... or ...

Is there a way to forward into categories such as one named Category:B-Class Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles by doing a periodic AWB comparison of Canada template Saskatchewan articles with Canada template community articles, so that Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods can receive an assessment in this manner from the Canada template? cc Qyd Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you plunk this code into the Canada template? User:CBM/Sandbox2 I have all the categories made for both quality and importance for the Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods Wikiproject? I can't access the semi-protected template as I just putter along, but it looks plausible...See the results here.... User:CBM/Sandbox and the explanation here.... explanation cc Qyd Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If this coding does work it means every province can have a workgroup identical to the Canadian nation wikiproject, which will mean sports articles, community articles can be worked on both at a local and national level!!! Saskatchewan has quite a few sports enthusiasts, I know, but with the Vancouver Olympics coming up, perhaps the wikiprojects out there (Vancouver or BC) would like a department on sports set up at a local level with assessments in this manner as well. With just using the existing template!!! cc Qyd SriMesh | talk 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I was the guy who added that article to the topic. I won't do it again. So you don't have to warn anybody. Serendipodous 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO archiving broken

Please follow along at User_talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO; I have long been the only person archiving that page, GimmeBot finally took it over (after a year-long search and much frustration from Raul), and now a wiki programming error has broken it. I'm considering no longer updating the page. If you don't mind, please keep responses at User talk:Gimmetrow, so we can keep the whole thing in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good topics proposal

Arctic, there is currently a number proposed of changes to the Featured Topic criteria and process. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria and Wikipedia talk:Good topics. I think your input would be helpful as a number of comments are coming from editors that are not involved in the current process. Your input, and other involved editors, would be greatly appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Hello - Reply and a Few Things

Hello Artic Gnome, good to have you back and I was happy to help out in the meantime. I didn't put "failed" on the Everglades articles as firstly there weren't even FTC candidate processes, and secondly, well if you look at the nom you can see it shouldn't have been brought in the first place. But anyway, you're right, I guess ultimately I was just being lazy and only just getting into the role then.

Secondly, with regards to the Smallville nom, that did get a bit heated and there was pressure from all sides, I hope you're wrong obviously but I guess time will tell.

Thirdly, I would like to apologise for the ridiculous amount of upheaval you have come back to, and briefly explain it from my point of view. If you look here, you'll see that there was a proposal to up the criteria. Following that conversation, it quickly became clear that while upping was good for some reasons, it was bad for others. Hence I proposed a split off here, with good topics being featured topics but with lower criteria, and both largely occupying the same space. (I explain there how topics can move between good and featured at will using templates, and would be happy to implement this.)

Anyway, at the end of that discussion I feel it was somewhat hijacked by Cirt, who set up Wikipedia talk:Good topics. However, he did not fully understand WP:FT? 3.c), so left it out, and since then we have spent most of the time debating that criteria's inclusion in WP:GT? - largely pointless and quite frustrating. Anyway, he's now given me permission to include it, so that's that sorted, but borne out of this are the two slight changes to it that we've brought here and here.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that it appears the second straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Good topics will pass, meaning that things will be done much as I said they should be right back in the very first place, and so this whole thing will be an entirely pointless exercise! Sorry again about the giant mess, I'll be helping to clear it up from here on out and I hope you had a good holiday! - rst20xx (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it appears I also didn't do fails for the Slipknot topic - not sure why I didn't do that at all, sorry for making more work for you :/
One more thing though. I changed Template:Featuredtopictalk so it can do things like seen here. I wrote a doc as to how to use it. Also, this template now automatically adds categories for featured topics/fully featured topics. In fact I've generally changed this and Template:ArticleHistory to overhaul the category structure, meaning it's now completely clean of spam and sensibly broken up, as can be seen here. All of which means we can generate some fairly useful stats here - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Got a question

Do you mind if I close the Guitar Hero FTC as no consensus? It is partially dead and its not getting very far. Should I close it or leave it?Mitch32(UP) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot! You just brightened my day :) And I hope we can find a way to solve that final step of the puzzle (the listings), so this isn't a constant pain in the ass for you - rst20xx (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've solved it!

It's so obvious! Cirt suggested we come up with something like a daily log of status changes, but we were struggling to find what. Why don't we just actually set up a daily log of status changes with the WP 1.0 bot? All we'd need to do is set up the categories it requires, and then get Template:ArticleHistory to tag each article a third time (yes, another layer of categories, but oh well). And then you just need to run the bot daily and look at the log it outputs, and you can work out if any articles have changed rating, or been added or removed, from there! And resultantly, you can work out somewhat easily if a topic has moved from good to featured :)

Obviously this will only catch "vandals" who change an article history and won't catch "vandals" who just change a featured topic box, but it will catch all legitimate topic promotions/demotions, and besides, the featured topic box "vandalism" is a problem we have already - rst20xx (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So, erm, can youi get Template:ArticleHistory unprotected so I can get to work? :P rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I might try to request a temporary unlock on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Erm regarding the existing categories, we'd still need them if we want to be able to differentiate between the number of main articles and non-main articles. Otherwise, no, they'd be redundant. Alternatively, we could just scrap the non-main categories in the existing structure. Or, we could in fact set up two dummy WikiProjects, one for all articles, and one for just the main articles, and then we could scrap all of the existing cats. So it's up to you as to whether they're scrapped or not, and if so, what's scrapped. Regarding the categories for each topic etc that would be made as part of the good topics procedure, yes we'd absolutely still need them. So the question is - shall we scrap the existing cats? rst20xx (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I would recommend overhauling the whole lot, it might be simpler - rst20xx (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant idea! Though it's not as 2D as you might think, because as far as I know there's no easy way to cross-reference the number of articles in two categories. Yes, the statistics boxes are 2D, but the bots update these "manually", so we wouldn't be able to pull out the counts (i.e. number of main FAs, number of main goods, etc) like we do at the moment. To put it another way, what we have to work with is more like two 1D scales that can't be measured against each other. But don't worry, we can get round the problem like this: At the moment, we can tell if a main article is featured, good, or other - whether it is in one topic or multiple is irrelevant, it's still counted as a main article. We can set it up that featured mains get Top, good mains get High, other mains get Mid and non-mains get Low. Job done - rst20xx (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Realised we need a fairly obvious change of plan, as at the moment there's no distinction between what is good and what is featured. Top will now be Featured topics main articles, High will be Featured topics other articles, Mid will be Good topics main articles and Low will be Good topics other articles. I think that should cover all our needs, we will lose some information (i.e. what the statuses of main articles are), but I'm not sure we need it anyway. And this has the advantage that you can now plainly see when a topic moves from good to featured, and vice versa, as the importance of the articles will change! rst20xx (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Made a request for temporary unprotection. By the way, here's something I just noticed - good articles do the same thing - rst20xx (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:TopicTransclude

Okay. FeaturedTopicSum (which you should never have to use on a regular basis by the way) takes three parameters: the name of the topic, what to do if this topic is a featured topic, and what to do if this topic is a good topic. In other words: {{FeaturedTopicSum|TopicName|FeaturedTopicAction|GoodTopicAction}}. Using the topic name and by using the categories, FeaturedTopicSum works out if this topic is a featured or good topic, and then does the appropriate of the two candidate actions.

TopicTransclude takes two parameters, one of GT and FT, and then a topic name. For example: {{TopicTransclude|GT|TopicName}}. Then, it basically says, if the first parameter is GT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the good topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the featured topic action is to do nothing. And if the first parameter is FT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the featured topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the good topic action is to do nothing. Make sense? If you look at Wikipedia:Good topics, you will see that TopicTransclude is using GT everywhere - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to deprecate the ftstar= and fullyfeatured= parameters on Template:Featured topic box and Template:Featuredtopictalk, by the way. So no need to worry about that any more! rst20xx (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll just have to wait for Quatermass (TV serial) to roll around to the top of the pile for review. :)

Another question (yes I know). I came across these just now:

These are the album and all the singles from it, per here. There were however, three other songs from the album that have their own articles:

Would a featured topic need the last three? If not, the work deserves recognition at WP:FT. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Turns out User:Efe is on the case. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello - request for admin-type change

Hey, can you deal with my request here for a change to Template:Historyoutput? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet. In the meantime, we have situations like this, where it says it was a "Featured topic candidate" in the List milestones simply because it can't say it was a "Good topic candidate" until Historyoutput is updated to cater for good topics. And if this problem is still going on when the rush of good topic promotions occurs, well, it's going to be a major problem - rst20xx (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. Well spotted. The latter. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, where it says "FTC|ftc|FPOC" etc it needs to also have "GTC|gtc" inserted, and similarly for "FTR|ftr|FPOR" - this needs "GTR|gtr" inserted. And while we're at it, I should probably mention that we need one small change to Template:ArticleHistory - can you change where it says "goodtopic" to "good topic"? Tis a typo :P Sorry, I'm being a bit sloppy about this it seems - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, it was already fixed! I'm having one of those days, it seems... anyway, thanks! And look! Isn't it glorious? :P rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FT2008

Heya; please take a look at User_talk:Rst20xx#WP:FT2008. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist nomination

Would you like to comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin nom

Oh cool, thanks! However I think I'm going to reject (for now anyway!) I am an Oxford student and it's term time, hence I wouldn't really have time to get behind the nomination - rst20xx (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

List of premiers of Canadian provinces

I'm currently working on the lists of premiers of the Canadian provinces. I can't find references for some of them; seeing that you worked on the lists before, if you could provide some references that'd be great. You can just add them to the references section of each list. For some references, only the years are listed for elections and designation dates, but it'd be nice to have the exact dates. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't worked on those in a while, but they are still in my long term goals. I've looked for good references for all of them, and if they aren't there, then we have to look deeper than a Google search and looking over the websites of the provincial governments. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Government of Canada/first ministers, where I keep track of how those lists are doing, in hopes of eventually getting an FT. In that table I have listed which tables have references, which list the premiers' ridings, which match the common format used by the list of prime ministers, etcetera. I'm willing to get back to work on them if I won't be the only one at it, and we can use the talk page of that table to discuss progress. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure that sounds good. Could we start on List of premiers of the Northwest Territories as our first list? Gary King (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Which archives? And yeah, I chose that list because it would benefit the most from two people working together, and it needs the most help. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you got any of the information for the empty cells at List of premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, including assemblies and election dates? Gary King (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

request for third opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [1], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

defiantly PM

Was that an intended sassy aside or was it a Freudian slip for definitely? :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ack!

Arctic Gnome, I requested deletion of John Sparrow David Thompson so I could move John Thompson (politician) there as per Talk:John Thompson (politician). Now you've re-created the page and I again cannot move it. :,-( DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to do the deed? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the source for this image that you uploaded: Image:John Bracken.jpg? For image checks in the article's FLC. Gary King (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Premier

That box is for the election in the riding, not as election as premier. He was elected in Iqaluit West three times, February 15, 1999, February 16, 2004 and October 27, 2008. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why have the box say Elections (Riding)? That's unclear. Anyway I fixed it now so that it's clear what it means. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Agh, I had a reply with links typed up and hit some key and it all vanished. Which is why this reply took way longer than it should have.
After looking through the various articles I see that there are only three that use "Elections (riding)", List of premiers of Ontario, List of premiers of Saskatchewan and List of premiers of British Columbia. I think that they would be better if they were somewhat like Quebec, although "General elections" might be a better title. Others such as List of premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador are still a little confusing. Look down the list to "Premiers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador" and #2 Frank D. Moores or #5 Clyde Wells. Did they resign before the election? Did they run in their riding but weren't elected so the party picked another leader?
Look at List of premiers of the Northwest Territories and List of premiers of Nunavut, because there is no party politics in either territory there is no way to tell from the box that Joe Handley had not run again nor that Paul won his riding, but lost the seperate election for the premiership. It's explained earlier in the Nunavut article but there is nothing in the NWT one. Now it's easy enough to add the wording "Did not run" or something like that for Handley and any others in the same list that have no explanation. But there also needs to be an explanation in the box for ones like Paul. Looking at the NWT ones I see that Dennis Patterson was premier from 1987-1991, was re-elected in his riding in 1991 but Nellie Cournoyea became premier but it's not shown that Patterson ran again, nor if he ran for the premiership.
At the same time I am making the assumption that, in the south, if a person is no longer leader of their party they are not running in the following election. That's why it would be necessary to have something in the Clyde Wells section in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course then there's this province that is different to all the rest.
I just noticed, for a non-Canadian it's not always clear that the leaders are elected as part of the party and not in a seperate election. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates#Metroid_Prime_topic

Gary King (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada

Withdraw Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada please. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I ask for it to be withdrawn. Already working on the new lists. I pulled my discussion from WT:FTC after realizing that the lists that would required to be gutted were not featured lists since they had less than ten items. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My reply was to your post in the FTC talk page, I just noticed your request to withdraw the nom, so I'll get started on it now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized that immediately after. Anyways, the discussion at Talk:Premier (Canada) isn't getting much response because there isn't much traffic going to that page. It should probably either be closed as no consensus, or notifications should be posted at a few WikiProjects. Gary King (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay sure; go ahead. We should probably start working on the list's lead now. Gary King (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to log in? Gary King (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of British Columbia

I am wondering if you want to be credited with nominating this FLC nomination. You truly deserve it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since our nomination was not promoted, I won't be editing this list anymore, since I really did not know how to do these kinds of lists. Good luck in the future, if you're planning to re-nominate the list. Thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, you've been co-nommed! Gary King (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography

Looks like a no consensus to me, right? Mind closing it? Gary King (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I read your note. I'll watch for your discussion on WT:FTC, thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Related to this, mind having a look at Talk:Slipknot_(band)#Merging_Slipknot_Demo_and_Welcome_to_Our_Neighborhood_into_Slipknot_.28band.29 when you've got time and let me know how this topic can move on? Gary King (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates#Does_.22limited_subject_matter.22_in_the_featured_topic_criteria_imply_.2Atemporarily.2A.3F Gary King (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of premiers of Canadian provinces

It's fine if we have to work on a more difficult article. What I do care about is that we have a topic that will pass once it's up to speed; the worst thing is working on a dozen or two articles for a topic and finding out that it is an unacceptable topic. I'll open a discussion on WT:FTC since the topic is almost done. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean with "historical". I think the list of current First Ministers makes more sense because every item in the topic is linked from there. They all seem much more connected with that as the lead. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions is very useful, as I pointed out a few months ago. Questions at WT:FTC about potential topics still get more traffic, which is evident by one of the questions I posted on the Questions page then reposted on WT:FTC to get more responses. Gary King (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It's already linked to at the top of the page. I don't think WT:FTC gets enough activity to be considered swamped; take a look at WT:FAC. Gary King (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think people usually don't like to watch a separate talk page just for the sake of separating discussions. It would make more sense if criteria-related discussions were moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria, however. Gary King (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really mean that people were worried that their watchlists would explode or something. More like, people tend to only watch pages if they feel that it's worth watching, which are pages with a defined scope. For instance, someone might feel that WT:FTC already covers what the Question page is trying to accomplish, so why bother watching yet another page when both should do the same thing? In any case, so will both pages be merged back together then? Gary King (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, do you want to start off the article, as perhaps you have a better idea of what it should look like than I do? Maybe it could even be good enough to merge this into. Gary King (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I move/copy your sandbox article to the article space and work on it? Gary King (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
History of Canadian first ministers Gary King (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
How are we supposed to reference the page? Gary King (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, why are the provinces in that order? I'm assuming you're following the order at List of current Canadian first ministers, but I also don't quite understand why they are in that order, too. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:7th_parl_PMs.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:7th_parl_PMs.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: WikiMedia Canada

I definitely think that these things are best dealt with on Meta, and to a lesser extent on the mailing lists. I do not get along well with chat lines; I think too much about what I want to say. Even if I had wanted to participate in the steering committee, the usual 8 p.m. starting time did not work for me on the west coast. I'm usually the one cooking supper during the hour beginning at 5 p.m.

The difficulty now seems to be in getting decisions made, and determining when there is enough agreement on anything to go ahead. In the first draft of the by-laws I tried putting each part on a separate page in Meta, hoping that it would draw comments, but that didn't work. I'm relatively flexible on most aspects. The only aspect that I would treat as virtually non-negotiable is a requirement for a mechanism to insure that WMC not be dominated by any one province. Most of the other concerns that I raised on the talk page address either legal questions or ideas that may not work. It is especially important to be mindful of some of the tricky language of charitable purposes. Eclecticology (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't disagree by much. Please note my use of the word "directors" instead of "executive". The executive (or "officers") are a subset of the directors.
  1. For regional balance: "No person may be elected or appointed at large when doing so would result in more than 49% of the directors being resident in the same province."
  2. I wouldn't want to have a protracted debate about what is a francophone. Would it be enough to define that in terms of activity on French language projects.
  3. The problem with finalizing the by-laws is in determining when we have agreement on any one part.
  4. The Canada Corporations Act requires a minimum of three people to incorporate. All need to sign the articles of incorporation, but only one of them needs to sign the by-laws. Those who participate in the legal incorporation thereby become the first directors. This should be a small number because of the need to pass the document around for signing. No executive really exists until the incorporation is complete. In the first year the emphasis should be on getting things done, and that should be kept in mind when the best people are appointed to do whatever needs to be done. If all goes smoothly the first elections would be one year after incorporation. Needless to say, if the incorporators get too dictatorial they won't get elected when their time comes up.
  5. I've been following the recent foundation-list discussion about the Brazillian chapter, and there are some good lessons there about problems to avoid. Eclecticology (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The two additions are basically good, but if we are going to talk about "projects" that term will need to be defined. You and I know what we mean by that, but we can't assume that a random person reading the by-laws will know. The right to speak French at meetings is great theory, but is of little value if nobody understands what the person is saying. It may work on a wiki or mailing list when the reader has a time to figure it out, but it could be a problem in a chat room or in person. I don't expect that we will be able to afford translators in the foreseeable future.

The WMF does request that it review the by-laws before incorporation, but we cannot become a legal chapter until after we incorporate. Until we are incorporated, or have in some other manner acquired legal status under Canadian law, we will not have the legal right to enter into contracts, except as individuals. Any purported contract between such a group and WMF could be declared a nullity. Using the name and logos a matter of trademarks, not copyrights. Avoiding use of the logos before we have the legal issues sorted out is not much of a difficulty. The name is trickier. WMF, by approving our request to be a chapter would effectively be granting us permission to a group of people to establish a corporation or chapter with that name. The extent to which such a permission is required under Canadian law is highly debatable, but it would not be in anybody's interest to force that debate.

Your idea of working to a time limit is fine. Can we have them ready for submission no later than the end of February, perhaps earlier It would be great to have Canadian representation at the proposed Berlin chapters meeting in April.

The founding documents should be in two parts: the Application for Incorporation, and the by-laws. The former includes the name, purposes and the "assets" provisions. Everything else goes into the by-laws.

Since the Steering Committee is defunct, can we now get rid of references to it on the by-laws page? Eclecticology (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had exchanged some comments at fr:Discussion Projet:Québec#Wikimédia Québec ?. The concern there revolves around a Québec sub-chapter being forced to operate bilingually. I have taken the position that the language used by a sub-chapter for its own operations should be its own decision and the the national chapter should not involve itself in that. I have also made some suggestions regarding the practical separation of powers between chapters and sub-chapters. I have made a couple changes to the by-laws: dumped reference to the steering committee, separated by-laws and Articles of Incorporation, and added a transitional provision to allow for a set of these documents to become official in the other official language. Trying to get full agreement from the beginning in both languages could be mind-numbingly non-productive. I have no problem with making the names of the three incorporators public; my hesitation on this is temporary until we have three individuals who are committed to taking responsibility for the process, including committing to pay $100 each as his share of the costs of incorporation. Eclecticology (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been continuing my exchanges with Utilisateur:Khayman. Our Quebec people have been canvassing opinions about my proposals, and so far so good. I have also strongly suggested that one of the three people applying for incorporation should be from Quebec. By having that selection ratified by the upcoming Laval University meeting we can be confident that the individual has some support in Quebec. Once we receive their ratification the names of the three incorporators can be made formally public; this is is not to say that the information is confidential anyway. I have proposed that Wikimédia Québec would be recognized as an official sub-chapter shortly after Wikimedia Canada, and that the domain wikimedia.qc.ca would be made available for their use.

I haven't yet addressed the question of finances, and their federal-provincial distribution. Having the federal body the sole authority for issuing receipts will imply responsibility to account for all finances including those of sub-chapters on the required annual tax reports. This includes insuring that the funds have been properly spent for charitable purposes. Because Quebec requires separate tax receipts for its provincial income tax returns, a higher degree of financial autonomy for that sub-chapter may be warranted. I essentially agree that we should maintain flexibility in the distribution of responsibilities. The federal body would retain primary management of legal responsibilities and finances; publicity and organizing get-togethers might be best left in sub-chapter hands. Beyond these broad strokes much will be subject to negotiation.

Meanwhile, let's keep working on the by-laws until we have something workable. Eclecticology (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

List of current Canadian senators

Hello, I was hoping to take the list through FLC within the next few days, and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look and letting me know what you think. I'd also appreciate it if you could look over the lead and make sure it's fully accurate. Thanks, Scorpion0422 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I've been trying to decide if I should withdraw this list due to stability concerns and I was wondering what you thought. The way I see it is that we won't know if the government will fall until the 8th, and even if it happens, it'll probably be a few weeks before any changes are made in the Senate (if any are made at all). -- Scorpion0422 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC

[2] Gary King (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office

Hi, I left comments on the above FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect {{FeaturedTopicSum}}?

I was thinking, if someone vandalised this template, the implications would be catastrophic - rst20xx (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'll protect it. If you ever need to make a change to it just message me. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. And awesome template, never come across that before!

No content in Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive_6&oldid=1251641265"