Main page

Talk page

Article alerts

Deletion talks

New articles

Vital articles

Featured content

Canada 10,000

Portal

---

---

	Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 40 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Berri–UQAM station#Requested move 15 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 09:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated WestJet Encore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the place to post this proposal. I have also asked about this on the talk page for that article. Sorry to bother you all. Skye the Cat (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been unsourced for 20 years. Not clear the content is even accurate. If anyone can help verify that the content is true and add sources, I would appreciate it. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject GovDirectory has added a weekly Collab Hour in a time slot that is more user friendly for folks in Americas time zones, we hope you'll check it out. We'll be there Thursdays, 8-9 PM Eastern (5-6 PM Pacific). Details are on the GovDirectory project page. On parle un peu français.

While this is primarily a Wikidata project, there is also work to do in Wikipedia on List and Category articles. There is a good start toward getting information about Canada published on GovDirectory, but there is still a lot more to be done. For example, breaking out provincial governments as "Parts of Canada" as is now being done for U.S. states https://www.govdirectory.org/united-states/ JMMaok (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed a merge proposal for 2025–2026 Alberta independentist crisis which was created today. Looks like a bit of a mess. Not seeing any of the regulars I would expect to see in that discussion so I figured I'd drop a link here for those interested. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,The federal government is shutting down the Canadian Reister of Heritage Places this coming spring (2026) with no replacement.

Since the website will be shutting down, thoughts will need to be had on how to proceed with the lists of heritage sites and listing the identifiers. Wolfy13399 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

new site is up and running https://heritageguide.ca/ Moxy🍁 17:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That only contains the current state of the CRHP and doesn't include any of the newer listed heritage sites.

Many listed heritage sites don't have a corresponding CRHP entry Wolfy13399 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there doesn't seem to be a way to get a link from the CRHP if to the page on heritageguide.ca Wolfy13399 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was to make the identifiers on the lists just point to an archived copy... Seems everything is saved on the Internet Archive. The main problem I'm facing is that heritage sites registered more recently can't really be added to the lists the way they're currently formatted. There are various ongoing efforts to preserve the content and establish new resources -- many provinces have their own, such as Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia does not, but the Heritage Trust is looking into it. I think we'll be ok. If you want to help out, you can start creating Wikidata items for heritage properties which don't have them. I already created an item for every site in Nova Scotia, you can visualize it here (see also any of the entries in List of historic places in Nova Scotia). -- MediaKyle (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also... Pretty sure Parks Canada will be keeping a website for federally registered properties but don't hold your breath on it. MediaKyle (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be moved to William Mackintosh? Bearian (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't look like the most notable person on that list. I've gone with William Mackintosh (engineer) with William Mackintosh (officer) and William Mackintosh (surveyor) as redirects. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem, never mind, carry on. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open discussion regarding the infobox image for Stephen Harper. See Talk:Stephen Harper#Image discussion. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should 2025 in Quebec & 2026 in Quebec be deleted or re-directed? I don't think we have any other "Year in provinces or territories" articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect them to 2025 in Canada and 2026 in Canada. We don't need more of these lazy timeline pages. MediaKyle (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are well-sourced and informational. I have no idea why they would be redirected.--User:Namiba 20:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of random days of random events with no real standard for inclusion... With such highlights as May 20: Construction site collapse in Blainville, Quebec kills 1 and injures 3 (2025 in Quebec). Should we add François Legault's birthday too do you think? MediaKyle (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want a standard for inclusion, not deletion. For this, we can turn to WP:NLIST. The format of the articles are taken from 2025 in Canada. Many sub-national entities have similar standalone articles, see 2025 in New Jersey.--User:Namiba 02:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stouffville line detailed has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver
Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon

When and Where
Date	March 5, 2026
Time	11 am - 3 pm
City, Province	Vancouver, British Columbia
Location	This is an in-person event at the Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery.

Moxy🍁 05:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Date: February 28, 2026 10:30 AM PM EDT-4:30 PM EDT
• Location: One Yonge Community Recreation Centre, Freeland Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
• No experience necessary! Bring your laptop and/or smartphone.
• All participants are asked to adhere to the Wikimedia Friendly Space Policy for all activities.

Register (closes 12 February)

Moxy🍁 05:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun the process of spinning off the list of Canadian writers into sets of lists by province and by genre. Relevant discussion is located here. If you'd like to help out by creating a list or two, I've mapped out the plan so far here. At the time of writing, I've created List of writers from Nova Scotia and List of writers from New Brunswick and will be moving on to the other Atlantic provinces. I have a blank alphabetical list here that may be useful to those wishing to contribute. Thank you, MediaKyle (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine#Requested move 27 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Pattullo Bridge replacement be moved to stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP:CANSTYLE be updated to recommend that local Indigenous place names (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) be included in the lead sentence of Canadian geographical articles, based on usage in significant reliable sources? Poketama (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Guideline Text for WP:CANSTYLE:

If a place has an Indigenous name that is used by significant reliable sources, it should be included in the lead sentence as a significant alternative name (per MOS:LEADALT), even if it is not the sole official legal name or a government gazetted name. Example: Calgary (Blackfoot: Mohkinstsis).

---

Comments

• This aligns Canadian articles with the standard established in Australia and New Zealand, where significant Indigenous names are routinely included in the lead based on usage. This is also standard across other English speaking countries such as the UK and Ireland. Poketama (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what is going on here? This is a bad RfC and should be closed... If your problem is with the Calgary article, start a discussion at Talk:Calgary, and then start an RfC there after you're unable to come to consensus. I'll warn you, we've had this discussion over and over again, many are quite weary of it. MediaKyle (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no input or participation in Calgary discussions and this is not about Calgary. The intention of an RFC is to prevent the kind of repeated discussions you're talking about. Poketama (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then start a discussion wherever it's about... You're asking for a blanket solution to a problem where there is none. We choose what names to include on a case-by-case basis. See the recent other names discussion. This RfC does not belong on the main noticeboard of all places. MediaKyle (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, @MediaKyle. I appreciate that there is fatigue around this topic, but that recurring friction is exactly why a central RfC is necessary.

Relying on 'case-by-case' discussions without clear guidance has led to the inconsistency and repetitive arguments you mentioned. The goal here is not to create a 'blanket mandate' for every article, but to establish clear advice on whether Indigenous names can be used at all, given significant reliable sources, so editors don't have to re-litigate the debate on every individual talk page.

Since this proposal involves a major change to Canadia pages, WikiProject Canada is the appropriate venue to allow the input of all Canadian users. This also aligns best with Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS Poketama (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened now... For those joining us, this RFC is happening because of this discussion. -- MediaKyle (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be a logical follow-on to this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is line with existing style guidelines. It is useful information to the reader. It also broadens their historical perspective and knowledge and acknowledges First Nations' peoples. Tiamut (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is the relevant guideline. Neither Australia nor NZ have a MoS page that includes something to the effect of what this RfC is proposing, instead the names have been included according to MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV without issue this whole time. Canada does not need a special carve-out and the current global guideline is fit for purpose. There has been no attempt to discuss the inclusion of the non-English names on the articles in question, instead we have jumped straight to an RfC. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, that is incorrect. New Zealand has specific rules (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)) that deviate from global standards. The guideline explicitly instructs editors to "list the italicised Māori name in the article" when a common English name exists, citing Christchurch (which includes the name in the lead) as the model.

  Similarly, Australia relies on a specific 2022 RfC consensus for "reliable usage," not just global guidelines. Poketama (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording is a bit vague but I interpret the guideline as not 'you must include it' but rather 'if you are going to include it do this'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans arrived in Canada 300 years before the Māori arrived in New Zealand. Not sure that's the best example. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can use the Norse as an argument here. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Iroquois coming to Ontario 50 years after the French? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Define Iroquois - there were already First Nations speaking Iroquoian languages present. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This just went to an RfC last November, and there was no consensus (see WT:LEAD#RFC: Can Indigenous/native languages be included in the lede of articles about places?)...and the nominator withdrew it. MOS:LEADCLUTTER seems quite clear on this. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The November discussion you linked was withdrawn by the proposer before a consensus could be formed; it did not establish a binding precedent against inclusion or a 'no consensus' result.

  Regarding MOS:LEADCLUTTER: This proposal explicitly addresses that concern by limiting inclusion to significant names that are widely used in reliable sources. The goal is to regulate inclusion so it doesn't become clutter. Poketama (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV already covers this adequately. There is no reason to include an Indigenous name in the lead if a place is not "closely associated with a non-English language". For example, there is no strong association between Calgary and the Blackfoot language. Only 460 of Calgary's 1,291,770 residents speak it according to the 2021 census- so "Mohkinstsis" does not belong in the lead. 162 etc. (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of 'closely associated' under MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV. Equating cultural and historical association strictly with modern census data is a flawed metric. A region does not lose its 'close association' with its foundational language simply because the population of fluent speakers was historically reduced.

  The Blackfoot language is inherently associated with the land Calgary occupies - it is the original and continuous language of that specific geography. That inherent connection is exactly why the name remains highly significant and belongs in the lead, regardless of current demographic percentages.

  Additionally, citing MOS:LEADALT, the name Mohkinstsis has been adopted into English-language usage by the City of Calgary, major universities, and national media. It is doubly significicant as a name used by the English-speaking majority. It belongs in the lead as a Significant Alternative Name. Poketama (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the concept "original language" is particularly meaningful. Go back further in time and you'll find different language(s) spoken in the same region. Gawaon (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This should really be discussed on the talk page for Calgary. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If you wish to start a thread at Talk:Calgary arguing that the Blackfoot language is closely associated with Calgary, you are welcome to do so. My objection to a more-specific MOS:CANADA interpretation of something that is already in the MOS remains. 162 etc. (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as too vague and unclear. "used by significant reliable sources" is very unclear or ambiguous, especially as it's unclear how to distinguish "significant" from "insignificant" RS (what would that even mean?) and what's meant by "used" here – does the RS have to use the Indigenous name routinely instead of the English name or is a single mention of it enough? It does seems that a single (or very small number of) "significant" RS could be considered sufficient to trigger this clause, raising DUE issues. So in general, existing best practices should be used to determine whether to include Indigenous names (and which ones), this one would make more problems than it solves. Gawaon (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, reliance on 'existing best practices' is precisely what has led to the current instability and edit warring. The status quo is clearly not working.

  'Significant reliable sources' is the standard threshold applied across Wikipedia (WP:RS). We trust editors to use common sense to distinguish between a single, trivial mention and genuine usage. The proposal specifies 'Used', meaning the source refers to the place by that name rather than just being mentioned as a piece of history or trivia. When a name is used as a synonym by major institutions (government, media, academia), it meets the bar for WP:DUE. Poketama (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that page does not refer to "Significant reliable sources" at all; it only uses the word "significant" in some other contexts, such as "significant minority views" or that dissertations need to have "significant scholarly influence". "Used as a synonym by major institutions" is something totally different from the vague and unworkable reliance on "significant reliable sources" in your original wording. Maybe you want to withdraw that wording in favour of a new, clearer proposal? If so, better do so fast since there has already been a lot of discussion. Gawaon (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems like a good discussion but I don't believe it should be an RfC. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright everyone... This is the WikiProject Canada notice board. This is going to get out of hand real fast and clog it up for days now that the OP has notified every WikiProject under the sun. I would appreciate it if someone would take the initiative to either close this as a bad RFC, directing the OP to initiate discussion on Talk:Calgary or wherever the problem is; or alternatively, move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles, which would be the proper place for an RfC on changes to that particular style guide. I will say again: this RfC does not belong here. MediaKyle (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the manual of style overrides any Wikiproject. This needs to be settled at the MOS page as I suggested before this was made. Canadians don't like their Indigenous people so there's a strong bias here regardless.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Canadians don't like their indigenous peoples' ....Not sure I've ever seen anyone have this point of view considering what the Canadian public view is on this. Pls review Canadian values before labeling Canadians as discriminatory. Moxy🍁 00:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please keep things civil and focused on policy, if a move is necessary an admin can do it in time. Poketama (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I could add citations to my comment or you can Google them for yourself?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Good job on doubling down we will assume this is your last post. Moxy🍁 03:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, changes to a MOS page are normally discussed on the associated talk page (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles in this case). However, there is no firm rule requiring that. Appropriate notifications and the RFC process itself will bring people here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Special status or equal treatment? Canadians divided on Indigenous rights, but united on financial transparency, More than a third of Canadians say country belongs to Indigenous people: poll, and Canadians on Reconciliation and Relations with Indigenous Peoples. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good topic but wrong place. There cannot be a one size fits all rule. Existing WP policies and guidelines should be used. Each country is different. The NZ practice is an attempt to have one rule for each article with a connection to NZ, which is why it contradicts in places established WP policies and common sense. There are local politics, customs and laws that affect each country's approach to using indigenous names, which again makes it impossible to have just one approach. For example, all maps in NZ must, by law, include the legal name (invariably including a Maori name in some sort of dual construction), which may not be the commonly used name. That raises doubt over the independence of otherwise reliable sources that are forced to use these artificial but official names. Each country will no doubt have peculiarities of its own about indigenous names. If there is to be just one rule for everywhere, that rule should be to use secondary sources to establish common usage, even if that name is not the usual name in everyday English. We should not use an indigenous name simply because it is an indigenous name, despite never of rarely being used, which is what too often happens. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I have never seen the Blackfoot name of Calgary used before in RS or otherwise, and if that's the standard to meet for "significant alternative name", then I do not think this is needed. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Names like this are used extensively by major Canadian institutions. For Calgary, among other sources, it is used in official capacity by the City of Calgary, the University of Calgary, and the CBC. These are high-quality, English-language reliable sources that establish the name as a 'Significant Alternative Name' under MOS:LEADALT. Poketama (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your enthusiastic is wonderful..but can we get you to read over Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Moxy🍁 00:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: some sort of generic rule . inclusion should be determined by individual places and the sources presented over a perceived Wikipedia:Advocacy POV stance.Moxy🍁 00:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the common practice in the real world, so appropriate in Wikipedia as well. I would caution that the Indigenous name(s) should be short. I've been moving long discussions about alternative names and etymologies out of ledes into "Name" sections in many articles. Yuchitown (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The |native_name= parameter in {{Infobox settlement}} is another good way of handling those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not. "Native name" is not synonymous with "Indigenous name" in this context. This parameter is used to display the "settlement name in the dominant local language(s), if different from the English name." For example, this parameter is used at Milan to display the name "Milano", as Italian is the dominant local language in that city.

  There are some places in Canada where an Indigenous language can be considered dominant - see for example Fort Simpson, which uses "Łı́ı́dlı̨ı̨ Kų́ę́" in the native_name parameter. However, that is not the case for Calgary, or any other major Canadian city. 162 etc. (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky one. See Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 32#RFC on usage of native_name parameter for First Nations placenames and Talk:Seattle#dᶻidᶻəlal̕ič. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was clear....it can be used for First Nations based on WP:DUE. In Calgary's case its clearly WP:UNDUE. Moxy🍁 17:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RfC: Calgary is a strange example to cite for this proposal, given that the lede does not include an alternate name (and, skimming the page history, does not seem to have included it — even briefly — in the last several months), and nor was it ever raised on Talk:Calgary. And yet in the comments here, you keep arguing for Mohkínstsis specifically, never offering other examples nor defending the proposal on more general grounds. Is this just an effort to add Mohkínstsis to the Calgary page? — Kawnhr (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If it can be reliably sourced, there is no reason why it should be removed. Names of the Indigenous language of a place are relevant to the places they come from. It should not be different for First Nations. PersusjCP (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for inclusion? A former Indigenous settlement at the place, or the unearthing of a name the Indigenous had for the place as they passed though? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption would be that there would need to be sources which describe the term as a name for that place. By way of an overseas example (since I'm more familiar with New Zealand than Canada), there are a number of different Māori names for places that are now within the city of Christchurch, but only one of them (Ōtautahi) is used as the Māori name for the city as a whole. So, to use the example that seems to be the crux of this whole thing, if there are sources which refer to Mohkínstsis as the indigenous name for Calgary, then it wouldn't necessarily matter whether it was a settlement on the site, a name for the area or something else, because there are sources saying that it's the indigenous name which is used in that context. Turnagra (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the first-sentence part as too confining; I’d be more favourably disposed to a recommendation to include properly sourced native names somewhere in the lead section. My main reason, which has been alluded to in a couple of the above comments, is that the synonymy is not usually exact—especially for settlements, as distinct from natural features—often needing qualification that would bog down the first sentence. Although officially recognized names can be accepted as is (perhaps with more detail to follow in the article body), elsewhere such phrasing as “established (next to / across the river from / on the former site of) the X Nation village/campsite/meeting-place of Y” or “situated in/on/at/near the valley/ford/bay/hill known as Z to the X people” should be included to explain the relation between the pre- and post-colonial names. On the procedural point, while I agree with the objectors that it would have been better to hold this discussion on the guideline’s TP with only a notification here, rather than the converse, I don’t think that should be invalidating.—Odysseus1479 23:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there's not enough space for context. Look at Northwest Territories where the Indigenous names are given and explained in Northwest Territories#Name. The Indigenous name for Yellowknife is given as Sǫǫ̀mbak’è in the third paragraph of the lead and what it means, but doesn't explain that it's a newer name referring to the gold mines. In Kugluktuk "(Qurluqtuq, lit. 'the place of moving water';[7] Inuktitut syllabics: ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑐᖅ; Inuktitut pronunciation: [quʁluqtuq])" with no context as to the different spelling and any explanation that syllabics are not used in the community but are from the Government of Nunavut. Cambridge Bay (Inuinnaqtun: Iqaluktuuttiaq[9] Inuktitut: ᐃᖃᓗᒃᑑᑦᑎᐊᖅ; 2021 population 1,760;[6] population centre 1,403[7])" does not explain that Iqaluktuuttiaq means "good fishing place" and refers to part of the rive that flows into the bay. Like Kugluktuk Cambridge doesn't use syllabics and that it is for Iqaluktuuttiaq and not Cambridge Bay. If context isn't obvious then they shouldn't be there but in a different part of the article. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The translations and etymologies should go lower in the article; they don’t need to be in the first sentence. I also find long explanations and translations in the first sentence to be distracting. Yuchitown (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the reasonings of the other users is sufficient for me to !vote this way. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is the English Wikipedia, so let's use only english. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What on earth is this sort of argument? Merits of this particular case aside, foreign language names are an extremely common part of wikipedia articles. Turnagra (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who has weighed in so far. It is clear from the recent comments that while there is support for including properly sourced Indigenous names, mandating them in the first sentence in all cases causes legitimate issues with geographic precision and lead clutter.

---

To address the specific and valid concerns raised regarding geographic precision (@Odysseus1479), the need for adequate linguistic context without causing clutter (@CambridgeBayWeather), @Yuchitown), and clarifying the exact threshold for sourcing to satisfy WP:DUE (@Gawaon), I would like to offer a revised version of the proposed text for WP:CANSTYLE. I would also welcome any thoughts on this updated policy phrasing from @WhatamIdoing.

Revised Guideline Text:

If an Indigenous place name demonstrates established or routine usage as a contemporary synonym for a place in high-quality, independent, reliable sources, it meets the threshold for a significant alternative name (per MOS:LEADALT).

Lead Sentence Inclusion: The name itself should generally be included in the lead sentence alongside the English name. If contemporary sources routinely apply the name to the modern subject as a whole, it should not be excluded from the lead solely based on historical geographic boundaries.

Handling Context and Clutter: To prevent first-sentence clutter, lengthy geographic qualifications (e.g., historical boundaries), literal translations, or complex linguistic context (e.g., local versus governmental orthography, such as syllabics) should be handled using explanatory footnotes ({{efn}}), or detailed in a dedicated "Name" or "Etymology" section later in the article.

By utilising explanatory footnotes, we can ensure that crucial local nuance, such as the difference between spoken Inuinnaqtun and government-mandated syllabics, is preserved for the reader without turning the opening brackets into a paragraph of text. Furthermore, tying inclusion directly to "contemporary synonym" usage in RS removes the ambiguity around trivial mentions. Does this revised wording address the technical concerns while bringing us closer to a standard practice? Poketama (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read the room and drop this. There is no appetite for the changes you are looking for. MediaKyle (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no consensus for change. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Etymology" section later in the article" is obviously the best solution for us here last thing we want to do is fill the lead sentence with the same thing we would be putting in the etymology section. What is being proposed here is something that isn't due for the lead sentence that will clutter the first sentence or a note ...that will both just duplicate information in the article without giving context.

Calgary (/ˈkælɡəri/, Blackfoot (Siksikaitsitapi): Moh-kins-tsis or Mohkinstsis-akipi (Elbow/Elbow Creek), Îethka, Nakoda Wîcastabi: Wicispa Oyade), Scottish Gaelic: Cala Ghearraidh (pronounced cal-uh-gary), often interpreted as "bay farm" or "beach of the meadow), is the largest city in the Canadian province of Alberta.

Or

Calgary^[a], is the largest city in the Canadian province of Alberta.

• Moxy🍁 21:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think what we came up with at Halifax worked out pretty good, but for some, it'll never be enough... It's always the infoboxes or the lead. I wonder if there's a Blackfoot coat of arms we can fight over too :p -- MediaKyle (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this revised proposal, per the objections above to the first proposal, all of which still apply. 162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This proposal makes sense and is a format already in place in countless Wikipedia articles about locations in Canada. Yuchitown (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Does this revised proposal mean that the original proposal has been withdrawn? If so, the earlier discussion should probably be closed and collapsed accordingly. Gawaon (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gawaon: The revised text supersedes the original wording as the active proposal for this RfC. However, I don't believe the prior discussion should be collapsed, as the context, critiques, and previous !votes from other editors still inform this revision.

  @Moxy: Regarding the concern that a footnote would just "duplicate information" from the Etymology section: WP:LEAD explicitly requires the opening section to summarize the most important points of the body.

  Using an explanatory footnote [a] is the standard Wikipedia mechanism to achieve this without causing the exact first-sentence clutter you demonstrated in your mockup. The footnote provides the immediate, properly sourced alternative name (e.g., Mohkinstsis), while the dedicated "Name" or "Etymology" section lower down provides the space for the full historical context, literal translations, and multiple orthographies. Poketama (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is were we have a conflict ....in my view - as with most others here- random non-first language^[a] translations or nicknames are simply not worthy to be in the very first sentence .....let alone in the lead MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, MOS:LEADCLUTTER and to quote WP:UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement...."

Moxy🍁 04:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose as unnecessary and WP:CREEP. If an Indigenous place name "demonstrates established or routine usage as a contemporary synonym for a place in high-quality, independent, reliable sources", it certainly already meets the threshold for a significant alternative name per MOS:LEADALT, hence the first sentence is unnecessary, as it just repeats the status quo. The rest seems unnecessary CREEP as it essentially repeats what is already well established as usual practice – include an alternative name in the lead sentence, provided there's just one, give further details in an explanatory note or separate section etc. No need to repeat this in so far as it's standard practice; or should it deviate in some details from standard practice, that rather seems problematic and would need further arguments to establish and motivate the reasons for such a deviation. Gawaon (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The revised version makes sense: include the Indigenous place names when they are established as alternative names, and use explanatory footnotes or detailing in a dedicated section later to avoid clutter and keeps the text easy to read. I agree that the revised proposed guidelines align with already standard practice, but they provide clear guidance on the use of Indigenous place names. Bcbc24 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is English Wikipedia, so let's stick with using only english. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I believe this is unnecessary at best and ill-suited at worst. Unnecessary, because if there is a significant alternate name, MOS:LEADALT already covers that, and there's no particular reason nor benefit to restating it here. Ill-suited, because in recent years, we've seen editors argue for inclusion of Indigenous names that are not commonplace, not actually the name for the city specifically, or not actually pre-colonial (or a combination of those), and I think this sort of wording would only increase these disputes (if not endorse them). These editors, I wish to clarify, certainly mean well — and I have no qualms about noting Indigenous terminology in dedicated sections, as with Calgary#Origin of name and Halifax, Nova Scotia#Etymology. But it's not information that belongs in the lead, let alone the lead sentence. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, political editors. News just broke that Matt Jeneroux has crossed the floor. Time to add him to our watchlists. MediaKyle (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if this means he's changed his mind about resigning? RedBlueGreen93 16:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He's staying, according to the press release he issued on Instagram. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Might make sense to be patient as it is still a developing story, but this likely means that 2026 Edmonton Riverbend federal by-election should be deleted. RedBlueGreen93 16:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, he has changed his mind, and instead he crossed the floor. See this article. PKT(alk) 16:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An issue has been raised about the content of the government “type” field for the infoboxes for provinces and territories. The most thorough discussion is at New Brunswick. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just wiped out our old article requests board and replaced it with only links to topics with predetermined notability. Feel free to add your own ideas (or pick one to write) ... I'll maintain it for a while to keep it staying compact and user-friendly, but if it stays dead we'll just mark it as historical again at some point. MediaKyle (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:124th Battalion (Governor General's Body Guard), CEF#Requested move 12 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Russian Canadian Info has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as needing references for 19 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. A Google search found only social media, Grok, and lawsuits. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's misspelt (should be Elsipogtog) but there's a circular redirect issue I don't have permission to override. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add additional sources, please. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chilean icebreaker Almirante Óscar Viel#Name of ship that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some tidying and coming across some oddities along the way. Can anyone help me prove that Mulligan, Newfoundland and Labrador or Mill Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador ever existed in the form of a settlement? They do not show up as current or historical names in the Canadian Geographical Names Database. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are completely unreferenced and should be WP:PRODded. 162 etc. (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they existed, and we can find proof of that, they may be suitable for a redirect. I want to see if anyone comes up with anything first. MediaKyle (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW OSM shows hydrographic features at both locations (the former being a bay in Lake Melville) but no indication of a settlement—or even a road—near either.—Odysseus1479 21:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mulligan was enumerated in the 1945 Newfoundland census but apparently abandoned now. Here's an obituary for somebody who was born there in 1934. Google showed some other hits.

Mill Cove was enumerated in the St. Barbe District in the 1945 Newfoundland census, which puts it on the Great Northern Peninsula rather than the location shown in its wiki article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one Newfoundland & Labrador genealogy site with transcriptions of census records, grouped by communities. This could be useful. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this. Based on the blog post you linked I discovered we even have an article about someone who died in Mulligan, Lydia Campbell. I think that one can stay. Still unsure about Mill Cove but I'm glad to know it exists... The user who created these NL geostubs isn't around anymore for me to ask, but I suspect they must have been using these census records in their workflow. I'll have to do some more digging. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm currently in the process of creating the English version of the article fr:Lieu national historique de Red Bay under the Geography section of the main notice board page. I am wondering if it is alright to manually translate the article paragraph-by-paragraph into English (without translation services where possible) to keep approximately the same phrasing, or if it is better to write out the entire article from scratch. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, as it is my first time attempting a translation of an article. Thank you. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You must have saw the requests page, I'm delighted to hear this ... The French article looks pretty good, so you could translate it, but you might find it easier to create a new article from scratch. It's really up to you. If you do choose to translate, you'll want to review WP:TRANSLATE for instructions on providing attribution and so on. There are a lot of Canadian topics which are present on French Wikipedia but not here, if you're handy with French that could be something for you to pick away at. Feel free to ping me here or reach out on my talk page if you need help along the way. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle Thank you for your assistance. I actually meant, is it alright to keep most of the content (basic words and content) similar but adapted to English grammar? Not actually literal word-by-word. I am making a new article from scratch, attempting exactly this. Sorry for any misunderstandings there, I do not really trust machine translations in general. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The headings and most of the stylistic matters would stick relatively close to the French version as well, since there seem to be no major issues with the material in the article. I could also send the article to you for a brief review, if possible. Hope this helps clear things up, InvisPerson5009 InvisPerson5009 (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I 100% understand your question, but if your plan is to basically write the article in English using the French version as a template, that's just fine. If it's substantially similar though, it will still count as a derivative work and should have attribution. See Wikipedia:Translation#Attribution requirements for details. I'd say your best bet is to start this in draftspace at Draft:Red Bay National Heritage Site and we'll see what we can come up with. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to attribute the article in my edit summary, would that be enough? I will paste what I have so far in the Draft:Red Bay National Heritage Site. I am also autoconfirmed, could I move the article to the mainspace myself once the draft meets all requirements? Thank you. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft page has been published. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this discussion at Draft talk:Red Bay National Heritage Site. -- MediaKyle (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done...needs some love and care...is this the proper title? Red Bay National Heritage Site Moxy🍁 05:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, thanks a lot. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem .....@InvisPerson5009 forgot ....Welcome to the project. Moxy🍁 06:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I spent so long creating my own draft of that article, I kind of forgot about it. Would have just been easier if I added my additional sources on the page that exists now. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see town article first- would have normally merged....but.....

We have Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador (about a town of 145 people } and then we have a new article Red Bay National Historic Site [1] (designated this in 1979.}.. So not to complicated' yet.. However conceptually we also have "Red Bay Basque Whaling Station"[2] a UNESCO World Heritage site ( designated this in 2013.} and then we have "Red Bay archaeological site"[3]. As of now we have the "Red Bay National Historic Site article" that covers 3 concepts Historic Site, Heritage site and archaeological site and a town article.

• First question I had to myself was...are all these terms encompassing the same area? Is the whole town a National Historic Site and a World Heritage site?
• Is the town a Historic Site and Heritage site because of the archaeological site or towns heritage including its modern buildings?..
• Is the whole town an archaeological site?
• Is the infobox at Red Bay National Historic Site correct? Is it a mix of both National Historic Site and a World Heritage site.....is this normal and/or misleading because they are different areas (size of coverage)?

Should we merge it all? So I looked around for the Canadian norm and found.... The Canadian encyclopedia has an article for the archaeological site one for the town. Parks Canada has Red Bay National Historic Site and Red Bay Basque Whaling Station Moxy🍁 10:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure but it seems like Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador is a village and Red Bay National Historic Site is a historic site largely referring to the harbour but also some areas on land... See Canadian Register of Historic Places. I don't think a merge is the way to go here, we should have an article for every national historic site... French Wikipedia also has the village and the historic site separate. Fralambert, you created the French article for this a long time ago, you have any thoughts? MediaKyle (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up, I'm certain the official UNESCO Name is Red Bay Basque Whaling station. UNESCO is saying this: See https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1412/. They're keeping the village and heritage site separate also. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confused why they're saying the town as a whole became a Historic Site, and just the whaling station became the heritage site. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Town are rarely became World heritage site as a whole, like for Lunenburg and Quebec City, it's only the old town who are WHS. I created the French article as it was a museum and a archeological site and probably need to have a separate article anyway, as I don't think the the inhabitant of Red Bay have Basque origin. Fralambert (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The settlement is almost totally included within the historic site. An alternative to swamping any content about the settlement with the history/archaeology would be to have a (yet to be written) article about the archaeology and history of Red Bay. This would be my preferred option. This would set the very important archaeology of the site 24M and the other ships in their proper place alongside other wrecks of equal importance (Bremen cog, Mary Rose, Molasses Reef Wreck, et al.) The intent would be to have a substantial article (see the size of the Mary Rose article, for instance). There is no shortage of potential content as the archaeological site report is a very hefty five volumes. So, to be clear, the article on the settlement mentions the World Heritage Site, the history and the wrecks in summary form and all the detail is in the archaeology and history article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused here..... You think the archaeological stuff should be in the history section of the town? I'm assuming like any other town it has its own history aside from academics coming to the archaeological site. From reading further into this.... It sounds to me we could do two articles.... one about the town that....seems to be a National historic site and one about the archaeological site that is a world heritage site. So sort of like what we're doing now.... Except restore the historic site information to the town and leave the archaeological info expanding on that includes the world heritage designation... that seems directly related to the archaeological site. Moxy🍁 02:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put in another way, the archaeology, etc. issues are not so much Canadian specifically, but more on a world scale of maritime archaeology. There is also the Basque interest in the archaeology – another point that takes this outside solely Canadian interest. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing the archaeological site should probably be on its own see above for more info Moxy🍁 02:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The archaeology and much of the history, both on land and underwater, are inextricably linked. Whilst the key discovery was a well-preserved hull of a galleon/nau, the findings on shore are integral to explaining the shore-based method of whaling used by the Basques at this time (in contrast to the American ship-based version of whaling (e.g. Charles W. Morgan (ship))).

Therefore, I am suggesting that there should be an article (provisional name) Red Bay (archaeology and history) which gives all this information in much more detail. Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador should cover the history, archaeology, etc., but only as a summary (it is the most notable thing about the town). I will try to put together an article plan for the suggested archaeology and history article as an illustration of the likely content and organisation. Talk:Red_Bay_National_Historic_Site#Article_plan_for_Red_Bay_(archaeology_and_history) seems a sensible place to put it. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if List of roads in London, Ontario is under the banner of this WikiProject, but would it benefit from any additional images? I could add my own to supplement major roads. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. If you have images of those roads that you took yourself, you can upload them to the Commons and add some. I was going to address this later but since the topic of images has come up, I will note that the non-free image you uploaded for Coal River Springs Territorial Park will likely be deleted soon as not meeting the criteria. WP:NFCCP explains it, but essentially this article is not eligible for a non-free image because a free image could be created (in fact, we have one). There are very few situations in which you'll be uploading non-free images -- for me, it's mostly logos of companies or organizations or book covers. MediaKyle (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I asked other editors on talk page to address the images on Coal River article. It was only a placeholder for a proper image, as the previous was from 2010. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm currently revamping Middlesex Centre with additional citations and relevant images. Would it be possible to inquire about collaboration with other editors? This article seems to have lots of not up-to-date information that is tricky to source, and not enough supplemental images. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute meaningfully once again. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]