Talk:Made in Canada (TV series)

DVD
Does anyone know why no further DVDs are being made. I've contacted CBC Shop but they had nothing interesting to say 207.171.180.101 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's never been any official word on the matter, but the season one DVD is no longer available through Amazon. Read into that as you like. I think the copyright was owned by Salter Street Films International which was bought out by Alliance Atlantis. God only knows who has the DVD distribution rights now. I'd say the best hope for the other four seasons is a cheap Blu Ray set (viable around 2012?). 65.80.232.103 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Made in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414172345/http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2010/10/rick-mercers-made-in-canada-comes-to-bite/ to http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2010/10/rick-mercers-made-in-canada-comes-to-bite/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Date format for article
You reverted my revert instead of discussing per WP:BRD. I'm going to copy the edit summaries here to facilitate discussion – see article history for attribution:

So your contention is that the style used in references sets a precedence to determine the style which should be used in the article body. I disagree. MOS:DATEUNIFY says that dates in the body should follow one format and that dates in the references should follow one format, but does not say that these must be the same format. It does note that one of the valid formats for the references is to follow the style of the article body, but it never says that a valid style for the article body is to follow the style of the references. Thus, if anything, the article body takes precedence.

However, even if you're right about that, you're wrong about the first date established in the references. Dated references were first added to the article in which established dmy dates. If someone later changed these to mdy without discussion, that would be in violation of MOS:RETAIN.

I see no evidence to support your inference that there must have been forethought in the reference date style being changed to mdy. There was nothing on the talk page and nothing stands out in the edit summaries, so it seems to have been a stealth edit. On the other hand, was added following a major expansion/rewrite and GOCE copy edit and during GA/DYK review, which I'd think shows some level of forethought and consultation. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you do not see evidence of forethought. There are several tools that expand references from bare dates. One that no longer exists used ISO-8601. One current too, reFill 2, does not add dates at all. The remainder use dmy. So if a MYD date existed in a reference, and I saw many, it implies forethought. However if you want to insist on using DMY, I can correctly apply that as it had not been applied for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Forethought means "careful consideration", where to me this appears arbitrary. Yes, I feel and prefer that the article should retain dmy dates, if you could restore those.  Please also replace the non-breaking spaces which the script stripped.  This is a known flaw of User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates which removes painstaking manual editing; please be diligent to preserve non-breaking spaces whenever applying the script to any article. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting definition. Here are some that don't carry your connotation: Cambridge, Oxford and Webster's. I believe that an editor specifically selected a MDY date format in several cases and I plan to honour that over a capricious preference for dmy. Let's see what others state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * isn't it the first two words of your Oxford link? I assume that an editor intentionally changed to MDY dates and I'm all for assuming good faith, but found no stated reason for the change and guidelines specifically recommend against such.  I guess when you said "I can correctly apply that" you weren't actually offering to do so, or else you've changed your mind.  I'll put in a request at WP:3O. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional note: Most of the mdy dated references (from before the May 2019 expansion) had been added in a series of edits 24–25 October 2017, which did not alter the dmy dates of the first two references.  They added in an different style, but did not alter the original pre-existing style. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Picked this up from WP:3O. my opinion is a summary one. This is the second time in a few days I have reviewed an article where you've unilaterally changed the date format. I don't think that's helpful, and as I think I said on my other (similar) opinion, I'm sure there are better things we could all be doing than arguing about date formats. I realise you are running the MOSNUM script to clean up articles, but perhaps it's possible to be cautious with its settings so as not to cause this kind of difficulty? Thanks. FrankP (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your mischaracterization of my actions is troublesome and I don't think that's helpful. I did not unilaterally change the date format any more or less than was done in June. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No mis-characterisation. (14 May 2019) was the first version to have dates in the article body (apart from bare years). It also represented a major overhaul of the page with the addition of many new references. The date formats of the references were later  (12 June 2019). You  (7 January 2020).


 * From the documentation for the MOSNUM Dates script:
 * If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk.
 * The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk.
 * Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".


 * You didn't answer my question about the usage of the script. It would be nice to think that it was possible for the useful work of tidying articles up to continue without this issue arising again. FrankP (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'd strongly recommend that you pick your battles when it comes to date formatting. It's not productive to go around hunting for pages where you think the date formatting might have been changed somewhere along the way without getting caught at the time — I generally prefer to write MDY over DMY myself too, but it's not worth going out of my way to fight other people about DMY. I'd strongly recommend you follow my principle: unless you catch an article where the date formatting is currently an inconsistent mixture of MDY and DMY in the here and now, just leave well enough alone and don't go spelunking for other opportunities to editwar over what might have been done in the past. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bearcat. I do not pick battles, they pick me. I believe that I correctly investigated and applied WP:DATERET clearly not everyone agrees on this. As for edit warring, I'm not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My point being that unless you catch an actual inconsistency of date formatting within the currently visible version of an article, there's no "investigation" of past date formatting warranted at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Without noting it in this discussion, Walter Görlitz ran the script again in to change to dmy dates.  This did not address the issue of the removal of non-breaking spaces, so I reverted Walter Görlitz's last two edits to restore to the previous version of the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent page move and related discussion
On December 19, this good article was moved Made in Canada → Made in Canada (TV series) with no discussion notice on this talk page. A related move has been proposed:

An editor has requested for Made in Canada to be moved to Made in Canada label. Since you had some involvement with Made in Canada, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)