Talk:Manitoba/Archive 1

Miscellaneous
An event mentioned in this article is a May 12 selected anniversary - Of all the articles on the Canadian Provinces and the US States, this one is by far the least comprehensive. People, please contribute to this article. Compare the articles on Ontario and Alberta. Winnipeg had the First real Estate board in Canada. When they dug the Red River Floodway they moved more earth then when they made the Suez canal.
 * I am writing contributions in several areas. The latest is on the economy of Manitoba. I think the article could use more pictures. Can anyone help in that area? jdobbin 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Official language
Is the official language of Manitoba only English? This page and this page seem to suggest French is also an official language. And St. Boniface has a specific law stating that French is an official language there. Perhaps the Manitoba article should read like the Ontario article: "English, French (in some areas)". Qutezuce 08:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Hello.:) I confirm that French is also an official language in Manitoba, Canada. here is the link to a an offical web page. http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/archives/articles/2005/anniversary_mb_sk_anniversaire_e.htm


 * That is a Canadian federal government page—English and French are equal official languages of Canada. That page also outlines some history of French in Manitoba.  I believe that French is not a full-blown official language of the province, but that Manitobans have a right to receive provincial government services and education in French.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 22:26 Z 


 * Does Manitoba have language lesgislation? If not, the term "official language" is misleading.  The official languages of Canada are English and French. Fishhead64 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Legally, French is an official language according to section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (which is part of the Canadian constitution by virtue of virtue of the schedule to the Constitution Act 1982). This section states that:
 * Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Legislature and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person, or in any Pleading or Process, in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under the Constitution Act, 1867, or in or from all or any of the Courts of the Province, The Acts of the Legislature shall be Printed and published in both those languages.
 * Here is my understanding: the Manitoba Act 1870 provides that French is an official language; beginning around 1890, the Manitoba legislature sought to remove the official status of French (due to a majority English population, and ethnic/cultural/religious conflict between anglophones/francophones and Protestants/Catholics), by ceasing publication of legislation in French and several similar measures, arguably in violation of this section of the Manitoba Act; in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada found that any law and practice of the Manitoban legislature which violated s. 23 was invalid. So, I would submit that French is an official language of Manitoba, in spite of long-standing efforts of the Manitoba to abolish this official status. I think the statement that French is not an official language in the infobox should be removed, or at least qualified with a statement which better reflects the complex and disputed political/legal issues involved. --SJK 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article in accord with the above. Having read some of the judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter, the Canadian constitution requires French to be an official language of Manitoba for legislative and judicial purposes, but not executive purposes. So, one cannot really say there is any single official language(s) of Manitoba, but rather different sets of official languages for different purposes. So I changed the infobox to that French is an official language of Manitoba's legislature and courts.--SJK 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you've done some serious research in this area. There is also the matter of St. Boniface. On this page for The City of Winnipeg Charter Act it says:
 * The city shall provide an office in historic St. Boniface where the municipal services prescribed by by-law under subsection 460(1) (by-law for implementation) for the purposes of this subsection are provided in both official languages.
 * So it appears St. Boniface has special consideration in this matter that should probably also be mentioned. Qutezuce 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Section Twenty-one of the Canadian Charter
I found this in the Canadian Charter article, and I think it is relevant to end this argument once and for all. Many articles on bilingualism state that both Manitoba and NB are bilingual, yet some say only NB is.
 *  The Manitoba Act, which created the province of Manitoba in 1870 and is considered part of the Constitution of Canada, contains similar language rights. Section 23 of that Act states that everyone may speak in English or French in the legislature and in Manitoba courts, and that the records of the legislature must be kept in both languages. These rights, too, are not duplicated by the Charter but are reaffirmed by section 21 of the Charter.

This is the actual words:
 * 21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.

And this is another clarification of the purpose of the section:
 * Thus, section 21 clarifies that language rights regarding English and French in the Constitution of Canada, outside the Charter, remain valid and are not limited by the language rights within the Charter. --- Disinclination 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Name
More can be edited or mentioned about what the name means. Manitou, abah, means "where the Great Spirit sits"


 * I was under the impression that it meant "the god that speaks", which is what some Louis Riel books mention. Dan Carkner 17:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Riel was Metis, and subsequently, Roman Catholic. Manitoba's came from Aboriginal languages, which were not connected with Catholicism. Aboriginals had their own religion, which is why it means Great Spirit, which Riel most likely interpretated as their highest God, or something similar. It is mentioned in the article where Manitoba's name may have come from. Disinclination 21:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but I was under the impression that it was Métis who named Manitoba. (They spoke Cree as well.)Dan Carkner 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, they did? Well, I stand corrected. However, the definition still stands as Great Spirit, rather than God. Disinclination 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Water area
Statscan's figures are different from the province's. The other number and 17% figure came from Manitoba conservation—fisheries. For sake of comparison with other provinces, the Statscan figure (which site cites Natural Resources Canada) should be retained, but I'd be curious to see how the two different values were derived—strangely, the province's area of "lakes" is larger than the federal government's area of "freshwater". —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 20:36 Z 


 * Sorry, I had no idea there was a dispute for the figures. Thanks for finding out what the convention was. jdobbin 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. But you should be careful in copying information from websites, it looks like you copied the sentence verbatim, which you can't do because that text wasn't under the GFDL. Qutezuce 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weird. I didn't see the sentence. I took the information down from the provincial tables. jdobbin 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No dispute—merely a discrepancy between two sources; I imagine they simply use different data or or a different methodology in deriving these figures. Like I said, the federal government figure is probably the one to use in the general context, particularly in comparisons with other provinces. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 01:02 Z 

The article states, "...contains the tenth-largest fresh water lake in the world[3], Lake Winnipeg..."; however, here on Wikipedia's List_of_lakes_by_area, Lake Winnipeg clocks in at number 11. I'm not a specialist on lake sizes (heh), but it seems to me that consistency either way would be nice. phrawzty 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mennonites in Manitoba
Who know something more about Mennonites and German settlements in Manitoba? Gruß, Simon.

This seems a bit of a gloss

 * ''Negotiations between the provisional government and the Canadian government resulted in the creation of the province of Manitoba and its entry into Confederation in 1870. Originally the province was only 1/18 of its current size and square in shape - it was known as the "postage stamp province." It grew progressively, absorbing land from the Northwest Territories until it attained its current size by reaching 60°N in 1912.

I'm not a Manitoban, but I know that's an oversimplification and leaves out some crucial details, such as that all Manitoban legislation had to be ratified by the federal government for many years, to prevent any risk of secession or restive political behaviour; Manitoba was a proxy-province of the federal government (I'm trying to think - it might have been Ontario that had the right to veto Manitoban laws; have to find that book again....). The other point that struck me is that the new province was deliberately kept small to keep it from being powerful; if it had been on the scale that Riel had imagined (and the prov govt) had wanted, it would have stretched to the Rockies; essentially the whole of the Northwest Territories west of Nipigon was the idea. A dispute during Manitoba's expansion with Ontario saw the Lakehead-Kenora tossed to Ontario, which bullied the smaller province over the issue in a dispute known as the Rat Portage War (just a verbal war). Needless to say, a larger Manitoba with more resources and a Great Lakes port would have been a very different component in Confederation; and the Prairies, if not limited by Central Canadian restrictions on industrial growth and the type of settlement allowed, would have been one province on the same scale and population as Ontario or Quebec are now. And we can't have that, can we? So three provinces, ultimately, all kept on a leash and economically restricted; Alberta was lucky about that oil thing; but it was meant to be as emasculated as baby-size Manitoba; the whole place, though, could have been called Saskatchewan (from Saskatchewan Territory). This all may sound POV but I'll find the book(s) I learned this from and come back with cites....Skookum1 08:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

that is interesting, you should try to find sources about that for sure. Dan Carkner 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal status of logos
I am writing because I'm trying to determine the legal status of Manitoba's various logos. I'm especially interested in the stylized bison logo and the wordmark. This is because these symbols are used in highway shields, and I'm planning on uploading graphics of the shields for use in Manitoba highway articles and with the Interstate 29 article, which links to Manitoba highways at the international border. Before I proceed, though, I need to determine how the logos are legally handled. If they are copyrights, I will use an appropriate low-res image and a fair use tag. Otherwise, I can proceed with an SVG graphic. The point is, I need to know before I can proceed. Any information on the matter would be greatly appreciated.--WhosAsking 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further research on the matter, I'm inclined to believe the logos are protected. Therefore, I will proceed under Fair Use restrictions. —WhosAsking 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late here, but see Copyrights for general discussion, Logos for more specific guidelines. You may find the following copyright tags useful for image pages:


 * template:Logo
 * template:Symbol
 * template:Seal
 * template:Wayfinding

—Michael Z. 2006-12-15 01:38 Z 

101 provinces?
Since when does Canada have 101 provinces? Disinclination 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Official languages
Currently, page claims EN and FR. Isn't is that the only officially bilingual province is NB? elpincha 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is right. Officially, the only bilingual province is New Brunswick. Quebec is French and the other provinces are English. How does 4% of native French speakers makes French a "de facto" language in Manitoba? German speakers are 3% of the population, should German be another "de facto" language? --74.13.201.191 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A commonly repeated claim here in Canada is that NB is the only officially bilingual province. I assume that means it has specific laws on the provicial books, where other provinces do not. It would have nothing to do with federal language laws. A question: Why does the article quote at such length from the Morton book about the general strike if, as is stated immediately following the quote, there are other histories that are "considerably better"? Inkwell7 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Forest
Two issues here - arborvitae? As someone with a botany background and experience with Forest in Manitoba, I have never heard of cedar refered to as arborvitae, only as eastern white cedar. I'm not contesting the term itself, but applying the term to an area where it is not used seems silly. Secondly, there is VERY little cedar growing in Manitoba, and nearly all of it confined to the lower southwest and possibly riding mountain park area. It certainly does not constitute a significant part of the native vegetation, and should be noted as such. I will make this change, unless someone else has something to add about this. Halogenated 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold
This article is currently on hold for the following reasons:


 * According to WP:MOS the lead for and article of this size should be longer and heading should not repeat the title of the article.
 * I would suggest removing the "Manitoba in fiction" section and incorporate any useful infomation into the articles body, as it sounds like a trivia section.
 * For an article of this size I would recommended at least 2 citations for each section (1 for smaller sections) to make the article more verifiable.

Hope this help. If you disagree with any of these comments feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed
It's past the 7-day maximum hold period, and some concerns by the original reviewer have not been addressed. Citations are still lacking for an article of this length, and the lead is still too short. Carson 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

citation needed for population counts?
I updated the calculations for the population of the Winnipeg Capital Region to the 2006 census. However, it is flagged as needing a citation. I'm clearly not well-versed in the relevant policy here, but it doesn't seem like a reference should be needed for a calculation (i.e. sum) based on freely available data (from the 2006 census). 132.206.150.208 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem arises when the population listed in the article is not the same as the population listed in the citation. Someone did research and put in a correct population figure for Winnipeg, and then someone came and replaced the correct figure with "700,000" while leaving the citation for the previous population figure.  71.238.185.51 (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bordering NWT
Manitoba does border the NWT for about 1,300 feet in its upper Northwest corner.

Demonym
Why does the demonym keep saying "Toban" even after you try to edit it? A person from Manitoba is not a Toban, nobody says that. Manitoban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.195.167 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos
There have been a lot of photos changed and added to the article recently, and I confess I don't see the direction this is supposed to be going in. A collection of vaction snapshots in Manitoba isn't terribly encyclopediac - the photos should illustrate some point relevant to the adjacent text. There are lots of on-line photo sharing sites. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change/delete the photo accompanying the Armed Forces section It makes it seem as if that old Otter float plane is linked to our armed forces! Twinchester 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinchester (talk • contribs)

Western Canada's 4th Largest CMA
That might well be true.... but it would be nice if the article said what CMA stands for, or included a link, because I have no idea what it means.. something to do with a Metropolitan Area, perhaps? Timtimtimtimtim (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

weather chart
The weather chart seems a bit fishy.. Winkler's July high (25 C)is a degree less than Winnipeg's (26 C)?... especially considering Winkler has the highest heat for crops in Manitoba.. and neighboring Morden's high is 27? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.86.168 (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article
Would anyone say that this article meets the good article criteria, and we should nominate it again? Is there any extra work needed before we can nominate it? It looks like to me that Manitoba could qualify for good article status. Techman224 Talk  16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Provinces and territories of Canada vs. Category:Manitoba
Category:Manitoba is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism hidden somewhere
Please edit the box name - it's Manitoba, not Bob. I detest the trend to template/protect articles where vandalism cannot be found quickly nor reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.109.206 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

athletic teams
ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.75.95 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

CMA
The Winnipeg page claims that Winnipeg has Canada's 8th largest CMA, with a ref for 2006 Census. 4th seems a little high - which is right, and can we cite it?

FA?
I'm currently working on improving this article in order to nominate it at FAC this spring. I invite any interested users to help bring Manitoba to FA-level. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Temperatures table
What are the numbers in the table: eg Winnipeg 26/13? I suspect the numbers give the mean high and low daily temperatures for the months indicated. Shouldn't there be a title or caption explaining this? Aa77zz (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now added a title to the table. Aa77zz (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic vs. Linguistic
I'm a bit concerned that this article mixes ethnicity and linguistic groups - the two are not the same. In particular the word English is linked to English people (which looks ethnic to me) and English Canadian (which looks linguistic). I fear to tread in what might be a sensitive topic to Canadians, but how does the census define it? Linguistic or ethnic? Smallbones (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an English Canadian, I agree. The lead (2nd paragraph) gives the impression that English, French and aboriginal ethnic groups are predominant, in contradiction with the demographics section: "According to the 2006 Canadian census, the largest ethnic group in Manitoba is English (22.9%), followed by German (19.1%), Scottish (18.5%), Ukrainian (14.7%), Irish (13.4%), North American Indian (10.6%), Polish (7.3%), Métis (6.4%), French (5.6%), Dutch (4.9%), and Russian (4.0%).". 122.107.58.27 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, there is reference to English Protestant and then the Orange Order is mentioned after. Now the Orange Order is a Northern Irish /Scottish Organisation and most Protestant Irish were of Scots decent (95% I believe). 14:12, 12 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.244.22 (talk)
 * The 2nd paragraph of the lead seems to have become more confusing. English Canadian and Franco Manitoban are described as ethnic groups when they appear (from the relevant Wikipedia articles) to be linguistic groups. The numbers are in conflict with the 2006 census figues in the demographics section, greatly overstating French numbers - unless Metis are double counted in Franco Manitoban and aboriginal percentages? The sum of the bracketed numbers in the lead exceed the total population given by the 2006 census 122.107.58.27 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Continental climate
" ...has a largely continental climate due to its flat topography." Well, not really. It has a largely continental climate because of its position in the middle of the continent. Is this trying to say that its continental climate is not broken up by mountains (which would probably have a subarctic climate at that latitude)? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is correct; the distance from the sea is important, not topography. See The Climates of Canada by David Phillips, republished by Environment Canada as a very long .pdf available through this link; the section on Manitoba (starting page 106 of the pdf) explains how distance from the ocean gives the province its continental climate.  Kablammo (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cession of the Hudson's Bay Company land
Excellent job on this article. Question: Would it not be appropriate to mention, here and in the separate article on provincial history, the influence of American territorial ambitions on the Hudson's Bay Company cession and later establishment of the province? Some sources for this are mentioned in Red River Trails. I believe I read that at one point the majority of the population of Winnipeg was from south of the border, many of whom hoped for annexation to the U.S. Kablammo (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
Nothing to do with improving the article. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How many of you actual live in Manitoba

I highly doubt that the person who created this page actually lives here in Manitoba. And If he does where does he live. Prove he/she lives in Manitoba. Mista Poe May 19/10
 * Dozens of people have contributed to this article. I have no doubt that some of them do not in fact live in Manitoba; I also have no doubt that some do. I'm not sure how anyone could prove where they live (short of explicitly revealing their identity), but I assure you that the place of residence of the editors of any article is (usually) completely irrelevant. Since this discussion is only tangentially related to article development, perhaps you could continue this elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-arid climate
This is in response to a removal of the information about the semi-arid climate of the SW region of Manitoba; the remover claimed that "No region of Manitoba has a semi-arid climate" (diff). The south-west corner of Manitoba does in fact have a semi-arid climate. Looking at the page that the person removing that sourced information has pointed us to, we see the following: "Cold semi-arid climates (type "BSk") tend to be located in temperate zones. It is typically found in interior sections of continents located some distance from large bodies of water. Like hot semi-arid climates, they tend to have hot, sometimes extremely hot summers. Unlike hot semi-arid climates, areas with this variation of the semi-arid climate tend to have cold, sometimes very cold winters. These areas usually see some snowfall during the winter." This is a reasonable description of the climate in that part of the province. From the same page, under "Examples of regions with semi-arid biomes": "Palliser's Triangle, a region in the southern Prairie Provinces including central and southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and extreme southwestern Manitoba." See also: File:Palliser's Triangle map.png, which shows the Triangle extending into south-west Manitoba; this Manitoba Historical Society paper, which notes a semi-arid climate "west of the Red River Valley"; and this journal article, which places a semi-arid climate as far east as Lake Manitoba. I have restored the removed material, please discuss here instead of reverting. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Cold semi-arid climates (type "BSk") tend to be located in temperate zones. It is typically found in interior sections of continents located some distance from large bodies of water. Like hot semi-arid climates, they tend to have hot, sometimes extremely hot summers. Unlike hot semi-arid climates, areas with this variation of the semi-arid climate tend to have cold, sometimes very cold winters. These areas usually see some snowfall during the winter." This also describes much of Ontario, Quebec, and other areas with continental climates. The paragraph is within the context of a semi-arid climate already having been established, and does not establish that SW MB has a semi-arid climate.


 * (The following is also from the same article you cited). "To determine whether an area indeed has a semi-arid climate, the precipitation threshold must first be determined. Finding the precipitation threshold (in millimeters) involves first multiplying the average annual temperature in °C by 20, then adding 280 if 70% or more of the total precipitation is in the high-sun half of the year (April through September in the Northern Hemisphere, or October through March in the Southern), or 140 if 30%–70% of the total precipitation is received during the applicable period, or 0 if less than 30% of the total precipitation is so received. If the area's annual precipitation is less than the threshold but more than half the threshold, it is classified as a BS (steppe climate)." This is supported by this document.


 * Let us take climate stats for Brandon, the driest Westman centre I could find climate data for on Wikipedia. Its annual average temperature is 2.4°C (Avg. high of 8.8°C + avg. low of -4.0°C, divide by 2). Its annual average precipitation is 474.0 mm, and 73.3% of that falls in the high sun months, April-September. Brandon's precipitation threshold is therefore determined by multiplying 2.4 by 20, and adding 280, which makes the threshold 328 mm, well below Brandon's 474mm average. As a semi-arid climate is defined as having annual average precipitation below potential evapotranspiration, as represented by the threshold, Brandon is not semi-arid. Furthermore, the official Koppen climate classification map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/North-America_Koppen_Map.png) shows that the easternmost area with a semi-arid climate in Canada is South-Central SK, and also, from this Western Canada map showing annual average precipitation (http://www.climatesource.com/ca/fact_sheets/cappt_xl.jpg), nowhere in Manitoba's south is significantly drier enough, and from these maps (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg, http://www.bestcountryreports.com/Temperature_Map_Canada.html), we can see that nowhere in Manitoba's south is hot enough, to make any part of MB semi-arid. As well, a few days ago, I already mended the portion of the semi-arid climate page that stated (or at least implied) that the entirety of Palliser's Triangle is semi-arid, as this was plainly false, not fitting with climatological data. 1brettsnyder (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I originally intended to wait for a reply after I made my points above, but I have decided to edit the article as I have grown impatient. I understand Nikkimaria is on vacation and I cannot reasonably blame her for not responding, but I have strongly established that SW MB does not have a semi-arid climate (at least going by the most common climatological definition). However, I did not directly respond to the offsite references Nikkimaria provided. The first source, from the Manitoba Historical Society, is weak for one reason: the authors are historians, not climatologists. In the absence of scientific documents from climatologists supporting my position, I would tentatively accept the MHS paper, but even the semi-arid climate climate page you yourself cited references documents that support my position, and I should hope that climatological papers would trump historical papers in a debate around climatology. The second source is inaccessible to someone without a "UWO Username" and password, so I cannot respond to it. I assure you that no widely accepted climate classification system places a semi-arid climate in Manitoba, and certainly not so far east as Lake Manitoba. 1brettsnyder (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's understandable, and I have no problem with your bold actions. Not being a climate expert myself, I'll gladly assume that you're correct in your calculations, and that your sources trump mine. However, I do have two concerns. First, if the area is not BSk, then what is it? Second, is there any reason why the rest of the removed material (" The southwestern corner (including the city of Brandon])...is drier and more prone to drought]s than other parts of southern Manitoba. This area is cold and windy in the winter and frequently experiences blizzard]s because of the openness of the landscape. Summers are generally warm to hot, with low to moderate humidity. ") cannot be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SW Manitoba is Dfb (humid continental climate), the same as SE Manitoba. However, the other removed material definitely fits. (The "humid" designation is a misnomer when describing climates toward the drier end of the "Dfb" type, which is where SW MB would fit. Calgary, for instance, is classified as "humid continental" as well). I intended to put it back in the article reworded, but I was distracted editing articles and eventually forgot about it. I was thinking omething to the effect of: "Southwestern Manitoba, though under the same classification as the rest of Southern Manitoba, is closer to the semi-arid interior of Palliser's Triangle, and as such, is drier and more prone to droughts than other parts of southern Manitoba. This area is cold and windy in the winter and frequently experiences blizzards because of the openness of the landscape. Summers are generally warm to hot, with low to moderate humidity." (Plus all references) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1brettsnyder (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Manitoba- ethnic makeup
I was confused buy the article's paragraph re Manitoba's ethnic makeup, specifically:

"According to the 2006 Census,[3] the largest ethnic group in Manitoba is English Canadian (259,595), but there is a significant Franco-Manitoban minority (148,370) and a growing aboriginal population (192,865, including the Métis). Other ethnic groups include Germans (216,755 - the second-largest group), Scots (209,170), and the Irish (155,915)....etc"

The paragraph refers to 'English Canadians and then Germans, Scots, Irish, Icelanders etc).  I found myself wondering "what are all these Germans, Scots etc. doing in Canada?  But, then I supposed the article was talking about Canadians of German, Scottish, Irish etc origin.  So shouldn't these be referred to as such? i.e., "German Canadians" etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.101.188 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Demographics in lead
I have reverted the demographics paragraph in the lead and moved it to the demographics section. It's inappropriate to have a list of races and population counts in the lead. The information belongs in the demographics section. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead is to provide an overview of the article. To accomplish that while compromising on this issue, I propose the addition of the following sentence to the lead: "According to the 2006 Census, the largest ethnic group in Manitoba is English Canadian, but there is a significant Franco-Manitoban minority and a growing aboriginal population." Would that be agreeable to all? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead is to provide an "overview of the article", not specific points which are throughly covered in a section devoted to demographics. There is absolutely no point in the lead containing demographics stats and figures which are than repeated in the demographics section. The race and ethnicity of residents should not be in the lead, it's plain inappropriate. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposed insertion contains no stats or figures. This single sentence is meant to add a general comment about demographics, which is appropriate for an overview. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is listing any race or ethnicity appropriate for the lead ? There is an entire section on the subject. Per WP:LEAD, should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "hinting at" anything - it's a straight statement of fact. If no one else objects, I intend to insert my proposed sentence as a compromise between what was originally present and having nothing at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A small statement that hints at at a subject covered in full in another section is a hint. It adds nothing to the article to put it in the lead. If no one else objects I intend to revert any edits to include it in the lead. If Manitoba had a huge Caribbean population, or Australian population I could see mentioning it, but pointing out that the province has a large english, french, and aboriginal populations (like most provinces) is pointless. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By your definition, pretty much everything in leads of FA-level article contradicts WP:LEAD, because all material in the lead is meant to be covered in full in the main article. As no one else seems to be participating in this discussion we may reach an impasse on this point, but per WP:BRD the default result (barring consensus otherwise) would be to return to the status quo. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By your definition almost every provinces lead should include "there is a large english-Canadian population, as well as a french-Canadian, Aboriginal, German, and Irish population". There is nothing notable about this whatsoever. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, please be more precise - my statement was not that general. Second, it is in fact notable enough to mention in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Third, most provincial articles contain information about demographics in the lead; see for example New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nikkimaria on this. A number of provinces do indeed contain demographic information in the lead. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you do Sasso. Of course you do. Like I said, maybe all Provinces leads should have the pointless drivel "Province has a english, french, and aboriginal populations". Considering those were the founding ethnic groups, it really adds to the article, I agree. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is far more general than what they have put. Not all provinces have a significant french population that greatly affects it culturally like it does in Manitoba. There are cases for some provinces where I would agree that there is not much point in adding it, however Manitoba is not one of those provinces. But I see you are going to revert back to your standard of attack the editor and not the idea when people disagree with you, so not much point trying to discuss this with you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually more french speakers in both Alberta and BC than in Manitoba. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about ? I haven't attacked anyone. I see you are reverting back to your standard of whining and crying about phantom attacks. If you can't handle a debate then quit reviewing my edits and joining debates I'm in that you have never been a part of. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about numbers of french speakers. I said that affects it culturally. The french speakers in both Alberta and BC barely make a cultural impact there. But there is a huge one in Manitoba, where entire towns use french signage instead of english and things of that nature. That is a completely seperate concept than pure numbers. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you do Sasso. Of course you do. is clearly an ad hominem attack. Secondly I am not reviewing your edits, this page is on my watch list. Seeing the discussion then ended up on my radar because it kept popping on top of my watchlist. Nowhere does it not say one cannot comment in a discussion if they haven't commented before. That is plainly rediculous since this discussion just began a couple days ago and contained only two people and clearly needed a third opinion. You might want to learn how to discuss things civilly and not get heated every time someone disagrees with you. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No ones getting heated here but you my little friend. You may want to learn to take less of a whining tone and learn to stop accusing others of phantom attacks. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the article goes, the lead has been changed to the compromise Nikkimaria promised. Alto still completely pointless, it is far better than it was. No need to keep this pointless conversation which was nearing completion before you jumped in going. Bye. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, keep doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Last word UrbanNerd (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Manitoba is not bilingual
Wtshymanski, Manitoba is not bilingual. The only province that is officially bilingual is New Brunswick. See this page on Wikipedia about Official Bilingualism in Canada and this under "Provincial Policies" where it states that New Brunswick passed an official language act. Manitoba has not and they are only moving the judiciary as bilingual (which they have not yet). And here is the best source. 3 It says that New Brunswick is the only constitutionally bilingual province and it also has a reference to it. Please look. Thanks, Nations United (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And "de facto" has nothing to do with what the law or official documents say, anyway. The only thing that matters is common usage; what's used on the street or in general business. The US census had forms available in six different languages, and on-line information in 59 languages, but that doesn't mean there are 59 "de facto" languages in the US. There's basically one and in a few areas two. (Yes, I know that Manitoba is in Canada, I'm just using it as an example). If French is commonly used alongside English in Manitoba, then it's a second de facto language. If it's only heard in a few neighborhoods and media outlets, then probably not. Alexius  Horatius  06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * True. I live in Canada and I do know that the large majority of the people of Manitoba speak English, so it is the de facto language. The reason I provided those links were because it is under "official languages" and the only province that is officially bilingual is New Brunswick. I hope this clears everything up for you, Wtshymanski. Nations United (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think we're on the same page - I was mostly responding to one of the edit summaries that made it sound like the de facto language is dictated by the language(s) the government uses to publish its materials. Alexius  Horatius  07:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And for what it's worth (realizing that what is and isn't "common" might by messy) according to the Demographics of Manitoba article French speakers (3.9%) are slightly more numerous than speakers of various Algonquian languages and fewer than German speakers (6%). (English as a first language is 75%). To me, that's a far way from being a commonly used language. Off the top of my head, to really be considered de facto, it'd have to be closer to a quater or third of the population or so. Alexius  Horatius  07:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First to note - that there's a big difference between bilingual services available at federal government offices (and certain companies like The Bay, perhaps, or the banks...where you'll also find Chinese and Punjabi and Ukrainian etc) and general bilingualism. And yeah, Manitoba's very pointedly not bilingual, which is one of the outcomes of the Manitoba Schools Act controversy a century ago; French had been the lingua franca of the "North-West" for a century and a half, and there was some French in-migration at the time of the Block Settlements; I'm not sure which branch the St. Boniface area constitutes, I think the latter.  French rights, in other words, were big politics in Manitoba and a touchy subject, though the franco-manitobaine community remains fairly unified culturally and has its own accent (non-Metis SFAIK).  I think you'll find that particular municipalities and/or regional governments in certain towns, particularly the Red River Valley but also I think a particular neighbourhood of Winnipeg, are officially bilingual; I"m not sure if they're even a majority in the Red River Valley as a whole, but they are in certain towns, from what I remember of population/language maps seen once, long ago. Places like Gimli, where Icelandic is widely spoken and taught (though rarely in signage, I'd think), are functionally bilingual and have language institutions; but SFAIK they're not officially bilingual; likewise for Ukrainian etc communities.  On the other hand, the respective traditional languages (Cree and Ojibway mostly) might be official within some First Nations governments, so that's another form of bilingualism....Riel had wanted Nord-Ouest to be at least bilingual; but given the Metis Rebellion the use of French was repugnant to many of the new settlers, especially those from English Canada to the East; there's more to the Schools Act Controversy than that, but it meant the end of official and commercial use on a widespread basis throughout the West.Skookum1 (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Manitoba is part of Canada. No-one is arguing that Canada doesn't have both English and French as official langaugges.  Manitoba must translate every bill it passes in its legislature into both English and French.  You can get every government service from death certificates to income tax in French from the numbers listed in the blue pages in the Winnipeg phone book. Parking tickets written only in English have been overturned. De facto, Manitoba is bilingual, you can work with government in either English or French.  Not to say you won't be waiting on hold for half an hour while they find the bilingyual guy who can answer your question about land surveys...but you run that risk in English, too. How does it serve the interests of this article and the Wikipedia to conceal the fact that French is (somewhat) usable as an official language in this province? Has the Conspiracy gotten to you, too? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't actually true. The only province that by law has to translate provinicial documents to english and french is New Brunswick. The are also not required by law to support you in French. Can you often find someone to help you in french, yes. However, that does not mean its an official language. You can often find people with the government to help you with many other languages as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Voir aussi, par example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that they do translate stuff, does not mean that they have to do it. There is a big difference in official and unofficial language. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (outdent) So why does the province spend so much money supporting French? I recall translating the legislation was a *legal* requirement and cost the province a lot of money at the time. Based on number of speakers alone, you'd think we'd have German or Cree on the official Web site? Is there a law *prohibiting* the use of French by government? And again, why all the fear? The blue pages show both English and French, you can listen to CKSB or a couple of French FM stations, you've got CBWFT for over-the-air broadcasting, etc. etc. - French is alive (surely not dominant), in Manitoba and it is more accurate for the Wikipedia article to note this. I don't understand what encyclopediac goal you are trying to achive by deleting this note in an infobox. It'snot saying "de jure", it's saying "de facto". Although I suspect that there's a legal reason why it's done, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The parmeter you are filling in is called "Official Languages". French is not an official language, no law has been passed making it an official language. Please stop reverting and discuss. Currently consensus is against you adding. Continued adding of it will result in a block. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DISINFOBOX shows other problems with these structures. Yo can talk to the government in French, and you can expect the government to try and convict you in French. How much more offical can it get? --Wtshymanski (talk)
 * How much more official can it get? Let's see if I can explain this carefully. It is not "official" at all.  An "official" language means that the language's equality has been guaranteed by statute.  That's it.  That's the definition.  Nothing more than that.  "De facto" means something completely different.  Now if you want to include a sourced sentence or two (probably in the Demographics section) about the use of French being widespread, that's another thing.  Oh, and one other thing beyond that?  You're doing your argument no favors by your barrage of insults.  Strange though it may seem, it's quite possible for people to disagree with you because they disagree with your POV, rather than out of "fear," disregard for the facts, Some Hidden Agenda or plain perversity.  Some good faith, please.    Ravenswing  18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * De facto, one can work with the government in French. Is not the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada law? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision by the supreme court only applied to the courts and to legislation being passed. This is described in the second paragraph in the section you refer to. It says specifically that the province itself is not completely bilingual and that the decisions only applied to a few areas. Being officially bilingual would require things like every street sign to be in both english and french etc. As is done in New Brunswick. There would be an actual act of the legislature to declare the language an official language of the entire province. (Not just sections of it or organizations in it). -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh this is absurd. We can't even get the misinfo box aligned with the text. Go into any goverment building in Winnipeg and you'll see French everywhere from "Hommes/Femmes" on up to getting a dog licence. Manitoba's 1890 *law* making English the only official language was shot down at great taxpayer expense. YOu can't even write a parking ticket in this province unless it's bilingual. How is French not an official language of the officials of this province? Why must the Wikipedia misrepresent the true state of affairs in this province? "French (de facto) is an accurate and concise way of alluding to the complex state of affairs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is case law. It isn't statute.  Statutes are enacted by legislatures.  Plainly the legislature of Manitoba has not enacted any such statute.  If you are eager to know why it hasn't, this isn't the venue to find out.  That being said, while we're discussing what Wikipedia does or not, disputes on this encyclopedia are solved by consensus.  In this case, consensus is unanimously against your POV.  It's more productive to accept that you're on the losing side of consensus and move on than continue to shake your fist in the air.  It's not that we don't understand you; it's that we don't agree with you.   Ravenswing  20:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from user page
You have been reverted by multiple editors. Continued reverting will result in a block. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Will no-one speak for the facts? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC) You have no sources to back up your "facts". The others have sources that back up their position. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC) And do the other editors quote any sources either? Oh, right, Wikipedia doesn't work by common sense, I stil have a hard time remembering that. What about [] for starters, showing all the French language services available from the province? And surely we can't be consistent with the Wikipedia article French language in Canada which says "Manitoba also has a significant Franco-Manitoban community, centred especially in the St. Boniface area of Winnipeg, but also in many surrounding villages. The provincial government of Manitoba boasts the only bilingual website of the Prairies; the Canadian constitution makes French an official language in Manitoba for the legislature and courts."

But why should an *encyclopedia* be internally consistent? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting Power Point presentation on the Manitoba Web site:

Tell me again French isn't official in Manitoba. Better yet, tell the Supreme Court of Canada. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1970 Schreyer government Bill 113 recognizes French as language of instruction in schools
 * 1979 Supreme Court decision in the Forest case says 1890 offical language law was unconstitutional; as a result French returned to official language status
 * 1985 Supreme Court deems unilingual laws invalid unless translated and re-enacted.
 * 1989 Province tables a French language services policy, but not a law or entrenchment in constitution.
 * 1992 Supreme Court rules orders in coucil of a legislative nature must be bilingual.
 * Better yet, O Wiki Adminstrators, could we please make the info box in this article consistent with what *the article itself says* in the section "Official Languages" "English and French are the official languages of the legislature and courts of Manitoba, according to §23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (part of the Constitution of Canada). In April 1890, the Manitoba legislature attempted to abolish the official status of French, and ceased to publish bilingual legislation. However, in 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Reference re Manitoba Language Rights that §23 still applied, and that legislation published only in English was invalid (unilingual legislation was declared valid for a temporary period to allow time for translation)." --16:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read that section of the article, you will see that it is consistant with the infobox. The second paragraph specifically says that while French and English are the language of the courts they are not the official languages of province. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From what i have read over the years .. officially Manitoba its self is not bilingual yet they have 15 districts that are (like many provinces) See:Canadian Bilingual Districts: From Cornerstone to Tombstone By Daniel Bourgeois History of the topic See:Manitoba's French-Language Crisis: A Cautionary Tale By Raymond M. Hebert and  Bilingual today, united tomorrow: official languages in education and ... By Matthew Hayday.Moxy (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's only 1 bilingual province in Canada, it's New Brunswick. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wtshymanski, I think you need to face the facts and realize that you can't change it back. There is no one that agrees with you. You are entitled to your own opinion but you can't change it back without anyone else supporting your opinion. I think we have reached a consensus. The official and de facto language of Manitoba is only English. Nations United (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And now it's back. A language spoken by under 10% of the population is a de facto language. "Only on Wikipedia" indeed. Alexius Horatius  18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Over-simplified infobox entry
The info box entry says "Official Language English". As frequently happens in infoboxes, this is an oversimplification forced by the arbitray nature of infoboxes. The essay WP:DISINFOBOX describes this problem. I would like anyone reading this article to please make note of the section following the sub-heading "Official languages" and form his or her own opinion as to the true state of affairs in Manitoba. On the Wikipedia, marvels of revisionism can be accomplished if you can mobilize a tiny claque. At least the Wikipedia biases are documented in the edit history and talk pages, where a cautious individual can gain useful information to assess the trustworthiness of the article. In summary, don't trust infoboxes 100%. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And see Official language which starts off  An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration. Contemplate the history of Supreme Court decisions regarding Manitoba language. The infobox is currently inconsistent with this definition. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcassMoxy (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Moxy. Look, consensus is not only against you, but unanimously so.  That being said, while you've cited WP:DISINFOBOX, I looked it over myself, and find it a bit of a straw-man argument that could well stand an extensive rebuttal.  (Hm, I might make that my December Rant of the Month).   Ravenswing  16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let the discussion here be a flag to the reader that the holy infobox may be oversimplifying the situation. On the Wikipeida, the dictates of the Supreme Court are evidently not law. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already talked to you about this on your talk page, but it looks like you still don't get it. Please take Moxy's advice. We are all asking you; please leave it alone. Face it; you don't have any support. Nations United (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * E pur si muove! --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A Subsection about mining in Manitoba
I remember that in the printed encyclopedias in the article about Manitoba there would be mention and description maybe a table or map of the minerals that are mined in Manitoba. All I see in the Wiki article is general in passing mention. Could someone (maybe me or someone else more knowledgeable) create a subsection on exactly what is mined in this province? Thanks. It's like 4% of our GDP. Jimj wpg (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Refs
Would anyone object to me converting the ISO dates to dmy? ISO here is a leftover from when RefToolbar used it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the article body uses mdy dates, if yyyy-mm-dd were to be converted, it should be to mdy to be consistent with the whole page. Canuck My page89 (talk), 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, note that YYYY-MM-DD is not disallowed by WP:REF. so perhaps it would be simpler to lets things be. Canuck My page89 (talk), 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, YYYY-MM-DD is disallowed by MOS:DATE for publication dates. Furthermore, as this article uses the Vancouver citation style, dmy would be more appropriate. If there is a concern that this would conflict with the article body, those could also be converted - after all, there are very few of those, and Canadian style allows for either dmy or mdy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSDATE actually does allow yyyy-mm-dd for publication dates, specifically where it mentions "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD". Also, per WP:DATERET, one should not change the date format of an article's body, so the refs should be converted to mdy, which I can easily do with the date script. However, I still maintain the simplest fix is to just let it be as it is. Canuck My page89 (talk), 02:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um. I think you need to re-read what I said and your response. YYYY-MM-DD is disallowed for publication dates per MOS:DATE; as the quote you post says, it is allowed for access/archive dates, which are not the same thing as publication dates. It is possible to change the date format a) with consensus or b) with a good reason. The fact that this article uses Vancouver-style citations, which should use dmy dates, suggests that the references should be converted to dmy. I'm fine with leaving the body dates as they are, but if you're concerned about consistency those can be changed too, as both dmy and mdy are accepted for general Canadian prose usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on WP:MOSDATE does it say yyyy-mm-dd is disallowed for publication dates. All it states is "Publication dates in article references should all have the same format". Thus, yyyy-mm-dd is allowed, as it is not disallowed. Also, see the section describing which date format can be used with the Vancouver format, which should actually be year-month-day, with the month abbreviated in words (eg, as it says 2009 Dec 31 is actually the correct Vancouver style date) Canuck My page89 (talk), 04:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Vancouver cite dates section does specifically say "The Vancouver system uses the following date formats" and lists them, and it is not restricted to just dmy, but the format I mentioned above as well. Canuck My page89 (talk), 04:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * YYYY-MM-DD is only allowed for access/archive dates; just because it's not explicitly disallowed does not mean it's allowed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you did take notice of the fact where it specifically states "The Vancouver system uses the following date formats", and we have more options than just dmy, such as mdy, and the format 2009 Dec 31. Canuck My page89 (talk), 04:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I also did take notice of the fact that mdy is almost never used with Vancouver. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
WP:1.0 Comments: I wasn't the reviewer for this article, but I believe that the main problem at the moment is the lack of citations, the reason for the failure of it's previous GA. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)