Talk:Northwest Territories

Reordering
I have ordered and grouped the sections in a way that seems consistent with a majority of the Province articles. I intend to do the same with the other 9 plus territories unless someone disputes this. On a factual note, I observe three different figures regarding the areal size of NWT in the article. Perhaps someone knowledgeable could take a look. Verne Equinox (talk)

Dispute about Infobox content
An issue has come up: should the infobox to this article contain the field "government_type", filled in with "Parliamentary system with consensus government". Since this issue affects all ten provinces and the three territories, a Request for Comment has been started on the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board. If you are interested in this issue, please come to the Notice Board and contribute to the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Time zones in the N.W.T.
I am not certain where an article about time zones could be built in Wikipedia: as a subsection of the N.W.T. main article, or as its own article.

From information at Timeanddate.com, I have ascertained that until 29 April 1979, the area that now is part of the N.W.T. since 1999 had two time zones. With some exceptions, the area west of longitude 120°W was using Pacific Standard Time, as was Ulukhaktok (Holman). The exceptions west of 120°, using MST, were Deline (Fort Franklin), Tulita (Fort Norman), Fort Good Hope, Tungsten (occupied since 1961 and beyond 1979) and the Canol Camp (occupied 1942-45) across from Norman Wells, thus producing an irregular boundary. However, these five exceptions should not be considered definitive, as the "official" record may have not prevailed over local preferences.

Is this worthy of inclusion in the N.W.T. article? GBC (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I lived in Ulukhaktok from 1975 until 1996 when I moved across the island to Cambridge Bay. The only place in the undivided Northwest Territories that was in Pacific time was the Tungsten, Northwest Territories area. Prior to the 1999 division of the NWT places in the Keewatin Region, Northwest Territories were generally on Central time. Places in the Baffin Region, Northwest Territories were generally on Eastern time. Places in the Kitikmeot Region, Northwest Territories, as well as the remaining regions were on Mountain time, with the one exception noted above. There were no local preferences for a different time zone in the NWT. Today, Tungsten is still the only place in the NWT that has a different time zone. Do you have a link to where you found that on timeanddate.com?
 * I've just remembered that there was a summer fly-in fishing camp in the southeast NWT that may have been on Central or Eastern time as their connections were from the south. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible sourcing for climate info
I noticed that a lot of the climate section in this article is unsourced. I'm not confident enough in my ability to comprehend meterological information but hopefully this source could be of some use to someone whose better at this than me! Cheers, Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent revert
Hi, it's unclear what you mean here. Could you explain? Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Maybe it has something to do with what's written at this source? It appears that I was under the mistaken impression that the Yukon Act itself was when it became a territory.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An editor has erroneously stated that Yukon was established as a territory in 2003. This is incorrect. Yukon was established in 1889 as the "Yukon Territory". In 2002 the territory's name was officially changed to "Yukon". This change has no effect on Yukon's status as a territory. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm seeing that I made a mistake here now. I'm not seeing anything about a name change? Do you have a source for this? The source I linked above does talk about a 2003 amendment to its terrritorial powers. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Clovermoss, yes, Yukon was created in 1898, by the passage of the Yukon Act by the federal parliament. The Yukon Act of 2003 was a new act that gave the territorial government broader powers, but didn’t create the Yukon. I think the « cite needed » tag wasn’t referring to the creation of Yukon in 1898, but the summary of why it was created. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Re name change : the people and government of Yukon have gone back and forth on that. Some view that « The Yukon » means that they are just a region, and that « Yukon » is a better name, putting them on par with other Canadian provinces and territories. But others say that « The Yukon » is part of their identity. I think after the last election they went back to « The Yukon ». Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I feel bad about the misstep here. I've been trying to address citation needed tags across Canada-related articles and the recent snippet I addressed here gave me the false confidence that lead to this whole misunderstanding. (Noting that I've since clarified on that article that this was an amendment.) Anyways, do you think this is alright? The source cited does mention the gold rush but as far as I can tell it doesn't verify that the statements given as factors were ones that directly lead to confederation. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's midnight where I'm at it so I'm going to head to bed. I just wanted to re-emphasize that I'm sorry I messed here. My mistake seems obvious now that I've had a chance to re-examine everything (including a closer examination of the source I used at the other article). I'd like to thank the both of you for realizing this and stepping in. It's a good reminder that I should be incredibly careful when trying to do small-scale improvements without a good understanding of the broader background and only looking at small snippets of text. I can understand how I came to this mistaken conclusion and hopefully it serves as a good learning experience that won't be repeated. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I do have a question now as a result of your edit here? The source I cited states "On 1 April 2003, Yukon became the first territory to officially take control of its land and resources. This was achieved by an amendment to the Yukon Act." An amendment implies that this was indeed an amendment and not a repeal/new act as your recent edit implies? Is there some further background I'm not getting once again? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I’ve found that the Canadian Encyclopedia does not always get legal matters right. Here’s the link to the Repeals sections of the Yukon Act, passed in 2002 and came into force in 2003:  https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2002_7/page-18.html#h-114  See s. 280, which repeals the old Yukon Act from the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985. The new Yukon Act replaced that. Now, by Wikipedia’s hierarchy of sources, the Canadian Encyclopedia should take priority, since it’s a secondary source and the Yukon Act of 2002/2003 is only a primary source, but the new Act clearly says that the old Act was repealed.  (This mini-rant is not directed at you 😉, but at Wikipedia’s approach to the status of legal sources like acts and court cases.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And here’s a link to the first page of the Yukon Act 2002, which sets out the purpose of the Act:
 * "The purpose of this enactment is to replace the current Yukon Act in order to modernize it, by reflecting responsible government in Yukon and renaming a number of public institutions to reflect current practice, and to provide the Legislature of Yukon with new powers over public real property and waters."
 * https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2002_7/FullText.html Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, I believed you had a good reason for acting the way you did and this make sense now. I've emailed the Canadian Encyclopedia about the error and hopefully one of their authors will update the article to be more accurate. In the meantime, would you be willing to consider replacing the citation I added? It's technically a failed verification issue with your rephrasing and citing a primary source when it would be more accurate doesn't seem like a big deal to me in this case. I really should be heading to bed now though. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will poke around today and see if I can find a reliable secondary source in addition to the statute. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Encyclopedia got back to me and they said they'll have a subject expert review the material in question and decide the best course of action. I have some hope that this will mean the information in question will be revised. We'll see, I guess. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)