Wikipedia talk:Quebec Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

Followup on the March Wikipedia Meetup in La Casa del Popolo
Pour faire suite à la rencontre du 14 mars, voici une copie wikifiée du brouillon des Montreal Propositions :

Propositions to help in solving Wikipedia's most frequently reported weaknesses
First, we want to stress the importance for the Wikipedian community of finding permanent solutions to the problems that are most often brought up by observers. You may or may not be already aware of some critical opinions that were recently published about Wikipedia. Here are the two that we are aware of:


 * "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia" by Robert McHenry, November 15, 2004
 * "When Information Access Is So Easy, Truth Can Be Elusive" by Anick Jesdanun, December 8, 2004

If you know of other articles, you are invited to add them to this short list.

A few weeks after the publishing of the two articles, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger submitted a personal "response" to these two articles in Kuro5hin. It can be read online at this address:


 * "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism" by Larry Sanger, December 31, 2004

In his opinion text, he suggests that two of the problems people have with Wikipedia, in fact, have a single problem at their root.


 * First problem: lack of public perception of credibility.
 * Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers.
 * The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise.

We will leave it up to people to form their opinion of Larry Sanger's conclusion. His comment is most certainly of interest; however, we cannot wholly agree with his conclusion because our observations and subsequent analysis lead us to a different conclusion. Therefore, we will move on to point out what we believe the root of the problem is, and we will also propose a solution of our own.

On the accuracy of information
In our opinion, the biggest problem we must recognize is this one:

People wanting to simply use Wikipedia as an information source currently have no obvious way to be certain that the articles they find can safely be used as a reference. This means that, at present, Wikipedia is often simply discounted as a reliable source of information, which obviously it should not be (in our opinion as devoted Wikipedians). Why is this?

A great many articles in Wikipedia are unfinished and in perpetual evolution. Can we say that for the majority of the articles? We do not know for sure. Some statistics on this would be useful. Please contribute statistics if you have any. Quantifying this would help us understand the phenomenon.

What is for sure, however, is that when a visitor searches for and finds an article in Wikipedia, we know that it may In other words, nothing truly prevents a simple user from landing on an article that simply doesn't live up to Wikipedia's own guidelines. This is the normal result of Wikipedia's functionning and must not come as a surprise. Why is it so?
 * 1) contain factual errors,
 * 2) be poorly written (and thereby misleading),
 * 3) be biased to some degree, and/or
 * 4) even be vandalized.

Although it would be better for the whole community if people first took the time to prepare their contribution outside Wikipedia and then, after some basic verifications (sources, grammar, spelling etc.), added it inside our beloved online encyclopedia, this is not what really happens. Nothing inside Wikipedia enforces this good practice; everyone can easily create/edit an article at any time using Wikipedia's own wiki editor, and there is in fact nothing to stop or even discourage people from drafting their text directly into the wiki editor we provide. (Admit it, you did it yourself at least once... ;-)

Ideally, we all wish people would first read Wikipedia's documentation before they start modifying existing articles or creating new ones. In reality, new contributors may input quite a lot of content before they take the time to catch up on all this reading. The talk page is, as most of you would agree, not used enough by people. What really belongs in the talk page often ends up directly in the article and this produces what came to be known as "edit wars", a phenomenon which is downright immature and silly. (Yes, I include myself in the list of the immature ones. :-)

The Montreal Propositions
What do formal printed encyclopedias have that Wikipedia doesn't?

We think the answer to this question is simple: they have a review process which every article has to undergo before it gets printed. The review process exists to ensure that every article meets the quality standards set by the encyclopedia editor.

What is the best solution we can devise to give visitors the assurance that the average quality of Wikipedia's articles is at least as good as that of formal encyclopedias?

Our answer to this questions can be summed up in the two proposals below:


 * 1) Automatically mark articles as "reviewed" or "not yet reviewed"
 * 2) Set up a review process leading to the removal of the "not yet reviewed" mark

"Not yet reviewed" tag
We already have a tag mechanism as part of Wikipedia. Let us better use what is already there by automatically tagging every new article as Not yet reviewed.

Example: "This article has not yet been reviewed. It may contain factual errors or spelling mistakes, and has not yet been through Wikipedia's article review process. If you have knowledge on the subject being treated by in article, you are invited to contribute."

Sub-proposal: Add an option to Wikipedia's search engine to filter out these articles. This new option should be set to "on" by default in the internal search engine, but not at first, as this would mean people would find no article at all. A simple checkbox labeled include articles that have not yet been reviewed by Wikipedia could allow users to include everything back in the search. Obviously, we want all articles to appear in the watchlists, the community portal etc.

What of the fact that Google will find and index these articles? Well, as User:EvanProdromou suggested it is possible to prevent Google from indexing certain pages in Wikipedia. (How do we do this?)

Create a review process
By a review process, we mean a series of verifications made to an article which, assuming a successful review, will lead to the removal of the Not yet reviewed tag on this article. The reviewed articles would have a quality assurance tag. It could say something like: "This article has been reviewed by Wikipedia. It was found to be compliant with Wikipedia's 7 quality assurance criteria." The latest reviewed article could be made available by clicking on an additional tab (maybe named Reviewed Article?) right where we presently have the Article, Discussion, Edit this page, History, and Watch tabs. The Article tab would of course continue to contain the latest freely editable version of the article, but we would also have an "official" version 1.0 of the article. This is similar to the concept of having a development branch and a stable branch of a program's source code.

The most important issue to solve if we go forward with a formal review process is "How do we create a review process that is 1) consensual, 2) effective, and 3) trusted by everyone?"

Selection
Here is what we have in mind:

Much like the "featured articles" process we currently have, we would first have a stage where people submit articles to the review process. We need to draft guidelines to help people bring up article from a simple draft to one that is worthy of being submitted to the review process. Maybe a qualified majority vote in the talk page?

The second step after the initial submission would be to select an article for review. The method used by "featured articles" is not quite appropriate in this case. We would have to come up with something else this time. Essentially, all articles submitted to the review process should, in the end, all get reviewed, but passing them in order of submission might slow things down. We need to allow for multiple reviews at the same time.


 * Update: User:EvanProdromou suggested that the articles needing review could simply be listed in a section of the Community_Portal.

The process
The actual review process could consist of 7 jobs (which can be done in parallel):


 * Content review (Is the information accurate? Is there any information that can be proven to be in contradiction with verifiable evidence?)
 * Neutrality review (Is there a visible point of view?)
 * Sources review (Do the sources exist? Are the sources in accord with the article's content?)
 * Copyright review (Are we in violation of someone's copyright?)
 * Spelling & grammar review (Are there any orthographic or grammatical errors?)
 * Language quality review (Is the language appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Can some sentences be rephrased to bring more clarity?)
 * Wiki syntax & style review (Does the article style comply with Wikipedia's recommendations? Is the proper wiki syntax being used? Can we wikify/unwikify some keywords?)

The time that will be required to do a full review will vary greatly from one article to the other. To take on the 7 jobs of the review process, we need 1) qualified volunteers 2) a set of criteria everyone agrees with.

The reviewers
A central question: How do we choose the reviewers?

Obviously, we need to establish a few rules to avoid potential conflicts of interest. We think that we should, minimally, exclude the initial contributors to the article from the review process. That is, all users (and IP addresses) who edited an article being submitted for review cannot be accepted as content, neutrality, sources, or copyright reviewers of the said article.

Sub-proposal: Create an evaluation program to produce "encyclopedist apprentices" out of Wikipedians.

The community around the Wikiversity project might be interest in this. Here we are thinking of reusing and expanding the series of tutorials that we have (grammar, neutrality, copyright) to allow Wikipedians to educate themselves, and also of creating a set of complementary self-evaluations.

A Wikipedia user successfully passing the Wikipedia grammar exam could receive some sort of "electronic diploma" allowing participation to the review process. This would work very well to turn normal wikipedians into neutrality, sources, copyright, spelling, language quality, and wikisyntax reviewers.

Evaluations

 * How do we go about writing the tutorials/evaluations?
 * How do we set up the process whereby the tutorials/evaluations get their own reviews?
 * Should we limit the number of times a person can take a test?

Technicalities

 * How do we go about adding online tutorials/self-evaluations to Wikipedia?
 * How do we go about issuing electronic diplomas in a secure way?

Title of the notice board
This page has been moved from "Wikipedia:Quebec wikipedians' notice board" to "Wikipedia:Quebec Wikipedians' notice board" on Apr 12, 2005 by User:Timwi (See edit history).

What do they have, that you don't have?
The Wizard of Oz asked this question to the scarecrow, tin man and lion. Here are his answers (in a handy table):

To what extent do Wikipedia contributors require diplomas, testimonials, or medals to be credible? Is this question itself elitist, and therefore to be discounted and ignored while we "move on" to better approaches?

We want people to trust our work, and yet we know why they don't: factual errors, sloppy writng, bias (as listed way above). Some contributors don't even bother to correct their own typos! (writng should be writing, but who cares? Someone else will fix it.) Uncle Ed 13:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

November Wikimeet?
So, is it for tonight, or...? And where? DS 19:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadian city naming convention
To try to get a good consensus, I am posting at all Canadian regional wikiprojects: Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. I just realized that Quebec might need its own naming convention. Thanks! -- Usgnus 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Provincial stubs and categories
Provincial Stub Proposals - Should templates and stub categories be created for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland & Labrador? (See related SFD discussion regarding N.B., PEI, and Manitoba (plus the territories)). Agent 86 02:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Request
Hi ! Sorry to interfer. I'm a journalist for the daily La Presse, and I'm doing a paper about Wikipedians, especially wikipedians who are very active in the encyclopedia. I'm looking for people from Montreal, Francos or Anglos. Anybody interested in dropping me a mail ? You can write to me at niko@hysterie.qc.ca or User:Nikolai35

Proposed Move of Gatineau, Quebec

 * Gatineau, Quebec → Gatineau … Rationale: Gatineau already redirects to Gatineau, Quebec, and the name is unique so there is no risk of confusion with another city or town. The proposed move is consistent with the Canadian naming convention ("Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles"), and is in line with recent moves of Canadian cities such as Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Edmonton, etc. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Gatineau, Quebec. Skeezix1000 11:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been moved. Skeezix1000 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Action civique de Québec
The discussion is at Articles for deletion/Action civique de Québec. Skeezix1000 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK
The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bécancour
"Sectors" isn't really the best word to use in English for what it's being used to mean on the Bécancour article — in English it actually has a military connotation, more like a post-war occupation zone (e.g. Allied Occupation Zones in Germany) than part of a town or city. It's been suggested that the word be changed to something more appropriate — but would they be better characterized as boroughs (arrondissements) or just plain old neighbourhoods with no particular political status of their own? Bearcat 03:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice Board updates
Hi, I've been bold and done some fairly major updates to the QWNB. Please let me know what you think, and feel free to discuss here any issues that may arise from the changes I've made. --dragfyre 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Request
Current this namespace is operating under pretenses of a notice board when in reality its more like a WikiProject. Many other provinces and cities have started WikiProjects and Quebec should do the same. The organization of this Notice Board is incredible, but WikiProjects have a fairly comprehensive standard and template set out specifically to organize group collaboration over a single or many subjects. The WikiProject Council is attempting to phase out the use of Notice Boards in a substancial way in place of the newer methods of using WikiProjects. I have laid out the template structure for your WikiProject and all that would be needed is moving content over in an organized fashion. Good luck. Mkdw talk 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh cool. I am all for this—hopefully this will generate more enthusiasm in improving Quebec-related article on the English-language Wikipedia.  As noted above, I made some changes recently to the notice board template and would love to help further develop such a project. Is there a formal request to be made, or was this basically it? —dragfyre 05:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally strongly support the concept that Wikipedia is a group collaboration. As such this was my formal request to you, the participants of the Quebec notice board. If the general consensus is 'yes' then the two pages will be merged and redundant information will be divided accordingly. The notice board will continue to work as a part of the WikiProject. In hopes you all agree, I will continue to work on the WikiProject in the mean time. Mkdw talk 05:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Census divisions
I'd like to ask if someone more knowledgeable about Quebec demographics can clarify a question for me. What type of geographic divisions in Quebec are used for Statistics Canada purposes as the actual legal census divisions? Is it the administrative regions (Nord-du-Québec, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, etc.) or is it the Regional County Municipalities? As things currently stand, Wikipedia is a bit ambiguous about this: in some places we say it's one, and in other places we say it's the other. Bearcat 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither, as far as I know, the municipal level is used. Circeus 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, municipalities are census subdivisions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the entire list is on the Statcan website, and is referred to as the "Standard Geographical Classification" (SGC). You can get the following:
 * 2006 listing (Canada, Quebec)
 * 2001 listing (Canada, Quebec)
 * 1996 listing (Canada, Quebec)
 * Click on the SGC code heading for each province to get that province's listing. There's more information on the main Standard Geographical Classification page ot the Statscan website. Mind  matrix  01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Propsed new Nav Box
The main problem with WP's coverage of New France is that there is little continuity between the different locales. Americans editors have made the Louisiana page very good, but much of it duplicates the main page. Meanwhile the main page concentrates way too much on Canada, and neglects Acadia, Louisiana, etc. There is a separate page for the colony of Canada but it is mostly unused. To help readers, and editors get a better understanding of how New France was organized. I am proposing creating this new Navbox template. The first section I am committed to and eventually I want to see it put on pages regardless. The rest is open to debate and change.
 * PROTOTYPE NAVBOX DELETED

What do you think? Is it too broad, too narrow? Would a list of topics be better? Thanks for the imput. Kevlar67 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it: is there any desire to have a general Topics on Quebec template in the mold of Topics on Alberta? If anything I think Quebec needs it more than Alberta since there are much more history and and politics related topics on Quebec on WP.  OTOH, Quebec is such a big topic that it would be hard knowing exactly want to include.  But, if there is a desire to have one, I would be happy to help. Kevlar67 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
I'd genuinely like to start an honest discussion here about something that I've noticed on Wikipedia. As many of you know, the words Montreal and Quebec (when referring to the cities or the province, although not necessarily in the names of institutions) are not generally spelled with accents in English. However, there's a constant tug of war in some articles between people who insist on adding the accents and those who insist on taking them back out afterward. From my perspective as a Franco-Ontarian, I'm obviously more attuned to matters Québécois than the average resident of Toronto, but at the same time there are obviously some nuances I may not fully grasp — thus, I ask the following:

Is adding the é's to Montreal and Quebec in English writing seen as a political act, or is there just some kind of misconception that Wikipedia has an "always use the original language's spelling" rule? (For the record, it doesn't; the rule on here is quite explicitly "spelling most commonly seen in English usage", which is how we can have "Montreal" without an accent coexist with Trois-Rivières with one.) Bearcat 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent question, especially given that Québec is ambiguous anyway... Personally, I happen not to edit Quebec-related articles too much (my Quebec-related editing is accidental, cf. my edits to List of road accidents), so I don't have have to worry about it too much, but I generally do not use the accent. Circeus 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Montreal underground city hotels
Montreal underground city hotels has been WP:PRODed. 132.205.44.5 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call adding the mergeto. This is worth noting in the underground city article, but it doesn't need its own fork. Bearcat 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Parliament Hill - > Parliament Hill, Ottawa
There is a request to rename Parliament Hill because a place called Parliament Hill, London is named after a girls school Parliament Hill School, and the nominator says the London hill is quite famous. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Montreal commuter rail
Category:Montreal commuter rail has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability question
Can somebody clarify for me whether Miranie Morissette is sufficiently notable within Quebec's music scene to merit an article? I haven't been able to find any verification for the article's claim that her debut album "climbed high in the charts". Did it, or is this just a vague publicity statement of the type that most emerging musicians engage in by describing their current single as a "hit" regardless of its actual performance on the charts? Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I live in Quebec, but I never heard of her. However, though, I don't necessarily follow the music scene that much.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find much that can't be ascribed to commercial bubble-building. No independent review or anything. The only thing is this, and nothing pertinent in the three years since. Definitely looks non-notable to me at this point in time (though she might become later, she doesn't come close right now). Circeus (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Miranie Morissette is on Quebec Info Musique (the equivalent of "All Music Guide" for Quebec's music), which is a good sign of a high-enough notability for Wikipedia. Boréal (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Island of Montreal municipalities
Category:Island of Montreal municipalities has been nominated for deletion. 70.51.10.91 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Debra Arbec at AfD
Debra Arbec has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Debra Arbec. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Places in Montreal is at AfD
Places in Montreal has been nominated for deletion. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

bagel
St. Viateur Bagel and Fairmount Bagel should have articles, particularly since the first bagels in space are from Fairmount, and that the National Post and Montreal Gazette have both run series of articles on the best bagels in Canada, and that NYC food critic has ranked NY bagels and Mtl bagels, using examples from these two bakeries. 70.51.11.207 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Quebec's National Holiday
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day) as to a probable change of name for the article. Please chime in.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Food in Montreal
Category:Food in Montreal has been nominated for renaming. 70.55.85.116 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Quebec communities with important anglophone populations
Category:Quebec communities with important anglophone populations has been sent to WP:CFD 70.55.84.212 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

La Belle at AfD
La Belle Province (restaurant) has been nominated for deletion. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Count of Mantane at AfD
Count of Mantane has been nominated for deletion. I think it's autopromotion. JF Lepage (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation
There is ongoing discussion on the talk page for the Manual of Style (including a series of polls) aimed at achieving consensus on presenting dates in American (June 24, 2008) or International (24 June 2008) format on an article by article basis. The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are: If you wish to participate or review the progress of discussion, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
 * R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

La Presse
I've initiated a move request to move La Presse (Canada) to La Presse, since it's the most prominent newspaper of that name. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vimont
I've initiated a move request to move Vimont, Quebec to Vimont and Vimont to Vimont, France, since the one in Canada is more prominent. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Two Mountains
I've requested a pagemove. Two Mountains → Two Mountains (electoral district), since English Montrealers refer to the lake, or the town, but not a long ago federal riding, by this name. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Québécois
Québécois has been proposed to be renamed Québécois (word) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Quebecois nation" a notable topic?
Please comment at RfC posted at Quebecois article. --soulscanner (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Royal
The Mount Royal article was moved around via cut-and-paste moving, and then it was corrrected via histmerging, so now we've ended up with the original Mount Royal article situated at Mount Royal, Montreal, and the Mount Royal (disambiguation) article sitting at Mount Royal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at Talk:Mount Royal as it has appeared at WP:RM ; note virtually no articles link to Mount Royal, Montreal, and virtually everything linking to Mount Royal mean the one in Montreal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount Royal was moved again, this time to Mount Royal Montreal, and then restored, per previous consensus on naming. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

LNI -> Ligue nationale d'improvisation
LNI has been nominated to be renamed Ligue nationale d'improvisation. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Quebec national parks → List of parks in Quebec
List of Quebec national parks → List of parks in Quebec has been listed at WP:RM 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier

 * Bombardier → Bombardier Inc.
 * Bombardier (disambiguation) → Bombardier
 * A rename related to Bombardier has been proposed at WP:RM, see Talk:Bombardier

76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Joseph-Armand Bombardier
Joseph-Armand Bombardier was requested to be speedily deleted, then proposed for deletion. I have removed the PROD request. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Quebecois cuisine
Category:Quebecois cuisine has been proposed to be renamed Category:Quebec cuisine 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Francophonie?
Does anyone think there should be a WP:WikiProject Francophonie? It would be like WP:WikiProject Commonwealth that handles the British Commonwealth.

See Talk:Organisation_internationale_de_la_Francophonie_(OlF) for the discussion.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Concordia University
Someone stealthily moved Concordia University again, without listing it at WP:RM, even though it has had a few WP:RM discussions in the past.
 * Concordia University
 * Concordia University (Montreal)
 * Concordia University (disambiguation)

It was previously noted that the one in Montreal is the most prominent, in past discussions.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

highway naming conformity
FYI, at WT:CANADA, there is currently a proposal to make all Canadian provincial highways named exactly the same way, following the way the US state highways are named.

76.66.194.32 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories
A bunch of Canadian categories came up at Categories for discussion/Speedy for renaming

Especially:
 * Category:French Quebecers
 * Category:Quebecers of French descent

70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quebecker
Someone went around and changed all the "Quebecer" articles to "Quebecker", violating WP:ENGVAR and not using Quebec English in the wording.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See WT:CANADA for further discussion on whether Quebec English should be used on Quebec articles, or should Canadian English be used on Quebec articles instead of Quebec English. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Quebec English
FYI, Quebec English has been nominated for deletion. IT is an WP:ENGVAR template. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sovereigntist
FYI, Sovereigntist has been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:Sovereigntist 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Two Solitudes (Canadian society)
FYI, has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

SN 1054
Help is needed in cleaning up SN 1054. It was recently greatly expanded (by 80kB!) from the French version of the article. Checking the grammar and wording against the original to fix errors in translation would be good. As well as selecting English terms where French terms were used and untranslated as they were not originally French but some transcription into French would also be useful, as transcription systems in French and English are different for some languages. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Highest importance QC-related article failed GA
Quebec has recently been nominated as a Good Article (Talk:Quebec) in the Places Subsection. Its candidature needs review : please do it yourself here if you did not contribute in the writing. -- Offiikart  (Talk) 17:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quebec article was "quickfailed" for GA due to insufficent in-line references. This article is rated top (but should have been rated highest) on the importance scale of Quebec project and attention should be given to improve it as soon as possible considering that it is the main article on Quebec-related subject. Also, please consider reviewing and improving the information already presented in the article before adding or expanding. Merci de votre collaboration! --[[Image:Flag of Quebec.svg|20px]] Offiikart Talk 18:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Montreal
Wikipedia Takes Montreal is about, Sunday 28 August 2011. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed move: Official Language Act (Quebec) → Bill 22
See Talk:Official Language_Act (Quebec) (rationale and discussion). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

new Template:QuebecMNAbio for biographies of current and past MNAs
The National Assembly website has biography pages for all current and former MNAs. I have created Template:QuebecMNAbio by analogy with ‎Template:OntarioMPPbio and Template:CanParlbio, for standardized external links to these biography pages. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

complete(?) online archives of Montreal Gazette, Le Devoir, and possibly others
Fairly complete archives of the Montreal Gazette are available (all the way to the 1870s) at Google.com. This seems to be something new, these pages only started turning up in Google searches recently.

For instance:

After clicking on the above link as an example, clicking on the "Browse this newspaper" link, and then switching between Day, Week, Month, Year, Decade in the "Show" selector lets you see any day's issue.

"Browse all newspapers" gives many more, for instance Le Devoir is here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Montreal Flood of 2012
Is there a Montreal Flood of 2012 article? We have one for Montreal Flood of 1987, and the Tuesday 29 May 2012 rain event was an extreme rain event and flash flood, being only the second time the Metro's been shut down due to rain, major innundations, and many floodings.

70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The 1987 event had a greater amount of rain, a couple of deaths, power outages, a "lake" of submerged cars, and people still talked about it years later. The 2012 event had: ankle deep water, flooded basements, and maybe a manhole fountain or two.  I don't think it's comparably notable. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Concordia University
Concordia University was renamed without discussion again, reverted, and now a discussion is open at Talk:Concordia University -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quebec premiers
FYI, there is a discussion on the formatting of Que premier bio articles at WT:CANADA -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Montreal municipal parties
NOTE, there's a query at WT:CANADA about Montreal political parties. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Quebec City
Stadacona and Habitation de Québec could really use improvement. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Quebec (1775)
Today's featured article, Battle of Quebec (1775) is having ENGVAR issues, particularly, it's using American English, not British or Canadian. See talk:Battle of Quebec (1775) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)