Talk:Victoria Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"May Long Weekend"[edit]

Please see Google News search for "May Long Weekend". Will revert again once this has been saved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other names[edit]

Do people really use these colloquialisms beginning with "May ..."?
Back in the 1960s when it was our major national holiday, before the government decided to make a big deal out of Dominion Day, this holiday was called the Twenty-Fourth of May or, by us kids, Firecracker Day, since it was the day we looked forward to all year when we got to blow up ants, and set off our favourite firework, the Burning Schoolhouse.
Varlaam (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland, Too![edit]

Victoria Day is, in fact, a (local) public holiday in "parts of Scotland". I know it is definitely celebrated in Edinburgh and Fife (lots of things are shut today!). I'm not sure where else, but I've heard reference to "the east of Scotland"

I've added this fact near the top of the article. It is obviously much more of a Canadian holiday than a Scottish one, and the bulk of the article is clearly about the Canadian practice. But if Scotland isn't mentioned at the top, nobody will notice it at all! So I've tried to mention Scotland "in passing"...

RobertII (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a separate article, Victoria Day (Scotland), for that information. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's the same holiday: marking Queen Victoria's birthday on the Monday before the 24th of May.
If you really want to go the route of two separate pages, you should re-name this one "Victoria Day (Canada)". Which is silly. It is one holiday, celebrated in (at least, to our current knowledge) two countries. It's an important holiday in Canada, and only a local holiday in some parts of the UK. So it makes sense that most of the page talks about what happens in Canada, with only a mention that it is celebrated elsewhere. BUT there should be that mention, because it surely is the same holiday being celebrated, for the same reason, in both countries.
RobertII (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one holiday. Victoria Day is a holiday in Canada by Canadian law and also marks Queen Elizabeth's official birthday in the country; I'm not sure whether or not the Scottish Victoria Day is even an official holiday or just a tradition, and it's certainly not the Queen's Birthday.
I did once move this page to Victoria Day (Canada), but it was returned to under the present title by someone who felt this was the term's primary usage. I'd have no issue moving it back again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Christmas Day is a holiday in Canada by Canadian law as well. But it's still the same Christmas Day that is celebrated in many other countries. You don't want a separate "Christmas Day" page for each country, do you? The Queen Victoria page, from which I suspect you got the text for your Victoria Day (Scotland) page, talks about Victoria Day being celebrated in Scotland. Are you wanting to change that pages to refer to Scotland having a different holiday with the same name on the same day for the same purpose?
Why do you think it matters? What's the distinction you're trying to drawRobertII (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May Two-Four[edit]

I know that this term is commonly used in Ontario, but I am not a WP:V source. That's what we need. I don't have access to The Oxford Canadian Dictionary and request a quote. The CBC article simply lists the term, but gives no definition. I'm bot trying to be difficult about this, but the term needs to be cited correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent spat of careless edits and bullying reverts would indicate something other than "not difficult". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying reverts? You are the bully. You deleted the ref tag along with the other changes. You should take more care in your undos. It's part of assuming good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of what else to call them, regardless of whether the intention driving them was good or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edits were
  1. a request for information
  2. removing what I and others have commented as useless formatting (<sub> around <ref>)
  3. adding a reference to the lede (or lead-section as it is correctly termed in in the Queen's English).
Your reverts removed all of them.
back to the point at hand: we need a WP:V reference for May Two-Four. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself yet again: references aren't necessary in the lead when the information summarised therein is referenced in the article body, ergo the ref and the maintenance tag requesting a ref you inserted there were misplaced. There is no <sub> formatting around reference code; and no discussion here about reference code at all. You reverted without consideration for what was stated in my edit summaries and then had the audacity to accuse me of vandalism, something you've been known to do here before. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll deal with these one at a time:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy about excluding citations from the lede:
From: Wikipedia:Citing sources "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception."
Note: That page does not exempt the lede from citation requests. If you have a source to indicate to the contrary, feel free to offer it, otherwise, please strike your statement as personal opinion.
There is now no <sup>, <sub>, or <small> formatting around reference tag because I removed them. If you are stating that there should be one in the code, don't impose your personal preference (as I have seen in your discussions on the matter) for browser compatibility on this article.
The only time I reverted your changes is when you reverted all of mine, and it was only once. After that I made the changes one-at-a-time. You clicked undo to undo them all—even when affected changes that you had not intention of changing. I paid very close attention to your comments. They were, in my opinion and experience, wrong and so I went about restoring my edits one-at-a-time.
As for previous reverting of your additions to this article, you have to look at the entire history to see why I did that. In short, marking it as vandalism was a result of your lock-stock deletion of my additions and changes. I made an error (again, against what you say on your talk page, I do admit to making errors) and reverted your change without checking it first. I'm sorry. I should not have done that. However, you have shown that you feel it is appropriate to undo all of an editor's changes even when your comments don't state it. See [1] (notice the undoing of the small tags, the name, and the reference. The comment implies some sort of retribution.) [2] (ignoring the reason for deleting the reference: it's a direct quote of Wikipedia and so is not [[WP:V]) [3] again restoring a reference that does not meet WP:V along with other issues.
In conclusion, thanks for you vigilance on this article, yo don't, however, own it. Allow other editors to work on it and improve it. Assuming that changes are attacks is not appropriate. You must assume good faith. Stating that this page, which will see seasonal interest, has been stable and therefore reached consensus is a logical fallacy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more accurate. I never said refs were excluded from leads, and I already directed you to WP:LEADCITE at your talk page. It says "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." The colloquial names for this holiday are hardly contentious and are already sourced in the article body, even though you may not think those sources to be sufficient.
Again, read what I write. I said there is no <sub> formatting around ref code, as you claimed there was. I suppose I should've said there never was any <sub> formatting around red code, as you claimed there was. The <small> code was there for nearly a year, while a dozen or so other users edited the article and none contested it until you; silence equals consensus. You are free to seek a new consensus, but must do so on the talk page, not reverting over and over to your personal preference. As I said at my talk, if you're so sure in your position on this, a consensus should be easy for you to achieve.
You made your edits one at a time, but I disagreed with all of them. I gave an explanation the first time I reverted your changes; it wasn't necessary to repeat myself.
You don't own this article, either. So, seek consensus for your changes when not everyone agrees that your work is an improvement and don't waive off WP:CONS (silence equals consensus) and WP:NPA (don't call anyone who reverts your edit a vandal) as though they don't apply to you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record[edit]

This revision [4] includes the following comment as a response to a comment left on the editor's talk page: "But you can undo [my edits] and others'? As you should already be aware: leave the status-quo and discuss your issues at talk to find consensus for change. Leaving odd cite needed tags". That's not the case. I didn't undo edits unless they were directly deleting mine and no additional changes were made. I was making edits in several locations on the page including remove <small> tags for references, which are usual and I'm sure not a Wikipedia standard. I also added ref names so that they could be included in other parts of the article. I also correcting additional formatting around the template:mdash references. All of these were deleted when the offending citation requests were removed. I should also like to point out that deletion of citation requests is considered vandalism. The information being requests was not, as the author suggested, presented in the remainder of the article. I have placed citation requests in the location requested so I trust that this edit war is now over and we can get back to improving the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you presume automatically that everything you do is good and accurate and everyone else wrong and a vandal, when that is not necessarily the case. You ignored consensus built through silence and removed reference formatting that maintains a consistent line spacing and was there uncontested for nearly a year; you've placed references in the lead, where guidelines say they generally don't go; you deleted a reference because you personally deemed it inadmissible; you created a spelling error; and you did nothing to the — template (though what it needs I don't know). You may have valid concerns - particularly about needed citations - but you are not at all going about having them addressed in the correct manner. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the edits not the editors. I will comment on myself: I know that not everything I do is good. These changes were good and I was not bullying nor was I over-zealous in my edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary to comment on the editor when the editor's behaviour is problematic. Only you have deemed your changes to be good and you insist on such by madly reverting any undoing of your work, without regard explanations, established consensus, or Wikipedia guidelines, and calling anyone who reverts you a vandal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It can get a tag thrown onto your page. It's outlined in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. By the way, I have attempted to give good explanations to all of my edits one at a time. You have chosen to undo them all. I outlined that behaviour above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is; WP:NPA doesn't protect you from criticism when your behaviour is clearly disruptive. Also, calling your own explanations "good" does not permit you to undo the undoing of your edit, without regard for either WP:BRD or explanations for why your edit was undone, and call anyone who undoes your edit a vandal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is my behaviour is not disruptive. I was making constructive, appropriate edits. And besides, it does protect all editors regardless of their behaviour. Allow me to quote:
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."
Your edits were vandalism because you were attempting to make one change (or possibly two) and you deleted others in the process. That's not bold. It's disruptive. I even commented on it in the change comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't impose your judgement of your own edits on others. I disagreed and still disagree with everything you did, and, per WP:BRD, was within guideline to revert you - all of it - after which you should have begun to discuss what you saw as being wrong with the page. You, instead, insisted that how you judge your own edits is how everyone should judge your edits, reverted my revert, and dumped a warning on the talk page of an experienced editor, which should have warranted you a misuse of warning or blocking templates message in return. You have since proceeded to insist that I am a vandal (putting you in violation of the very WP:NPA you hide behind) and to dismiss the words of WP:CONS as though they somehow are inapplicable to you. None of that is a personal attack, it is a verifiable summary of your actions over the past 12 or so hours. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on when the holiday is[edit]

When is the actual holiday? The introduction gives two different expressions for when the actual holiday falls for any given year. Near the beginning of the introduction it states: "celebrated on the last Monday before or on 24 May," while near the end of the introduction it states: "celebrated in various fashions across the country on the fixed date of the first Monday on or before 24 May." Are these two expressions the same, in contradiction, or what? Can this be clarified by someone? Is the holiday the first or last Monday before or on May 24? --L.Smithfield (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter section references the original date. It does need to be clarified though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An amendment to the Statutes of Canada in 1952 established the celebration of Victoria Day on the Monday preceding May 25." Heritage Canada Modal Jig (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number[edit]

User:Walter Görlitz has twice changed "5,000" to "5000". While both are technically acceptable, WP:MOSNUM clearly states: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee decided that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason." If you have a substantial reason, Görlitz, could you present it here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is a metric nation. Officially, commas are not to be used at all when separating thousands. Commas in Quebec are the equivalent of a decimal separator. Since
  1. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Delimiting_.28grouping_of_digits.29 states that on English Wikipedia, commas are optional to the fifth digit, and
  2. Canada is Metric,
it only makes sense to remove it for the sake of clarity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Commas are optional." Precisely. "Canada is metric" doesn't convince me that the comma must be removed; commas are used in such a manner all over Canadian articles. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people cheat on their taxes "all over Canada" doesn't mean I have to do it, and it shouldn't happen when people are aware that it's incorrect. I can't, and more correctly, won't police all of the Canadian articles, but this is on my watch list and I feel responsible to do what's right here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the comma, of course, isn't incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the existence of the comma correct. It, but itself, is neutral. The correct usage in Canada, would be a non-breaking space. However since that is not in Wikipedia's manual of style, no comma is the next best choice. A comma is American and, in my opinion based on the nature of the holiday, offensive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long date format[edit]

I didn't change the date format from 24 May to May 24, but would argue that in Canada, the latter is used more frequently. It's also the case May 24 is again the official format used in long dates in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was the one who changed from 24 May to May 24, not thinking there was any consensus or that there would be any opposition. I am certainly in favor of changing it back to the May 24 style. — CIS (talk | stalk) 10:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why; the dd/mm/yy format is acceptable for Canadian articles. I've never seen any official date format for Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an acceptable format, but that's the short format. We're talking about the long format. While it too is acceptable and understood, it's not common and makes the article appear as though it's written by someone from the U.K. (or Australia) and not from Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One format is used throughout an article. If you believe dd/mm/yy is so uncommon in Canada as to not be acceptable, you'll have to take it up at WP:MOSDATE, I'm afraid. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One format is used throughout the article. I don't believe that dd/mm/yy is uncommon in Canada and please stop changing the topic. No one is discussing the short format, which is what dd/mm/yy is. We are discussing the long format which is Month Day, Year. So now there seems to be a two-to-one suggestion that we change from the UK long format to the US long format as it is more common in Canada. If you believe that Month Day, Year is so uncommon in Canada as to not be acceptable, you'll have to take it up at WP:MOSDATE, I'm afraid. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything was uncommon. You did. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote (emphasis mine):

  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
  • In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
  • There are reasons for changing the format based on strong nation ties: the long format you have chosen is not common in Canada. It should be changed unless you can show strong national ties to the other format. As I said, you'll have to take it up at WP:MOSDATE as there is no compelling national reason to support a format other than Month Day, Year. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STRONGNAT [emphasis mine]:
Strong national ties to a topic
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions don't trump Wikipedia guidelines. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions don't trump Wikipedia guidelines. I emphasized most in the statement above because in Canada it is uncommon to use day before month, although not unheard-of. Two editors have expressed their preference and you have expressed yours. We can wait to see how many others express an opinion before coming to a conclusion. Again, remember what you wrote: "your personal opinions don't trump Wikipedia guidelines". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we suggesting consistent usage of the more common Canadian format: Month Day, Year, in order to avoid confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've tried to argue that dd/mm/yyyy cannot be used in this article first because it goes against some official Canadian rule and then because the format is unusual in Canada. WP:MOSDATE, however, says otherwise. Of course, if there's a consensus to change the date format here from one version to the other, the date format will change. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not argued that at all. I'll let you re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, it does still say the same thing: "May 24 is again the official format" and "the long format you have chosen is not common in Canada. It should be changed..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To re-enter this discussion briefly, I'd vouch to say that the fact this holiday itself is colloquially called "May two-four" would be a strong reason to use the "Month, day" format in this article. — CIS (talk | stalk) 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Miesianiacal is mistaken at best or at worst lying or incapable of reading. The editor has stated several times that I question dd/mm/yyyy format is used in Canada and I immediately responded stating that this is a short date format and is not in question. I also stated that the long format of Month Day, Year is most common in Canada to which I have never heard a reasonable response. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such pedantry is unhelpful. You made claims, you must back them up and convince the community to adopt your proposed change based on them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to be accurate is unhelpful. I have proven my claims. You must now show that there is a national interest in keeping a foreign date format. You have been unable to do so and you have not rallied anyone to your side. Three editors have now identified a preference for or reason for changing to the Month Day format and all you have to offer is vague Wikipedia guidelines which don't support your claim that it should stay in Day Month format. Unless you can back your claims be month's end with something more concrete, consensus suggests that we change date format. Oh, and for the sake of accuracy, please don't confuse the short format (dd/mm/yyy) with the long format (Month Day, Year) because it's not productive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either format is acceptable per guideline. The one presently used in the article has been used there for quite a long time; as such, the present format has consensus. It is therefore up to you to seek a new consensus to change the format from the present one to the one you prefer. So far you have one supporter. It is not in your power to set arbitrary deadlines for anyone other than yourself. If you're so sure you are right, surely you can convince others and get the consensus you require. If you do, I'll change the date format myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are once again mistaken about consensus again. Just because people have read it and not changed it does not mean it has gained any level of consensus. The fact that editors are now suggesting that it be changed does have consensus. There are two supporters. I earlier mistakenly stated that there were three. You are the only supporter for the status quo. If you're so sure you are right, surely you can convince others and get the consensus you require. Since you don't like the end of the month date, perhaps you can suggest another date that suits you better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who has a misunderstanding of consensus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Earlier when we were discussing the small tags around the refs you used the same argument, vis: no one has commented on it nor changed it. Several editors, other than me, also commented that this is not a correct understanding of consensus. So I'm sorry to say, the fact that it has survived does not mean that consensus has been reached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You evidently misunderstand both consensus and past events. If an edit is disputed, the status quo remains until a new consensus is reached; this is supported by both WP:CONS and WP:BRD. One wonders why you're doing everything you can to avoid getting the required consensus, especially when you go on as though your assertions are essentially natural fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're wrong on consensus as well as imposing a foreign date format on Canadians. Once again, you've avoided my compromise to offer you a date to terminate this one-sided debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only your opinion. Open an RfC or seek dispute resolution if you really want to pursue this. I said I'll implement the change should you get a consensus to make your desired change; so, I don't know why you're hesitating. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're wrong there too. It's not my opinion. Consensus is not gained by not changing an article, it is gained by changing and discussing. See Wikipedia:Consensus. This was already pointed out to you on the Canadian Prime Minister page when we were discussing the small tags around the refs. You claimed it had consensus and another editor and I both stated that it had not. In the case on this page, every time I saw it I cringed but decided that your ownership of the page should not be challenged further than it already had been with the removal of the small tags around the refs, but when the other editor made the change I cheered and back the position. Since you have once again not offered a date for closure of this debate I will state we'll close it at the end of the month. If you would like longer or the debate is ongoing at that time, we'll extend it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing and discussing, yes; the change was made, it was reverted, now there should be a discussion; WP:BRD. But, for some still unexplained reason, instead of a discussion, you insist on insisting your own sense of rightness is sufficient justification for any change you desire to be made. Sorry, you haven't convinced me the change needs to be made. Do whatever you wish at the end of the month; it will mean nothing if you still haven't sought the necessary consensus to make your change. Seek input at a project talk page; open an RfC; those are the proper channels; your made up rules and ultimatums are not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you were instrumental in changing the format on the Canada Day article. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles) has a discussion on this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following are based on the Canadian Press style guide that codifies Month Day (, Year) as the correct usage in Canada.
--Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Straw poll[edit]

I know polls are evil, but in this case I think a majority will have to decide the outcome (I can't think of a way to compromise between two different date formats). I hope the two who've already offered their comments above won't object to my placing their vote below:

Day Month Year format
  • It's acceptable per guidelines and has been used in this article for a long time without prior objection. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No good reason to change this, as the existing format (dmy) is perfectly acceptable. --Ckatzchatspy 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge: perfectly acceptable. Can you please reference a style guide (press, university, etc.) that indicates it's perfectly acceptable? I know that it's used, but is it perfectly acceptable? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's acceptable per Wikipedia's guidelines. That has already been explained to you at length. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, if you're "challenging" the statement, please provide proof that the format is not acceptable. --Ckatzchatspy 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prove a negative? I have displayed above, that two institutions use Month Day as their format. I believe the onus is for you to back your opinion that it's acceptable since I have shown it's not acceptable in at least two locations. Also, it's the perfectly portion that I object to most of all. I know it's used by ex-pat Brits, but have not seen it in any recent style guides in Canada, so it is falling out of favour in written English in Canada. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a rudimentary "common use" check (looking at Microsoft's regional settings for Vista) came up with mdy for "English (US)" and dmy for the short and long formats for "English (Canada)". You may personally prefer the mdy format, but Wikipedia consensus suggests we do not need to use it. --Ckatzchatspy 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the long date format, not the short date format. Long date format in your authority (Microsoft) when set to English (Canada) is MMMM d, yyyy while English (United Kingdom) is dd MMMM yyyy. I now understand your confusion. Will you be changing either your support or your comment in light of this information? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, since a) consensus supports maintaining the current version, b) I did mention long-form, and c) the example (not "authority", just an example) in Vista appears to use dmy for long form. Seriously, why spend so much tiime on an issue that has been resolved a long time ago? Existing consensus dictates that the current version is perfectly acceptable for Canadian articles, so why change it? There is no benefit to such a change. --Ckatzchatspy 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, for the record you have no refernece for this format as perfectly acceptable in Canada. The reason is that it's not perfectly acceptable in Canada. It is in the U.K., which, the last time I checked, we're not a part of. As a sovereign nation, we have a distinct date format. There is no question that the short date format is ambiguous, while the long date format is not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Walter here. There are 2 main reasons that the American long-date format should be used in this article. (1) It is by far the most common long-date format used by Canadians, and (2) the colloquialism for Victoria Day itself is "May two-four", which IMO is enough to warrant using the "May 24" format throughout the article. — CIS (talk | stalk) 12:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two of you keep arguing that the Month Day, Year format should be used in this article because it's the most commonly used in Canada; but that's actually an argument for why the Month Day, Year format should be used in all Canada-related articles on Wikipedia, which is a debate that shouldn't be taking place here. As long as the Wikipedia date guidelines stand as they are, the Day Month Year format is perfectly usable on this and any other Canada-related page. I suspect you and Walter should be taking your case to WP:MOSDATE. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the Canada Portal to discuss it here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you've ignored my second point. Indeed both conventions are acceptable (American & British long-date) for Canada-related articles, but one of the reasons I'm arguing that the American format should be used on this particular article is because of the colloquial "May two-four" name for the holiday. This directly connects the American long-date format to this holiday. — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like Miesianiacal himself changed the dating format from American style to British style without due cause back in 2009, according to this diff: [5]. Care to elaborate on why you made this change, Miesianiacal? If there isn't a substantial reason, as you've been arguing, then it should be changed back immediately. — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter at present? There were no objections to the change at that time and none since, until now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US format was used in this article from its beginnings until last year (a span of 6 years), and was changed arbitrarily for no apparent reason by yourself last year, after having been used without objections for the entire history of the article. Unless you can provide a reason for the change made, I can't see why it shouldn't be changed back, especially considering the Victoria Day colloquialism favors the US longdate format. The fact that no one initially objected to your quite recent change bears no relevance to the fact that it should never have been changed without prior discussion in the first place. This is a low-traffic article... if I had noticed your revision a year ago, I would have objected. The fact is, your arbitrary change without prior discussion defies Wikipedia guidelines. — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be immediately changed back because the consensus built by a year of silence requires a new consensus now to change it back again. This is hardly a low traffic article. That one of the colloquial names for Victoria Day "favors" (don't you mean "favours"?) the "US format" is merely your opinion, and objections you never made before don't somehow count now. If there's some violation of guideline, then do please show me what it is and I'll rectify my error. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline violation you made with your 2009 format change edit is outlined here: Wikipedia:DATE#Retaining_the_existing_format. The date format should never be changed from one to the other unless the article relates strongly to a country where one format is exclusively preferred (i.e. US or UK). As for the colloquial name argument, the usage of the US format in the "May two-four" name shows evidence that the US date format is widely prevalent in Canadians and news media using that colloquialism when referring to this article's subject specifically. That, in combination with the fact that the US format was originally used here and went unchallenged for 6 years or so, merits reverting to that style IMO. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it says the format should never be changed without reason based on "strong national ties to the topic" except for "in the early stages of writing an article." We're certainly not there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You're using an argument against your own reasoning for reverting back to the "24 May" style a few days ago, which, as evidenced in this diff, was "restore date fmt; no valid reason given for change". How can you argue that your arbitrary 2009 changing of format (with no indication of it in your edit summary I might add) was any different than the recent format change back to the Month, Day format? Are you saying that somehow the consensus on date format had not been established prior to your 2009 edit, but that your sneaky 2009 edit (that went unnoticed for 1 year) somehow established a new consensus, and the newest edit that restored the US format did not establish yet another new consensus? Care to explain how that makes any sense?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus had been established before my edit in 2009, but please understand WP:BRD: I was bold (B), but nobody immediately reverted (R), and hence there was no discussion (D). So, per WP:CONS, a year's silence has established a new consensus. Days ago, you were bold, I reverted, and now there's discussion. This discussion should either produce a new consensus (use [Month] [Day], [Year] format) or keep the existing (use [Day] [Month] [Year] format). And don't start with the character assassination; I haven't done so to you so I ask you not do it to me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my adjective use of "sneaky" in referring to your edit, it's just that you had made a format change without due cause (going against guidelines) and did not identify this at all in your edit summary. As for the current ongoing discussion, I agree that the article's format should not be changed back until consensus is reached in this discussion. I disagree with Walter's impulse reversions, but am not going to get involved in that edit war. Instead of arguing about the past I agree that we should focus on this discussion and invite as many participants as possible to reach consensus. — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I've said a number of times that should this discussion produce a consensus for [Month] [Day], [Year] format, I will acquiesce, and even offered to make the change myself. As Ckatz has already noted, I've asked at WP:CANADA for others to offer their opinion, so as to expedite a conclusion to this dispute. And, you're right, my earlier edit summary was insufficient; sometimes my efforts to make concise summaries (pure laziness on my part) leads to omissions. I'll try and be more careful. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed so based on that and on the objections lodged by two editors to your previous unacceptable change in format, I have reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to what? That we're not in the early stages of the article? Good. I reverted your revert; no consensus for your change. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that your edits of one year ago should not be counteracted the edits from a year ago when the article was no longer in its early stages. It was a mature article when you came in to add you own preferences both to the formatting (small tags around the ref tags) and the long date format (Month Day to Day Month). So now that we have that established and your hypocrisy has been revealed, I trust that you'll stop reverting away from the original date format as was in place on an established article before you asserted your preference without discussion a year ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying makes no sense. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's a red herring to say that a seasonal article has gained acceptance just by viewing.
  1. Since it's seasonal, the interested and edits will have cycles of interest and disinterest. Very little interest or activity until a month ago. When I arrived here then I objected to both the date format and the small tags around the refs, I decided that the more important battle was the destruction of formatting. I also wanted to clean the article up in tome for the coming holiday. Prior to that there were very few edits (and probably views) between the previous season and the new one. So the fact that the policy violations have been in place for nearly a year does not state that a year's worth of consensus has been built into this article.
  2. Viewing itself is not a guarantee of consensus. You really have to understand that. It has been pointed-out to you before and you still don't get it. There is no consensus.
  3. For six years the article was in (what I would argue is) the most commonly used long date format in Canada. You changed it without discussion and without even explaining why you were making the change. Was this another imposition of formatting to suit yourself as with the small tags around the ref tags?
In total, your argument bears no weight. It carries no water. It is a lie based upon your lack of good faith editing and your blatant disregard for the rules you are clinging to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tripe. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, your arguments are tripe. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Month Day, Year format
  • It's the more commonly used format in Canada and the existing format has been removed by several editors and the previous editor reverted citing precedence to several editors. Objection was lodged. Precedence does not make consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk)
  • Was changed from American fmt. to British fmt. without reasoning in 2009 (diff: [6]), so it should be changed back. Article had been started with American format in 2003 (diff) and went unchallenged until the 2009 change. In addition, Victoria Day's own colloquialism "May two-four" supports American long-date usage here. — CIS (talk | stalk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So the original format was Month Day? Yes. Looking at the earlier revisions, it was changed a year ago. Would we find the same happening in the Canada Day article as well? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but that would be something to discuss at Talk:Canada Day, not here. A quick check shows that the first edit of the Canada Day article in 2001 used the US format. — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Year is only used once in the date. It is usually just the month and day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Month Day, Year is more natural, generally has greater usage among Canadians and Canadian sources, and was in the article prior to Miesianiacal's disruptive change (he did the same at Canada Day [7], that should be reverted as well). –xenotalk 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm temporarily stepping back from the discussion to say that you all need to please stop edit warring over the date format. Per convention, the disputed nature of this change means that the format should remain at the current (dmy, per past year) version unitl this matter is resolved. Edit warring, violating 3RR, and name-calling will not do anything to help solve the matter. --Ckatzchatspy 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should never have been changed in the first place, so I think restoring the prior status quo (that stood for nearly a decade) is desirable over allowing a disruptive change contrary to guidelines to "win" by calling the relatively new, unsupported change, to be considered the "current". That will only encourage people to try and push through disruptive changes under a vague edit summary and hope it "sticks" for long enough. –xenotalk 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're entitled to express your preference and have it counted, but please do so without added baseless accusations of disruption and contravention of guidelines. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it baseless? You changed the date format contrary to the guideline, without good reason or consensus, with a vague edit summary that did not indicate what was happening. That is disruptive. –xenotalk 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's baseless because I don't need to gain consensus before I make an edit, there wasn't even a revert of or a comment on my edit at the time, let alone a "disruption", and that edit I made contravened no guideline. Ultimately, this line of discussion is tangential, though; what matters is what date format you think this article should have now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do need consensus if you are making an edit contrary to generally-accepted guidelines (don't change from one format to another unless there are good reasons: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.". ") and long-standing consensus. Perhaps if you had said in the edit summary "date format change from Month day to Day Month", people would have reverted it, but you used an exceedingly vague edit summary which said nothing about the date format. That being said, I have struck "disruptive" since it appears to be distracting us from the real issue here: a change made without consensus or support of the guidelines. –xenotalk 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your criticism would be valid if it was absolutely certain I had violated a guideline. I don't believe that's the case at all (see my response to your other words below). Fair enough on the edit summary, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but procedure aside, I don't think arbitrarily labelling Messianical's change last year as "disruptive" is appropriate. Simply put, it has stood without being contested for a year. All I'm saying is that the parties involved here - including the one who initiated this discussion process - should wait for it to conclude instead of edit warring. --Ckatzchatspy 19:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would offer you the same advice. Cautioning against edit-warring while simultaneously participating isn't really appropriate. –xenotalk 19:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but since when is it considered "inappropriate" to caution against edit warring? Admins (as with any editor) are certainly allowed to advise; the line-crossing would be if I were to block someone while being involved in the discussion. That is not the case here at all. --Ckatzchatspy 19:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that caution that is inappropriate, but the participation in the edit war being cautioned against. It just seems disingenuous to me: to participate in an edit-war and simultaneously rebuke the others who have done so. –xenotalk 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz, I was wondering if you could elaborate on your above vote to keep the British format on this article, given the recent revelation that the format was changed in 2009 without substantial reason and without adequate edit summary explanation. You said "No good reason to change this, as the existing format (dmy) is perfectly acceptable", but could this argument not now also be applied to the format used before the 2009 arbitrary edit? Is there any other reason you think the British style is best suited for this article?. — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that Ckatz "lean[s] heavily towards DMY". –xenotalk 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, it is extremely unfair to insinuate that I'm "participating" in the edit war when I've made a grand total of one edit here recently. Moreover, that one edit came after a series of back-and-forth edits by Walter and Miesianiacal, and was summariazed as "...this is still under discussion, there is no apparent consensus, and there has been no time for proper responses from the Canada project (which was contacted regarding this matter). As such, it should not be changed yet." I can understand that you might misinterpret this as "particiapating; however, I'll state for the record that despite any personal preferences, I was simply reverting to the pre-existing (prior to this discussion) version, and that I would have done exactly the same thing if the pre-existing version was mdy. --Ckatzchatspy 19:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I am being unfair. While I understand you feel you were acting as an uninvolved party, perhaps in future you might report such edit wars where you have previously indicated a preference to WP:RFPP so an uninvolved admin can protect the wrong version- rather than reverting to a version to prefer: this gives the appearance of impropriety, even if done under the auspices of returning an edit war to the version prior. –xenotalk 20:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATE#Retaining_the_existing_format says

In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

The only advice on this is that the format not be changed from whatever was established. The part about "not a stub" is there to advise how to interpret "first major contributor" IF a non-stub article does not yet have a date format. Observing the style guide avoids edit wars & long contentious discussions. The only date formats that have ANY claim to having strong national ties to Canada are YYYY-MMM-DD and YYYY-MM-DD. People need to quit annoying others by going around "fixing" date formats without gaining EXPLICIT notice and consensus. Canada uses three date formats, and attempts to change Canadian articles to just one format are not in the spirit of Canadian diversity. This article AND the Canada Day article should be RETURNED to its initially established format (MDY) UNLESS an EXPLICIT consensus for a change comes about. --JimWae (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the key words "in the early stages of writing an article". Is six years after the page was created considered the "early stages of writing an article"? If so, I'll admit the error I made last year. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you also prepared to self-revert? –xenotalk 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed the approximately 12 times I've said I would. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do so then - "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." –xenotalk 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That passage doesn't necessarily say the date format can never be changed without strong nationalistic reasons or prior consensus. It can be read as stipulating only that the date format should be consistent throughout an article, not having one original format and another latterly added one, unless there are valid reasons to make it otherwise based on national factors; if the format change takes place consistently across the whole article, the guideline hasn't been violated. Perhaps we should consider rewording these clauses to be less vague?
Regardless, there's evidently a four to two majority in favour of the [Month] [Day], [Year] format; so, I will make the change revert my own 2009 edit, though I think it might be fair to see what more Ckatz has to say, if anything. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and agree that needs to be tightened up or otherwise clarified. –xenotalk 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still feel there's no real need to change back. Procedural questions aside, either format is acceptable under the Canadian guidelines, there's been no objection until now, and as such switching back speaks more to making a point about the "letter of the law" than to improving the article. However, it certainly isn't worth expending so much time on such a minor matter. I prefer dmy, but will of course go with whatever the group supports. --Ckatzchatspy 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough. I say we wait a few days to see if any further comments and opinions are voiced by new participants, and if not, go ahead and revert to the US longdate format. — CIS (talk | stalk) 04:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it on, say, Tuesday, if there's no new input, then? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And Canada Day? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has no impact on the date format at Canada Day. I suggest you reignite discussion about the date format at Talk:Canada Day (which was ongoing until November 2009) and I will gladly add my opinions and comments there. — CIS (talk | stalk) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were several members who, although not here, stated above that both were changed from Month Day format to Day Month format after having been established in the other. It was a polite request to avoid the re-institution of the request. I'll wait for Miesianiacal to tell me that he's ignoring consensus before I escalate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

My apologies to the group, included the pro- and anti-American date format groups (or is that the pro- and anti-UK date format groups?), the Canada project, and the admins involved. I would like to say that my first edit in this war was my effort to restore the original format. As you have read I have strong nationalistic feelings toward the long format used by the Canadian Press association. I lost my head and should not have allowed myself to be drawn into, and not engaged in a revert war with User:Miesianiacal. He is a valuable editor on all things Canadian and has strong opinions as I would expect from a good editor. I should have discussed it more fully after my initial edit and he reverted. I would also like to take this opportunity to state that it's a good thing to remind not only the editors involved in an edit war not to continue but to remind the entire group of the dangers in such an activity.

Once again I would like to express my deepest apologies to the group and would ask the editors to focus on the issue at hand and not on the temporary edit war that ensued, including the role of any editors in it. Our goal should be to create a better Wikipedia, not to focus on the editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mother of Confederation"[edit]

This is not an article on Queen Victoria, nor should it detail all of the things she was called by loyalist, monarchists, and anti-monarchists. It should be about the holiday. The recent tangential comment does not help to explain anything about the holiday and should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If readers want additional information on Victoria, they have the ability to click through to her article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily object to the material being removed for editorial/relevancy concerns, but your edit summary said you removed it because there was no page number or reference to Victoria Day (both of which were present). –xenotalk 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source links the term "Mother of Confederation" with the creation of Victoria Day in 1901 as a day to remember the monarch:
"The Queen's role in promoting Canadian unity truly made her the "Mother of Confederation" and at her death Victoria Day, that uniquely Canadian holiday, was created as a memorial day to perpetuate the celebration of her birthday."
That would pretty well indicate one of the reasons why Victoria Day was established, thus making it relevant to the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment also reads "The citation never mentions Victoria Day." Since I was looking at page nine when I commented I didn't see the first paragraph on page ten (first full paragraph). I have no problems with the text. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I wondered if we were looking at the same text =] –xenotalk 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent refs[edit]

From Wikipedia:Citing sources "An inline citation is a citation next to the material it supports. Inline citations help to maintain text-source integrity. If the material is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient." (emphasis mine). It's not usually called May Long outside of Ontario. Similarly with May two-four. Citation next to the name will help to clarify which term is being referenced. So the in-line citations do "follow punctuation per MoS". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The colloquial name of a holiday is not particularly contentious. The inline citations should therefore follow the punctuation at the end of the comma that comes three words on, as they do not now do, contrary to your assertion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is particularly contentions to anyone outside of Ontario. The in-line citations should stay contrary to your assertion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that it's contentious to anyone but you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On[edit]

It seems that "celebrated on the last Monday on or before May 24" and "celebrated the last Monday on or before May 24" are both correct. Could the editors please explain why one is more correct than the other. The second actually feels more "International" than "American", but I don't know why. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see a discussion since the edit comments are certainly not clear enough for me to understand why the changes are being made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see someone has started a discussion on this. Wonderful, since I too am baffled by the reasoning behind the deletion of "on". "Celebrated the last Monday on or before May 24" doesn't make any sense to me, as it isn't the last Monday that's being celebrated, it's a holiday that's made to fall on the last Monday etc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"May two-four"[edit]

I accept that other countries don't know about this nickname but seriously it's Canada-wide. Turn on a hockey game in the playoffs and watch a beer commercial. It's a very common nickname.

http://www.canoe.ca/Travel/Canada/2011/04/20/18046651.html http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/music/2011/04/28/18079236.html 24.246.11.181 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I abhor the Toronto Sun, here's another cite.24.246.11.181 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add them as references. You're missing the point though. The issue is that the Oxford Canadian Dictionary is quoted and a reference is requested from that. Either it is added or the reference is removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or there's a consensus the quotation isn't necessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the term is used frequently in Ontario. The reference was added and needs the quotation. Period. Consensus is irrelevant. Without the quotation I say the ref is rubbish despite assuming good will. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think it needs a quotation, but that's not the same as a quotation being needed by policy or guideline. WP:V and WP:RS are all that are salient here, and the citation meets the reqirements. A quotation from the source is just extra; if enough editors agreed one isn't necessary, then the consensus would be one isn't necessary. However, as the maintenance tag asking for a quotation has been there for a year, it clearly isn't a contentious issue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that it meets "requirements" is not correct. The reference is "Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2 ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 2005." No page number. Is it referenced under "Victoria Day", "May Two-four" or somewhere else? It actually fails verification because it can't be found, hence the quotation requirement. It's not extra, it could not be verified based on the reference. The quotation would go to showing that it actually existed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is an extra. It isn't required in proper citations and won't give you what you say is missing. I think [full citation needed] ({{Full}}) is the template you want to use. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is an extra. The problem is that the current ref fails verification without the correct information. I'll just remove it then. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could do that. Or, you could just use the template I provided above. The source would be fine, if the citation was complete. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely confused. You asked for references that Victoria Day is known as the May Two-Four. I provided sources saying that. What more do you need?24.246.11.181 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you be confused? First reference may not meet WP:RS. Second has both "May two-four" but "Michigan two-four" is first, which may be confusing. However, the request was for a the entry from the dictionary, which we could remove based on these two refs. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use acronyms. They're confusing jargon. Anyway, how about this? Regardless, I maintain that it's absolutely absurd that we have published instances of people writing "May Two Four" while discussing Victoria Day and somehow that's not enough evidence of "May Two Four" being a colloquial term for the Victoria Day weekend.24.246.11.181 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only acronyms used were linked to their explanation.
The dictionary.com link is a good one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In BC I'd say "May 24th long weekend" or "May long weekend" are more common (regardless of the date the holiday falls on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.192.102 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but without a reference it's moot, just like "May two-four" above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Royal Union Flag flying on Victoria Day[edit]

I think it would be nice if someone could take/add one. I've been visiting Canada for the long weekend for the past 3 years or so and I've never seen one and none of my Canadian friends believe me when I tell them it's a thing... admittedly, they only fly in ultra specific circumstances, but it would be nice if we could have some sort of documentary evidence. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Twenty-fourth of May is the Queen's birthday..."[edit]

Anyone recall this like me but also know where it came from and when? The rest is “If you don’t give us a holiday we’ll all run away/We’ll run away to England, we’ll run away to France/We’ll fun away to Scotland and kick ‘em in the pants.” Masalai (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mum, aunts and grandmother have all referenced this song! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the song/jingle "if we don't get a holiday we'll all run away". Sings better than the other version. Vic---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.164.169 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name/rename[edit]

While the petition this year to see the name of the holiday renamed is, technically, a historical event related to the subject of this article, it currently seems rather alone in the 'History' section. I thus don't have a huge objection to it staying there, but I wonder whether or not there could be a dedicated section on the holiday's name and other proposals/demands for a renaming, if any (I seem to recall some in the past, but they may have been put forward by a sole journalist in an anti-monarchist opinion piece). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sufficient material to create such a section? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the main question right now. And I don't yet know the answer. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far, the best I can dig up is a suggestion in 2004 by republicans that Victoria Day be eliminated (quelle surprise) and have Citizenship Day take its place.[8] A nearly decade old call by a fringe group doesn't seem to add much to the article, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise, yes. This group, however, received nearly universal coverage. With no response from officials (either the government, P.M.O., or the G.G.) I can't see that this will have any traction. Let's see how the petition is received. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this most recent attempted petition doesn't receive any traction over the next little while and fades into obscurity, I see no reason to keep it in this article. Trackratte (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We'll know in a year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New image[edit]

It's not the anti-monarchist sentiments I want to minimize (even though they're aimed at the current monarch rather than the one after whom the event is named), it's the fact that it flows outside of the bounds of the section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually outside the scope of this article. The Queen's official birthday is a separate event, though marked on the same date as Victoria Day. I'd move the image to Queen's Official Birthday#Canada, but nothing there deals with any kind of sentiment towards the event in Quebec.
Maybe it could go in Monarchy in Quebec... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Quebec[edit]

Greetings,

I think there is confusion in this article about how this holiday evolved in Quebec. There is likely a schism between what happened legislatively and how the holiday was termed in popular media and culture; for many years while I was growing up there, the holiday remained named and was celebrated as Victoria Day by English-speaking Quebecers, while being called and celebrated as the Fete de Dollard by French-speaking Quebecers, but it was not a cut-and-dried division. This was long before the official change to the Journée des Patriotes. I cannot do research to clear this up right now, but if someone else can, that would be appreciated; I will return to try to help with other sources if needed. Meantime, I am leaving two conflicting accounts in the links below so you may see the conflicts, including dates: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journée_nationale_des_Patriotes http://www.lacsq.org/actualites/maux-de-la-langue/nouvelle/news/la-fete-de-la-reine-victoria-elisabeth-ii-la-fete-de-dollard-ou-la-journee-nationale-des-pat/31/

Thanks,

Denstat (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testcases[edit]

Samples with Template:Infobox holiday/date

May 24year: 2010date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 23year: 2011date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 21year: 2012date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 20year: 2013date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 19year: 2014date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 18year: 2015date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 23year: 2016date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 22year: 2017date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 21year: 2018date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 20year: 2019date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =
May 18year: 2020date rule: Monday preceding May 25week_ordinal = weekday = month =

See source for details.

Origin in 1845[edit]

The citations state that Victoria Day was created by an Act of the Parliament of the Province of Canada. However, a look at the index of the Acts that year does not show such an Act having been passed. Did it arise from some other means? I can't seem to confirm this point anywhere.Raellerby (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Day and Memorial Day (US) on following weekend[edit]

I recently added some information to this article noting that Memorial Day in the United States falls on the weekend after Victoria Day, that Memorial Day is similarly the informal start of summer in the US, and that due to close proximity many Canadians and Americans visit each other's countries over the two long weekends. Another established editor disagreed with this and reverted my changes in good faith, contending that as Victoria Day is exclusively a Canadian holiday, no mention of Memorial Day should appear in the article. Paragraph as added:

Victoria Day is informally considered the beginning of the summer season in much of Canada. In the neighbouring United States, Memorial Day is observed on the following Monday (the last Monday of May) and similarly informally marks the start of summer in that country. Due to close proximity, many Canadians and Americans visit each other's country during their respective consecutive long weekends.

Q1. Is a brief mention of Memorial Day appropriate in this article?

Q2. If yes to Q1, should the wording, placement, etc. of the mention of Memorial Day be revised from that proposed?

Thanks in advance for your opinions! Facts707 (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about the "unofficial start of summer". That phrase is a passing mention. Not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Day[edit]

The starting date of 1904 across the Empire, and the implication that this followed the Canadian precedent of Victoria Day, seems to be at variance with the 1902 and 1916 dates given in the Commonwealth Day article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.171.33 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federal employees[edit]

"... whether an employee is entitled to a paid day off generally depends on the province or territory of residence (with the exception of employees in federally regulated workplaces such as banks)." It might help the article to clarify that all federal government employees also get the day off - the "such as banks" implies a limitation.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penultimate[edit]

For the record, no, penultimate does not mean last, and the usage in the article was correct.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Day&oldid=1209656972"