This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
While the largest provinces (British Columbia, Québec and Ontario) are at "usable" status and the overview information in the Canada article itself is good, there are still huge gaps in regional articles like Prairies and the North; many entire provinces are still at "outline". From Wikivoyage:Country guide status, 'Usable' "has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and a 'Get in' section describing all of the typical ways to get there. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine, and culture is included. At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions." As a blatant plagiarism or adaptation (in format, at least) of LtPowers' list for NYS (now usable), here's a list of status of this article's subregions and linked destinations. Hopefully Wikivoyageurs can use this record to get the outlines up to 'usable'.
Many key sections (See/Do, Eat/Drink) are blank. All individual territories are at 'outline' (Yukon is nearly usable, Nunavut and NWT have multiple blank sections); each territory's list of towns redlinks to many tiny individual hamlets and Arctic outposts which might never be articles. The three listed parks (Auyuittuq National Park, Kluane National Park and Nahanni National Park Reserve) are all badly-incomplete outlines.
"Most Important" linked destinations (needed for Usable status)
'Get around', 'Drink', 'Stay safe' are blank, some listings lack contact info. Would it be worth replacing this one with UNESCO listed Gros Morne National Park and expanding that park to 'usable' instead? Some work been done, just needs a little more detail.
Former linked destinations (not needed for Usable status)
The country-level criteria Usable has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better)... differ from the ordinary region criteriaUsable has links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better). These therefore couldn't be left at 'outline' while still linked from country-level in a huge country like Canada, but they're unimportant enough that their direct links from Canada#Other destinations *could* be removed (and, as of 2016, these have been removed):
We currently have no "other destinations" listed for Québec and no top-level cities or other destinations for PEI. That makes Prince Edward Island National Park and "Green Gables" a possible candidate to replace one of the 'other destinations', as it's close to usable and very much beaten path (the Japanese come to see this). A few possibilities for a Québec park article: Îles-de-la-Madeleine (almost usable), Anticosti (usable) or Gaspésie National Park (outline, but salvageable). Laurentides might be another possibility, but what we have at the moment is just another half-baked region with no locator map, not an article about the area as parkland. K7L (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - as these have been removed from the "other destinations" list, Terra Nova National Park is technically the only thing preventing Canada from being "usable". Terra Nova is very close to usable status, which would allow Canada to be usable. I don't like that Prairies (Canada) is at "outline", but that nominally wouldn't be enough to hold this entire country-level article back. K7L (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The linked section of this article is currently quite long while the "Canada" section of Traveling with a criminal history is only a couple of paragraphs. I think it should be approximately the opposite, only a sentence or two here and a link to the other article. Move the long explanation there; it is irrelevant for many travellers so it does not belong here.
Anyone else care to comment? I'd be inclined to delete about 90% of the text in that section & move some to the criminal history article. I'm not sure what is correct, though, and do not have time to do the work anyway. Pashley (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be amazed if anyone thought that this huge "criminal section" was not overwhelmingly long for this country article, so move almost the whole section to the Canada section of Traveling with a criminal history and then argue the toss there about what is kept and what goes. --118.93nzp (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "all US based carriers that operate transborder service (Alaska, American, Delta, United and US Airways) charge checked bag fees." but I flew Shanghai-Chicago-Ottawa on United last November with no such fee. They just said one bag, 50 pounds, $100 charge if overweight. Did I get an exemption the article fails to mention? Is my info out of date? Is there some other problem here? Pashley (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Single tickets including long-haul international flights still get one free bag from all the major carriers; you would've been charged if the ticket had been only Chicago-Ottawa, or any other pair where both ends were in the US+Canada combined. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mountain themed bannerRCMP themed bannerLandmark themed banner (the CN Tower)
I was wondering what people thought would make the best pagebanner for Canada. Three things that come to mind that I think would be representative of Canada are:
mountains/lakes
the RCMP (the Mounties)
a famous landmark like the CN Tower or old Quebec
I like the RCMP idea because it's more pan-Canadian but I don't know if it's travel-focused enough (they are a tourist attraction in some parts of the country). Mountains and lakes are a definite tourist draw but it's kind of region-specific, as would a famous landmark. I've posted the existing mountains banner plus a couple of other possibilities. Thoughts? -Shaundd (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current banner the most, as expected ;) I find the Mounties banner too busy graphically to work well, and the landmark banner splendid, but for Toronto or even Ontario, but not the entirety of Canada. Cheerio, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RCMP banner looks cool and Mounties are together with maple leafs and maple syrup the "most Canadian thing in the world", IMO. I don't have any problems with the current banner either. However, especially for a large country like Canada I don't like a banner consisting of one single recognizable landmark... but Toronto/Entertainment_and_Financial_Districts where the CN is located doesn't have a banner yet. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer the mountain one, though mounties as a symbol of Canada are OK too. Would the mounties one work for Regina, where the RCMP training base is and the Musical Ride is based? Or for a section of that article? See the Citizendium RCMP article for an amusing comment (mine) on watching the Ride rehearse.
I do not like the CN Tower one, even for use in another article. It is an interesting photo, but not easily identified; I know Toronto and I would not have been sure what this was without being told. For a banner I think we need something more illustrative, perhaps a skyline shot showing the tower. Pashley (talk)
Frankly, I think we have too many skyline banners. They tend to be boring and trite. Something more abstract and iconic is better, especially for a huge city's main article. LtPowers (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old Pudong banner
That is a good point, but on the other hand I think something too abstract is a problem. For example, I thought the change at Shanghai/Pudong from a rather abstract image to the current one was a large improvement. Pashley (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it certainly wasn't, by any measure. The current banner is just bad - not horrible, but an example of a bad banner. The old banner you posted is brilliant. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it looks like there's consensus to use the mountains as the banner so that's good to go. I'll put the CN Tower banner in Toronto/Financial and Entertainment Districts for now. I'd rather leave the current TTC banner up for Toronto and use the CN Tower banner to take the place of a default banner. I didn't know the Musical Ride trained in Regina. It seems a bit odd to use a photo taken in North Vancouver for Regina though. -Shaundd (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ToC
Why is any Table of Contents entirely missing from the Canada article? Is this intentional or accidental? --118.93nzp (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2014
Screenshot of the Wikivoyage article on Canada as seen on 20140112 showing that the table of contents is completely missing from the banner I still can't see it I'm afraid... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of the Wikivoyage article on Canada as seen one day later on 20140113 showing that the table of contents is now displaying again but malformed with unusual spacing in the banner...
Which are the pages (templates?) that determine how the ToC is displayed so that I may examine their edit histories and see what may have been changed, please? --118.93nzp (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our Canada article claims that single-entry visa holders will be re-admitted after a brief US side trip but our Hyder article claims the opposite. Evidently WV is not good legal advice... but which of this contradictory pair is correct? K7L (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weird Alaska panhandle
Am I seeing ghosts or is the Alaska panhandle weirdly thicker on this region map than in reality? In case you are wondering what I am talking about, look at the West Coast of Canada Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source map of existing Canada map on Wikivoyage - rather stretched?Better map for Canada from w:Canada ?
I actually think the entire Canada map is not quite right, or at least based on a cartographic representation not typically associated with this country. The Wikipedia map that I have to the right seems better. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know what projection the source map is using, but it's not the standard one for Canada (the bottom map looks correct). I've wanted to redraw the Canada map for a long time but always put it off -- I'll do it once I finish up with my current map project (Oregon regions). -Shaundd (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's inaccurate even considering my previous statement? Or is it just an issue of glomming all of the islands together with the mainland? Powers(talk)21:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Canada is a multi-cultural society" schtick is being used here to claim Canada does not have race issues. It reads like it was written by the Canadian tourism bureau, but it's emphatically false. I have a good Chinese-Canadian friend (who has black and other minority friends) and he has plenty of stories of racism against himself but especially his black friends who have actually been told by restaurant owners that the restaurant "is closed" when it was clearly not past hours and there were clearly patrons inside. And the white patrons did not jump in his defense with "open hostility" against the racism as the article claims will surely happen. None of them wanted the black man there. So I'd like to remove the obnoxious touting in the Respect section and make it known that minorities DO face discrimination but in attempting to do so, (perhaps because I was trying to work with the current wording) I'm finding it difficult because I don't want the ridiculousness of the current wording to affect the writing to make it go too far in the other direction. Any suggestions? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an American, my perception is that while Canada isn't completely free of prejudice and discrimination, it's not as bad as in the US. Would you guys agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, I'd like to think that & I'm sure many people on both sides of the border do. However, it is at best a matter of degree; we have all the same problems. Well-known Toronto journalist w:Walter Stewart (journalist) did a book in the 70s But Not in Canada! Smug Canadian Myths Shattered by Harsh Reality where every chapter dealt with a different problem. The one on racism had some really awful quotes from major newspapers, about 1870, approving of violence against Chinese. The chapter on political corruption pointed out that only one government in a hundred years had not lost a cabinet member in some scandal, and that one was in power for only four days. Pashley (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has definitely done a great job marketing itself as "nice". I cannot say that racism in Canada is "not as bad as in the US" though, because I've never been a black/Asian/Native/etc. person in either country. Such assumptions I think are also the result of the same "friendly Canada" marketing which are easy to accept, especially by white people. Even as an American though, I was shocked when my friend told those stories. Even after the Vancouver Olympics, the head of the IOC strangely thanked Canada for a "friendly Olympics", but the Canadian media was under fire during the Olympics for not-so-friendly comments made, particularly homophobic remarks about Johnny Weir. That doesn't mean they did not host a "friendly Olympics", but I didn't see any evidence that it was MORE friendly than any other Olympics. Incidentally, I did at the time my friend told the story mention the "nice Canada" stereotype. His response was, "No, we're not "nice". We're passive-aggressive. Outsiders are just not good at detecting it." lol
The first confirmed European contact with Canada was just after 1000CE: Vikings under Leif Erikson certainly reached Newfoundland and there are some controversial indications that they also sailed far up the St Lawrence and south along what is now the US coast, but were beaten in their exploration by the Irish.
The Irish? Is this some unsupported claim? I hadn't heard that the Irish sailed to the Americas before 1000 CE. What's the evidence for this claim? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this story may be relevant to several articles, including Trans-Canada Highway, so I'm posting a link here. All appropriate articles should contain a cautionbox about this incident. It is of course possible to get from Eastern to Western Canada by road, by for the time being, it's necessary to go through the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By way of more accurate information for the warningbox: it looks like a single lane of the bridge has been reopened, but they're still expecting delays and of course the situation could change at any time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, am I getting this right, at one point the only link between Eastern and Western Canada is a single bridge and that bridge is currently (partially) out of order? Isn't that country like huge? Or would the detour through Canada just be so long as to be not feasible due to said hugeness? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huge but very sparsely populated, especially away from the coasts and the Windsor-Quebec Corridor. I crossed that bridge this past July on my trip to Winnipeg, and there's literally nothing but wilderness north of the US border at that longitude. That being the case, even if there's not enough of a population in the region itself to support an extensive road network, the Trans-Canada Highway is still an important thoroughfare for cross-country truck traffic at least, so I expect that repairs will come speedily. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section is very long. I propose to move the "Driving rules" and some other bits and pieces to the "Driving in Canada" article unless there are any objections. Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The history section
I am by no means an expert on all things Canadian, but I think we can do better than the current history section. For one thing it completely glosses over the whole issue of Quebec separatism for one thing. There is also no mention of even the most important politicians of Canada's history or what effect big infrastructure projects (Canada's transcontinental railroad, the Trans Canada Highway) or the discovery and exploitation of natural resources have or have had on Canadian history and culture. Is there a Canadian among us to fill in at least some of this? If not, sorry for asking, eh. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit but it needs more. Non-Canadians might contribute too; often the visitor's perspective, rather than the native's, is most relevant to our readers. Pashley (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hobbitschuster on all the points he makes. Other important things to mention would include the women who successfully sued to end the prohibition on women Senators in 1929, the Canadian contributions to peacekeeping forces around the world, and perhaps a bit about Canada's close but not slavish relationship with the U.S. Some examples would be the Canadian role in smuggling Americans out of danger in Iran in 1979 and hospitality toward Americans stranded in Canada when the U.S. government closed its skies after Sept. 11, 2001, but also its open doors to American draft dodgers during the Vietnam War, which it criticized and refused to participate in (unlike the Korean War). Something could also be said about the relationship between the First Nations and the rest of Canada, which is too complex to go into detail on but might be mentioned cogently by someone knowledgeable enough to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well known cliché about Canadians that they are exceedingly polite and always say "sorry" - unless of course, hockey is involved - which may be an extension of the "Minnesota nice" cliché northward. Should we mention this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do these mean the same thing?
This sentence:
"Licensing laws and road rules vary slightly from province to province."
Was changed to this:
"Licensing laws and road rules are regulated at the provincial level, though there is in general a fairly consistent set of road rules throughout Canada, and the differences in road rules between provinces are for the most part fairly minor."
For most travellers, doesn't the first version cover the issue pretty well? Why make the sentence longer and say the same thing? People interested in the constitutional division of powers with respect to licensing laws and road rules should probably not look for that information in a travel guide. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to leave this as the shorter version. The longer version attempts to downplay something which is a legitimate problem - one province may arbitrarily ticket you for backing up without assistance, turning right on a red light, carrying a radar detector or any number of ridiculous offences which prohibit something which is perfectly legal in another Canadian province. The differences in laws do have real-world consequences to annoy the Canadian motorist, so we say so. K7L (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either of those sentences are very useful to travellers. If we think it's important to say there are differences, shouldn't there be a brief description of the differences or a link to where they can be found (e.g., the provincial pages)? I think it would be better to delete the sentence altogether and have a separate paragraph that says the rules are generally the same but then either (i) describes some of the key differences (e.g, right on a red in Quebec, advance greens are dealt with differently in BC then elsewhere), or (ii) say variations in the rules are discussed in more detail in each province's Get around section. -Shaundd (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another benefit would be better distinction from The Other Site. That would improve reader recognition and SEO. /Yvwv (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a Google search on the two terms comes up with 133 million hits for "Atlantic Canada" and 7 million hits for "Atlantic Provinces", so Atlantic Canada seems more popular. The Canadian Encyclopedia refers to them as the Atlantic Provinces. In terms of travel, Trip Advisor and Frommers both use Atlantic Provinces, while the Canadian Automobile Association uses Atlantic Canada. There doesn't appear to be an official "Atlantic Canada" or "Atlantic Provinces" tourism site. I'm not fussed either way, at the end of the day I think either term will work. -Shaundd (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Google hits might be more relevant when searching for the phrase within quotation marks. Still, "Atlantic Canada" gives twice as many hits at "Atlantic Provinces". /Yvwv (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shaundd's point about not being fussed either way—with the proviso that, anecdotally, I feel like I've heard "Atlantic Provinces" more often than "Atlantic Canada"; however, maybe the latter usage has become more common since I last lived in Canada in 2004 (how time flies!). QuartierLatin1968 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh... East Coasters are adamant on that point. N&L is absolutely not a Maritime province. An ex-co-worker tried to catch me out on that when I said I was going to the Maritimes. A Newfoundlander, he asked me which provinces I was going to. I replied that I was going to "all of the Maritime provinces" and then clarified that I meant PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, so I passed the test, and he didn't have to correct me. Three Maritime provinces, four Atlantic provinces. For some reason, this is important. I don't think anyone would object to "Atlantic Canada" as a way of identifying the four provinces. Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canada currently has six sub-articles, one of them being the Prairies. This article contains three provinces, each of them large in population, land area, and number of attractions. As there is not much to write about the Prairies in general, we could delete the article, and categorize Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba just below Canada. This would give Canada eight sub-articles, which is still reasonable. /Yvwv (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly "the prairie provinces" is commonly used & the three have much in common. The article should definitely not be deleted, though turning it into an extra-hierarchical region might make sense. Pashley (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought of proposing this in the past, but never been able to convince myself that it's necessary for a couple of reasons:
In my opinion, the current breakdown does a pretty reasonable job at capturing how Canadians divide the country into regions and what a traveller would see and hear when visiting Canada. Maybe we could consider putting the ten provinces directly under Canada in the hierarchy while retaining the Prairies and Atlantic Provinces as extra-hierarchical regions (they are very common terms), although I'm not sure that really adds any value. -Shaundd (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm all for giving lesser-visited destinations their due. I went to Manitoba two years ago and loved it. But let's be realistic here. Land area, sure, but "each of them large in population... and number of attractions"? Really? Are we talking about the same Prairies here? The status quo is fine; let's not fix what isn't broken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Andre here; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Canadians do routinely talk of "the Prairies", "the North" & "the Atlantic provinces". Any of those might be turned into an extra region and the components linked directly to Canada, but I do not think that is necessary. Calgary and Winnipeg are mentioned at Canada#Cities & I think that is enough. Pashley (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is the current article at Prairies helpful to the voyager? There's nothing to see or do; there's nowhere to eat/drink/sleep. The extra layer(s) of regional division add no useful content... and this is fairly common in WV, as regions pile atop skeletal subregions just to arbitrarily split things on 7±2 boundaries. K7L (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canada#From_the_United_States mentions some cases where a third-country traveller who comes to Canada may have to "leave North America" before being allowed to re-enter the US.
Saint Pierre and Miquelon is technically part of France and is easily reached from several places in Eastern Canada. Would going there meet US requirements? Would this fail since you'd have to return via Canada? What about flying to Mexico, Bermuda, or the Caribbean? Pashley (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homesteading?
I knew people in the 70s who were considering homesteading. The deal available then was attractive in some ways; pick a 160-acre chunk of land (a quarter square mile, 64 hectares) and you could have conditional title just for asking. Move in, and if you meet some criteria (clear a specified area, build a house of a specified size & maybe some outbuildings) after a specified time (5 or 10 years) then you get permanent title. In other ways it was less attractive; the land was up North somewhere around the Peace River Valley, a long way from any road and with vicious winters.
Google search turns up some stories indicating some variant of this may still be possible. ([1][2] & many others) Looks like the rules have changed some & are now pretty complex.
Canada's immigration rules include allowing someone who wants to buy & run a farm in on easy terms as "self-employed" [3]. There are also loans & grants available for farmers [4]. Would these programs extend to someone willing to homestead?
As Ypsilon mentioned I went into detail in the Montréal talk, but it certainly behind Kinshasa, Paris, and Abidjan, and potentially also behind Douala, Yaoundé, Ouagadougou, and Brazzaville.Djwhitten (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of those places are cosmopolitan to a very large extent. Paris has loads of immigrants, many of them from regions were French is a second language at best. Montreal likely has a bunch of English-speakers or second language speakers from other parts of Canada in addition to immigrants. Kinshasa and Abidjan as African metropolises probably attract all kinds of people from rural areas, most of whom will not be native speakers of French. However, the main language of communication and the language in which every resident will at least try to acquire some fluency will be French, will it not? Or is there any one non-French language that has regional dominance in either Abidjan or Kinshasa? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, less than three quarters of the population of Kinshasa speak French. Though that would still be more than the entire population of Montreal and its suburbs. Powers(talk)20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IDs if you want to drink
With regards to this edit, first of all, why do they not accept drivers licenses from outside Angloamerica and second of all, what about national ID cards (e.g. a German Personalausweis)? Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhound buses in western Canada
Announcement
Greyhound Canada has announced that it will cease service on all routes in western Canada at the end of October 2018 other than the Vancouver-Seattle route. We should keep an eye on this issue, and remove bus info in November if this comes to pass. It could be a negotiating tactic. Ground Zero (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but CBC is also saying other carriers are looking long and hard at providing service to some of the communities that Greyhound just threw under the bus. I'm tempted to suggest creating a new template with a notice specific to this situation, slapping it on every BC and prairie article that mentions this little grey son of a b!tch, then using the template (and the associated "what links here") as a way to track affected articles and update the notice on all of them with a single edit as the response to this situation develops - and it will, much as the demise of Acadian Lines led to competitors moving in to pick out the choice morsels for themselves. K7L (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sensible thing would be to expand passenger rail, but we are talking about the Anglosphere here, so let's not kid ourselves. A green monster from Germany has recently crossed the Atlantic and they claim to be able to grow fast (know what else grows fast? Cancer!), so who knows? Maybe Western Canadians will soon be in a bus neither owned nor run but presented and sold by ze German (Munich-based, no less) Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need for templates cluttering up the place. We can wait to see what happens between now and October and then makes changes that actually happen. In the meantime, we should focus on adding content about real things that exist rather than speculation. I only posted this as a reminder for October. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very helpful to anyone using Wikivoyage to plan travel in advance; if something's about to go away, we say so. K7L (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can be handled with two lines of ordinary factual text:
"Greyhound Canada has announced that it will terminate all services in Western Canada at the end of October 2018. No replacement services have been announced."
That's what we know. Speculation doesn't help readers planning in advance. This isn't an earthquake or political unrest situation warranting a template, and we certainly don't want to add bloat to a bunch of articles with a long-winded, meandering treatise on what could happen when we don't know yet. Ground Zero (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing saying that a MediaWiki template has to draw a colourful box or anything else. It could contain the one line of plain text (inline, no box) "Greyhound Canada has announced that it will terminate all services in Western Canada at the end of October 2018" and nothing else. Once Hallow'een has come and gone, we check whether Greyhound managed to TP every house and soap every window in western Canada, then either update or blank the template. K7L (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving blank templates in a hundred articles or more sounds like a pretty irresponsible way of dealing with a temporary issue. Adding text means that we should be prepared to delete it or update it once things change. However, an unadorned template would be a good way of handling changes to the situation, e.g. if one company takes over Greyhound Canada's entire network in the west, which seems unlikely, but is possible. Ground Zero (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The effort for me to learn how to create a bot would be non-trivial. If someone is willing to volunteer to do that, it would be much simpler than manually removing them. Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier terminations
I have updated "by bus" sections for Greyhound Canada service terminations effective May 30 and June 30, 2018 and have found a few more to do. I have been modifying the text in some Greyhound Canada entries to say, for example, "Greyhound Canada permanently terminated its bus service to Prince Rupert on June 1, 2018." Or, should I be deleting the entire Greyhound Canada entry instead? And if the Greyhound Canada entry is the only one in the "by bus" section, should I be deleting the whole section? Please advise. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may help the traveler to have a "by bus" section that only reads "Greyhound Canada, the last operator to serve x terminated all service to x on [date] there are no plans by any operator to begin serving x with buses for the foreseeable future". The date helps them judge whether the whole thing might change and we tell them definitively that it doesn't exist, making it more unlikely they feel the need to consult other sources (or dispelling wrong notions created by outdated other sources) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't be silent as readers may to think that we are just missing the information on bus travel. If we know there are plans, we should report that, but we won't know if someone is planning a new service or not until it is announced and someone from Wikivoyage notices it. Hobbitschuster's first sentence tells readers what we know, and is simple and clear:
"Greyhound Canada, the last operator to serve x, terminated all service to x on [date]."
I feel uncomfortable with the suggested wording because (1) in some cases Greyhound Canada was not "the last operator to serve x" as BC Transit operates local bus service in some of the locations affected, and (2) there might be another intercity operator either now or in the future that we just don't know about. I have seen a newspaper article suggesting a replacement, non-Greyhound bus service operating somewhere along Highway 16 (The Highway of Tears) between Prince George and Prince Rupert, but I could not find any precise info for such a route online. Maybe BC Transit operates a suburban route part way along Highway 16 from one of the towns it serves. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TrolleyPole: if there is BC Transit service, we can just report that fact, and we don't need to report on Greyhound. We should not speculate about possible future service. If service is announced in the future, we can report on it then. Saying that there is no service does not in any way imply that there will never be any service. We don't have to say "there is no Starbucks in this town, but there may be some day in the distant future". Stating what we know now is the simplest way of building a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we've lost (or are about to lose) all intercity bus to Prince Rupert, we say so. From Wikivoyage:When to use dates#Permanent closure or cessation of service, "Similarly when flights, bus routes, and other services are discontinued, the information should usually be removed. An exception exists when the route was popular, documented elsewhere, or remote... if the ferry Lonely Planet says services a small Indonesian island no longer runs when you attempt to catch it, then that is worth listing with the date on which that occurred." K7L (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree, in the case that all bus services to [city] has been terminated since [date], we should state this clearly. If we leave By bus sections empty in articles, readers may think we've just forgotten to list the bus services they think still exist because they've read about them elsewhere. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template
I have created this template, which can be updated as needed when announcements are made.
Template:Greycan
We should not, however, use a bit to remove it when the time comes, as that would remove the individual, while leaving the text about Greyhound services in the article. Nonetheless, following links to the individual will be a quick way of finding references to Greyhound Canada to be updated. Ground Zero (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhound Canada said on [July 9, 2018] that, effective Oct. 31, it will pull out entirely from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Service in British Columbia will be reduced to its U.S. counterpart’s Vancouver to Seattle route. And it will stop running buses in Northwestern Ontario, ending service beyond Sudbury.
Note that the termination affects Northern Ontario west of Sudbury. Thus, the template should be added to several Northern Ontario articles. Also, the Seattle–Vancouver route is an exception that would affect the Vancouver article. Since there is no WikiVoyage article for "Western Canada", I suggest we list the provinces affected in the template message. Thus, I suggest that the text in the template be:
I searched on "Greyhound" and added the template to articles for all cities and regions that appeared to me to be affected. (I may have missed a few.) There are probably other places affected whose articles do not mention Greyhound, so you'd have to add info about Greyhound services to the articles in order for the template to make sense. That's probably not a great use of time since time is running out. But it's your time, so it's your choice. I'm working my way through improving Ontario articles, and don't know if I will get to the north by Oct 31. If I do, I just won't add the Greyhound info because I think it is better to use my time researching stuff that will be of more lasting use to travellers.
I will add Northern Ontario to the template though as the closures affect all routes west of Sudbury. I had overlooked Northern Ontario, and just took a quick run-through to update the articles there that mention Greyhound.
Remember that the article about Lethbridge, for example, is about Lethbridge. The Lethbridge article isn't about bus service in Manitoba or between Seattle and Vancouver, so adding all of that info that is not relevant to Lethbridge and links to all of the provinces is just adding cruft. Please don't do that. The template wording is fine as it is. Ground Zero (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the short-and-sweet wording is "Greyhound Canada has announced the termination of all domestic coach service west of Sudbury (Ontario) by the end of October 2018."? Lethbridge isn't in Manitoba or in Seattle, but it is a domestic point west of Sudbury and therefore very much affected. K7L (talk)
Will non-Canadian readers understand what "west of Sudbury" means? I think that "Western Canada and Northern Ontario" is more intuitive for foreign visitors, as much as I like the conciseness of "west of Sudbury". Ground Zero (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
_banner_Herbert_lake_shore.png)
Added a comment on that. Pashley (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
