 |
There is a project to improve articles about Canada – see the Canada Expedition page. |
|
Archived discussions
|
|
Formatting and language conventions
Please show prices in this format: $100 and not CAD 100, 100 dollars or C$100. Please use Canadian spelling (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze, program). Phone numbers should be formatted as +1 YYY-XXX-XXXX. |
Time zone map
[edit]The time zone map currently used, if I'm not mistaken, contains a few issues. First, New Brunswick is labeled as Nova Scotia. In terms of timezones, it overlooks many oddities across Canada. The most noticeable is Labrador, which should be in the Atlantic timezone. It's also a bit more complicated in the Kootenays region. This map also doesn't help to explain the places that don't change in the summer (Yukon and Saskatchewan, parts of Northern Ontario, and North Shore Quebec).
This newer map looks accurate, but it's not really legible until you click through to the full size. I'm also curious whether showing summer and winter zones together on one map is clear for the traveller perspective. Alternatively, OSM and Wikidata seem to have the zones covered, even with the local oddities (e.g. [1]https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6446108), so maybe it's not that hard to make our own static or interactive map.
I suppose the easiest alternative could be to keep the time zone coverage here on Canada simple, and point out the local anomalies at the regional or provincial level. Saskatchewan#Time_zones already does a good job; Northern Ontario could probably use some work.
So my question is, should we swap out the current map for a more complicated but more accurate one? And then, is it worth looking at how we handle time zones in the next level down the hierarchy? Gregsmi11 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- I remember seeing a similar issue on Australia#Time a few years back. It's been a while since I managed to come up with a solution to it, but I would suggest keeping it simple, and then later explaining the local anomalies in another paragraph. A table could also help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Here are some choices from Wikimedia Commons:
Ground Zero (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Airlines
[edit]Like User:Ikan Kekek, I question whether the article needs a list of airlines. It feels encyclopedic to me to have a general description of each airline, even after I've deleted the description of each airline's fleet, and the descriptions of airlines that ordinary travellers can't use. Ground Zero (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apart from major airlines (and some regional ones like Air Nunavut), I don't see the need to include every single minute piece of detail about every Canadian airline. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now that the list has become even longer, I think it is time to remove it, unless there are any objections in the next day or two. Ground Zero (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I've left a paragraph with the principal airlines, but if that starts turning into an encyclopedic list again, we should probably delete the whole section. Ground Zero (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds sensible to me. Thanks for taking care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- There have been problems like Canadians stranded in other countries by flight delays. Should we be warning people to avoid Sunwing? Or Westjet which recently screwed up some flights for friends of mine? Others? Pashley (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Such warnings seem like core material for a travel site. I'd say add them right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any airline may have problems with individual flights, but the story seems to indicate something much more serious. Sadly, the story gives no background information. Is the airline getting bankrupt or what is this about? Aren't there standard procedures for handling airlines leaving you stranded? –LPfi (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think adding anecdotal evidence from friends is not a good idea. Every airline screws up some flights. If we have safety or service ratings from a reliable source, we should add that. My Westjet flight last week was fine. Sunwing didn't put my cousins' luggage on their flight, but then British Airways did the same thing to them. Do we want lists of these incidents in country articles? I don't think so. Ground Zero (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Any airline may have problems with individual flights, but the story seems to indicate something much more serious. Sadly, the story gives no background information. Is the airline getting bankrupt or what is this about? Aren't there standard procedures for handling airlines leaving you stranded? –LPfi (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that anecdotes are not enough to justify a warning, but the Sunwings problem appears to go far beyond that. I certainly would not fly with them myself & am inclined to add a warning, but the story is months old & I've no idea of the current situation. Pashley (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- A few months after that mess they were bought by Westjet. Perhaps that has fixed the problem? Pashley (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't fly Sunwing either, but I think we need some sort of report to refer to, not just my cousins' story and your friends' story, or even the CBC artivle from last December. As you note, they may have fixed the problems. I know people who refuse to fly Air Canada because of past problems. Ground Zero (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
History and Politics
[edit]These sections are getting very long. Should we start trimming them? As Wikivoyage:Country article template advises, "The country's history in a nutshell. When in doubt about including a date or event, ask yourself: Is it relevant to the average traveller?". Ground Zero (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Should we revert to Special:PermaLink/4671863, which is more readable and looks less like a Wikipedia article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Canadian wildfires
[edit]Should we include a warning about the ongoing Canadian wildfires? It looks like they are pretty serious, considering that the smog has now spread into the American Midwest, so this might be a health hazard for people with respiratory issues. Trust me, it's bad. You can actually smell the smoke here. The dog2 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The situation changes daily. The smoke will come to a place for a day or two and then leave. I don't think we can keep up with the changes. This makes me think of the many warnings that we have for incidents that are long since past. The warnings are added, and never removed. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having lived through the 2019 East Coast Australian bushfires, have to agree – the smoke isn't the prime concern, it's the bushfire itself. It makes sense to have a general warning (perhaps in a cautionbox) directing users to the relevant provincial government websites, but that's about all we need to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The wildfires reach Finnish news only occasionally, but my impression is that there have been very large wildfires in California in most years lately, and in Canada at least this year (and 2016). How do they affect a traveller? Is the risk only local, well advertised and easy to avoid once you are there, or is it something you need to take into account when planning your voyage and stay alert about? Should we put up state/province- or countrywide warning boxes or are the fires something to handle in Stay safe (which now has no mention in e.g. Canada or Alberta)? –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- It would probably be better in the Stay Safe section, rather than at the top of the article, since the effects are local and transitory. (I'm at a cottage north of Toronto today, and considering going home because once the smoke comes in, I won't want to be outdoors. It's real, but it's not everywhere.) Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The increasing prevalence and ferocity of wildfires and the smoke from them is a product of global warming. Maybe there's a place where we can post statements about all the types of disasters that are going to make travel increasingly difficult. Stay safe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do think it's warranted to warn people with respiratory issues to reconsider travel to the areas affected by the haze. I'm just not sure where we should stick that warning. For me, it's only an annoyance since I can smell the smoke, but it could be dangerous for people with respiratory diseases like asthma. When I was still living in Singapore, we often had haze caused by Indonesian farmers burning down the forest to clear land for agriculture (though my family back home have told me that it's become less common since Jokowi took office), and there were often warnings from the government for people with respiratory diseases to wear a mask and stay indoors. The dog2 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think there is more value in permanent guide content that helps to plan a trip in the face of potential wildfire (and other increasingly common disasters as @Ikan Kekek mentioned). Things to know before a trip... for example what should I be thinking about when I'm making plans months in advance? The day before I leave? On the road?
- If it's not a timely advisory, there's a question of where to stick it; "Stay Safe" feels like a section I'll focus on once I've booked a trip and feel like worrying about something. Once we inevitably deal with other disasters, some will feel weather related. Do ice storms and heat waves go into climate? What if we had an "Understand>Seasonal Risks" subsection (or something that sounds less ominous) for destination articles that briefly explains the local situation, but mostly links to national or regional "Stay Safe" sections where the details for preparation and safety go into more detail? We don't need to explain the BC wildfire website on every last town in BC, but we can be a bit more specific on what the risks are locally. For example, Vancouver may experience only smoke, but more remote towns will have fire bans, driving restrictions, and issue evacuation orders. Gregsmi11 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just in case it wasn't fully clear, I was suggesting covering this information in the Stay safe article, rather than individual articles' "Stay safe" sections. The Stay safe article is that permanent guide content you are suggesting we have, though it might bear updating or expanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I do think it's warranted to warn people with respiratory issues to reconsider travel to the areas affected by the haze. I'm just not sure where we should stick that warning. For me, it's only an annoyance since I can smell the smoke, but it could be dangerous for people with respiratory diseases like asthma. When I was still living in Singapore, we often had haze caused by Indonesian farmers burning down the forest to clear land for agriculture (though my family back home have told me that it's become less common since Jokowi took office), and there were often warnings from the government for people with respiratory diseases to wear a mask and stay indoors. The dog2 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The increasing prevalence and ferocity of wildfires and the smoke from them is a product of global warming. Maybe there's a place where we can post statements about all the types of disasters that are going to make travel increasingly difficult. Stay safe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- If we're worried about the wildfires/their smoke, but don't want to constantly be updating individual cities' warning boxes, couldn't we just put temporary warning boxes on the Canada, United States, and North America pages, since those are general (that way we wouldn't have to edit specific cities/regions but could still put a warning out about them)? We could say something like "Heavy smoke from wildfires in northern Canada periodically comes down to [insert place] and can cause or worsen existing respiratory issues. Travelers who might be sensitive to air particulates should be prepared in case this smoke is in the city/cities you're traveling to". Tuyuhun (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, warning boxes on individual cities cannot be properly maintained. The question is whether wildfires are common enough that we just have to tell where to check before going and while in a possibly affected area (like we do for tornados), or if we want to maintain a more or less updated warning at the country level (a cautionbox telling what areas are affected this year). In countries where widespread wildfires are reasonably rare (as in Sweden), a warningbox may be warranted when they occur. Here in Finland wildfires are a problem, but they are extinguished in hours or days, so general warnings about cigarette buts etc. suffice. LPfi (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having lived through the 2019 East Coast Australian bushfires, have to agree – the smoke isn't the prime concern, it's the bushfire itself. It makes sense to have a general warning (perhaps in a cautionbox) directing users to the relevant provincial government websites, but that's about all we need to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
What about an article called Travel in the anthropocene or something like that? And maybe also Evacuation orders and travel for covering how to deal if your town/city/accomodation is evacuated - due to any disaster or even due to a bomb being defused (this is a rather regular occurrence, for example, in Germany, probably even more so in Yugoslavian countries etc.)?
- I wouldn't support the title "Travel in the Anthropocene," because it's rather obscure, but dealing with evacuation is definitely on-topic and important. I'd say, cover that in the Stay safe article, and then if the section gets too big, spin it off as a new article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just thought of a title. What do you think would be a better title? Climate change and travel? Or just Climate change maybe? Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, but we'd have to decide what to focus on. One topic is how to minimize your carbon footprint, which is covered in Responsible travel. Another is how to deal with dangers like increasing temperatures, which is dealt with in Stay safe or Stay healthy, I'm not sure which. This probably requires more thought, but I need a nap now. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- No panic, it's not an urgent issue. However, we should jointly tackle it. Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, but we'd have to decide what to focus on. One topic is how to minimize your carbon footprint, which is covered in Responsible travel. Another is how to deal with dangers like increasing temperatures, which is dealt with in Stay safe or Stay healthy, I'm not sure which. This probably requires more thought, but I need a nap now. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Common terminology in the US or racist slur?
[edit]- "Historically they were known as "Eskimos", but this term is considered to be offensive in Canada and should never be used there (though it is still the usual term in Alaska)."
into
- "Historically they were known as "Eskimos", but this term is today considered to be racist slur and should never be used."
I think one should keep a mention of the common terminology aspect in some form. As a visitor to Canada, you should of course avoid the word, but the wording suggests it is thought of as racist slur also elsewhere, which seems not to be true in neighbouring USA. First reading this article and then visiting Alaska could make you quite confused, or make you misinterpret the mindset of people you meet there (and that of local institutions).
–LPfi (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've never been to Alaska, but based on what I read in the news, these days people say "Alaska Natives". I don't really see "Eskimo" being used anymore. The dog2 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it isn't (and we can confirm it), then we should say that it has fallen out of use also in the US. If the advice that was here was obsolete, then better it was removed, but "racist slur" is quite strong language. If we don't know for sure, we should use a more cautious wording, perhaps something about "in Canada". I make a try, to be improved when we have done the research. –LPfi (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've done some further editing. Here's the thing. Many people from Singapore may use terms like this because these terms were very common in the storybooks and cartoons my childhood, and people have no idea that they're offensive today. That's they reason we need to warn people not to use them here. Not just "Eskimo", but words referring to other historically marginalized peoples like "Negro", "Red Indian", "Aborigine" and so on. I don't know how Alaska Natives feel about the word "Eskimo", but I would not write that it is acceptable in Alaska until we know for sure that the Alaska Natives themselves don't mind. The dog2 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unless :w:Eskimo has got it all wrong, I think saying never is too strong: according to that article, Eskimo is used when referring to both Inuit and Yupik (calling Yupik Inuit might be as insulting as calling them Eskimos – I don't know), and the word seems to be used in some legal contexts. It is clear that the word should be avoided, but are we sure it should never be used? I don't see how it is necessary to say "never" to discourage Singaporeans from using it. –LPfi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is the Canada guide. In Canada, it should never be used. Travellers should avoid it. That's all we need to deal with here. If it's different in Alaska, let's deal with that in the Alaska article. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unless :w:Eskimo has got it all wrong, I think saying never is too strong: according to that article, Eskimo is used when referring to both Inuit and Yupik (calling Yupik Inuit might be as insulting as calling them Eskimos – I don't know), and the word seems to be used in some legal contexts. It is clear that the word should be avoided, but are we sure it should never be used? I don't see how it is necessary to say "never" to discourage Singaporeans from using it. –LPfi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've done some further editing. Here's the thing. Many people from Singapore may use terms like this because these terms were very common in the storybooks and cartoons my childhood, and people have no idea that they're offensive today. That's they reason we need to warn people not to use them here. Not just "Eskimo", but words referring to other historically marginalized peoples like "Negro", "Red Indian", "Aborigine" and so on. I don't know how Alaska Natives feel about the word "Eskimo", but I would not write that it is acceptable in Alaska until we know for sure that the Alaska Natives themselves don't mind. The dog2 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it isn't (and we can confirm it), then we should say that it has fallen out of use also in the US. If the advice that was here was obsolete, then better it was removed, but "racist slur" is quite strong language. If we don't know for sure, we should use a more cautious wording, perhaps something about "in Canada". I make a try, to be improved when we have done the research. –LPfi (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, the term "Eskimo" is only derogatory in Canada and Greenland. It is still seen as acceptable in the United States (even though its usage is diminishing). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Alaska Natives" is a catchall term and not at all limited to Inuit people. See w:Alaska Natives: "Alaska Natives[...]are the Indigenous peoples of Alaska and include Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and a number of Northern Athabaskan cultures." Of those peoples, only the Iñupiat people self-identify as Inuit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that. The question is whether or not the Alaska Natives find "Eskimo" offensive when it is used to refer to them, which is the case with the Inuit people in Canada. It is certainly possible that only some but not all indigenous ethnic groups in Alaska find "Eskimo" offensive, given that they're all different, but I don't know. Things can certainly change with time. When my dad was living in America, using the term "Negro" to refer to black people was the norm, but it's now offensive, and I have to remind him not to use them term whenever he comes to visit me. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read w:Eskimo if you like. I really have no idea what Alaskan Iñupiat folks think about the term, but I also don't know how to pronounce "Iñupiat". I have no idea whether mispronouncing that name would be offensive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that. The question is whether or not the Alaska Natives find "Eskimo" offensive when it is used to refer to them, which is the case with the Inuit people in Canada. It is certainly possible that only some but not all indigenous ethnic groups in Alaska find "Eskimo" offensive, given that they're all different, but I don't know. Things can certainly change with time. When my dad was living in America, using the term "Negro" to refer to black people was the norm, but it's now offensive, and I have to remind him not to use them term whenever he comes to visit me. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Alaska Natives" is a catchall term and not at all limited to Inuit people. See w:Alaska Natives: "Alaska Natives[...]are the Indigenous peoples of Alaska and include Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and a number of Northern Athabaskan cultures." Of those peoples, only the Iñupiat people self-identify as Inuit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm Canadian & have Inuit relatives & friends. (Northern Quebec & Ottawa area). Some of the older ones still call themselves "Eskimo" & younger ones don't seem offended by the term, though they'll often correct it to Inuit. Not always, though they are almost certain to correct mix-ups between Inuit (plural) and Inuk (singular). Pashley (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Tariffs on US products
[edit]So, Canada seems to have just announced tariffs on US products, which I think we can safely say that prices nationwide will increase soon for the foreseeable future. My preference is just leaving things be as eventually the increased prices will settle for as long as the tariffs stay, but I'm open to hearing any arguments for whether it should be mentioned. --shb (t | c | m) 09:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- The trade war that Trump is waging will increase prices in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, but this is not something we can sufficiently quantify to be worth making a comment. Wikivoyage is not Wikinews. Ground Zero (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sweet, good to have some validation that this isn't worth mentioning. //shb (t | c | m) 09:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)