Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 26 May 2010

Canada: Governments / History B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 23, 2005, May 22, 2006, May 21, 2007, May 19, 2008, May 18, 2009, and May 24, 2010.

"May Long Weekend"

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)

Other names

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)

Scotland, Too!

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)

I've made a separate article, Victoria Day (Scotland), for that information. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

May Two-Four

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)

Your recent spat of careless edits and bullying reverts would indicate something other than "not difficult". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources "The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages: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 (notice the undoing of the small tags, the name, and the reference. The comment implies some sort of retribution.) (ignoring the reason for deleting the reference: it's a direct quote of Misplaced Pages and so is not ) 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)

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)

For the record

This revision includes the following comment as a response to a comment left on the editor's talk page: "But you can undo 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages guidelines, and calling anyone who reverts you a vandal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It can get a tag thrown onto your page. It's outlined in Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Clarification on when the holiday is

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)

The latter section references the original date. It does need to be clarified though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"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)

Number

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)

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. Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Delimiting_.28grouping_of_digits.29 states that on English Misplaced Pages, 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)

"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)

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)

The existence of the comma, of course, isn't incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Long date format

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)

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 | stalk) 10:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I never said anything was uncommon. You did. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::} 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)

WP:STRONGNAT :

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)

Your personal opinions don't trump Misplaced Pages guidelines. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinions don't trump Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 | stalk) 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

It is you who has a misunderstanding of consensus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Straw poll

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

• --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Month Day, Year format

• --Walter Görlitz (talk)
• — CIS | stalk)

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)

• B-Class Canada-related articles
• Mid-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Governments of Canada articles
• Mid-importance Governments of Canada articles
• B-Class History of Canada articles
• Mid-importance History of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)