Talk:Northwest Territories/Archive 1
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Commision/self-government/1980/1985
The Northwest Territories#Politics section needs a tune-up. It's not clear if 1980 or 1985 is when the commisioner became a symbollic function. There seems to be some redunancy here, as the role of the commisioner is repeated (but not repeated exactly). As well, I find questionable the use of the term "head of state". I can see the term applied to the Queen, maybe the Governor General (in her place), and even to a leutenant-governor(maybe), but I don't think it applies to a commissioner. The NWT is in no sense of the word a "state". Anyway, I don't know how this should be worded, or what's correct, so somebody needs to read the *entire* section over closely, reword it, and put in some citations for others to be able to check what's write. It seems the current section was written by different people with different personal knowledge. Also, perhaps another approach is to create a bulleted timeline (which maybe goes under history), so that one could more clearly follow the progression of limited self-government. --Rob 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article is trying to say the Commissioner has lost powers gradually to the elected representatives. The last time the Commissioner sat with the Cabinet Ministers to make government decisions was 1985. The Commisioner is indeed the head of state for the Northwest Territories, it is outlined as such in the Northwest Territories Act, the same as Nunavut and Yukon. --Cloveious 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Territory name
Has there been any recent developments with changing the name of the Northwest Territories? myselfalso 00:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No, there have been no significant recent developments to changing the name of the Northwest Territories. The name change was originally proposed by then Premier Stephen Kakfwi in 1996 and revisited in 2002 but never came to fruition. NWTResearch (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"The"
See Talk:List of communities in the Northwest Territories and Talk:Premier of the Northwest Territories for requested moves which affect this article - should the area be referred to as "the Northwest Territories" or simply "Northwest Territories"? I have no preference one way or the other, except to say that we should be consistent throughout Wikipedia, and follow common usage in the Real World. — sjorford (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- As this is a plural noun, I've no inherent difficulty retaining in-text references when they're appropriate. I also agree with consistent renditions in Wp.
- That being said, however (and despite usage to the contrary), inclusion of the definite article, the, is not prescribed by statute and is indirectly discouraged by Wp guidelines (for titles) and elsewhere. There's a difference between titles and dialectic. Recently proposed moves and collateral edits would merely make these articles consistent with titles for analogous (and overarching) Canadian subdivisional articles. According to the Oxford guide to Canadian English usage (ISBN 0-19-541619-8) (p. 342):
- Residents prefer "Northwest Territories" to "'the' Northwest Territories". The preferred usage parallels usage for the names of provinces; that is, one doesn't say "the Alberta".
- So, despite it being used frequently, including "the" might be improper form to begin with. Apropos (IMO), this article is at Northwest Territories (not 'the'...) and should be consistently referred to as such. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are two different title naming conventions at work here. To use a parallel example: we have the article Netherlands for the country referred to as "the Netherlands", but pages with the country's name in the middle of the title do use "the", as in List of cities in the Netherlands by province, for example. To say that the title Premier of the Northwest Territories is against naming conventions just because the main article is at Northwest Territories without "the", is simply incorrect. Both articles titles are consistent with Wikipedia conventions. The only argument for changing the title would be if "Northwest Territories" is never written as "the Northwest Territories", and this appears not to be the case.
- This is not totally analogous and parallel: "the" is an integral component of the translation of the Netherlands' long-form name; it is not for NWT. If anything, this highlights the inconsistency of titles containing "the Netherlands" (including the country article), not v.v.; this is another topic.
- And another convention is at play – the rendering of other Canadian provincial/territorial articles in Wp of the same ilk, including Yukon. Can you or anyone demonstrate that the moves would be incorrect?
- Lastly, given citation to the contrary, there's nothing precluding these moves, either. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Alberta case is irrelevant - nobody says "the Alberta", so of course there is no article called List of communities in the Alberta - that would be gibberish. But List of communities in the Northwest Territories is perfectly fine, because people do apparently say "the Northwest Territories". Again, I'm not Canadian, so I can't claim to be an expert on all this, but I'm just going by what I can see written in the article Northwest Territories amongst others. — sjorford (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is hardly irrelevant – though I don't dispute usage to the contrary (obviously), I've cited a reputable Canadian publication and other instances that contradict you regarding usage. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are two different title naming conventions at work here. To use a parallel example: we have the article Netherlands for the country referred to as "the Netherlands", but pages with the country's name in the middle of the title do use "the", as in List of cities in the Netherlands by province, for example. To say that the title Premier of the Northwest Territories is against naming conventions just because the main article is at Northwest Territories without "the", is simply incorrect. Both articles titles are consistent with Wikipedia conventions. The only argument for changing the title would be if "Northwest Territories" is never written as "the Northwest Territories", and this appears not to be the case.
- Here is a reference from the Northern Review style guideline (PDF file) stating quite clearly on page 2 that "The Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be referred to with the definite article where appropriate: the Yukon or the Northwest Territories." The Northern Review is a peer-reviewed journal published in the North. Luigizanasi 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is helpful. Let's extract the full citation for context:
- Spelling
- 5.2 As the Review is a Canadian publication, its editors prefer that authors follow Canadian spelling conventions as represented by the Oxford Canadian English Dictionary or any major Canadian dictionary. The editors will, however, accept the use most common spelling conventions used in other English-speaking countries. All spelling should be internally consistent.
- 5.2.1 Please Note: The Review prefers subarctic/Subarctic to sub-arctic/sub-Arctic.
- The Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be referred to with the definite article where appropriate: the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.
- It seems ironic that the Northern Review would invoke acceptance of the Oxford Canadian Oxford Dictionary as a preference for spelling – there are at least two other major Canadian dictionaries – while contradicting an ancillary style guide (Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage) by the same source. After all, it is as much editorial preference as the above is. Moreover, read passage 5.2 again and you'll note the syntax is off.
- I guess the point is whether it's appropriate to include the definite articles in NWT titles. Is it in-text? Perhaps, perhaps not – see here for a melange. Based on everything presented and consistent with other Canadian articles, I still feel it is inappropriate in titles. And, throughout, I'd like to point out that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed moves would be incorrect in any way. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have demonstrated that it would be against Wikipedia naming conventions, which surely trump any other naming conventions you might refer to. I still see this as a simple issue of consistency - either the article titles include "the", as the text currently does; or both the article titles and article text are edited to remove "the" completely. I don't care which, but your current proposal seems to want to mix and match these styles. — sjorford (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you have and I've cited instances to the contrary; however, we agree to disagree. And my proposal is quite clear about removing "the" from these NWT titles, for propriety and consistency with kindred Canadian articles. I would also prefer removal of "the" in-text too for all-round consistency in Wp (and know this can be done), but I concede that this might be disagreeable to others (particularly given usage) and is meant as a conciliation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have demonstrated that it would be against Wikipedia naming conventions, which surely trump any other naming conventions you might refer to. I still see this as a simple issue of consistency - either the article titles include "the", as the text currently does; or both the article titles and article text are edited to remove "the" completely. I don't care which, but your current proposal seems to want to mix and match these styles. — sjorford (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the NWT web site typically refers to "the NWT" and "the Northwest Territories."
Population of Northwest Territories since 1871
I find it interesting that the Northwest Territories was the 11th largest province/territory in 1901, when the country had 7 provinces (minus Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) and 2 territories (minus Nunavut). When I get a chance, I'll take a closer look at the statistics information and see where we're coming from with that. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Statistics Canada provides population information for Alberta and Sasktachewan before 1905 (starts in 1901). It appears that for both of these areas, the population figures might reflect a smaller area than the present-day provinces. At least in the case of Alberta, the size was increased before statehood in 1905. For the Northwest Territories, the population drops significantly between 1891 and 1901, a decrease of 78,838. The population in Yukon Territory in 1901 was only 27,129, so it seems that some (most) of the population drop in NWT was due to parts of these not-yet-created provinces, AB and SK (StatsCan may be partitioning them off before the date of their provincehood).
- However, a large population drop for NWT (68%) is also clearly seen between 1901 and 1911, so it appears that NWT has even less territory at this point, due to the now-enlarged and now-independent of NWT provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. StatsCan doesn't explain this very clearly in their tables, so this is my best guess. Ufwuct 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note that the population drop from 1891 to 1901 was not due to the Yukon being created. The Yukon population was very small prior to the Klondike Gold Rush (starting in late 1896), and I believe that First Nations and Inuit, who formed the bulk of the poipulation of the NWT at the time, were not counted (This needs to be verified). Also, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba absorbed large parts of the NWT in 1905. Finally, it would be better to add the total number of provinces/territories to the rank colum (e.g. 8/9 in 1901, 10/11 in 1911, etc.)Luigizanasi 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Given the points that you two have raised, I would be inclined to call the entire set of statistics, particularly the ranking, into question. I have no doubt that Statistics Canada uses reliable sources and constitutes one itself, but unless we can clearly explain how the figures have been arrived at in the article, it is completely useless. Unless it can be significantly clarified, I would like to see it reduced to an external link or replaced with a table representing the population of the territory that is now the Northwest Territories. This would give an accurate picture of the population, as compared with the current information, which provides little more than a curiosity for a territory from which other jurisdictions have traditionally been carved. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know I'm a little late entering this conversation, but I think the 1901 population drop is consistent with the completion of the transcontinental railway. Thousands of workers were needed and lived in temporary camps in the territories to facilitate construction, the workers would have been counted as residents. News paper articles from political races at the time speak of attracting large numbers of voters from the camps. Seeing as the last major construction wrapped up around 1899 they would have gone elsewhere before the 1901 census. --Cloveious 23:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Given the points that you two have raised, I would be inclined to call the entire set of statistics, particularly the ranking, into question. I have no doubt that Statistics Canada uses reliable sources and constitutes one itself, but unless we can clearly explain how the figures have been arrived at in the article, it is completely useless. Unless it can be significantly clarified, I would like to see it reduced to an external link or replaced with a table representing the population of the territory that is now the Northwest Territories. This would give an accurate picture of the population, as compared with the current information, which provides little more than a curiosity for a territory from which other jurisdictions have traditionally been carved. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
the inuit words show up as ?'s
in one section all the inuit words show up as ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M4390116 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is it just one section or the whole page, you're computer may not support that font. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Language
The page currently states: "French was made an official language in 1877 by the appointed government, after lengthy and bitter debate resulting from a speech from the Throne in 1888 by Lt. Governor Joseph Royal."
This seems to indicate that the 1877 decision was the result of a speech from the Throne that occurred 11 years in the future. This can't be the case. Are the dates reversed in this sentence? --Asnider (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Motto
This page listed "The New North" as the NWT's motto but I see no cite and can find no evidence of this. My understanding was that the NWT presently has no motto. - Montréalais (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Somebody probably saw it at the New North, from 1999. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Pictures
Considering the unbelievable beauty of NWT, does anybody have any pictures they can add to the website. The only picture currently showing is the Diavik Diamond Mine. Canking (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are some at Commons that could be used. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Northwest Territories is itself a category within Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Map
First we get those who think that the Lower Peninsula of Michigan is Michigan, and now we get those who think that mainland Northwest Territories is the Northwest Territories. Will people ever look at reality and think outside of their boxes? Backspace (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No comment on those who think that the Coronation Gulf is still part of Northwest Territories? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I personally am not aware of anyone who thinks that the Coronation Gulf is still a part of the Northwest Territories, nor am I aware of any controversy between opposing sides of the issue. That is really not an interest of mine. However, that is not part of the current issue here. We are merely trying to find an accurate map of the Northwest Territories, nothing more, nothing less. I will look further into that issue though. I had never heard of it before. Backspace (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the crack about Coronation Gulf had to do with where you put your eye-balled coordinates, which were within Nunavut and not the NWT. i.e. because of a "bend" in the border. The official coordinates listed in the Canada GeoNames Database/Atlas of Canada are. 69°30′01″N 121°30′08″W / 69.50028°N 121.50222°W....."Northwest Territories". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada. I submit that only these should be used....and why you think correcting a set of coordinates somehow has to do with a better map....the current MAP is just fine....I guess you were trying for a true-centrepoint; but since the NWT are somewhat "banana-shaped" it means their "centrepoint" is not within their own boundaries....Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- And here are the true facts. The first is that I did put the center point within the territory of Nunavut. The second is that it was intentional. The third is that, as you have just said, center points are not always within the boundaries of the entity (witness the common doughnut). As I have said, my main objective in this exercise to is find a good map of the Northwest Territories, nothing more, nothing less. The fourth fact, which is most relevant to the comment, is that the center point was most certainly not in Coronation Gulf. (If you must have a name, Amundsen Gulf would have been more like it. I certainly have nothing against humor and sarcasm, and think that it would have been rather funny, and a good joke on me, if he had said that, instead of something irrelevant. Backspace (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- You intentionally placed it in NWT?? And you say this has to do with a map , but it doesn't - it has to do with the location of the place where the coords are pointed, which inherently can't be in another place. Obviously the federal geographers chose a point, similar to the one in Nunavut that is your "true" centrepoint (but not in the "object"), by adjusting it westwards, to the Beaufort Sea side of that bulgy bit east of the Mackenzie Delta. I.e. so it would still be in the NWT. Makes perfect sense to me..., and still makes a map of the whole north-south span of the NWT, which you claim is your point. But your opinion in this matter does not matter, i.e. your opinion on where the coordinates should be; there should be where the official sources put them. YOU are not citable. CGNDB is. Coordinates are a non-discretionary data item like elevation - not just a "launch" for GeoHack. BTW you can also considering linking to NRCan's own map-generator pages; the maps are pretty plain-jane but, still, it's an official source (you're not).03:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk)
- According to your theory, anyplace that is physically in the Northwest Territories is better than the place I picked in Nunavut. My assertion is that if I picked Prince Patrick Island it would make for a pretty lousy map of the NWT, but you would think that it's at least inside the NWT, which is a lot better than anyplace in Nunavut, however good a map that would produce being irrelevant. If I were to draw a map of a doughnut, I would without question put the center in the hole, rather than having your skewed attachment to any particular part of it. Backspace (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Citability is consensus. Consensus is not necessarily reality. Are we looking for consensus or are we looking for factuality? Backspace (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- As in the Michigan discussion, I too take issue with the premise that with geocoords we are trying to find a "good map". These pages typically have an abundance of good maps. Rather the purpose of the coordinates is to drop the reader onto a spot that is within the state or region that is the subject of the article, to assist the reader in understanding where on the globe the area can be found, as well as understanding its general shape. A geocoord that leads the user to a place where the subject area *isn't*, not only fails at this task, but also fails at the stated goal of improving any map. Sure, the center of a doughnut is the hole. But if someone who didn't understand a doughnut asked you what a doughnut was and you directed them to the hole instead of the dough, you'd be confusing them at best and deceving them at worst. The hole is not the doughnut! Factually. JohnInDC (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If I grant you that my point is absolutely wrong, then we are agreed that it is irrelevant where we "drop the reader onto", whether it be Prince Patrick Island or Fort Smith, as long as it is within the land mass of the Northwest Territories. Have I understood you correctly? Or maybe we should leave Prince Patrick Island out, since some apparently don't believe that it really is a part of the NWT. Backspace (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- As in the Michigan discussion, I too take issue with the premise that with geocoords we are trying to find a "good map". These pages typically have an abundance of good maps. Rather the purpose of the coordinates is to drop the reader onto a spot that is within the state or region that is the subject of the article, to assist the reader in understanding where on the globe the area can be found, as well as understanding its general shape. A geocoord that leads the user to a place where the subject area *isn't*, not only fails at this task, but also fails at the stated goal of improving any map. Sure, the center of a doughnut is the hole. But if someone who didn't understand a doughnut asked you what a doughnut was and you directed them to the hole instead of the dough, you'd be confusing them at best and deceving them at worst. The hole is not the doughnut! Factually. JohnInDC (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Citability is consensus. Consensus is not necessarily reality. Are we looking for consensus or are we looking for factuality? Backspace (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to your theory, anyplace that is physically in the Northwest Territories is better than the place I picked in Nunavut. My assertion is that if I picked Prince Patrick Island it would make for a pretty lousy map of the NWT, but you would think that it's at least inside the NWT, which is a lot better than anyplace in Nunavut, however good a map that would produce being irrelevant. If I were to draw a map of a doughnut, I would without question put the center in the hole, rather than having your skewed attachment to any particular part of it. Backspace (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- You intentionally placed it in NWT?? And you say this has to do with a map , but it doesn't - it has to do with the location of the place where the coords are pointed, which inherently can't be in another place. Obviously the federal geographers chose a point, similar to the one in Nunavut that is your "true" centrepoint (but not in the "object"), by adjusting it westwards, to the Beaufort Sea side of that bulgy bit east of the Mackenzie Delta. I.e. so it would still be in the NWT. Makes perfect sense to me..., and still makes a map of the whole north-south span of the NWT, which you claim is your point. But your opinion in this matter does not matter, i.e. your opinion on where the coordinates should be; there should be where the official sources put them. YOU are not citable. CGNDB is. Coordinates are a non-discretionary data item like elevation - not just a "launch" for GeoHack. BTW you can also considering linking to NRCan's own map-generator pages; the maps are pretty plain-jane but, still, it's an official source (you're not).03:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk)
- And here are the true facts. The first is that I did put the center point within the territory of Nunavut. The second is that it was intentional. The third is that, as you have just said, center points are not always within the boundaries of the entity (witness the common doughnut). As I have said, my main objective in this exercise to is find a good map of the Northwest Territories, nothing more, nothing less. The fourth fact, which is most relevant to the comment, is that the center point was most certainly not in Coronation Gulf. (If you must have a name, Amundsen Gulf would have been more like it. I certainly have nothing against humor and sarcasm, and think that it would have been rather funny, and a good joke on me, if he had said that, instead of something irrelevant. Backspace (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the crack about Coronation Gulf had to do with where you put your eye-balled coordinates, which were within Nunavut and not the NWT. i.e. because of a "bend" in the border. The official coordinates listed in the Canada GeoNames Database/Atlas of Canada are. 69°30′01″N 121°30′08″W / 69.50028°N 121.50222°W....."Northwest Territories". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada. I submit that only these should be used....and why you think correcting a set of coordinates somehow has to do with a better map....the current MAP is just fine....I guess you were trying for a true-centrepoint; but since the NWT are somewhat "banana-shaped" it means their "centrepoint" is not within their own boundaries....Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I personally am not aware of anyone who thinks that the Coronation Gulf is still a part of the Northwest Territories, nor am I aware of any controversy between opposing sides of the issue. That is really not an interest of mine. However, that is not part of the current issue here. We are merely trying to find an accurate map of the Northwest Territories, nothing more, nothing less. I will look further into that issue though. I had never heard of it before. Backspace (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
[undent]Underscoring JohnInDC, "according to my theory", the official coordinates used by the Canadian governments' ministry in charge of geography (Natural Resources Canada, which runs GeooNames) have "factuality", whereas those pulled out of thin air by yourself do not. It's that simple. That yours are in another jurisdiction rather than in the correct jurisdiction and you're validating that choice by talking about donuts - is like a bad Tim Horton's commercial.Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying that the hole is the doughnut. I am just giving you a picture of the doughnut. That is what a map is, a picture. The hole just happens to be at the center of the picture. It will be labeled "hole", not "doughnut". It's not rare to see actual maps where the map subject is not at the center. Most existing maps of Norway, for instance, are this way. Or Japan. Backspace (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If Natural Resources Canada thinks that the Northwest Territories only lies on the mainland they must be blind, or refusing to see reality. Have they ever looked at a map to see that there are islands to the north? Backspace (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If a Wikipedia article is about "doughnuts" and the coordinates are not anywhere on a doughnut then the coordinates are wrong. I think you really need to get past this "framing the map on the screen" issue. Until you do we are just going to go in circles with this. JohnInDC (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- If Natural Resources Canada thinks that the Northwest Territories only lies on the mainland they must be blind, or refusing to see reality. Have they ever looked at a map to see that there are islands to the north? Backspace (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Dene Nation, proper name; many subnations; this was also proposed as an alternate name for the rump Northwest Territories, after the partition with Nunavut, but was dropped due to political implications, as the term also includes northern AB, SK and MB (Land of the Dene). Second-tier subnations are Gwich'in, Sahtu, Dehcho and Tli cho.
Affiliated groups: Aklavik, Nihtat Gwich’in, Gwichya Gwich’in, Tetlit Gwich’in, Deline, Behdzi Ahda, K’asho Gotine, Tulita, Sambaa K’e Dene, Liidlii Kue, Jean Marie River, Nahanni Butte, Acho Dene Koe, Deh Gah Got’ie Dene, Ka’a’gee Tu, Hay River Dene, West Point, Pehdzeh Ki Dene, Behcho, Wha Ti, Wekwee`ti, Gameti, Deninu K-ue, Salt River, Yellowknives Dene (Dettah), Yellowknives Dene (Ndilo), Smith Landing, Lutsel K’e Dene, Akaitcho Territory Government, Gwich’in Tribal Council, Sahtu Dene Council, Tli Cho Government, Lutsel K’e Dene, Sayisi Dene First Nation
Related articles: Gwich'in, Sahtu, Dehcho, Deh cho, Akaitcho, Sahtu, Tli cho, Denendeh affiliate ---- Skookum1 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Denendeh redirect
While this was proposed as a name for the NWT, one reason it was passed over is it refers to a much wider territory including northern AB/BC/SK/MB and most of Yukon - Land of the Dene, literally. I noticed this upon seein Dinetah, which is the Navajo/Dineh equivalent, on Aspirant sovereign states. I remember that Denendeh had come up during aboriginal-governance discussions arising from or around the time of Oka/Meech....even saw a map of the area it describes in a major newspaper/magazine, can't remember which....adoption of the name by the NWT was seen as having territorial impliations, suggestive of the Dene-dominated regions of the northern provinces wanting to be part of it, and suggesting a merger with Yukon.....wondering if it shoudl be its own article.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've added Denendeh to my to do list. JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently nominated the Northwest Territories portal for portal peer review. Someday I hope to help this portal get promoted to featured portal status. I would love it if you could join in the discussion at this page. Thanks! JulieSpaulding JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Name change
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Observation: There are currently two similarly named articles: Northwest Territory and Northwest Territories. IMHO, the singular vs. plural distinction is not really sufficient as a distinction between the two names. I would propose making both of these existing names point to a common disambig page and move the content of these two articles to new names which clearly distinguish the two:
- Northwest Territories -> Northwest Territories, Canada
- Northwest Territory -> Northwest Territory, United States
- Opposed. First of all Northwest Territories and Northwest Territory can not redirect to a disambiguation page. Northwest Territories would have to be a redirect to Northwest Territories, Canada and Northwest Territory would have to be a redirect to Northwest Territory, United States. There is also the amount of work that would be needed if these pointed to a disambiguation page as you don't want redirects sending people to a disambiguation. There are 500+ links into Northwest Territory and 2500+ links into Northwest Territories that would need changing. I don't think that there is much confusion between the two as one is an historical area and the other currently exists. Also the fact that Northwest Territory, United States didn't exist as a redirect until just now indicates there is little need for this. Anyway there are disambiguation notes at the top of both pages covering the other. By the way what about North-Western Territory? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Opposed, I don't see the need to move the articles; I think the existing hatnotes make the distinction sufficiently clear. PKT(alk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I think you folks are missing the point. I never said the articles are confusing or badly written. The names of the articles themselves are important. One of the requirements of Wikipedia:Naming conventions is that a name must be precise. That is, it should be sufficiently distinct from the names of other articles that ideally a reader not very familiar with the topic should be able to figure out which article he/she wants without having to actually read the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- But in that case would it not be more confusing for the reader to have both Northwest Territories and Northwest Territory redirect to a disambiguation? By the way what would the disambiguation be called? You can't call it Northwest Territories (disambiguation) or Northwest Territory (disambiguation as neither would be correct. Anyway, the names are precise as one is plural and the is singular. As the naming convention says, "...but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I think you folks are missing the point. I never said the articles are confusing or badly written. The names of the articles themselves are important. One of the requirements of Wikipedia:Naming conventions is that a name must be precise. That is, it should be sufficiently distinct from the names of other articles that ideally a reader not very familiar with the topic should be able to figure out which article he/she wants without having to actually read the article. --Mcorazao (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, the for tags and redirects are sufficient. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Communities
There doesn't seem to be a list of communities or a map of them anywhere in the article.Landroo (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's there at least twice. The first time was right above where you added the link and the second time is in the middle template at the pages bottom. something lame from CBW 09:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
utc-7
In the zone Tungsten, Northwest Territories has utc-8 not utc-7. In my opinion I will put the exepcion in the box. --178.139.45.244 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievable claims
This article claims that thunderstorms occur in northern NWT. Anyone with a basic level of knowledge about weather would know that it is too cold for thunderstorms in that area so I put a citation needed on it. This supposed fact is also so unbelievable that we are going to need more than 1 citation if it is true. But I don't think they occur that far north.69.29.99.218 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- As an Arctic resident I can say that thunderstorms can and do occur in the region. The assertion that they do not is absolutely baseless, as any climatologist or meteorologist would be able to confirm. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
nomap??
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.26.133 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Northwest Territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140508223756/http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/cmcc/pinuva.htm to http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/cmcc/pinuva.htm#six
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212163741/http://www.gov.nt.ca:80/MAA/newsreleases/tlicho_land_claim.htm to http://www.gov.nt.ca/MAA/newsreleases/tlicho_land_claim.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Northwest Territories. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015121840/http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030703.wnwt0703/BNStory/National/ to http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030703.wnwt0703/BNStory/National/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/cmcc/pinuva.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324220716/http://www.nucj.ca/library/bar_ads_mat/Nunavut_Land_Claims_Agreement.pdf to http://www.nucj.ca/library/bar_ads_mat/Nunavut_Land_Claims_Agreement.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://forestmanagement.enr.gov.nt.ca/forest_resources/publications/ecoland/3_3_1_Northern_Great_Bear_Plains_HS_Level_III.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.lessonsfromtheland.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 00:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)