Talk:Western Canada

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Manitoba / British Columbia / Saskatchewan / Alberta / Geography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

I don't think anyone in Saskatchewan would ever consider the province as part of Central Canada. Geographically speaking yes, Manitoba is more central than Ontario. However, I've never heard of anyone in Western Canada referring to Manitoba as part of Central Canada, let alone Saskatchewan. Yes, Saskatchewan and Manitoba follow Central Time but also keep in mind that about half of southern Saskatchewan borders Montana which is on Mountain Time. Even Chicago which is east of Manitoba, is considered in the "Mid-West" by most US residents. RedWolf 05:02, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

As for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers being in the Eastern Conference of the CFL, they were originally in the Western Conference from 1950 to 1986. Only when the Eastern Conference was reduced to 3 teams (Montreal Concordes folded before the 1987 season), was the league forced to move Winnipeg to the Eastern Conference to balance the league out. Due to the CFL hiccups, Winnipeg has been bounced around the conferences a few times. However, as of the 2002 season, Winnipeg was back in the Western Conference. Also see [1] RedWolf 05:21, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't know much about the CFL. I just put that in there because I've heard it as an argument. However, I will say that most BC residents I know consider BC & Alberta to be Western Canada. Saskatchewan is usually grudgingly admitted. Manitoba is quite definitely Central Canada. moink 17:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is why we don't leave the writing of Wikipedia articles about Canada solely in the trust of people who know more about "BC bud" than geography. >GRIN<. Seriously. I am a long time resident of Alberta, and we (at least most of the people I associate with) always include Saskatchewan and Manitoba when referring to "Western Canada". Let's keep the articles focused on striving for encyclopedic quality, which usually means toning down the xenophobia and leaving out personal political opinions. Garth of the Forest 16:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a British Columbian, and we definitely learn there are 4 western provinces in school, and that is the popular understanding. Manitoba is occasionally debated, but that's about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.63.46 (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has Manitoba ever been referred to as "Canada's Arkansas"? I'm not from Manitoba, and have only travelled through it, but I somehow take offence to this statement, and I'm sure many citizens from the fine state of Arkansas would as well, which leads me to think that the contributor either has something against this province and/or has never visited it. Manitoba, south of the inter-lake district (Canadian Shield) is predominantly prairie, similar to southern Saskatchewan and the Dakotas. Brandon is an important regional centre and Winnipeg is the largest population centre between Calgary/Edmonton and Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal. In addition, northern Manitoba holds untold wealth in natural resources for mining and hydro-electricity generation and timber, not to mention the strategic port of Churchill... I just don't get this reference - is it meant to be funny in its blatant ignorance? Plasma east 12:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism of the article to me, and appears to have been removed some time ago. Garth of the Forest 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a parody of Colbert's "Idaho's Portugal" for Oregon (is that it?) - the Oregon article was plagued by it for a while, btw. One thing I've never conceived of Friendly Manitobans as, also, is like yer typical Okie....Skookum1 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintoba isn't called "land of 100,000 lakes" but Saskatchewan actually is or ws formally called that. Also Manitoba is consered Western Canada, but sometimes B.C isn't considered to be part of Western Canada.

Manitoba is called land of 100,000 lakes; in the early 1970's this moniker was on the province's licence plates. Since at least 1975 the term "Friendy Manitoba" has been used on Manitoba's plates and is commonly known. How British Columbia, which is the westernmost province, can not be considered a part of Western Canada is beyond me. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have always been collectively referred to as the "Prairie Provinces".

B.C. really isn't always considered a Western Province, just as much as Manitoba is ALWAYS considered a Western Province. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta all have a common heritage, and entered into Canada as provinces in pretty much the same way, speaking about the unicameral/representative/organizational way as Manitoba had entered into confederation from the Red River Rebellion. Western Provinces are also considered cultural, of which BC doesn't exactly fit the bill.It has a far different history. BC isn't as agricultural, has a different Aboriginal history, has a different colonial history, has a different economy, even has a different weather system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.56.14 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BC has a very different history from the rest of the West, but that doesn't make it "not part of Western Canada", and I dispute your "BC really isn't always considered a Western Province", which is utter, utter hogwash. And far more often than people might say something like "even though BC is farther west than Alberta, it's not really in WEstern CAnada" (which is pretty much saying it isn't in Canada), you'll hear Manitobans maintaining that THEY are not only in Central CAnada, but define the term. Most common usage has always included both provinces....unless you live in Alberta, or are an Ontarian summing up Alberta's views and culture as if they were "the West", and spoke for hte whole place (which they don't). "BC really isn't always considered a Western Province" is, quite frankly, an absurd claim.Skookum1 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revised this article to correct some of the illogical statements that had been recently placed in it. British Columbia not part of Western Canada? Yes, it can be distinguished from the Prairie Provinces, as the Eastern Prairies can be distinguished from Alberta, but it is every bit a part of Western Canada. In fact, I would suggest that culturally the BC interior and indeed the Fraser Valley east of Burnaby as well as much of Vancouver Island have more in common with Alberta than with Vancouver's West End and Kitsilano districts. The time zone argument is ridiculous. Detroit is in the eastern time zone and Chicago in the central time zone but both are Midwestern Cities. And by the way, to the author, all of Manitoba and almost all of Saskatchewan (including all of the major cities and towns, are in the Central Time Zone, not the Mountain Time Zone. British Columbia is no more ethnically diverse than any other Western Province. Yes there is a larger number of Asians in that province than in the three Prairie Provinces, but according to Statistics Canada census 2001, Manitoba is Canada's most ethnically diverse province, followed closely by Saskatchewan. Economic differences? Gone are the days when the Prairies were dominated economically by agriculture. Manufacturing generates more economic output in both Manitoba and Alberta than does agriculture, not to mention mining, services, etc. Rode on a transit bus lately? Chances are it was made in Winnipeg. What can be said is that all of the Western Provinces now have relatively diversified economic bases. --207.161.41.91 09:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The correct reference for the definition should be “Legislative Power, IV, 22. The Constitution Act, 1867” [[2]]. If nobody objects I would like to add that as reference to the article.

However, personally I would not call Manitoba Western Canada and I believe neither would most people here in BC. We simply call it “the prairies” (along with Alberta and Saskatchewan of course). I admit that this only reflects personal opinion and usage and I don’t know how people in Winnipeg feel about it. Nonetheless the definition derives from the old constitution and is not repeated in the new one. I believe that general usage of the term Western Canada might have changed in these 140 years. Whereas then everything “behind” Ontario was simply Western, nowadays we might have a more detailed perspective on that. It might be reasonable to add to the article that despite the definition in the Constitution of 1867 modern usage might vary from that. --Vancouver robin 04:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in BC and never once did I ever hear the idea that Manitoba wasn't part of Western Canada. Same goes for my wife who was born and raised there. I've now lived in Alberta for 9 years, and it's been the same here as well; I don't know anyone here who doesn't think Manitoba is part of Western Canada. I lived in Saskatchewan for 16 years, and same goes there. The only time I have ever heard anyone talk about Manitoba not being part of Western Canada has been online and it completely dumfounded me that anyone would think that. --Kmsiever 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Department of Justice seems to be ambivalent on the term too. Searching their website I indeed found the term Western Canada used in accordance to the Constitution but also with different meanings, e.g. “Generally, the incarceration rates for Aboriginal youth were lower in eastern and western Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia), and higher in central and northern Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Northwest Territories) with the exception of Nunavut.” [[3]] This convention would reflect much better the way I use the term. --Vancouver robin 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another government page [[4]] includes the prairies, but also Northern Canada into the term Western. --Vancouver robin 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more government official page[[5]] for Western Canada showing BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan and the counterpart [[6]] for Eastern Canada from Manitoba eastwards. Even though these sources might be in the minority it shows it's not only me and my buddies having a different usage of the term. --Vancouver robin 05:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in BC the term Western Canada is more frequently used in a different-than-constitutional way. Here are some links from the government of BC website. They name only BC or BC and Alberta as Western Canada: [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]

--Vancouver robin 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anedcotally, in school (rural BC in the 70s and 80s), we were taught that Western Canada was BC, Alberta and the Yukon. This instruction included an instruction (store-bought) map showing that division. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally, in school (rural Alberta - more specifically Eckville, Alberta, in the seventies and eighties), Alberta school children were taught that the Holocaust never happened, and that Jewish bankers run the world. I fail to see how the argument of what some teachers in rural BC taught their students over twenty years ago has anything to do with improving the quality of this article. Let's cite some current references for the existing content and move on to other things. As far as the current content of the article, generally speaking, it looks good to me, but needs more references and probably a bit of work on the Politics section, and perhaps a bit more tweaking of phrase and vigilance to ensure we maintain a NPOV. Garth of the Forest 23:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a time when journalists were discussing what Western Canada as a concept was and how it was an outside viewpoint, brought into prominence with the growth of regionalist parties (well, their revival/coalescence after long ferment...be it in the West or Quebec or wherever) in the '80s, when the West's collective voice, if not exactly the grievances listened to, began to be acknowledged by the central Canadian viewpoint; the invention of "the West" as a region, formally and informally. We were always the West as a geographic abstraction - though in Riel's conception simply Nord-Ouest, the Northwest ... but much like Canada defining itself as the counter-America, bound together by the Crown and by "not being American", the western provinces are bound together by shared disaffectations with the national political process and the national economic inequalities which held back development and wider settlement of the West and used its resources to build and enrichen Ontario and Quebec. Also, in re the more ethnically diverse thing about BC, the greater diversity in Manitoba may now be true, but BC was multi-ethnic from its very earliest colonialist times, including a wide range of Europeans (non-Brits, non-Americans) of a different ilk than the farmer/urban colonists in the Prairie provinces, who came in under federal/railway settlement programs instead of as the frontier-adventurer/entrepreneur/mining types in BC; in BC you had to WANT to get there, and stay there; most rural towns are multiethnic, some notably of one particular group or another (Trail and Revelstoke for Italians, Castlegar and Grand Forks for Doukhobours, Mennonites and Dutch Reformed in the Fraser Valley, and so on) and/or large native communities as part of most medium-sized cities; but the ethnicity isn't the same way as ethnic smalltowns on the Prairies, and the Prairie cities are relative redoubts of Anglo-Saxonism despite a heavy Ukrainian and other Northern and European peoples in large numbers; I also find the Prairie cities, just from the small tastes I've had of them, to be more consciously Canadian than maybe west of the Rockies, less separate from the "national mindset". The absolute numbers may say one thing about diversity, history says another, that's all I'm trying to say. It ain't just about numbers. BC had the highest rate of interethnic, interracial and inter-religious/non-demoninational marriage in the country, despite its so-called "notorious history of racism", and the reason is that BC society as a whole was always diverse, and necessarily multiethnic though with a binding collective identity and culture. Not enshrined ethnic cultures like under official multiculturalism or church/clan organizations, just who your neighbours were; their accents and background were only incidental to them being your neighbours, not central parts of the community equation like now. Sorry for the rant, just commenting primarily on the notion of Western Canada as an Eastern/Central invention, including efforts to (very ironically, given Manitoba's history) to paint the Friendly Province as part of Central Canada; yes, it was invaded and annexed by force, after a questionable purchase of crown-granted rights by what are now the Central Provinces, "the Canadas", and Ontario may have enjoyed a veto over Manitoba legislation for decades (to keep it from becoming competitive and/or politically powerful and/or volatile) but that doesn't stop it from being part of the "the West". Which IMO is the natural form of the phrase, preferable over "Western Canada"; "the West" was taken for granted in my upbringing/education to mean everything west of Ontario, with some teachers even implying Thunder Bay (then still Fort William and Port Arthur) as being Ontario's beachhead in the West; truly, for that coastline was originally conceived of as being part of Manitoba's ecumene....I think there may be an Allan Fotheringham column about this somewhere, and maybe other discussions by old-time Vancouver Sun or pre-tabloid Province writers; BC getting hornswoggled/paintbrushed into a common grouping with the Prairie Provinces; WAC Bennett always maintained it was a separate region, and it's obvious enough even historically, but it's something like the invention of "Atlantic Canada" to include Newfoundland, not part of the old-definition "the Maritimes"; regionalism as defined by federalists serves the purpose of reducing the number of competing voices against that of the Central Canadian milieu and its prevailing ROC-Quebec paradigm; "ROC" was also a way to try and relabel and bunch together everybody else. "Western Canada" needs an article; but I daresay if you search newspaper styleguides and early articles from the growth of the Reform Party and in years previous, there was some discussion, and not just be the Foth, about the grouping/creation of the idea of Western Canada; i.e. instead of ten or thirteen or however many more voices, the regionalist definitions of the country try to keep it to five. And by putting four provinces in each grouping, be it East or West, it's a way of generalizing and reducing much more complex identities and issue-agendas down to a soup base of cliches; I think you'll find a purposeful increase, also, in the frequency of the one phrase over the other, in the years following the 1982 Constitution and the encusing political/constitutional fracas since (fricasses being the plural, perhaps); one of the cliches of the paradigm of the media-invented "Western Canada" being that whenever, now, a "voice from Western Canada" is needed to represent "the Western reaction to this issue", 90% of the time it will be a Tory Albertan..... it's not like they go find, oh, a hippie from the Slocan, or a twenty-something millworker in Kamloops who likes his heavy metal and Harleys....never mind an eco-leftist; that's not the image. I'm on a library computer, shuytting down, so must end abruptly. Sorry for the rant, just commenting on the terminology and the previous discussion.Skookum1 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan is defiently called land of 100,000 lakes and not Maintoba. Its been adversitized by Saskatchewan tourism for many years and I belive it is still the same.

Once again, it's Manitoba that is called land of 100,000 lakes; in the early 1970's this moniker was on the province's licence plates. In the USA, Minnesota, which has "10,000 lakes" on their licence plate, was none too pleased about this comparison! If Sask. tourism is now using this slogan, it has simply been stolen from Manitoba. Whatever the case, Saskatchewan has a smaller surface area of fresh water compared to Manitoba (approx. 82,000 sq.km. vs. approx. 102,000 sq.km. in Manitoba). In addition most of Saskatchewan's lakes are far removed from the population centres whereas in Manitoba they are located throughout the province and are more influential on the lives of the people, especially the Manitoba "Great Lakes". I'm not sure what Saskatchewan's nickmnames have been, but I think it was historically the "Wheat Province" and is now "Land of Living Skies". --142.161.180.217 19:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but Saskatchewan still has far more (and better) lakes than Alberta. :)

The article noted that Ontario and Quebec are often called "Central Canada." I have made an update to reflect the fact that no one in the West would ever use this term except, well, sneeringly. :) If you're a Westerner, that is Eastern Canada, end of story. 38.112.113.242 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense to being referred to as "no one". I was born and raised in Alberta, have lived in Alberta for all but one year of my relatively long life, and my friends and I often refer to Ontario and Quebec as "Central Canada". We do this to acknowledge that we in the West actually have more in common with our friends in Atlantic Canada than is often acknowledged in ... let me guess... Calgary? Garth of the Forest 16:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Saskatchewan and have heard Ontario and Quebec referred to as "Central Canada" countless times. They are markedly different from Atlantic Canada (and each other culturally!) in many ways. Wyldkat

Ontario and Quebec are both in Central and Eastern Canada.....and Garth of the Forest and Wyldkat, I find a bit offensive saying Ontario and Quebec are markedly "different". And the thing about no gun control in Western Canada is remarkably stupid, same with Western separatism. Without gun control there will likely be lots of trouble and the entire country is supposed to be friendly with each other. Black Tusk (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can take offense from Wyldkat's (or for that matter, my) comments. My comments were simply indicating that Ontario and Quebec are, geographically, central, bordered on the east by the Atlantic provinces and on the west by the prairie provinces. Wyldkat, on the other hand, simply makes reference to the fact that Atlantic Canada differs in many ways culturally from both Quebec and Ontario. How is that offensive? We should be proud of and celebrate our differences. They are what make us all who we are! If any offense is to be taken from my first comment, I would think it would be coming from one of my Alberta neighbours to the south (Calgary)! However, no offense intended ... my first comment was intended to point out that there are regional political concerns that Canadians in the west share with Canadians in the east, and this sometimes (not always) translates into shared political common ground (i.e. both regions electing mostly Conservative MPs in past elections when the Liberals have obtained majority governments by winning the majority of their seats in either Ontario, or Quebec, or both) Ah, how I miss those pre-Reform, pre-Bloc days. Sigh. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the population of quebec to being less than western Canada as opposed to more than it , stats can now says BC and alberta have the same population as quebec as of this year so adding saskatchewan and manitoba would make western canada have a substantially larger population than quebec.. referebce here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/27/stats-population.html course quebec has 75 seats to our 66 but nvm that though is a fact and not pov could get me on a rant. anyways TotallyTempo 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake 64 seats as opposed to 75, yeah that's fair, NOT.... TotallyTempo 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wtf is a "frenchist." I'm from Saskatchewan, and have lived in Quebec and have never heard anyone use that term for anything.

I have added the different landform regions as a possible clarification. For any extra information, the Western Cordillera was basically named as a boundary FROM the plains. I didn't erase any information, in case somebody has any other valid reasons, but there was a basic guideline of geologic boundaries set that I didn't seem to find. 74.119.62.153 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few minor changes, but this page as a whole is in serious need of work. Most material is unreferenced, and in some cased awkwardly written and with personal slants. I have added warnings to that effect at the top of the page. Halogenated 03:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to clean it up a bit, and make it more encyclopedic.TheTwoRoads (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why two photos of grain evelators and absolutely no pictures of anything else in this article? One is more than enough to present the agricultural aspect of Western Canada. The majority of each of the three prairie provinces are covered in trees (vast majority for Manitoba), and the Canadian Shield traverses portions of all of them. Meanwhile, the vast majority of British Columbia is mountainous. The inclusion of two separate grain elevator pictures is redundant and gives undue weight to the this type of agricultural activity in Western Canada. I will be removing one of these photos, and encourage others to include photos that better reflect the geographic diversity of Western Canada. Additional agricultural photos of ranchland in the foothills, an aerial patchwork of varying crops in the prairies, and/or a photo of vineyards/orchards in BC's mountain valleys would be more appropriate to describe the region's agricultural diversity. Hwy43 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is beneficial because of the information it provides about Western Canada today such as census statistics about population and economy, I think an important aspect that is missing is the history of Western Canada's development. There could be a subsection of the article specifically allocated for this information, and mention things such as the reasons for westward expansion, what the scientists found when they travelled West to evaluate the land (and the assumptions that were made), the ideas of the Fertile Belt and Palliser's Triangle, and when each of the provinces officially joined British North America/Canada. While the information currently found in the article is important for Western Canada, so too is information about the past. The development of Western Canada is an important piece to the history of the Western provinces, as well as to Canada overall and I think this article would benefit from a greater emphasis on how the West came to be. Erikaleu (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold....your recent addictions was a great idea and you seem to have ref formating downpat. Update ..fix the article at will...we need all the help we can get. -- Moxy (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article does a great job at describing modern Western Canada. However, the historical development of Western Canada is important for understanding it today. For example, It would be beneficial to add information about indigenous settlements and their expansions westward. Specifically, why did they expand westward and what did they find? Answering questions such as these would assist in providing a general understanding of modern Western Canada, which seems to be the main focus of this article. Providing information on major developments that came from Indigenous settlements and their westward expansion, such as the Hudson's Bay Company, would also assist in showing how Western Canada has helped shape Modern day Canada in general. Information such as this could be sub-headed within the article as "The Historical Development of Western Canada." Overall, I believe that providing a historical background would improve the article as it would allow readers to grasp a better understanding of how Western Canada was shaped into what it is today.

In terms of technicalities, I find the section "Western Alienation" to have constant run-on sentences. This makes the section a little difficult to read. For example, " In Canadian politics, the term "the West" is used misleadingly in Canadian media styleguides as shorthand for the Conservative leanings of Western Canadians, as contrasted with the greater likelihood for candidates from either the Liberal Party of Canada or the New Democratic Party (NDP) to be elected in Central Canada." A sentence like this could be broken down into perhaps two sentences, making the information easier for the reader to retain. Jamie Lotton (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Western Canada. 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/20111027001001/http://www.enquirica.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=13 to http://www.enquirica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=13

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Western Canada's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "StatCan2016":

• From Atlantic Canada: "Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2016 and 2011 censuses – 100% data". Statistics Canada. 2017-02-08. Retrieved 2017-02-08.
• From Quebec: "Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2016 and 2011 censuses". Statistics Canada. February 8, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Western Canada. 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/20150516013056/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution14_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution14_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516013056/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution14_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/constitution/constitution14_e.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox needs a caption telling what the (currently) five photographs show.--8.9.83.76 (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see this page lists Manitoba as being part of Western Canada.

That's technically incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Canada

We can see that based on actual longitudes, Manitoba is in fact right in the centre of Canada (technically it's slightly to the east of centre).

I see that the citation for the "Western Canada" categorization is a Stats Canada reference, but Stats Canada doesn't authoritatively declare how we interpret our geography, it observationally reports what Canadians are saying.

I submit that either this page should be updated to have Western Canada end at the SK/MB border, or at the very least to have the page's introductory blurb updated to specify that Manitoba is only part of Western Canada according to Stats Canada but is in fact geographically more eastern than western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.68.150 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]