Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Nova Scotia / Geography / Communities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The number of "Halifax" articles[edit]

I hate to bring this up for the millionth time, but honestly, there are too many articles for this city. None are particularly well-written. We shouldn't be divvying up a ton of articles based on administrative entities past and present, there ought to be a single "Halifax" article based on the entire HRM, with sections explaining the nuances of the administrative system and districts within the city. Kinou (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unfortunate that the history of Halifax's municipal government is so complex, but that's no reason not to have a single proper article governing the city, which is a good deal more notable than any of the various councils who have governed it. David Arthur (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a first step would be to rename the main article "Halifax, Nova Scotia" or something, in the same way that the article on Denver is named as such, and not "City and County of Denver". I don't know that the city has a terribly unusual governmental history - it's just that they called the new entity a "regional municipality" rather than a "city" like other places did. Kinou (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a problem that exists on some level for most large places in Canada, because of the way local government is run. In Britain, if they merged all the councils in (for example) the Manchester area, the resulting body would probably be called 'Greater Manchester Council', and no one would dream of saying Salford had ceased to exist; in Canada, though, it tends to be called a 'city', and so people argue that Scarborough and Etobicoke are now 'former suburbs' of Toronto, or try to erase them entirely. (In Sweden, terms like 'city and 'town' have no role in local government, so everyone is quite willing to accept that Uppsala kommun is within Uppsala county, and that neither council is synonymous with the actual city of Uppsala.) This seems to produce more arguments in Halifax than elsewhere, though – whether it's because of the physical distinction between Halifax and Dartmouth, or the term 'regional municipality' I don't know.
I agree that a re-naming is the best place to start, although it gets difficult to decide which really is the 'main' article in this case. We have Halifax, Nova Scotia, Halifax Regional Municipality, Metropolitan Halifax, Mainland Halifax, City of Halifax, Halifax County, Nova Scotia, Halifax Peninsula, and possibly others I haven't noticed; at most I think two main articles are justified here, though the exact division of content would take some thought. David Arthur (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The place "Halifax, Nova Scotia" is legal place as per the article City of Halifax. However Halifax Regional Municipality is not place in particular but an area that represents the area the Halifax Regional Council governs . Its not proper to refer the people living in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia or Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia as living in Halifax . Also the fact that there is no incorporated cities in the Nova Scotia Halifax Regional Municipality is not a city . I think it based on fact and what is in the real world if you want to change the article you base it on the real world and not it should be . Remember the Halifax Regional Council voted for the name to stay to be Halifax Regional Municipality not Halifax, Nova Scotia. People identify themselves from their community not their municipality. I say for the millionth time leave it alone . Cherry1000 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that this issue has been discussed multiple times without reaching a satisfactory conclusion. The problem is that as it stands, Wikipedia is so obsessed with accurately representing the confusion created by the multiple forms of local government and geography, that it simply does not provide useful coverage of Halifax. It would be far better to have one or two consolidated articles, which can cover the physical city and area, and explain the organisational complexities rather than requiring that readers already understand them as a prerequisite to finding any information. David Arthur (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
First the Halifax Regional Municipality is not a city its a Regional Municipality in fact there are no incorporated cities in Nova Scotia since 1996 . Secondly Halifax, Nova Scotia is not the Halifax Regional Municipality and it never will be . Thirdly the communities have their separate histories ,economies , and geography that its impossible to put in all one article to describe.Let put this way Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, City of Halifax and Bedford, Nova Scotia are three completely different communities that are completely different from each other . The only thing they have in common is they all are next to the Halifax Harbour that it . There 288 other communities that nothing in common with City of Halifax or Dartmouth, Nova Scotia other the fact they were in the former Halifax County, Nova Scotia . Any article of anyplace in wikipedia has to reflect the real nature of the place based on fact not a condensed version just on an authors wishes . The article City of Halifax is titled wrong it should be "Halifax, Nova Scotia" just as if you sending a letter there and the "Civic Address office of the Halifax Regional Municipality " has for civic and postal addressing . Cherry1000 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Might as well add my opinion: create Halifax, Nova Scotia, based primarily on the current article City of Halifax, and use it as the beginning for an article about the city -- the history, urban geography, society, landmarks, tourism, and so forth -- what people mean when they say "I'm going to Halifax" or "I live in Halifax." Summarize the evolution of the municipal government in Halifax, Nova Scotia, providing more detail in City of Halifax (about the former city municipality) and Halifax Regional Municipality (about the current HRM, from a government point of view). Agree with the above that the current situation is untenable. I can't even write that the Princess Royal was supposed to travel to Halifax without any link users abruptly getting a crash course on the minutiae of Nova Scotia municipal politics just to find out what the freaking city is. -- Montréalais (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be split into one article on the city of Halifax itself, and another dealing with the local government issues in a separate HRM article. Other notable communities in the HRM, like Dartmouth, should have their own article. Referring to a place as far away as Ecum Secum, as being part of Halifax, is ridiculous. (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I find that Halifax shares a lot in common with Honolulu - perhaps that can be a model for any reorganization effort. In common usage, Honolulu refers to the urban area on the southeast coast of the island of Oahu from Pearl Harbor to Makapuu Point. But like Nova Scotia, Hawaii has no municipalities below the county level, so the entity that governs Honolulu, the City and County of Honolulu, encompasses not just urban Honolulu but the entire island, including rural areas on the other side of Oahu (geographically and culturally). I personally live on the east coast of Oahu in the suburban beachside community of Kailua, so I get the same services there as those in "town" would. But you wouldn't hear me say that I live in Honolulu unless I'm far from home talking with someone unfamiliar with local geography. I would probably recommend getting some sort of a consensus about what area comes most to mind when you say "Halifax" - is it the HRM or some subset of it? - and set that as the default article with cross-references as necessary. The Honolulu article, for instance, focuses on the urbanized area with some discussion of the consolidated city-county arrangement, with more details in the Honolulu County, Hawaii article. And Oahu deals with the area from a geographic point of view. Just my 2 cents (which at current exchange rates is just about the same in CAD as in USD). KeithH (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been a few years, and nobody's made a move, but I concur: the main article should be called "Halifax, Nova Scotia". Mark M (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually things were changed about two months back now with a solution that appeased most people involved in the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
As Wiki is always moving forward and never stuck in the past, such a discussion can be ongoing as long as the article is not changed willy-nilly. It is ludicrous to me to call this article which is about the HRM "Halifax", especially as the article acknowledges that the correct title of the subject of the article is "formally the HRM". No one I know who is not from Halifax calls it that or says they are from Halifax. They say "Dartmouth" or "Bedford" or "Sackville", etc.
(link to discussion?) Oh.. well, it still seems silly. It really feels like "Halifax, Nova Scotia" should be an article.. Mark M (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This article minimally needs to be renamed to Halifax Regional Municipality. No one calls HRM "Halifax". Whenever someone says "Halifax", he's referring to the former city. HRM isn't really even used as a place name. People always talk about Halifax, Dartmouth, or Bedford. Ideally, there would be a short article, maybe a paragraph long about HRM, and a separate article for each city or town within HRM. It's also highly misleading to title the article "Halifax", say that it's legally known as the Halifax Regional Municipality, and then use "Halifax" throughout the article, when no local would ever use "Halifax" to refer to the entire HRM. Also, no local thinks of the entire HRM as a single place. It's a huge area encompassing two cities, a town, several small villages and a huge rural area. Each community should have its own article.
I get the impression that there are people who aren't from the area pushing for an oversimplification which simply does not reflect reality. Another absurdity that this has produced is the term "Haligonian" under "Demonym(s)". "Haligonian" is the demonym for a person from Halifax, not for a person from HRM. There is no demonym for someone from HRM.
Finally, it doesn't make sense to have a single article for such a large place with many communities that are thought of as being distinct places. To make clear how absurd this is, imagine that all of Nova Scotia were amalgamated into a single municipality. Would you really object to there being separate articles each community in Nova Scotia?
Another of way of thinking of it is as follows. Would you deny that there exists a city in HRM? Because legally there isn't. But I'm sure we can all agree that the city of Halifax exists still. It didn't disappear in 1996. We should have an article on the city even though it isn't legally recognized. Rectipaedia (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
IMO. As HRM is an entity for governmental purposes only and may be obliterated at any time with the stroke of a pen the article as it stands is the correct way to go. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A discussion on this happened in the last year. (this discussion you responded to is very old there have been many since) Ihe article used to be named HRM and was changed because outside of the HRM this is all called Halifax. Living here I agree people call the different areas by their different names, but that is no different than most cities which call different neighbourhoods by their names while people outside those cities would know it as a collective name. In the case of Halifax, almost no one out of the region even has a clue that the name Halifax Regional Municipality exists. I know I didn't prior to moving here. And because we write for a global audience not a local one, we go by the common name for the area which is simply Halifax, Nova Scotia. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Demonym Density" in info box[edit]

I think that's a mistake. It doesn't mean anything. Anybody have any idea how to fix it? I think it's some kind of bug in the infobox. Maybe that's supposed to be the Metro density? (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Link on 4/1/10 doesn't seem to be relevant[edit]

The main page link to this article on 4/1/10 reads "1996 – The government of Nova Scotia ordered the people of the City of Halifax to mate with over 200 multiple partners around the area." The words "to mate" are bold and are supposed to link to an article that is relevant to this main page title. It takes you to the Halifax article where there is no content about what the link says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be temporary vandalism. I don't see any such link as of right now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sable Island in Geography[edit]

From what I understand, Sable Island is part of the HRM, but it's only mentionned offhand once in the Economy section. Would someone with a bit of knowledge care to make a bolder mention of it somewhere, perhaps in the Geography section? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why I deleted the "Ethnic Groups" Table[edit]

It used data from the Statistics Canada Tables here: [1], yet it had the following problems:

  • It called these classifications "Ethnic Groups", when in fact they are listed as "Visible minority population characteristics". NOT the same thing, and I'm not being politically correct.
  • The table took the numbers for "No Visible Minority" and listed them as "White". That's completely incorrect. The numbers from the Stats Can info specifically counts aboriginal Canadians as non-visible minority, so this number includes people who are white, people who are aboriginal, and people who chose not to answer. Definitely not "White".
  • The table had lumped together numbers for South Asian, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Japanese and Korean to come up with an "Asian" line in the table. This is original research, but it's also false. Even if you are one of those people who care what someone's visible minority designation is (i.e. what they look like), I don't think that you would consider people whose background is in China to look like those from Indonesia and/or those from Pakistan...

My primary concern is that this is invented data, NOT a replication of what the source actually says, and this is *especially* critical in such a delicate area. We have a table for Ethnic Origin, which is much more useful and interesting data. I don't believe that we need this pseudo-racial one. AshleyMorton (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the whole table should have been removed. I actually found it to be more accurate than the current one. The current table shows that 37.7% of Haligonians claimed they are "Canadian", when in fact everyone in HRM is Canadian! It also shows a small population of Black/African people, which is less than half of the population taken from the removed table. While the removed table strictly shows the percentage of visible minorities and non-visible minorities, I find that it gives an accurate depiction of HRM's racial diversity. I agree, the Asians were lumped together, but they can be separated. Likewise, non-visible minorities are Whites and Aboriginals, that can also be fixed. If we can't agree on restoring the table, with some changes, we should list the top 4 or 5 visible minorities (and percentages), similar to the Toronto article. Blackjays1 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I generally disagree that "racial diversity" is as interesting and relevant as the "origins" of the people in a place. Remember that this is about origins, so "Canadian" can be a valid option - One branch of my family has been in territory that would become Canada for 14 generations - therefore, "Canadian" is part of my origins. However, a recent immigrant has other origins. I completely agree that the recent immigrant IS Canadian, but that's different from having Canadian ethnic origin. I am, generally, opposed to these visible minority statistics. The only ones we have available are the Statistics Canada ones, and they have a raft of problems. For example, if someone puts down multiple responses, then there are formulas about what gets counted as a vis-min, and what not. (Black & White = vis min. Arabic & White = non-vis-min) For a thorough description of how this works, see [2]. The bit about what gets counted and what doesn't if you put down multiple responses is about 3/4 of the way down, under "Classifications". My biggest problem is really philosophical, though - This takes the concept of race, and treats it as if it's one of the defining elements of a place. I think that's bollocks. However, If we must, I'd be willing to buy into the "summary sentence" idea that you pointed to from the Toronto article. For one thing, it avoids the need for a "non-visibile minority" population number, which is one of the most frustrating things about the StatsCan data in general, and it certainly lends itself to having people show up and change the text to "White". So, how about the following:
In terms of simple visible minority status (as opposed to ethnic origin), the following are the four visible minority populations in the HRM for which there were more than one thousand respondents, as of the 2006 Census: Black (13,270 - 3.4%), Arab (3,840 - 1.0%), Chinese (3,105 - 0.8%) and South Asian (2,900 - 0.8%)
To reiterate, I don't think even that information should be included, but I'm not one to stand in the way of consenus, so I think that this would be the most appropriate way to display this information, if it is considered important enough at all.AshleyMorton (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the sentence that you provided would be fine. It should be considered important, partly because HRM is the center of Nova Scotia's black community, and also because the region has many other visible minorities and Aboriginals. Maybe the Aboriginal population can be included in that sentence (5,230 - 1.4%) [3]. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel strongly that we can't just mix it in - in Canada, "visible minority" does not include aboriginal Canadians, regardless of whether it seems like it should. See, this is part of the problem, and makes me stronger in my opposition to including this info - we're conflating two concepts: visible appearance ("visible minority") and ethnic heritage ("ethnic origin"). And StatsCan doesn't give us any way around it - they don't provide us with vis-min stats that include aboriginal identity. The only way to include aboriginal people in the vis-min stats to pull them from ethnic origin. But if we do THAT, then we should pull the "black" vis min stats from "African" ethnic identity. ...But wait, those numbers don't come out the same. See? I would like to see at least one or two more opinions that are not me or you. I am willing to go with the majority, but at the moment, we've only got we two who are speaking up.AshleyMorton (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Navy in Halifax[edit]

Being one of the two navy bases in the whole country, I can't believe that there isn't a section on the navy in Halifax. This is a serious deficiency for this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talkcontribs) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to other languages[edit]

Since this is the article about the current municipality of Halifax I added the corresponding link to the German article about the municipality of Halifax.

There are a lot of other language articles about Halifax (the present city and municipality). I think we should also add them here.

Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Halifax which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --Jiang (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Collage Image[edit]

The collage is a problem - it only reflects landmarks of the urban core. At the very least shouldn't an image of the Peggy's Cove Lighthouse be included? If someone knows how to make changes to collage would you consider this suggestion.--Hantsheroes (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halifax Regional Municipality/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this nomination. TBrandley (what's up) 05:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to quick-fail this nomination on the basis that the article contains mostly unsourced sections, some of which contain {{citation needed}} tags. Other large concerns include:

  • The lead needs to meet WP:LEAD, thus needing to summarize every section.
  • Please remove the airport climate data table, because it is located in a nearby community, not this for which a different table serves it directly above.
  • The references that are already include are bare references, use {{cite web}}.
  • Some of the external links fail WP:ELNO, which states it should only be based on the municipality itself and not its contents which are for seperate articles.
  • There are mixed date formats, please check.

TBrandley (what's up) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Another go-around on Ethnic / Visible Minority Statistics[edit]

Hi all. I deleted a table of statistics this morning, and here's why:

  • The statistics cited a source that had nothing to do with the data (the source cited was for Pickering, Ontario)
  • The statistics had been modified in order to be included in the article (A category for "White", that did not exist in the data, had been created).
  • The table listed as "Ethnicity" a group of categories that were actually about "Visible Minority" or "Aboriginal Identity" groups (closer to "race" than "ethnicity", but certainly not what was being advertised).
  • The table included a really selective listing of the author's thoughts on ethnicity. For example, "Inuit" was listed, with 155 people, and apparently 0% of the population, yet there was a category called "Other Visible Minorities" that had over 6,000 people in it.
  • The core problem, however, is that this takes "Aboriginal identity" numbers, mixes them into "Visible Minority" status, does some mathematics to come up with a remainder, invents a category called "White", publishes it under the label "Ethnicity", and then provides a source that has nothing to do with the topic. It is original research that borders on fiction, with a link to an irrelevant source.

Then, without addressing the concerns (truncated, I know) that I put in the edit summary, my edit was reverted. The edit summary for the reversion claimed that the source was "reputable", which it is, but its statistics about Pickering are still not relevant for Halifax, and the statistics for Visible Minorities and Aboriginal Identity are not the same thing as Ethnicity. Please see the discussion that took place 3 years ago (above). I believe that this was done in good faith, but I still believe that it was incorrect. So I reverted it, and started writing this explanation. Before I could finish, it had been reverted again. So - I'm going to delete this material again, now that I've explained why I believe that it cannot be included. I understand that some will say "then make it better", but I believe I did several years ago when I included the "Ethnic Origin" table further down the same section. This data is really just manufactured, and in my opinion neither it, nor anything closely similar can be included. AshleyMorton (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's an idea, why don't we just redo the table without linking the Pickering stats as a source? IMO, this issue would be resolved if it linked to the Halifax stats only. Or if the table is too much, why don't we just list the top 5 visible minority groups by population percentage, alongside the Aboriginal population percentage, in a sentence? I think that's better than completely removing the table, with no mention of visible minorities and Aboriginals afterwards, and relying solely on the ethnic origin responses as the be-all end-all. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't personally think that's of huge value, but I totally understand that some people would disagree with me. As long as the data isn't original research, isn't so large as to take over the entire section, and cites a reasonable source (the StatsCan sources for this stuff aren't too hard to find), then I won't go deleting it again. Your suggestion seems completely reasonable to me. AshleyMorton (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Strangely if you add up the english scotish and irish you dont get a logical number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested links under "See also"[edit]

Hello, I suggest adding the following link under "See also": Destination Halifax.ReegieD (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC) ReegieD (Nov. 20, 2013)

Addition under "Tourism"[edit]

I propose someone add "Destination Halifax is a not-for-profit society fulfilling the role of destination marketing organization (DMO) for 201 communities within the Halifax Regional Municipality. It is a partnership between the Halifax Regional Municipality, the Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, the Province of Nova Scotia, and participating industry members. Its mandate is to dramatically increase tourism expenditures on a year round basis. The organization is responsible for promoting to both business and leisure travelers from external markets. The organization’s priority is sales and marketing programming directed to audiences in the domestic, cross border and international markets." ReegieD (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC) ReegieD (Nov. 20, 2013)

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus is to move to Halifax, Nova Scotia. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Halifax Regional MunicipalityHalifax, Nova Scotia – The Regional Municipality have now had their say on this. Effective today, the name for all but the most formal legal processes is to be simply "Halifax". Here's the Municipality's "rebranding" site: [4]. Here are two news reports from local media: [5], [6]. Here is the report from the staff with the recommendation within it [7]. This has long been the accepted way to refer to the location in general, if not the formal Municipality. Even at that, it can be seen that most organisations ignore the "...Regional Municipality" outside of the most formal situations - the way people don't usually call it the "Commonwealth of Virginia" - they just call it "Virginia". Here's an example of that - the 2011 Census results, when searching for "Halifax" in Nova Scotia: [8] We can see that the Population Centre is called "Halifax", the Census Metropolitan Area is called "Halifax", and the Census Division is called "Halifax (Regional Municipality)". The airport is the "Halifax Stanfield International Airport", not the "Halifax Regional Municipality Stanfield Airport" [9]. Once (if!) this is accepted, I (and I'm sure others) will go about fixing the other required changes, such as the opening text, etc. Finally, this would much better meet every one of the Wikipedia Article Title guidelines: Recognisability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. AshleyMorton (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Alternative move it to Halifax and displace the disambiguation page to Halifax (disambiguation); considering its importance in WWI and WWII, and the Titanic disaster, this should be the primary topic. -- (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose moving to just Halifax While I kind of support your argument, this would clearly be a very contentious move (as indicated by the very first comment response below). To me, finally, after all these years, having a clear indication from the Municipality means that we should finally be able to solve this efficiently. I worry that your proposal, meritworthy though it is, would make that process long and confused. AshleyMorton (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Confused There seem to be rather a lot of articles about various configurations of "Halifax" in Nova Scotia, to the point I'm not sure that Halifax, Nova Scotia is actually redirecting to the specific place most commonly given as "the Halifax in Nova Scotia". Strong oppose just "Halifax" - the British town and the bank are both highly prominent, and the regional municipality postdates all the events cited above. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The confusion makes total sense. There has been a lot of argument around this issue, not least from a former mayor who was not from Halifax (former city), but found himself mayor of the broader regional municipality - he argued strongly against any usage other than all three words, or the acronym "HRM". Unfortunately, the resulting articles (not just their titles) reflect a fair bit of awkward writing done to be as true as possible to the titles - which were themselves significantly problematic. Therefore, the appropriate locations for text about e.g. pre-settlement history were tough to determine. As a result, *once* we have this title changed, I believe that we will be able to improve the coherence of all of the articles about this region. AshleyMorton (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but I might take it a step further. In the past I was opposed to the HRM article and the Halifax (former city) being merged. But now that they are named the exact same thing, maybe they should also be merged into one article. Other people used Toronto and London as an example for when the cities merged with surrounding cities that there continued to be only one article. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I might support that, too, but I recommend we start with this step, so that the appropriate location for the "core article" becomes unambiguous. Then, we can identify which of the closely-linked articles should be restructured, and how. AshleyMorton (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is overdue. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA support the move, and I believe WP:CANSTYLE does as well. It specifically mentions this case as a "special case" without really explaining why, or whether this is correct. The current title continues to WP:ASTONISH. For just one example, compare the results for "going to halifax nova scotia" versus "going to halifax regional municipality". Don't want to check the links? It's ~80,100 to 1. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support per BDD. Absent some elaboration regarding the basis for this peculiar name, there is no reason to maintain it as an exception to the normal conventions. The current title does indeed WP:ASTONISH. Xoloz (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've never understood why we've used an administrative name decided by government. At least now we don't have to use the WP:OFFICIALNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Per BDD and Zarcadia. Name should never have been changed in the first place. Aloha27 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Let common sense prevail. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support At last!!! Let the confusion of the Halifax's come to an end! Let's do this sooner rather then later...--Kylestewart98 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Non Support The legal name is Halifax Regional Municipality the charter is 'The Halifax Regional Municipality Charter "and the press release clearly states the legal name did not change as Halifax NS is only the area within the former City of Halifax any change will create confusion between Halifax the Regional Municipality which no different CBRM and halifax the place name . There 288 place names in HRM has anyone looked at the civic address webpage . Halifax is not the whole HRM Halifax is where Halifax the place is .As for the airport it was Halifax Internal Airport before 1996 when HRM was created and it is not in Halifax but in Enfield — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19960401 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 19 April 2014‎
    • I cannot disagree more. effectively every other merged city on earth has exactly the same concerns, and effectively every other city has resolved this by using the name of the place, in the general sense, rather than the name of the Municipality. The decision by the Municipal Council confirms what everyone has been operating under in real life for a long time - the "place", in the general sense, is simply "Halifax". Of course, the formal municipal body will need to be described in the article, as will the evolution of the boundaries, including mention of where the former city had its borders (which have actually moved several times through history). Wikipedia policy is crystal clear on this - WP:OFFICIALNAME - "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." This is clearly the case here. "halifax the place name" *does* now apply to the entire area, and it is WP:ASTONISHing to see anything else there. Of course, Dartmouth is still Dartmouth, the same way that Etobicoke is still Etobicoke, but that does stop us from quite reasonably saying that it is "part of Halifax". The airport is a perfect example - it is in Enfield, of course, but it is the airport "for Halifax" and "of Halifax" - and when we say "Halifax" like that, we mean the general place - which is what this article is about. AshleyMorton (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I disagree -Halifax Nova Scotia is boundaries are where the formal city of halifax where before Apil 1,1996 .That the legal placename determined by The Halifax Regional Municipality -nothing changed since other than what the civic address office changed and who has the only authority to determine the boundaries of the communities including Halifax NS .This article is about the Halifax Regional Municipality which the official name is the same just the "logo" changed there is a big difference between a logo and the legal corporate name of the municipality . Halifax NS is a placename where the old city of halifax existed just like Bedford , Dartmouth and Enfield nothing changed in any of these .The Halifax regional Municipality like the Cape Breton Regional Municipality are the corporate governance not the placename .If you lived in Glace Bay you do not say you are fron Cape Breton nor if you lived in Fall River like me we do not say we are from Halifax . Like I say There is a difference between a place and a municipality and this where people will getting confused . If this is the case than the article on the Cape Breton Regional Municipality should be "Cape Breton " and if this goes ahead I will be pushing wikipedia for that article to be changed . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19960401 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Cape Breton as a place name has always referred to the island whereas Halifax has always referred to the city. The fact some politician forced the forming of the Halifax and Cape Breton regional municipalities should barely be a footnote. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The argument basically boils down to the idea that the formal boundaries from 1996 are the only things that can be, or ever should be, called just "Halifax". That is clear, and internally consistent, but clearly not what either Wikipedia, nor the world outside Wikipedia actually does. It is based on the faulty assumption that the existence of a formal government structure (even if that very government has chosen to ignore it most of the time) means that Wikipedia must use those titles always and forever. We can even repeat the Google test mentioned above with "Mayor of...", which should really be about the larger administrative place, not just the "former territory". For that, there are, in fact, 55,000 results for "Mayor of Halifax Regional Municipality" - but there are 250,000 for "Mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia". It is worth noting that the territories of the former cities of Toronto, Montreal, St. John's, Hamilton, and Quebec City do generally all exist for some administrative purpose or other - perhaps Canada Post designations, wards in municipal elections, or school districts. And yet none of those have the need to have separate articles for the former city and for the new merged municipality that are titled based on the administrative entity - rather, they are simply Toronto, Montreal, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Hamilton, Ontario and Quebec City. I don't say that we should copy them just 'cause they're big fish - rather I cite them to show that we're currently in a strange circumstance, and we should have a very good reason in order to maintain it - a reason that hasn't shown up yet. AshleyMorton (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; Personally it should have been like this from the start. "Halifax Regional Municipality" is a full, legal name. Halifax is still the WP:COMMONNAME. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hatnote Conflict[edit]

Okay, so the first edit conflict under the new title! The "hatnote" (the little italicized text at the top that helps people find other relevant articles) has had at least three versions over the last 24 hours or so, and some people (me included) who seem to have strong opinions on the issue. Here's my summary of the different versions:


This version is the simplest, but contains the least information.


This version includes a specific reference to the fact that Halifax (former city) is a "General Service Area".


This version includes a wikilink to "General Service Area".


This version uses the word "community" to wikilink to "General Service Area".
Two things: First, let's sort this out here on the talk page. This has changed so many times in the last day that it's silly. Second, it is my opinion that we should keep the simple version ("a)", above). This is the primary article, and I think that the other articles that people might be looking for (such as Halifax (electoral district), Downtown Halifax and Halifax (former city)) are more or less as likely as each other. I don't think that we can reliably say that people who search or type in "Halifax, Nova Scotia" will want the former city way more frequently than the other options. If this primary article is *not* what they want, then they really should go to the disambiguation page. AshleyMorton (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Go with a. The fact that it's a General Service Area is so unimportant that the article on the former gov't doesn't even mention it. Also, hatnotes are for disambiguation - they shouldn't explain anything except where the link is going, and explaining a General Service Area is not needed to tell where the link is going. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A is certainly the way to go. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That someone is arguing to include that crap about GSA in the hatnote is appaling. That it even has its own article is suspect (merge or RFD that crap) This is an enclopedia, not a compendium of all municipal bureaucratic dogma. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A (IMHO) is the right call. Aloha27 (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is there edit warring going on over this issue while it is being discussed here? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as you mention, there has been a further, slightly different version put up now - I think that rather than calling it edit warring (which it might be), let's just keep the discussion going here. So, here it is:


The difference between this and "d" is that it links to Community, instead of General Service Area.

To be honest, I don't think that this removes any of the weight of the previous opinions supportive of "a", above, but please speak up if you disagree. Most notably, I'm going to try (again) to contact the author about this. This author seems to have lots of desire to improve articles about Halifax, and lots of energy. I would love to collaborate with him/her. However, this specific issue, about the importance of General Service Areas, and definitions based on previous boundaries, is getting in the way. I hope that he/she will join the discussion here so that we can actually work together on this kind of stuff! AshleyMorton (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as GSA was too obscure to be of any encyclopedic use in a Hat, I don't think adding community adds any encyclopedic value. Instead of being obscure, it is too generic. A is still the only non complex yet useful choice. If an explanation is needed about the various iterations of "Halifax" it may be mentioned in the article space with appropriate links to a "main article" on the matter. The HAT is not a place to quibble. Unless of course you want a debate on whether the GSA is actually the community of today (did the community get to decide?). Frankly this fight with the Hat smells of sour grapes. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the user in question is a sockpuppet of a user that had these same sets of fights about 7 years ago and was blocked and sockpuppeted at that time. Unfortunately its hard to proove since it was so long ago, all we have to go on is behaviour evidence. I am guessing the fact that the city making the announcement of going with the name Halifax, NS woke them back up. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Irrespective of that issue, I am going to change the hat to A and if I am reverted the instigator will be brought to ANI for a block. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The instigator has edited virtually EVERY geographical entry of NS communities to GSA's. Even Barrachois, Colchester County which consists of about three houses and a marina. Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
It's true. I have been trying my darnest to engage with this editor (see his/her talk page), but getting not much more than a repeat of the basic points - the person clearly feels that the formal, administrative boundaries of GSAs are the way that articles should be organised, and that anyone who sees thing differently really doesn't understand. I agree with the earlier suggestion of potential sockpuppetry. It certainly seems a possibility. Finally, I will note that it isn't actually a ridiculous idea to indicate the GSA in the infobox of some of these places, if there is no other formal definition. If they are used in an official capacity by the Provincial government, then okay. ...But we have to get the Halifax articles cleaned up and structured better. If this person absolutely blocks that, then we need to seek a block. However, as I said, he/she makes useful contributions, and I wish we could just redirect his/her work! AshleyMorton (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all. Glad to have found this conversation as I have also suspected that user of being a sockpuppet of Matthvm, whose many accounts were banned in the past here (August 2006), here (January 2007), and here (July 2009). I also figured the city's rebranding exercise spurred him to come back here. I grew suspicious not only because he's doing the same edit warring on the same topics as before and has the same writing style, but also because the username takes the same YYYYMMDD date format as two other accounts which were previously banned. I think the present account simply slipped through the cracks during the last round of blockings. Maybe we could collaborate to get an administrator involved. The user has a contentious editing style which doesn't seem to have improved over half a decade, considering we are all here talking about it again... regards, Citobun (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that is exactly the user I was talking about. I intend to put a sockpuppet request up if he keeps with the battling. But anyone else is free to do so if they think it should be done now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see what the big deal the area of where the former city was is a community today that is in Nova Scotia is a General Service Area that is nothing changed since Halifax the city was dissolved in 1996 the area is called Halifax Nova Scotia .It has nothing to do with municipal dogma etc it all to do with someones interruption with rules that they claim that the they are right . I read the rules too its states that you also the articles have to be verified .19960401 15:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

First, let's be clear - the facts are not in doubt. What you just said about the area of the former City being a GSA is true. The question is whether it should be in the hatnote. The response, in line with Wikipedia policy and the experiences of the editors participating above seems to be a pretty clear "no". I would be interested to hear from you why you feel that it must be in the hatnote (not whether it is a GSA - we know it is). There are lots of true things that are not in the hatnote (for example, the latitude of the city, the fact that it's on a peninsula, or the fact that my cat is named Frank.) The question is about why that particular piece of information is necessary to help people find the article they're looking for.AshleyMorton (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a simpler issue. Current GSA and Current Community are not explicit enough to be in a Hat. They do not offer any level of differentiation, which is the role of hat, as there are many un-named GSAs and Communities. So saying current GSA could easly be construed as the former city being the only GSA. 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Geographic Location[edit]

Hi folks. This seems to fall broadly into the same category as a number of topics that have been on the go here a fair bit lately: the geographic point for the article. User:Vbond changed it to a point in the downtown core of Halifax, and then User:19960401 changed it back. I understand the arguments - one is about the concept of Halifax as a place, regardless of its municipal borders, the other is an identification of the centre of the municipality. Actually, I'm not as sure on this one as I was on the other ones. I offer, for consideration, three possible relevant maps, all from StatsCan. The Municipality [10], the Census Metropolitan Area [11] (which are effectively identical), and then the Population Centre [12]. I see several strategies:

  • Centre of the municipality (as per Toronto & Vancouver - but these cities have a "core built up area" that extends all the way to their municipal boundaries, also St. Catharines)
  • Downtown / City Hall (as per Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec City, London, Victoria)
  • Compromise "middle of the built-up area", but not necessarily the centre of downtown or City Hall (as per Edmonton, Kitchener, Oshawa, Windsor, Saskatoon)

I am leaning towards that last option (which might, for example, put the dot in the Narrows somewhere), but I would be interested to hear what others think. AshleyMorton (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with option #3. Perhaps even the Legislature/Grand Parade area. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Odd that there is no MOS or guideline for this. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • For most cities there is an official point that is considered the centre point. I don't know if the HRM has one being that it isn't a city. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Which coordinates to use (from:

National mapping agencies such as the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), Ordnance Survey (OS), and Geographical Names Board of Canada (GNBC) are reliable sources for coordinates. The GEOnet Names Server (GNS) database is not reliable. For other locations, the following points should be considered:

  • For villages, towns, communities, etc., use the current centre. Where this is difficult, choose the earliest known settlement of that name.
  • For military and industrial establishments (e.g., castles, barracks, dockyards, car plants) use the main gate.
  • For administrative districts, use the head office.

Since the article is referring to the administrative entity called the HRM it would seem the head office is the correct choice for Wikipedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

On the policy basis, I would say that it fits into the "villages, towns, communities, etc." category. In my opinion, it is an article about the place Halifax, not one about the administrative entity called the Halifax Regional Municipality. However, that might be pretty academic, because a dot on City Hall or a dot on the population core would be pretty close to each other. Here's what I propose - we use just (44 39 N, 63 34 W), because those are roughly correct for the downtown core and City Hall, but they actually fall in the water of the harbour. If we get more detailed, we can have a fight over a pretty irrelevant point. Sticking to minutes of latitude and longitude, rather than going to seconds maintains some useful fuzziness. AshleyMorton (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Too much of an ad[edit]

This article on Halifax ,Halifax Regional Municipality is becoming too much of an ad for Downtown Halifax -Great Halifax -whatever because some of these editors seam to know the instant when to write the sa propaganda whenever those three organizations . In fact one of has ties to and made a donation to Halifax Regional Council members campaian . hfxfail Wikipedia is not suppose to be an ad website or a propaganda outlet its suppose to be a encyclopedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternhfx (talkcontribs)

This article is not an ad, it is a factual article on the HRM. The fact that you are not impressed with the changes the municipality made is irrelevant. If we were to remove all mention of those changes when we would be hiding the truth of the matter and would actually then be propaganda for people against the changes. The changes are explained and opinions on both sides of the matter are mentioned so it is a fair and balance representation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The video you link to effectively makes the argument that Municipal resources that should have been going to the various services have been instead going to Wikipedia editing. I don't know about the other editors, but I can guarantee you that I am not in any way paid by the Municipality.
Regarding the name of the article, the place is, and has been since the founding of the Town of Halifax, called "Halifax". That is the common name of the place, and it is what should be used as the article's name. At the same time, I completely support the idea that the article should not be "an ad for Downtown Halifax". Many cities' articles manage the issue of different neighbourhoods (many of which were formerly independent municipalities) quite well. See, for example, the Toronto "Neighbourhoods" section. Similarly, the Bronx is mentioned dozens of times in the New York City article. I will support (and assist with proofreading, etc.) efforts to flesh out the diversity of the article, so that it isn't just the "ad" that you're worried about. However, as someone who moved to the Peninsula when I moved to Halifax, it will probably have to be others who do the work of fleshing out text in other areas. On that front, I can't see that you've actually made an effort to add any text to the article that would improve it. Until and unless you do that, your argument will be weak, to say the least. In fact, your account was created in early May, clearly to grind an axe on this issue. I really hope that you might consider using your energy to improve the articles, rather than fight about their names. AshleyMorton (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The authors are puppet's of the municipality (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
On the name, it should have been Halifax from the start per WP:COMMONNAME. Those pushing HRM as the name of the article are basically showing favoritism. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Municipality vs. Metropolitan Area[edit]

I see in the infobox the metropolitan and municipality population figures are different. In the case of Halifax, isn't the municipality the only component of the CMA? So, wouldn't that mean the figures should be idenitical? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Metropolitan area is smaller than the municipality. I believe Metro is only made up for Dartmouth, Halifax, Bedford and Lower Sackville. The rest of the municipality isn't part of the Metro area. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I was under the impression that the base components of CMAs were municipalities. What are the base components for CMAs in Canada? Statistical divisions like Census tracts? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I would have to look to be sure. But I can say that the Halifax Regional Municipality which is what this page is about (although its recently been moved to hits common name of Halifax, Nova Scotia) is alot different than most municipalities. It used to be a number of different cities and has since been made a single municipality covering hundreds of square kilometers. I am guessing due to this it may be handled slightly differently by Stats Canada. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This article is relevant. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I figured as much (that census subdivisions are used as the base components). Unfortunately, it still leaves me confused about Halifax in particularly. I'm guessing that for statistical purposes, maybe Halifax is a special case that the municipality is actually divided into census subdivisons, where as in almost all other cases a municipality is, itself, a census subdivisions. But, I can't confirm this. Perhaps, if someone could find a map showing the CMA as it relates to the municipal boundaries, that would be helpful. And, if Halifax is a special case, that would certainly be worthy of note both the page describing census subdivisions and Halifax's article. Thanks for all of your help thus far, though. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A week and a half has passed with no input or objection, so I've merged the content from Metropolitan Halifax into this page. Citobun (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose merging Metropolitan Halifax into Halifax, Nova Scotia. Most of what appears in Metropolitan Halifax already appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia. A separate article seems unnecessary and, being made up of redundant content, makes maintenance more difficult. It causes unnecessary confusion – and a number of articles link to Metropolitan Halifax when there is no reason for them not to simply link to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The concept of the "urban area" can easily be explained within a subsection of Halifax, Nova Scotia – which is already the case (section 2.1). Citobun (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Info Box Pictures[edit]

The infobox pictures do not represent the whole of the Halifax Regional Municipality it only represents the area of the downtown area of Halifax (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point. Some of the most iconic Halifax things are clearly in the core, and you couldn't have a Halifax article without a picture of the bridges, but I think having a picture of one of the Eastern Shore fishing wharves or one of the great beaches would definitely fit, and make it better. AshleyMorton (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Halifax photo hunt[edit]

During my last visit to Halifax I tried to add photos to some articles that didn't have any. But there are still many Halifax-related articles without photos of the main subject, or missing photos altogether. I've collected 50 below. Can any residents of Halifax help?

For anyone is unfamiliar with the process of contributing your own photos to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Uploading images. In a nutshell, you must upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which entails releasing it under a free licence. Then you can add it to the article here on Wikipedia.

Once you add a photo, please strike out the article name in this list and leave a note if you like. Cheers, Citobun (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been meaning to do this for awhile. Maybe I will take a weekend to do this later this month or next. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can do the downtown ones maybe even later on today. I have a meet at 4pm and if the rest of my day goes well I can head out a bit early. WayeMason (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Done ones struck out above, you can see them here have not had time to place them! WayeMason (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Placed them!  :) WayeMason (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Waye! Fantastic photo of the Grand Parade. Citobun (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple more articles that need photos:

I will try to chip away at this next time I visit. Citobun (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I got HRM corporate communications to rights release a bunch of photos. Reasonably high res but not print quality, unfortunately. Have not had time to correlate them to the list above! See them here: [13] WayeMason (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Halifax, Nova Scotia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unusual" angles and locations...[edit]

In this paragraph:

"The urban core is home to several blocks of typical North American high-rise office buildings, however segments of the downtown are governed by height restrictions which prevent buildings from obstructing certain sight lines between Citadel Hill and Halifax Harbour. This has resulted in some modern high rises being built at unusual angles or locations."

What's so "unusual"? According to whom?

"Unusual" in this context is a weasel word. This sentence is essentially meaningless.

Agreed. The sentence could be removed. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


The Mi'kmaq name for the city is "K'jipuktuk" (media source: ). This should be in the article in some way; suggestions as to how? DS (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am in the process of rewriting the "History" section. Could be incorporated into the opening paragraph about indigenous settlement, with a note about modern-day usage – cited to your link? Ben MacLeod (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It would certainly seem reasonable, to me, to include this in the infobox. A reasonable example, to me, would be Newport, Wales. Welsh is a minority language in Newport, though it clearly has historical status, and there's no question that Welsh is a live, valid language in other parts of the country (as is Mi'kmaq - there are Nova Scotia communities where it's the majority first language). So, you can see in the Newport article, that "Newport" is at the top of the infobox, in standard font. "Casnewydd", which is the name in Welsh, is immediately below, but shown in italics. I think this communicates that it's not "official", but it's still relevant for users of the English-language Wikipedia to know of as a current-day placename (It's become common in certain circles to use it for newspaper articles. AshleyMorton (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's give it until the 20th to see if there's any better suggestions? DS (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyMorton (talkcontribs) 18:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Living here I have never even seen reference to this name before which leads me to believe it is not common enough to be in the infobox. Completely agree that putting it into the prose of the article would make a lot of sense. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not heavily emotionally invested in this, but here's where I've heard/seen it (I also live in Halifax):
      ° The Ecology Action Centre uses it on all of their press releases: [14] [15]
      ° So does Halifax Pride [16]
      ° Articles published the Halifax Media Co-op use it in their byline, and sometimes in their direct content: [17] [18]
      ° Mount St. Vincent University used it for an exhibition: [19]
      ° Several of the professors at NSCAD University use it to describe where they work: [20] [21]
      ° ADSUM, a local women's shelter uses it to describe where they are. [22]
To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting that this is a primary name, particularly not *in English* - that's obviously just "Halifax". All the same, I think that it's a relevant-enough "non-English name" to be included in the infobox, the way that Welsh names are, even in the English-dominant parts of Wales, and Cornish is for Cornwall, even though Cornish is a functionally-dead language.AshleyMorton (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The difference of course being that Welsh is the primary language in much of Wales or atleast neck and neck with English. And to be clear, I wasn't saying it isn't used. Just that it isn't one of the most important points of information in the article which is what everything in the infobox is supposed to be. But yeah it isn't something I am going to rally against or anything, just don't think its an important point to be in the infobox . Its a slippery slope because then you have to consider things like the Acadian name for the area prior to the English since if anything there is a larger french presence here than Mi'kmaq. I think its just more appropriate for that level of detail to be in the prose instead. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Couple of things here: a) The Acadians didn't have a name for Halifax, because there was never an Acadian community here, unless I'm solidly mistaken. To the degree they ever needed to refer to the place, they just used loose approximations of the Mi'kmaw names. b) It seems to be Wikipedia's stance to use locally-important names as secondary in the infobox, even if they're not widely used. I cited Cornwall earlier, but Brittany is another good example, as well as Cape Town, Auckland, Glasgow and Yellowknife. At the end of the day, it will only make the article better, not worse, and I think it should be included front-and-centre in the infobox. AshleyMorton (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay. Any more suggestions, comments, objections? DS (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

After five days with no further comments, I've added "K'jipuktuk" to the infobox. DS (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

unceded territory[edit]

I don't think the fact that a school board decides to announce unceded territory (the provided reference) counts as support for the fact that the territory is unceded - it only supports the fact that the school board has in fact decided something. I've been looking for a clear statement that this is unceded territory. The best I have come up with is this: "The Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia claim Aboriginal title to the lands and waters of Nova Scotia and adjacent areas of the offshore, and maintain that they did not give up their land rights through treaty, voluntary cession, or otherwise." But this too does not support anything beyond the fact that "the Mi'kmaq ... claim ... and maintain...." Anyone have a better source? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the school board would not do something that public without studying it first. That said, there are references in books, not the internet. I'll do some digging. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the onus be in the other direction, though? Presumably, if territory was once someone's, and they ceded it to someone else, then there should be evidence of that. Proving a negative (that there has never been an act of cession) can be almost impossible, because you have to prove that you have explored all possible avenues and come up empty. I'm not trying to be combatative here, but... are you aware of any proof *of* cession? If it happened, then it should be pretty straightforward to demonstrate. For example, there are all of the numbered treaties across the Prairies. There are clear arguments that they were unfair, illegal, etc. - but no one can debate the idea that they exist, and that they discuss transferring land to the Crown. In reading the treaties that concerned Mi'kmaq groups (texts available through links here: [23]), it's tough to find any indication that land was ever ceded... AshleyMorton (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Since the British decided that they had taken the land by conquest by defeating France, and rejected the Mi'kmaq's proposed boundaries, I don't think there is anything to find like that. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, but normally, when someone takes something by conquest (as happened in Europe for millennia...) there is usually some document at the end of it all, saying who now owns what. We can debate the legitimacy of taking territory by force, I suppose, but there's still normally something in writing. I don't think we even need to have that debate. We can just say that no Mi'kmaw group ever actually signed a document (or equivalent) saying "Yes, this is your land - no longer ours." That, to me is the definition of "unceded" - Even if *you* believe that you've taken this, *we* haven't agreed. ("you" and "we" in that sentence aren't meant to be from my voice - I'm not Mi'kmaq.) AshleyMorton (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need to find proof that it is unceded, just a statement that someone with authority claims that it is unceded. I understand the absence of proof is not proof of absence, etc, but the government of NS does not state anywhere that this is unceded land. When I do a Google search "nova scotia unceded mi'kmaq land" I find the CBC, a school board, "activists", and Prof. Paul. I suggest the sentence be changed to "Halifax is located on land which many, including the government of Nova Scotia, acknowledge as land which the Mi'kmaq peoples claim to be unceded" Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Historians have analyzed the treaties. The Mikmaq agreed to surrender and not fight the British. They then proposed boundaries that were rejected by the British. There is no land claim treaty. Not to be too critical, but I think your sentence is too unwieldy. More like "Halifax is located on land which the government of Nova Scotia acknowledges is Mi'kmaq unceded territory." Alaney2k (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Halifax, Nova Scotia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)