Talk:Rural municipality (Canada)

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada: Manitoba / Prince Edward Island / Saskatchewan / Alberta / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Prince Edward Island.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Estonia similarity

There are a concept of rural municipality in Estonia as well. Andres 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of Local Improvement District

I noticed Local Improvement District leads to Rural Municipality in the context of Canada. In the US the concept refers to underdeveloped areas forming a tax district to fund capital infrastructure projects (paved streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc...) in which the tax lots of the district are assessed a share of the cost because the infrastructure improvements directly benefit these tax lots. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can expand the subject and update this topic accordingly. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.163.163 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Local Improvement District as used in the U.S. should have its own page. Here is an accurate description of the meaning of LID as used in the U.S.: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=82642&c=35715 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.201.242 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire District

Fire district should not redirect here. The subject is worthy of its own page. 71.80.43.123 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense

I don't have any references to rewrite this article, but it is so horrendously, horribly badly written that it makes no sense! What does Alberta have to do with the subject? What do prairie fires have to do with the subject? It makes no sense!! Could somebody please rewrite? --NellieBly (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Rural municipality (Canada). Although there are some comments suggesting that there needs to be a broad-concept article discussing rural municipalities in general, we currently don't have such articles, we only have ~~two~~ four articles, one exclusively about Canadian rural municipalities and others about the Nepalese/Estonian/Ukraine concept. As such, there is consensus that there is no primary topic between those two concepts and the article is moved to Rural municipality (Canada). Discussions on creating a broad-concept instead of a dab page, or merging the concepts, can be discussed separately. — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rural municipality → Rural municipalities (Canada) – The term Rural municipality is used in many countries. Rural municipality (Nepal) is redirected to Gaunpalika which is Nepali translation of Rural municipality. And Rural municipality will remain as disambiguation page. ~SS49~ {talk} 08:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Rural municipality is a generic term used in a lot of countries. I recommend creating a section for Canada in the page itself, rather than renaming the page. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify further, I wouldn't mind the move either a DAB page is created for Rural municipality or the article is improved with section to various countries. Simply moving this page to Rural municipalities (Canada) without DAB will affect people looking for this term. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishal Shrestha, yes. Rural municipality should be a disambiguation page. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article as written is only about Rural Municipalities in Canada. The title should reflect that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if there are rural municipalities elsewhere in the world, the solution is to expand the article with proper reliable sources to be inclusive of these elsewhere instances. This has been done elsewhere on Wikipedia for other municipal status types. Seeing that Bishal Shrestha is suggesting the same. Hwy43 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that if the article is in fact moved, the target should be singular not plural. That is Rural municipality (Canada). Hwy43 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum this is totally unnecessary. By the logic proposed, we should split County into 24 articles and dab County. The solution is as has been done at Municipal district. Add three sections summarizing the Estonian, Finnish, and Nepalese equivalents to this article and we are good to go. Also, has anyone – SS49, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, In ictu oculi or Owlf – done even a rudimentary web search on "rural municipality" to get a sense of what would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? From what I am seeing, the Canadian term would actually be the primary topic, thus Rural municipality (Canada) would be in contravention. It is noted that Rural municipality (Estonia) is simply a redirect and we would therefore be well served by having a paragraph or two summarizing on this article as I have suggested. Hwy43 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the content of thw article it should be moved. Owlf 19:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above. No doubt there are rural municipalities in other countries, with various names (e.g. there are already several articles with "Rural district" in their titles) but this article isn't about them.----Ehrenkater (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Hwy43 and Bishal Shrestha - the better solution is to use subsections within the Rural municipality article for the various countries where the term is used, similar to what's been done with County. PK T(alk) 12:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article should be expanded and Canada should just be one section in it. The county example above is perfect, you wouldn't have it split into a whole bunch of separate articles, you would just have sections describing how it is used in each country. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per User:Hwy43. No need for splinter articles on the same subject for each country. Just make subsections within this article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Hwy43. We would end up with hundreds of stubs if we split these articles in 1 per country instead of a few well written articles with sections on each country. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.