Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if they are related to a section above, to maintain a sequential order of topics.
I prefer to keep discussion threads together. If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
Land area source?
Hi, sorry to bug you with this question again, but for consistency, I'm wondering what source we should use for land area? Here is the 2016 census  and the 2011 census  and they both give different land area values for Ontario. I assume this would be the case for other provinces. Should I go through the list pages and use only the new 2016 land area value? What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Always use the same vintage of data as the population data, which in this case is 2016. All provinces and territories are affected by negligible land area changes between the 2011 and 2016 censuses for whatever methodological reason. We've speculated about that elsewhere with CambridgeBayWeather. For the opening paragraphs in the municipality lists, where the population and land area is ranked among the other provinces/territories, use this instead of this. The former allows the comparison among other provinces/territories whereas the latter only allows comparison with Nova Scoita's census subdivisions and Canada. However, the latter supports everything else in the article. I made a mistake last night and didn't use the former in the NS article, which I will fix right now. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, I'll slowly get to all the provinces/territories that you haven't got too first. I kinda like the table format you made for the Nova Scotia list, would you mind if I applied that to all lists? (Specifically having only 1 reference for all 4 final columns). Mattximus (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, I looked into the past vandalism you mentioned re Selkirk, and you're right that the patterns were the same: unsourced changes to Selkirk's census population, downgrading Selkirk from city to town status, and weird nonsense about transit buses. And, in fact, that blocked user's past sock IDs have also included more than one name that had "Riley" in it, to boot. Accordingly, I've gone ahead and blocked him on WP:DUCK grounds. Thanks for the heads up. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bearcat. I didn't have the time to start a new SPI at that moment. Enjoy the nickname you bestowed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you have a moment to comment at Talk:Ancaster, Hamilton, Ontario#Ancaster, Ontario moved to Ancaster, Hamilton, Ontario. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Magnolia677, if I wanted to mail something to a resident or business in Ancaster, would the city line on the mailing address read "Ancaster, ON" or "Hamilton, ON"? This may seem like a trivial question, but believe it or not there is a consensus approach based on the answer. Hwy43 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, no, no! Magnolia677, I am not trying to be derisive at all. Seriously, if the answer to the question is yes, then the consensus on Wikipedia is the article should follow the "City, Province" name format. I was just too busy at the time to confirm myself. I have the answer now. It is yes. The article should be moved back to Ancaster, Ontario per WP:CANSTYLE#Neighbourhoods/communities. Hwy43 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Forgive me for misinerpreting your response. Most of my edits are to US towns and cities, but I occasionally edit Canadian settelments and I must say the Canadian naming guidelines are a bit complex. I expressed my feelings a while back at Talk:Pinawa. I'm not sure how bare names assist Wikipedia readers find articles, both in Wikipedia searched and in Google searches. I also think this site would be a better "go to" for place names than Canada Post (much like GNIS for US articles). Again, my apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. I can see how it, along with the curious question, could have led you to the misinterpretation. I recall seeing that Pinawa discussion. I once felt like you but I eventually embraced the Canadian WikiProject's consensus-based convention. See the move history and talk page of La Crete. Hwy43 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Magnolia677, the Natural Resources directory is great for a lot of things — but it's not helpful in the context of determining what level of disambiguation a settlement should be located at. If I search for Ancaster, for example, the result tells me nothing about whether Ancaster is idiomatically understood as "Ancaster, Ontario" or "Ancaster, Hamilton" in actual everyday speech — and actual real-world usage, not "all places of X type must follow an invariably consistent dab format based on the class of topic", is what makes the decision one way or the other. That's why the Canada Post database is preferred for that purpose: the current or historical presence of a post office in that location is the most reliably predictive test of whether people would say "Ancaster, Ontario" or not. The base principle that we follow is that each place needs to be at the title that readers who are looking for it would be likeliest to expect — if they'd be likelier to expect comma-Ontario, then we put it there, and if they'd be likelier to expect comma-City, then we put it there. By comparison, nobody would ever expect the neighbourhood of Cabbagetown in Toronto to be at "Cabbagetown, Ontario" — that's not a thing people would say when referring to it, because the postal mailing address of a Cabbagetown resident is "Toronto, ON", not "Cabbagetown, ON". The core test is "what would people actually call it in the real world?" — and there are some places which, even though they're technically neighbourhoods within cities rather than standalone municipalities, would be called "Place, Ontario" rather than "Place, City" in the real world. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hwy43, thank you for allowing me to respond on your talk page. User:Bearcat, I think its wonderful that the Canadian style attempts to disambiguate according to the idiomatic understanding of a settlement. This acknowledges the historical importance of a place, and demonstrates an effort to help Wikipedia readers find what they are looking for. My concern is that the well-intentioned Canadian style is overly complex, and is in fact quite subjective.
In the US, the standard rule (at least I think it's a rule) seems to be that if a neighborhood is located within a larger city, it gets disambiguated according to the larger city. No matter that Flushing, Queens was founded in 1645, or Bridgeport, Chicago in the early 1800s; the US style has little regard for the historical importance or idiomatic understanding of the place name, which makes it rigidly objective (something that seems to work quite well in certain places on Wikipedia).
OK...Ancaster is now located within Hamilton. But all the locals know it as "Ancaster, Ontario". Most important, the users of Wikipedia will probably be looking for "Ancaster, Ontario", not Ancaster in Hamilton. So as editors, let's create some sort of "test" to determine what to call this place, and that test will be whether is has a post office.
In fact, "Ancaster, ON" does show up as a real place at Canada Post, so it probably also has its own unique history, and should be disambiguated from all the other Ancasters as "Ancaster, Ontario".
My concern is that what appears to be objective--a recognition that this is a unique settlement according to Canada Post--is actually quite subjective.
Malton, Mississauga was settled in the early 1800s. Malton had a train station, an international airport, and its own post office for a while. It even had its own soccer team which competed against neighboring Elmbank. But "Malton, Ontario" did not pass the Canada Post test, and neither did "Flushing, New York" (no prize, pas cadeaux!).
I'm not trying to be a prickly pear. I've just been editing long enough to realize that some parts of Wikipedia are being held together with chicken wire, and I'd be willing to sacrifice an easy search for a simplified editing rule. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think either Flushing or Bridgeport is really a good comparison. The Nanny was "working in a bridal shop in Flushing, Queens", not in "Flushing, New York", before she met Mr. Sheffield — and there's a second, independent non-Chicago Bridgeport at the opposite end of the state of Illinois competing for the "Bridgeport, Illinois" idiom. So they don't prove that how the place would be idiomatically referred to in real world speech is irrelevant to the matter — because for both of them, "Place, City" is how they would be referred to, so they are already at their idiomatic titles. And there are situations, even in the United States, where a neighbourhood within a city is dabbed with the state name rather than the city name; see, frex, North Omaha, Nebraska and South Omaha, Nebraska. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Serviceberry #43 in Alberta ("Weather's good there in the fall")
You "Redirected Serviceberry #43 to List of municipal districts in Alberta#Former municipal districts" (which IIRC requires a mention of the former within the latter article). You probably can provide, with less effort than any of the rest of us, (at least) info on a more specific current jurisdiction within which SB 43 lies. Thanks at least for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Serviceberry No. 43, Alberta redirects to List of municipal districts in Alberta#Former municipal districts. Within the table under the Dissolved subsection, there is the following entry.
|Dissolution date||Subsequent municipality(ies)|
|Serviceberry No. 43||January 1, 1955||Rocky View County
- Thus, what was once the MD of Serviceberry No. 43 now straddles what is currently Rocky View County and Wheatland County. I trust this is what you were looking for. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
List of municipalities in Manitoba question
I finally updated the Manitoba list for 2016 census (only 3 more to go!), but I noticed the second of your excellent maps says "79 urban municipalities", the first map seems to have far fewer, and the list has only 39. Was there a massive amalgamation effort recently that I missed? Mattximus (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Manitoba municipal amalgamations, 2015, which explains everything, is linked in the caption of the second map and in the See also section. The third map needs to be updated as a result. I'll put it on my to do list, but all of my free time has evaporated and this will be the case for months yet. Thanks for continuing to update the lists. Hwy43 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Where do we get the Climate charts for Ontario towns?
Good evening, User:Hwy43. Other editors and I have been improving the articles about villages, towns and cities. Many of them do not have the Climate chart. (Should that only be used for large communities?) Would you be able to instruct me on how to find such a chart for Kingston, Ontario, for example? Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Peter K Burian. I'm all thumbs when it comes to climate charts. Best is to approach a Canadian WikiProject member that is proficient in such. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Members. CambridgeBayWeather is one that comes to mind. One thing I think I do know is the only real reliable and acceptable source for climate chart data for Canadian community articles, according to consensus, is Environment Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)