Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Nova Scotia/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of municipalities in Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
This is chapter 10 in a 13-chapter effort to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 9 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous
|
---|
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Looks good. Just a couple of things to fix before I can support:
I'm semi-retired, and I don't check my watchlist that often, so please message me on my talk page. Kind regards. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support until data is updated to 2016 Census data. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vensatry
- Pipe-linking Canada 2011 Census to 2011 borders WP:EASTEREGG
- Agreed and fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 53,000 km2 (20,000 sq mi) - Why approximates when you have the exact figure?
- The approximation is based on a request on past FLCs for the other provinces and territories. I much prefer not to round. I'll change it to our preference now, but I hope a future commenter doesn't want it changed back. Seems like a preferential style thing that differs from editor to editor and has little weight between what is and isn't a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As co-nom, I agree, I much prefer not to round, in fact if there are no objections, I might change the other lists to precise numbers. Mattximus (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, no objections here. I was planning on doing that myself today. Please proceed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hwy43 Doing it now, but I just realized that two of statscan sources differ! [2][3]. This seems rather odd, but I think I'll stick with the latter number since it's more recent. Any idea why the land area differ so much? Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, this source should not be used at all. Just the actual census source. Obviously there are two different StatCan methodologies at play here. Using the StatCan census land areas for municipalities and provinces/territories allows for a proper apples-to-apples comparison. The other StatCan source is an orange. Hwy43 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, all done. I rounded to the nearest square km, hope that's ok! Mattximus (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, this source should not be used at all. Just the actual census source. Obviously there are two different StatCan methodologies at play here. Using the StatCan census land areas for municipalities and provinces/territories allows for a proper apples-to-apples comparison. The other StatCan source is an orange. Hwy43 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hwy43 Doing it now, but I just realized that two of statscan sources differ! [2][3]. This seems rather odd, but I think I'll stick with the latter number since it's more recent. Any idea why the land area differ so much? Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, no objections here. I was planning on doing that myself today. Please proceed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As co-nom, I agree, I much prefer not to round, in fact if there are no objections, I might change the other lists to precise numbers. Mattximus (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The approximation is based on a request on past FLCs for the other provinces and territories. I much prefer not to round. I'll change it to our preference now, but I hope a future commenter doesn't want it changed back. Seems like a preferential style thing that differs from editor to editor and has little weight between what is and isn't a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All notes should be cited.
- They were. See fourth bullet from first commenter and replies. I'm happy to return and hope the first commenter understands they are necessary. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delink Town
- I assume in the second paragraph because it should be a commonly understood term per WP:OVERLINK. Correct? Done. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Municipal Government Act (MGA) italicised?
- Because it is a title of a printed work, albeit legislation. This has been done per requests on past FLCs. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "3 regional municipalities, 26 towns, 9 county municipalities and 12 district municipalities." -> "three regional municipalities, twenty-six towns, nine county municipalities and twelve district municipalities" to comply with WP:MOSNUM. Check for the rest of the article too.
- As there is one figure exceeding ten, we are permitted to use one format (written words) or the other (numbers) throughout as long as we are consistent, if I recall corectly. I'll review to see if there are any inconsistencies.
- Is the Rural municipalities classification defunct?
- It is not a classification per se. It is the title for a group of two classifications. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a classification per se. It is the title for a group of two classifications. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Vensatry, thank you for your review. See replies above. Some actions done already while others in progress. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hurricanehink |
---|
Support from Hurricanehink
Just a few comments (having stumbled from my own FLC)
♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Certainly - thanks so much for the quick update! Full support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.