Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Canada (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Redundancy model[edit]

The model for presenting names in the infobox seems quite redundant as written. It might make sense to include all three of name, type, and official name for instances where the official name is something other than "[type] of [name]", but otherwise it would seem to contradict "present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content" of WP:IBT. Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is referring to WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes. Using all three parameters is not redundant. The three fields all convey separate, unique and necessary key facts about the incorporated community in question. Without the [settlement_type] parameter we cannot assume that the [settlement_type] in "[settlement_type] of [name]" is the community's actual status (e.g., Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo). Similarly, with all but the [official_name] parameter in use, we cannot assume that the [official_name] follows the "[settlement_type] of [name]" convention (e.g., it is not "District Municipality of Delta). There are countless examples of municipalities across Canada that brand themselves as a certain type of municipality, but their true municipal statuses granted by their provinces are in fact different. Not only does the exception proposed cast doubt via assumption, it risks inconsistency with parameter usage on communities where their actual municipal status is different than the type they portray themselves as. As for WP:IBT, the usage of all three parameters for Canadian communities are necessary as they enable us to identify key facts about the municipality at first glance without having to hunt for it in the prose of the article. By no means does the perceived redundancy clutter the infobox of Canadian communities. I oppose making exceptions to WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes. Hwy43 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said, where they are in fact different it makes sense to include all of the parameters. However, the parameters are not labelled in display, so when they are the same they do visibly convey the same information twice. This results in the top of the box appearing as "[Name] - [Type] - [Type] of [Name]" - something readers will perceive as redundant clutter. What you identify as "inconsistency" is actually fairly standard practice: determine which parameters to use based on the situation at hand. This flexibility is preferable to the current model. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That is what you said and I already countered that in my previous reply. We both know where each other stand. Hwy43 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but while there are instances where such delineation is useful and desired, I look at the infobox for Calgary and am left wondering why a single, one line header of "City of Calgary" doesn't convey the entire point precisely. Adding "Calgary" then "City" then "City of Calgary" is certainly redundant and sloppy in my view. I am inclined to agree that inconsistency is not a greater problem than redundancy in this example. Resolute 17:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Although it does appear redundant in some cases, I would like to stick to the WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes for reasons above. Specifically, it is important to demonstrate the municipality type which may or may not be in the official name, have consistency between wikipages for all municipalities in Canada, and to maintain the links to "list of..." pages which would be lost if we reduce it to the single name. Appearance aside, those are 3 distinct pieces of information that are useful to include. I oppose making exceptions to canstyle infobox guidelines. Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
While I understand what Resolute is getting at, I am inclined to agree with Hwy43 and Mattximus on this one and would oppose any change. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Mattximus, those links to "list of..." pages should be removed regardless of the results of this discussion - they are easter eggs. The cases in which the municipality type is not in the official name is far outweighed by the cases in which the redundancy occurs. As Resolute says, while there are instances where such delineation is useful and desired, this is not true for most articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the all of the perimeters should be used for all Canadian cities. The majority opinion is that it is best to be consistant and that the fields are useful. AlbinoFerret 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should use of all of |name=, |official name=, and |settlement type= be required for all Canadian cities? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. Uphold the longstanding consensus at WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes, which was recently reaffirmed in the above discussion that occurred last year. In short, making exceptions for certain cities was opposed above.

    Note this controversy was largely limited to Manitoba cities in late 2014 through March 2015. Since this discussion, the controversy has since been essentially limited to the Winnipeg article, which is a FA. Other Canadian municipality FAs include Dawson Creek, Lethbridge and Tumbler Ridge, while GAs include Edmonton, Moncton, Montreal, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador and Sarnia. All of these articles use all three parameters with the exception of Moncton that is missing |official name= (which, in full disclosure, I am about to add). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • No. One size does not fit all. While there are certainly cases where it makes sense (and I'm not proposing forbidding this formulation), in most instances it will be redundant. See above for more details. (The requirement seems to have been added some time ago without discussion, and since 3-2 above is not a strong consensus either way it's good to talk this through more broadly). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: I didn't previously realize that the initiator of this RfC was the nominator that successfully facilitated the Winnipeg article's FA status. The efforts undertaken to achieve FA status are commended. In hindsight however, this RfC appears to be more so about WP:IDL and WP:OWN of the Winnipeg article. This appearance is based on the behaviour of: repeatedly removing parameters against the original and reaffirmed CANSTYLE consensus; escalating the above nearly year-old, stale discussion to a formal RfC as a result of recently re-implementing the consensus at Winnipeg; and promptly removing the parameters at Winnipeg contrary to the CANSTYLE consensus pending the outcome of this (when they should rather remain due to the CANSTYLE consensus and only be removed if necessary arising out of this RfC). It is (and has been) a time sink to continue debating this for well over a year. Hwy43 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Your perception is mistaken. As I noted, the above discussion had few participants and a 3-2 split, hardly a "reaffirmation" of anything, particularly in the absence of any previous discussion on the matter; thus, an RfC is an appropriate mechanism to formally settle the issue through wider discussion. Further, it's not only the Winnipeg article where these parameters are redundant, but other articles as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. I commented above in the previous discussion with my reasons for support. I still believe that these are useful fields and the standardization of these fields makes for a consistent encyclopaedia. I appreciate the problem of pigeon-holing, but in this case all municipalities have all three criteria, so there is nothing lost by adding all three pieces to each page. Mattximus (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm also a fan of consistency. I agree with Mattximus's reasoning above. МандичкаYO 😜 13:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, this information should be in the infoboxes. The only reason to omit or pursue a different path is in the case of disputed or unclear geographic boundaries. Infoboxes regularly provide redundant information, but they're present to do just that: give a just-the-facts-and-stats overview. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally though the information is redundant to the article, but not within the infobox itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: It appears that the yes votes are in favour 4-1, would this issue be considered formally settled? Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

City only or city, province in tables?[edit]

I request clarification in the MoS, but for non-Canadian articles. In the specific case I'm looking at, there is a table that includes locations. Some Amercian locations, and they of course, are City, State. Depending the location it can either be [[City, State]], [[City|City, State]] and there are some articles where it is [[City]], State, [[City, State|City]], State. European, African, Asian and South American locations are usually City, Country, formatted in similar ways. Canada usually follows the non-US format but I have one editor who claims that Canada should be the same and this MoS states that. I don't see it.

Could the editors here please clarify the rules or point me to the rules? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Another example from the same editor, but on a different article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The section that discusses this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#In article text. Or is your point that this does not necessarily apply to the article in question because the article is not solely "Canada-related"? I don't agree with your assertion that "Canada usually follows the non-US format". I think phrases like "Winnipeg, Canada" induce severe cringing and wincing in most Canadians. Indefatigable (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Many Canadians, like me, understand that outside of Canada, people aren't very interested in our provinces, and don't see the value in identifying the subnational jurisdictions. If you ask non-Canadians where to find Winnipeg or Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal, they will say "Canada". The province is really of concern only to Canadians, and we represent 0.5% of the world's population. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. There is nothing wrong with "Winnipeg, Canada". Sydney, St. John's, Lloydminster merit disambiguation to prevent confusion, but the major cities are not ambiguous without the province. Some people seem to think there is a tiresome and pointless "rule" that you have to include the province, but there isn't. Ground Zero | t 22:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused. I understand the Sydney and St. John's examples (Sydney, NS; Sidney, BC; St. John's, NL; Saint John, NB; etc.).. There is only one Lloydminster in Canada though. No disambiguation required. Hwy43 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to think that there a little Lloydminster in all of us. ;-) Ground Zero | t 01:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one Lloydminster? Having driven through Lloydminster, Saskatchewan on my way to Lloydminster, Alberta, I would have to say that there are two even if politically they are one ; )
And yes, I cringe when I see "Vancouver, Canada", but I also recognize that south of Seattle, few refer to it as Vancouver, BC.
The final issue is that the editor in question is pointing to the article naming convention to address the issue of naming in tables. I would suggest that we add a section to the effect of what has been discussed above: in Canada-related articles, use City, Province, and if necessary add country, while in non-Canada-related articles, list as City, Country. The linking should only be of the city, and piping should be used where appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
With regard to tables,I agree: non-Canadian articles absolutely follow the "City, Country" format, unless the province is also needed for clarity. In a table of the summer Olympic Games, Calgary, Canada, should precede Albertville, France, and Lillehammer, Norway. This is clearer to an international readership than Calgary, Alberta; Albertville, Savoie; Lillehammer, Oppland.
Walter, if our article about Lloydminster is correct, it seems that there is one city in two provinces and they seem to like it that wsy. I had assumed there were two Lloydminsters, too. Ground Zero | t 14:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As a consultant that has done work for the City of Lloydminster, I can assure they like it that way. ;-) One Lloydminster became two in 1905 when the provinces were created, splitting the community, and then the two Lloydminsters became one again in 1930. Hwy43 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions for First Nations reserves[edit]

Hi! I have noticed that there does not seem to be a consensus regarding the titles of First Nations reserves. Reserves in eastern Canada tend to be titled "Name #" (e.g., Sydney 28A), while those in western Canada tend to spell out the full name, "Name Indian Reserve No. #" (e.g., Aitchelitch Indian Reserve No. 9). I prefer the former, as I feel the term "Indian reserve" is woefully outdated, and both INAC and Statistics Canada use this convention. But what do you think? FUNgus guy (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I believe there may also be a smattering in the format of "Foo No. X", to further complicate things. Also, despite the term being outdated, unfortunately legislation still uses that term in general, and the official legal names of the reserves contain the term, which is probably why some articles in western Canada follow the "Foo Indian Reserve No. X" format. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The reserves themselves may be moving away from the "Indian" name. Recently Stony Plain Indian Reserve No. 135 was renamed Enoch Cree Nation No. 135. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to be careful however if name changes such as this is to the name of the First Nation or the name of the Indian reserve. Most times there is a one-to-many relationship of First Nations to reserves, while there are also instances where there is a one-to-one relationship, such as the case is for the above example, if I recall correctly. I also recognize this could be an instance where the IR's name was changed to match that of the First Nation (i.e., FN is "Enoch Cree Nation" and IR is "Enoch Cree Nation No. 135"). Hwy43 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Upon further research, INAC tends to use the Foo X format, but can be inconsistent. See this list of reserves for Muskowekwan First Nation, with most reserves titled like "Muskowekwan 85-11", but a few are like "Muskowekwan No. 85-46", and one is titled "Muskowekwan Reserve No. 85-68". Or these reserves of the Flying Dust First Nation, where the numbered list starts "Flying Dust First Nation 105D", but then add a space for later numbers, "Flying Dust First Nation 105 H". Then maybe we could talk about this list of Ochapowace First Nation reserves, with 132 of them named "Ochapowace 71-###". FUNgus guy (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: All reserves deserve a page, unless their FN only has one reserve, then the FN and reserve pages can be one. All reserves should be titled with the "Foo X" format, dropping the few errant "No."s and "Reserve"s found within INAC. Any abbreviations used by INAC (e.g., Saugeen and Cape Croker Fishing Isl. 1) should be spelled out. Any other changes to format (e.g., extra space in "Flying Dust First Nation 105 H") should remain[, unless it can reasonably be assumed to be a typo]. All pages should list the legislative name, most likely "Foo Indian Reserve No. X", in the |official_name= field.
Let me know what you think! FUNgus guy (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My one initial thought is with respect to the "105 H" example. For all we know, the space could just be a typo. All letter-suffixed IR numbers should be in a consistent format, and by far scenarios without a space are more common than those with a space. Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Changes made to proposal to allow discretion. In that instance, it may be a typo, as they are numbered "105D", "105E", "105F", then "105 H", "105 I", "105 L" and "105 O"; maybe another source can confirm typo/not a typo. I added that line because there are a few other format examples dotted around, Sisipuk Sakahegan (A), Red Sucker Lake 1976 A, Peigan Timber Limit "B". FUNgus guy (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
When there are so many reserves with the same name, but with sequential numbering, I've got to ask what is the physical size of them, and what is their population? I think there are a lot small reserves with no populations. A large-noncontiguous reserve was created to cover an originally scattered population, but the lists you are using list them as separate reserves. Yes, every First Nation (or Band) deserves an article that lists its reserves, but I must disagree that all reserves deserve an article. If a town or county has a not notable exclave, would that exclave have an article? No, because it has the same local government, and is included in the same census division. 117Avenue (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Some are vast, some are only a few dozen hectares. I would bet that most are uninhabited, in the official sense. But that is a good point, are they parcels of a single, non-contiguous reserve, or reserves in their own right? INAC treats them as separate entities, but they are administered by one band government (with a few shared reserves). I still think that each "reserve" deserves a page, but during my research, a few of the reserves listed on INAC sounded very much like a subdivision or even parcel number ("Cross Lake 91X06", "Norway House 17C-46", "Keeseekoose KK 66-ST-04", "Muskowekwan 85-69", "Ochapowace 71-132"). In these circumstances (I suggest anything beyond Name Number Letter), we could make them sections in the "reserve" page to which they belong (Cross Lake 91, Norway House 17C, Keeseekoose 66, Muskowekwan 85, Ochapowace 71). That would save me from having to create 132 Ochapowace pages. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"City, Province (Territory)" format[edit]

This discussion has been roaring at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Our_Provinces_are_missing., so I think it would be best to resolve the issue here - one way or another - through a proposal to change a section of the style guide based on the Government of Canada's style guide, which is less prescriptive, and gives writers more flexibility: "It is not necessary to use the provincial abbreviation after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Fredericton. However, since the same name is often shared by several places in Canada and other parts of the English-speaking world (e.g. Perth, Windsor, Hamilton), add the appropriate abbreviation in cases where doubt could arise."

Current version: In articles that identify a Canadian location, the location should be identified with the format "City, Province/Territory, Canada", unless the article text or title has already established that the subject is Canadian, e.g., it is not necessary to identify the "Parliament of Canada" as being located in "Ottawa, Ontario, Canada".
Proposed addition to the above: It is not necessary to include the Province/Territory after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Fredericton, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the addition to the style guide, and briefly why. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and Oppose as written. The statement pointed to above by the Government of Canada can be interpreted your way by not including the province and just having it as "city, country" or it can be interpreted as the cities mentioned be well known so they don't need the province or the country succeeding it. It isn't entirely clear. I know you gave some examples on the Canada project page of them using "Ottawa, Canada", but they use Ottawa, Ontario as well. How can we judge how well known a city is? Sure, to Canadians, Fredericton might be well known, but I wouldn't classify it as well known, especially when they leave Calgary out which I'd think is better known. As another discussion above said, seeing Toronto, Canada makes me cringe. If Toronto is so well known why does it even need Canada after it? Chicago; Rome; Madrid are often left standalone. What would be the harm in stating "city, province, country" in the lead/infobox and then just simply referring to the city alone since already introduced in full? Why wouldn't the reader benefit from knowing Moose Jaw is in Saskatchewan? Sure, they might not know where Saskatchewan is, but is that our problem, they might not even know where Canada is! They can just click the link if they wanted to, however, if the province wasn't listed and they did want to know where Moose Jaw was in Canada, they would be forced to click the link which isn't right; leave them with more not less as PKT said on the project page. I wouldn't consider linking our provinces as overlinking either since they wouldn't be major geographical areas such as a country or a very well known cities worldwide like Tokyo or New York City. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The province should be added where appropriate for the context, or the country should be added where appropriate for the context, or both should be added where appropriate for the context. But the style guide is going too far in saying that "City, Province" is necessary in all contexts. Let the writer decide. In the article on the Ontario Hockey League, do we have to specify "Toronto, Ontario"? Or in the article on Quebec nationalism, is "Montreal, Quebec" necessary? I would say, "let the writer decide". The current wording says, "you must identify the province". Ground Zero | t 01:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the format should be as follows for all municipalities in Canada:
  • "City name"
  • If there is disambiguation needed, then "City name, Canada"
  • If there is still disambiguation needed, then "City name, province, Canada".
Does this agree with your recommendation? Mattximus (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Ground Zero | t 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And with mine. I would go a bit further though and offer locations where the additional disambiguation may be needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I would argue that most people outside Canada don't know where Fredericton is, or its importance. Maybe not Winnipeg, either. Cities with true international profiles would be Ottawa (National Capital), Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal (Olympic cities, and certain international events), and Toronto (sporting and largest city). Perhaps these five don't need their provinces identified, but I firmly believe in identifying provinces wherever a municipality is named, and to link the province more often than not. Whether people outside our fair country care about the provinces is irrelevant to me - give them more than they need, not less. PKT(alk) 01:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue with letting the writer decide is you forfeit consistency. For the contexts given by Mattximus, the articles concerning a specific province, it is usually linked on its own like it is in the lead of Quebec nationalism "...and promotes the unity of the Québécois people in the province of Quebec." Then throughout the article I'd just leave Montreal standalone. In other contexts, I firmly believe in identifying the province as well, at least when first introducing the city, for reasons stated above. It feels geographically incomplete and incorrect to omit the province. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Rules-based consistency is an enemy of good writing. The existing rule tells a writer mentioning an event in Montreal in the Quebec nationalism article to specify "Montreal, Quebec". My proposal would allow the writer the flexibility not to. I'm not opposed to including the province or even a link to it where it will improve understanding. I am just opposed to telling writers that they must in every case. Ground Zero | t 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re: PKT. If they need to know where Fredericton or Winnipeg, we could add Canada. If they need further detail, we could add the respective province, however linking them is not needed because a link to the city should exist and in the article for the city, both province and nation are linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: not exactly sure where I stand, but if the outcome is to go with the proposed addition, strike Winnipeg and Fredericton and replace with Montreal and Calgary. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. Ground Zero | t 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Strike Calgary, I would suggest Thunder Bay or even Moose Jaw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If the proposal here is to follow a statement made by the Government of Canada, why would we then start replacing cities with ones we think are more well known with ones the Government of Canada does? Obviously, I don't know why they wouldn't have picked Calgary for example over Fredericton...even Halifax is probably a better East Coast option, however, that's why I think they were gauging that article to a Canadian audience who would be more likely to know where Fredericton is. I just don't understand how them being "well known" warrants ", Canada" to succeed the city name, when if being "well known", they could probably standalone, so I don't see the logic there.
Because this is an international encyclopedia, not a Canadian-specific encyclopedia. Our audience is beyond Canada, and they are more likely to know the two proposed substitutions than Winnipeg, Fredericton, Thunder Bay and Moose Jaw known to nearly all Canadians, and significantly less known internationally compared to the five others. Hwy43 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, what I don't understand is how a city being "well known" affects this situation except if we were talking about the city being left as standalone. For example, if we left Moose Jaw, the city itself, as standalone, there might be confusion with an international reader reading, so a province or the country would be needed for clarity, which was always done. Now, for the well known cities like Toronto and Montreal, they could likely standalone with out a province or country for clarity. So why is that Government of Canada article being interpreted like Toronto being well known needs "Toronto, Canada"?...at least from what I'm seeing. Being well known should not have any bearing whether you write "Toronto, Ontario, Canada / Toronto, Canada" or "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada / Moose Jaw, Canada", what it does have a bearing on is if the city can be left standalone altogether. For our purposes, like the proposed amendment below, we should always write "city, province, country" when introducing the city in the lead and the infobox no matter well known or not, thereafter it can be referenced as standalone. Also, if your proposing to follow one piece of info from the Government of Canada article, but not another, there's something wrong. If they think Fredericton is well known, it should be like that here as well, not that being well known even pertains to this as I've said in my eyes. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, I don't know where I stand overall. I also don't propose following the Government of Canada source as its scale is national. However, it is a type of solution at the national level that can inform the solution we are seeking here. PKT provides some well-rationalized qualitative reasons for why the five should be included. Surely there is quantitative evidence as well, whether internal to Wikipedia or something based on a reliable source that sets these five apart from the rest. An example, though I don't know if the data is available, is answering the question of which city articles in Canada have the highest frequency of hits from readers outside Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ground Zero, I know the rules say an editor must follow "Montreal, Quebec" even in an article about Quebec nationalism, which I would say is unnecessary as well, however, I would also say "Montreal, Canada" in the same article would be unnecessary as well. I've already stated that I'd like to see the province listed in conjunction at least in the lead/infobox when first introducing it, then standalone thereafter, however, in instances of large international context such as List of Pan American Games records in swimming, I wouldn't mind listing it like shown in the article due to the consistency of the other international locations listed; same with the locations listed in Hillsong Church Families in Hillsong Church. What I would have a problem with is if, for example, someone's article said "he was born in Toronto, Canada, but grew up in Los Angeles, California" because then the format is all out of whack for this article. I don't know how you'd incorporate this into a policy, but what you're proposing, I wouldn't support for the instance if the editor chooses to write a sentence like the example I just gave. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Amendment/Oppose as written That sentence needs an introduction. "In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as Ontario, Quebec, Toronto, Ontario Hockey League), ". Secondly, I would add a sentence such as "In all articles, always include the province in locations specified in an infobox (birth place, death place, location fields) and in lead sections." Alaney2k (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support amendment suggested directly above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Amended amended version[edit]

Here is my proposed compromise wording, which I can support:

Proposed addition, amended, to the above:
In articles about a strictly Canadian topic (such as Ontario, Quebec, Toronto, Ontario Hockey League), it is not necessary to include the Province/Territory after the names of well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Calgary, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation. Always include the province in locations specified in an infobox (birth place, death place, location fields).

I did not include "and in lead sections" at the end of the last sentence because that would generate the resulkt that the lead section could be required to read, "The Ontario Hockey League (OHL) is one of the three major junior ice hockey leagues which constitute the Canadian Hockey League. The league is for players aged 16–21. Its headquarters are in Toronto, Ontario." We can leave that decision up to the authors of the article. Also, "In all articles, always..." was more emphasis than it appropriate for a style manual. We are not school marms in Wikipedia (or, at least we should aim not to be). Ground Zero | t 22:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support this if we fix the part about the lead statement easily by adding "and in lead sections when first introducing the city where it would not conflict with the preceding". Something like that. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: You should include Quebec City to the list of well-known cities. Bouchecl (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Rationale for it despite exclusion of Winnipeg and Edmonton? Hwy43 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Quebec City is a special case, since the name of the capital city bears the name of the province of the same name. Bouchecl (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, just seeing Winnipeg is included among the five other cities. Not sure there was consensus to include, so similar to the above question; rationale for Winnipeg despite exclusion of Quebec City and Edmonton? Hwy43 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: the four example topics comprise two provinces, a city and an organization. If this flies, let's strike one province in favour of something at the federal level, such as Statistics Canada, Canada Revenue Agency or Parliament of Canada. As Ontario is mentioned twice, strike it, or strike Quebec and replace itOntario Hockey League with Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. No need to overemphasize provinces in the examples. Hwy43 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with Hwy43's suggestion. But maybe instead of another hockey league, use the example from before about Quebec nationalism.
Note there was an error in my above post. My intent was to also have only one hockey league (see hardly noticeable strikethrough revision above). Hwy43 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No worries, so (topics such as Parliament of Canada, Ontario, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League)? To be clear, in the Parliment of Canada article it states the location as "Ottawa, Ontario", so if this proposal is put into place, we would just list it as Ottawa standalone, correct? I don't know if I'd agree with it on a federal level now that I think about it since where is the city in Canada in that federal article? I understand in something like the Ontario Hockey League it is plainly obvious the locations are about Ontario so it is not needed to write Toronto, Ontario dozens of times, but not in a broad federal article. I'd maybe say "In articles about a strictly Provincial/Territorial topic" to narrow it down further. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
To throw a wrench, there are American-based teams in the OHL. Not sure if this changes things. Also, I didn't suggest removal of the city from the four original examples. If one is reincluded, I suggest Vancouver for geographic balance. Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, for OHL we could probably leave the Canadian Ontarian cities as standalone since that's the base and the title of the league and just keep city, state for the American ones. With regards to the cities, I agree to include Vancouver in the list. Looking at city articles like Vancouver and Toronto, when other major Canadian cities are listed in their article, the city such as Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc are left standalone, which look fine to me; so it would agree with this policy. I revised my thought above for the sake of simplicity and after seeing Statistics Canada introduce its HQ in Ottawa (standalone), it looks fine, so the same can be done with the Parliament of Canada. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
By a quick look at page view stats, Toronto gets roughly 6500 views a day, 4500 for Montreal and Vancouver, and about 2000-2500 for Edmonton and Calgary AND Winnipeg. Quebec City I probably would only consider due to it sharing part of its province's name (1800 views). About 1200 for Saskatoon, 1500 for Halifax and only 350 for Fredericton. I would keep Winnipeg, add Edmonton and MAYBE Quebec City, maybe even Halifax as an East Coast representative since it has close views to Quebec City. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the five as rationalized very well by PKT above is best, but agree there should be some discretion. I guess it is worded so that it is already discretionary though. How about changing "well-known cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Calgary..." to "well-known cities (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Calgary, etc.)"? I think the discretion is now much more explicit and it empowers editors to use the discretion where appropriate. Hwy43 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good, those cities are definitely the most prominent and including any others may be over embellishing it. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
For everyone's reference, here are the 90-day page view stats for ten-largest cities mentioned above. Hwy43 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have held off on commenting because I have been trying to figure out a way to improve this suggestion:

"fix the part about the lead statement easily by adding "and in lead sections when first introducing the city where it would not conflict with the preceding". Something like that."

I find this to be pretty confusing, because it seems to be an exception to an exception. It is probably unnecessary, and if the Manual's directions are confusing, people will ignore them. With the instruction about "clarity and disambiguation", I think we are giving clear direction to authors to include the province where appropriate without laying it on too thick.

As far as the list of examples goes, I am not too fussy and accept the proposal above. It is a list of examples, not an exhaustive list. Use of this exception will depend on the context. Ground Zero | t 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But without this we're basically saying that provinces are only really allowed in the infobox fields, when they should also be added when introducing a city for the first time in any section as long as it isn't an article about a strictly Canadian topic as we would have identified previously. Shouldn't be too hard to comprehend. If we are going to introduce a city for the first time in an article that isn't about a strictly Canadian topic, we should write Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, (or Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada depending on situation), then, refer to it as Moose Jaw from then on. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No. "... it is not necessary to include the Province/Territory ... if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation" does not prohibit an author from including it if they want to. It only means it is not necessary. This started because Alaney2k was indiscriminately adding the province. This allows an author not to include the province of they feel it is not necessary. And it does require the author to include the province if it is needed for clarity, as in the case of an article about a topic that is not strictly Canadian. Ground Zero | t 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, that makes sense, but the thing I want to avoid with this policy is city, country formats like "Toronto, Canada", which this current version would allow if the editor chooses. When you say "And it does require the author to include the province if it is needed for clarity, as in the case of an article about a topic that is not strictly Canadian" do you mean by this that an editor will decide whether a Canadian city name in a non-Canadian specific article can standalone, or, if it needs the province as well for clarity.....or do you mean to choose between "Toronto, Canada" and "Toronto, Ontario, Canada", because omitting the province is forfeiting needed clarity in all situations unless in a strictly Canadian related article (to be clear, the ", Canada" would not be needed either in Canadian specific articles). This is why I wanted to add that extra blurb to the end. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This thread is becoming very convoluted, would it be possible to provide a point form summary of what conclusion was/is being reached? I honestly don't know if what I suggested above (with respect to article names) was agreed with or rejected... Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Mattximus, Ground Zero said he'd agree with what you put forth. I would not, however. I believe city, country format should never be used, especially for Canadian/American cities. Sorry for possibly making this over complicated for you, but this is what I'm trying to get across. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What I suggested is simply what is done in other countries, shouldn't Canada follow suit, or if not, what justifies making Canada/USA different? It really should be "Hamilton, Canada" in the same way you would write "Frankfurt, Germany", not "Frankfurt, Hesse". Would you rather "Frankfurt, Hesse"? I know from a Canadian perspective "Hamilton, Ontario" sounds better. But this is an international website, and we should not expect everybody to know every sub national province or state on earth. Including Ontario instead of Canada is confusing to international readers. If you are thinking strictly what is useful to readers, then Nation should come before Province/State for disambiguation. The province should only be included if there are multiple Hamiltons in Canada and they need to be distinguished.
If you are not convinced, which is more useful to you for finding out where a place is, should their be 2 places named Xi'an. "Xi'an, Shaanxi" or "Xi'an, China"?

Mattximus (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) is not necessary to include the ProvinceI wouldn't prefer "Frankfurt, Germany" or "Frankfurt, Hesse", what I would prefer is "Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany"; to me it is interesting to see the states/provinces used because if I didn't know about them, I could investigate further. "Frankfurt, Hesse" would likely cause confusion to a non German, as would "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan" For a non Canadian or North American, which is why I'd favour "Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada". I would think most of those cities other than English speaking cities use the city, country format because this is the English Wikipedia where Canadians, Americans, Australians and UK inhabitants dominate. You may also see English cities use city, province format - ex. Hay Plumb Norwich, Norfolk. As PKT said above earlier, "Whether people outside our fair country care about the provinces is irrelevant to me - give them more than they need, not less." If you would go to the German Wikipedia, you will be more likely to see Frankfurt, Hesse in all probability. For this language Wiki, city, country formats are not preferred for English speaking cities for me. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Frankfurt, Germany" is what it is known as. And for the record, there are two Frankfurt in Germany. If you need to know which state the city is in, you can click through to the city article. You don't see "Bergen, Hordaland, Norway" only "Bergen, Norway". You will frequently not see "Los Angeles, California, United States", instead you will only see "Los Angeles". But we know your preference Vaselineeeeeeee. You've made it clear multiple times, and you don't give them more than they need. That breaks a fundamental rule of writing. As George Orwell stated, "if it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out" and province can be easily cut out as it it's present in the article on the city, which happens to be linked.
The amendment is still not sufficiently precise and the ordering is odd. It should either be geographically ordered (east-to-west makes sense) or by current size of metropolitan area.
Do not include the province or territory after the names of well-known cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg or Hamilton, if it is not required for clarity or disambiguation in articles of Canadian subjects. When listing Canadian cities articles of non-Canadian subjects, list only the city and country, such as Fredericton, Canada. Only link the city, not the province or country. See WP:OVERLINK.
That addresses all of the topics being discussed, although there are some who disagree with the guideline and would prefer to see "Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada" in the article about bids for the 2010 Winter Olympics (even though none of the other locations list all three), or "Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada" in an article about international opposition to seal hunting (I don't think that article exists). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If there are two Frankfurts in Germany, all the more reason to add the province. Again, this is an English Wikipedia so you won't often see a Norwegian city with its province included due to this fact. If you go to the Norwegian Wikipedia, you'd be more likely to find it. It isn't omitting a word. It's omitting a province. Very different. This isn't just any old word that can be cut, it's a geographic location that without, makes a city geographically incomplete with "city, country" formats. The policy as it is only allows "city, province, country", which should not be the case for Canadian specific articles, but now the way you've proposed only allows "city, country" format, which also should not be case either. Under no circumstances do I think it's needed to use city, country format, again, especially for Canadian/American/British cities as this is an English Wikipedia, although international is irreverent; his is how we refer to our cities and we shouldn't have to make our readers click on the city to find out what province their in when it can be already stated. Toronto and Montreal can standalone like Los Angeles could, but you often see "Los Angeles, California" as well, then from there on you would refer to it as the standalone city only. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 11:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the standard convention for disambiguating the two Frankfurts isn't by state — the German polity in its various forms far predates the creation of Germany's contemporary system of states, so long-established communities that had other standard disambiguators known and used before the states came into being typically retain that older method instead of being dabbed by state: for the two Frankfurts, it's the rivers that they're on. The much larger and much more internationally famous one can usually just be Frankfurt, with Frankfurt am Main ("Frankfurt on (the River) Main") as a backup if necessary because both Frankfurts are being referred to in close proximity; while the smaller one on the German-Polish border is almost always Frankfurt an der Oder ("Frankfurt on the (River) Oder"), but can also just be Frankfurt if the context has already narrowed you down to Oder/Brandenburg. So what's done in Germany isn't really a helpful guide to what should or shouldn't be done in Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. There are two Frankfurts, and the disambiguation is already addressed. Yet disambiguation is no reason to change how we present information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the amended version, although I will try to use provinces after all city names, which the amended version makes optional. PKT(alk) 13:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @PKT: Which "amended" version are you referring to; Ground Zero's or Walter's? I'll compromise and support the amendment made by Ground Zero for the same reasons as PKT; I will continue to try to use provinces after all city names, which Ground Zero's makes optional. Again though, if I or any editor comes across a Canadian city with city, country format, we will likely change it to include the province; this may cause reversions for editors who are on the other side of the argument such as Walter, which is why I didn't originally like the "writer gets to decide" ideology as there still will be inconsistencies with display of info and between editing philosophies of editors with no concrete guideline in place. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that - I'm referring to Ground Zero's version, under the heading "Amended amended version". I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. PKT(alk) 16:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments: About the sorting solutions advanced by Walter, there is always alphabetical. As for the WP:OVERLINK reference, no issues with not linking Canada as it is a commonly understood term around the world. While the provincial/territorial names are commonly understood in Canada, they are not internationally, and even within the United States. I discourage specifically calling out provinces and territories as things that should not be linked as there will always be international readers of Canadian articles. Hwy43 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Another comment: Why is it that we title cities as Parral, Chihuahua, not Parral, Mexico; Bath, Somerset, not Bath, England; Abbotsford, British Columbia, not Abbotsford, Canada; Sora, Lazio, not Sora, Italy; Launceston, Tasmania not Launceston, Australia; Tuscon, Arizona, not Tuscon, United States (only ONE per country from what I've found).....But then want to write city names in city, country format when we state them within an article? Parral, Chihuahua may sound Spanish? A non Mexican might wonder if it's in Spain, Mexico, anywhere in South America? But is that really our problem? All we're trying to do is accurately represent cities in the proper sequential geographic order when a distinction is necessary. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't confuse how Wikipedia titles its articles with what makes for good writing. Wikipedia titles don't need to flow in a sentence. That isn't helpful guidance in this discussion. Ground Zero | t 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
How would the flow change between saying Toronto, Ontario or Toronto, Canada anywhere in an article? No flow is changed, what is changed is the accuracy of how cities are sequentially named. It is useful to show that the city, country format is never used to title an article, so why would we need to use it within an article? Even writing Toronto, Ontario, Canada doesn't drastically change the flow, I'd think the average reader will be able to handle it, I'd hope. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Context is missing. If I were writing prose in an article about the hockey team, Toronto, Ontario would be appropriate. If I were writing prose about recordings of Bach's Goldberg Variations, and wanted to discuss the difficulty that audio engineers had recording Glenn Gould in the 1956 recording because of his constant singing along to the melody, and wanted to discuss the location of the studio, I would expect to write Toronto, Canada. In an infobox for the recording of a Rush album: Toronto, Canada. In a table listing stadiums used in Major League Soccer: Toronto, Canada. The other proposal does not address that key point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The overwhelming number of infoboxes today with Canadian addresses include the province. At a minimum, we should keep that. I, for one, have not been convinced that the use of the province is -bad- writing. It is more "officious" for sure, but the articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to be essay style. In some ways, we are trying to put into policy form, something that has not been put down yet for other countries. Am I right about that? If so, we might have a chance to affect the policy styles for other location references, but I wonder if we will be out of step. I wonder if the US editors would go for eliminating the state? I do believe that we should be somewhat consistent within articles. If it uses the US state, then the Canadian province should be perfectly ok too. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you even thinking about what I'm actually writing? We should not keep that. If Katy Perry comes to the Wherehouse Studio in Vancouver to record, the album should list "Vancouver, Canada" and not British Columbia. However if Carly Rae Jepsen were, then it would make sense to include it. And yes, I'm saying we should remove that.
You for one are not considering context in determining whether including provinces is a correct style or not. It is correct for non-U.S. locations. It's not about consistency in the article, but if the subject is Canadian, discussions of provinces is appropriate. If the subject is not, it's immaterial to the discussion.
Much of Wikipedia's MoS is based on the Chicago Manual of Style. I'd like to see what the following has to say: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch08/ch08_toc.html 8.44 "Continents, countries, cities, oceans, and such" but access requires an account. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It says this:

8.44Continents, countries, cities, oceans, and such

Entities that appear on maps are always capitalized, as are adjectives and nouns derived from them. An initial the as part of a name is lowercased in running text, except in the rare case of an initial the in the name of a city.

(I tried the free 30-day trial) I think we should stay away from style and simply describe where we want provinces mandated. That's what the current canstyle is about. You and others suggest some leeway, and I've suggested in leads and infoboxes mandate it, but elsewhere leave it up to the writer. Where it is a prominent city, it can be left out, etc. I'd add that in tables which include US states, include Canadian provinces for consistency. This is all less restrictive than the current text which, although not 100% clear in context, expects it everywhere. I think we can remove the wlink to Canada except for the first wlink in an infobox, and similar for the city and province wlink, although I don't think wp:overlink applies there. Alaney2k (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is incomplete. Ledes and infoboxes for subjects that are clearly part of Canada may list province. Non-Canadaian articles in no way should list province.
And in tables, follow the principle described above and if there is consensus, include province in non-Canadaian articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We're not that far apart now, I think. We might have some hairs to split yet. If a Canadian location is in an infobox, it's likely someone who was born or died in Canada, or a company based in Canada or an event in Canada, etc. I would say those are at the very least Canadian-related, which is what this MoS section is on. I don't think one would object to those having a province. I kind of feel that the same applies to lead paragraphs. My main point here is that we could get into how Canadian is a article/topic, and I'd rather avoid that kind of discussion. I think it could lead to edit warring. For example, an article on a country at the Vancouver Olympics. The location is Vancouver. High degree of relation to Canada as well as the country. Infobox yes, lede no? Alaney2k (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No. You're still light years away and not reading what I'm writing. There are recordings made in Canada, filming or post-production locations in Canada, professional sports teams whose home is in Canada, and many other subjects that are not Canadian that list Canadian locations in infoboxes. For instance Wonder What's Next. People and other topics that are based in Canada are not an issue. The issue is when you add provinces in situations like this, this, this or this it's not appropriate.
Infoboxes are treated separately by overlink, for example, and other policies. I see no reason why canstyle can't specify for all infoboxes. It's not prose; it's just a listing. As for the diffs, I'm not alone in thinking that wp:overlink is not well written. A lot of other editors agree and wlink Canada in their articles anyway. Overlink would ban linking of Canada completely. Well, I've said my piece. My preferences are the current wording at wp:canstyle or mandating in infoboxes and leads. And with consideration for leads to avoid unnecessary duplication. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not about linking. It's about supplying unnecessary information.
And the links are not about OVERLINK, but about adding provinces. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for getting the 30-day trial to the Chicago MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Lots of copies in the TPL too. I have lots of access to it. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the notability and naming of unorganized areas, census subdivisions, county municipality subdivisions and regional district electoral areas[edit]

Hello again! I would like to also bring up Wiki's handling of unorganized areas in Canada, and their ilk. Each province deals with unorganized areas differently, so I thought we could discuss them together.

A fellow editor has pointed out that these are "subdivisions of municipalities, unorganized areas, etc. for statistical, electoral and/or other purposes" and are not entities in and of themselves. I think that having Statistics Canada data on these regions is enough notability to keep/create these pages (even if it may be the only reference for the page). And a number of these pages have become a catch-all for stub-quality community pages (see Unorganized North Algoma District, for example). How else are we going to treat these vast unorganized areas? Here's a break-down of unorganized territories, etc., across Canada:

And if they deserve pages, what naming convention should we adopt? StatsCan is a good bet, but I have changed some of the names to more natural forms: "Algoma, Unorganized, North Part" to "Unorganized North Algoma District", "Division No. 1, Subd. A" to "Division No. 1, Subdivision A" and "Division No. 1, Unorganized" to "Unorganized Division No. 1". Also, should BC electoral areas use A or "A"? FUNgus guy (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I've added the quantities of these geographies with external links to the StatCan source for the above. Also, Fungus Guy, I made two tweaks to the above. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for initiating this. I'll provide an opening comment to add to the above momentarily. Hwy43 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional context: there are also census subdivisions of the same ilk in PEI and NB. StatCan recognizes 67 townships and royalties (aka "lots") in PEI and 149 parishes in NB, both of which are not municipalities. It appears all the townships (lots) in PEI have articles (see List of townships in Prince Edward Island), while the parishes in NB "previously had political significance as districts" and also all appear to have articles (see List of parishes in New Brunswick). In short, these are similar to those listed above by Fungus Guy in that they are not municipalities, but they all already have articles, likely due to their notable historical significance. Hwy43 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Question: Fungus Guy, do you happen to know the amount of each you listed above already have articles? Curious to know what percent-complete there is if efforts have already been undertaken in creating articles for some of these. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hwy43, I do not mind at all, thanks! I have added progress above, not sure about the missing unorganized areas in SK and YK; StatsCan only lists Unorganized 18 in SK, Unorg. Yukon and Unorg. Whitehorse for YK. FUNgus guy (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)