Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should population history tables be a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates?[edit]

The following 14 Canadian community articles are classified as featured articles (FAs) or good articles (GAs):

Of these, 10 of them have population history tables. Those that don’t are the Hamilton (high), Scarborough (mid), Chetwynd (low) and Tumbler Ridge (low) articles. Despite not having tables, Hamilton, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge do have historic population line charts.

A population history table is a brief and concise encyclopedic summary of a community's size/growth over time. Its content is appropriate to both the "History" and "Demographics" sections of community articles.

Ottawa is currently being prepared for a GA review. I have suggested that a population history table be returned to this article to align with the majority of other FAs and GAs within the Canadian community WikiProject (two tables are available at Demographics of Ottawa). This has met some resistance.

I am looking to this community to see if there is a consensus that population history tables be a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates within the WikiProject. In the event there is no consensus, I am seeking a consensus that, should someone go through the effort to add such a table to a GA or FA candidate, that there is no justifiable reason it be removed so long as it is properly referenced in accordance with WP:CANPOP.

Please provide your comments below. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Support population history tables being a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates. They add value to GAs and FAs and I don't see how inclusion of such would be a detriment to a candidate so long as it is done properly. Hwy43 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the proviso that the tables conform to the sources, i.e. those many tables out there which use "White" instead of "European Canadian" and lump in aboriginal peoples with visible minorities need to be revised before being valid for GA/FA. Whether or not Demographics sections should include income and marital status and such as is done in US demographic tables instead of obsessing on race-only as is the prevalent case so far is another matter.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Skookum1, but in this specific case, can you be more explicit that your support applies to population history tables? I assume it does but want to be sure.
The additional stuff you raised falls under other stuff exists, and I don't want these other demographic table issues to cloud or confuse this discussion. (As I think you know, the issue you raise about using proper labels, i.e., "White" vs. "European Canadian", is one of which I totally agree with you on.)
Thank you in advance for clarifying. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, population history tables should be part of FA/GA requirements. As for "other stuff exists" I don't that applies in the case of demographic-content standards; it's not just the US that has better/wider content than racial statistics, the UK also tends to have more genuine non-racial census content; I'd like to see more relevant ethnic composition tables but those are only available for certain places from StatsCan/Census, unless paid for. That there are 0.2% Filipinos in Kitimat is nowhere near as relevant to the place as its Portuguese component, likewise with Hungarians for Terrace and Prince Rupert, Germans in the Cariboo and elsewhere, and Italians in Trail and Revelstoke. Pretty much all I've seen is the racial content demographics, sometimes religion; on smaller-place articles than those listed I don't think I've ever seen a population history table.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if there's a separate article (say, Demographics of XXX), I think the inclusion our not of such a table in the main article should be considered an editorial decision. I think I'd recommend such a table, but a valid argument could be that having it in two our more separate articles could lead to having conflicting tables, as one gets updated while the other doesn't, or if they use different sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transclusion of the population history table from the main article to the "Demographics of XXX", or vice versa, would address the conflicting tables/updating/different sources issue. Of all the content within a Demographics section that could be split off into a "Demographics of XXX" article, I think the most important table to remain at the main article is the population history table. As for other tables in this situation, transfer those about age, gender, religion, ethnicity, education, etc. to the "Demographics of XXX" article and only summarize this data back at the main article. Hwy43 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the tranclusion [1][2] I just did at Edmonton and Demographics of Edmonton that shows how the issued raised can be addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to recommend such a thing; it's another to require it. I still think it should be an editorial decision. There are potential issues with transclusion: for instance, it's not obvious to template-ignorant editors (thus any new editor) how to edit it.
The particular way you've done it is problematic—you include "Edmonton" while excluding virtually all of Edmonton? That's a hack I'd never recommend, and it makes those <onlyinclude> tags a mystery to anyone trying to edit Edmonton—"Why are these here?!?"). At least stick it on a separate page and transclude it on those pages that will use it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: I don’t understand your include/exclude concern. Notwithstanding, I have flipped it around so that it transcludes the opposite way from Demographics of Edmonton to Edmonton.
As for a separate page, can you suggest which space would be appropriate? Article space? Wikipedia space? Elsewhere? Maybe there is a precedent somewhere you could point me to.
For other editors, I’ve found placing a hidden comment at the transcluded destination to be helpful. I just placed <!--The population history table in this section is transcluded from another article. To edit the table, visit [[Demographics of Edmonton]].--> at Edmonton. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done something like that in the past, and put the table in Template space (say, Template:Edmonton population history table). It makes so much more sense to me than to transclude the whole Edmonton article, except for the whole Edmonton article, kinda thing. Semantically very wrong, and confusing. I don't know how you would handle it, but it would be helpful if the template had V T E links in the corner to edit it the way that navboxes do.
Also, I just want to be clear: I'm not opposed to having these tables inthe municipality articles—I'm opposed to taking away editorial discretion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Your suggestion is quite helpful. I'll try to befriend an experienced template creator to learn the ropes. I understand the editorial discretion concern. If I were to start this discussion over again, I'd seek consensus for adding the table to Ottawa in prep for GA review rather than making it a mandatory minimum requirement. Based on what I'm reading in this thread, I would speculate that there would be a consensus that supports its inclusion with only one dissenting position. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like them ....but every GA review I have been in recommends the data from charts by written out in a paragraph. The reason people said this was tables and charts are not read by auto readers and is skipped over by people doing "spoken articles". That said after the GA review over at Canadians I added back the chart anyway....might be best to leave out during GA and FA reviews. -- Moxy (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moxy: it appears you are not necessarily against inclusion of the population history table, but your past experience with GAs is that tables are not preferred. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    I’d like to see Ottawa go into a GA review with the population history table included as the only table within the Demographics section. Without the involved, biased editors bringing attention to it (myself included), I’d like to see if uninvolved, unbiased GA reviewers even bring it up. What do you think? Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually agree with having data from most charts written out, especially for religion, languages, and even ethnic groups. It makes the demographics section of the articles look and read better. However the historic population table specifically does not lend itself to a text narrative. Since it's just dates and numbers, stylistically and practically they are best suited for a table. Would having the table defaulted in collapsed form be an adequate compromise? Mattximus (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mattximus: agreed. It would be excessively lengthy to transfer everything from the table into narrative format. Some highlights from the earlier years within the table could certainly be incorporated as narrative into the History section in addition to being presented in the table, just as the most recent data is incorporated as narrative in the Demographics section. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historic population history tables should be a requirement for FA/GA status, as long as they consist of only official Canadian census numbers and not estimates or mid-census municipal counts. It strongest argument is that it gives context to the text of the article at a glance, which is very hard to achieve by reading the entire history section and then clicking on the demographics link. Standardization like we are proposing makes comparisons easier to make, since it's not just Canadian cities, but almost all wiki pages of cities on earth have this demographic table. Say you want to compare Montreal and Toronto populations, you would have to find each page, scroll down, see if it's there, if not click on the individual demographics page, then search through those to find the table. Or you can just have it in that section for the main page like almost every other city. Adding the table in collapsed form might be a nice compromise since it allows quick access, and can be ignored by those thinking it's less useful. As an aside, the statistical data is readily available and easily sourced. Mattximus (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite easy to compare the current populations of Montreal and Toronto; to compare historic populations it might be more effective to use an article dedicated to that topic, such as Demographic history of Canada or the like. Since the tables where they exist are associated with the Demographics and not the History section, they do little to provide context there. And no, often it isn't so easy to source these tables. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: sure it is easy to source the tables. Here in Edmonton, all I have to do is go visit the public library, University of Alberta library, or the provincial archives and pull the data from past StatCan census documents. Something I did for Moxy for Ottawa, for which he was appreciative. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: such tables can and often do overwhelm main city pages, which are meant to be a concise summary of the topic; detailed historical statistics are better suited to daughter articles. Also per Curly Turkey. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resource for map data for municipal & IR boundaries et al[edit]

Lejac created, with comments about "clusters" of communities in BC[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Columbia#new_article_Lejac_and_related.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Ridge neighbourhoods template[edit]

Please see Talk:Whonnock#neighbourhood_template_deletion and where it links through to (the template's talkpage where I made some comments about the content.Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?[edit]

Numerous city articles have content reporting how the cities rank on certain lists in comparison with others at the national and international levels. For example, "Fooville is ranked as the second cleanest city in the world according to a study by Magazine/Newspaper X" or "Footown is ranked as the fifth safest city in Fooland by the Fooland Academic Society on Crime". Usually the amount of these types of contributions is relatively low in number and limited to Canada’s larger cities. However, some time ago, Calgary was inundated with these types of edits. IIRC, many of them were being added to the lead section. They were added in good faith as far as I could tell, but the more there are, the more the content converts the article into as a vehicle to promote the city. Without finding any past discussions here or on WP:CANTALK about this topic, I haven’t done anything about it, other than consolidate this content into its own section (Calgary#World city rankings). With this observation from Moxy, I feel raising this issue is the best place to start in both cleaning up that article and others that have similar content.

What does the Canadian community feel about these? Hwy43 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO, this content is trivia created in most cases to sell papers/magazines or for the publisher to achieve some other gain. The lists generate routine media coverage after they are unveiled, yet lack enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS. They also become sources of information to promote the cities in a manner that calls their articles' WP:NPOV into question. I say this content should be discouraged and deleted unless it is published from a well-respected reliable source based on readily verifiable facts such as Statistics Canada (e.g., "Milton, Ontario was the fastest growing municipality over 5,000 people in Canada between 2006 and 2011"). Hwy43 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with your judgement on this — such things are quite commonly inserted into articles as promotional horn-tooting rather than as an effort to impart anything genuinely encyclopedic about the city. For the same reason, we don't add it to articles every time a local newspaper conducts its annual "Best of City" reader poll, or when a newspaper does a Buzzfeed-type "Ten best local MPs" listicle. As far as I'm concerned, if the ranking isn't a thing where Wikipedia would normally be expected to replicate, and maintain our own copy of, that same list (as, frex, we do for Statistics Canada data like population or land area), then it doesn't warrant mention in the city's article either. There might occasionally be a valid exception where a stronger case for inclusion can be made than "because I can source that somebody said so" — economic or demographic stats from a reliable body besides StatsCan alone, etc. — but those would be very much in the minority compared to the ones that we just don't have a genuinely encyclopedic reason to care about. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, I'm going to start by removing this stuff from Edmonton, Calgary and other Alberta cities then. Do you think we should add a new guideline to WP:CANSTYLE about this? If so, hopefully editors active in other provinces will also step up. Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say deleted with caution - Some of the rankings are fabricated and those are easy to investigate. Others are genuine ranks and some are even recognized by the UN. So don't turn this into a witch hunt and keep the decisions evidence based. Mkevlar (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like StatCan, the UN should be a well-respected reliable source. If a certain magazine ranks a city based on data from the UN, I suggest the rank be sourced directly to the UN data, not the magazine article. Hwy43 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that these rankings serve primarily to promote the city rather than inform objectively. I would, however, keep rankings that are sourced directly from Statistics Canada, The United Nations, or peer reviewed academic journals. I am on the fence about The Economist which tends to publish these lists quite frequently and I do find them rather well sourced. Regarding any blog/travel magazine/online polling/newspapers/anything like that should be an immediate delete. Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC pointer re: WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes[edit]

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Redundancy model. Hwy43 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics section template[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm toying with the idea of setting up an automated program that will automatically generate the following demographic section. I know it's fairly generic, but it is aimed at the majority of Canadian communities that do not even have a demographics section. It's currently pulling form the 2011 NHS survey, but small tweaks could have it pull from the 2016 census. What do you think? Is this worthy to continue working on? Here is my example automated demographics section from a random township Adelaide Metcalfe that does not currently have demographic information.

According to the 2011 Canadian Census,[1] the population of Adelaide Metcalfe is 3,028, a 3.4% decrease-3.4% change from 2006, which is much lower than the 5.9% growth rate for Canada as a whole. The median age is 39.7 years old which is approximately the same as the national average at 40.6 years old.[2]

According to the 2011 National Household Survey, 85.8% of Adelaide Metcalfe residents are Canadian citizens by birth, and about 2.5% of residents are recent immigrants (from 2001 to 2011). Residents of Adelaide Metcalfe are primarily White (96.6%), with a small community of Koreans (3.3%). Specifically, residents of Adelaide Metcalfe identify their ethnic origin as: Canadian (36.2%), English (32.1%), Dutch (27.2%), Scottish (26%), and Irish (18.2%). According to the 2011 Census, English is the mother tongue of 87.2% of the population, with a small population of Dutch (4.7%) and Portuguese (2.3%) speakers.[2][1] Adelaide Metcalfe has 63.7% Christian adherents whereas 35.7% does not affiliate with any religion.[1]

The highest levels of education obtained by residents aged 25 to 64 years old, are as followed: 43.1% of people have a post-secondary schooling degree (including 9.2% with a University degree or higher), 32.6% have a high school degree (or equivalent) and 24.2% have no certificate, diploma or degree; these represent somewhat higher education rates than Canadian averages at 64.1%, 23.2%, & 12.7% respectively.[1]

The median household income before taxes is $28,644, and after taxes is $26,846; much lower than the provincial or national figures at $66,358 and $61,072 pre-tax ($58,717 and $54,089 after tax) respectively. The median commute time to work for those 15 years and over was 20.3 minutes with almost all commutes (94.3%) done by personal vehicle as a driver. The median value of a dwelling in Adelaide Metcalfe is $250,399 which is less than the Canadian median value of $280,552 and the Ontario median value of $300,862.[1]

Mattximus (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus, I used Excel to automate preparation of the wikicode for the following used for Alberta municipalities upon the release of 2011 census in February 2012.

In the 2011 Census, the Town of Whitecourt had a population of 9,605 living in 3,629 of its 3,893 total dwellings, a 7.1% change from its 2006 population of 8,971. With a land area of 26.14 km2 (10.09 sq mi), it had a population density of 367.4/km2 (951.7/sq mi) in 2011.[3]

These two sentences fully encapsulate all the relevant information from the first release of the federal census (population and dwelling counts). A third sentence could be added to compare the change to that of the country as a whole similar to what you've written above.

For the balance, ideally I suggest a short paragraph for each census release topic. Further, I suggest implementation as the 2016 census data is released. It is a huge undertaking to do what you are suggesting. If 2011 is done now, editing fatigue may set in resulting in less motivation when the 2016 census data is released (cases in point: I've yet to swing back to List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton#List after release of Edmonton's 2014 municipal census results, and same with List of neighbourhoods in Calgary#List where three sets of annual municipal census results have been released since 2012).

Also, see my minor markups to your quote box above. Avoid using subjective words such as "much". Also a lesson learned from 2012 was to use "X change", where the minus sign is included with the "X", instead of customizing the automation to output "X increase" for positive growth changes and "X decrease" for negative growth changes, which involves manual removal of the minus sign. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I was also setting it up in excel to automatically populate the entire section with very minimal effort, but I will wait until the 2016 census. Yes, I also considered a paragraph per release which sounds very reasonable. Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ a b c d e "National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011". Statistics Canada. 2013-09-11. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  2. ^ a b "Census Profile – 2011 Census". Statistics Canada. 2012-10-24. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  3. ^ "Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, and census subdivisions (municipalities), 2011 and 2006 censuses (Alberta)". Statistics Canada. February 8, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2012.

How should Indexes and Indicators be used?[edit]

In the domain of city metrics, Indicator and Indexes are commonly used by civil servants, politicians, academics and science professions to describe cities. They are significant because they describe cities and townships in common used terms. They are commonly mistaken for statistics. Example: Population Density is an Indicator.

Give Civic Indicators its own Heading. Leave table statistics where they are but move all in article numeric metrics including first paragraph population to that heading. TheKevlar 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Source Referencing for Indices and Indicators, when should they be referenced and at what point should their underlying statistics become the reference?
There is a real frustration in many professional and academic communities with our lack of tolerance for their use in this encyclopedia. The problem is most prevalent in the NGO community where government agencies fund and use their work to shape policy and spending without legitimizing them for the sake of maintaining power. Mainstream media are exploiting this by monetizing newsworthy articles and do not publish them even when they are released by municipalities officially. TheKevlar 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs)
Mkevlar, you refer to frustrations of "many professional and academic communities". You represent one academic community (GreenScore). Who are the others you refer to? Hwy43 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the NGOs I have talked to about this: Global Footprint Network, WWF-Canada, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Markham, Ontario, Richmond, British Columbia and there are many more, So yes I am speaking on behalf of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tannery is a community in Ontario.[edit]

Tannery, Ontario Please add few words and a reference.Xx236 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined to redirect it to Lanark County. It took a while, but I found "The Tannery" a bit west of Almonte, Ontario. It appears to be a few houses in a rural area. I don't think there's enough to warrant a separate article for "The Tannery". PKT(alk) 15:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, if Google search or Google Maps can't find it, it's not notable. Suggest deletion of the article. Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to redirect as discussed above. PKT(alk) 11:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relief maps[edit]

There has been a recent push by at least one user to convert all the pushpin maps to relief maps. I am not sure how I feel about this to be honest but I really do believe we should lean away from the alternative map and stick to the original. The relief map has its place, but in the infoboxes it becomes particularly busy and noisy. Most noticeably in a city infobox which is already filled with montages, seals, flags, etc. I think best to keep it simple but thought I would listen to others here first. Please note I have started the discussion already at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba#Relief maps though as this appears to be a Canada-wide issue and higher traffic here may facilitate the discussion better. Krazytea(talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the relief style map over the plain one but I am open to having either one there. Air.light (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Air.light: would you mind repeating what your wrote above at the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba#Relief maps so that all comments are in one place? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to check for comments there. Thanks. Air.light (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please review rating of Saugeen Shores, Port Elgin, Ontario and Southampton, Ontario[edit]

I have done a lot of work on these articles. They now deserve a revised rating IMHO.

I don't know who does that, but I hope someone will.

Actually Port Elgin, Ontario and Southampton, Ontario do not show WikiProject Canadian communities.

I believe they should. Your thoughts on this? @Hwy43 Peter K Burian (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can be bold and change the rating yourself to no higher than B. Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities/Assessment#Article grading and cross-reference to WP:CCSG for an idea of what constitutes a complete article. As I view the articles at a very high level referring to these resources, I think Saugeen qualifies as a C and the other two as Start as they are not even in striking distance of being complete articles. On an aside, there is a significant WP:CANPOP infraction in the Port HuronElgin article. Hwy43 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hwy43. I have not done any work on the Port Huron article. Did you mean the Port Elgin article? Yes, it is showing unofficial 2015 data. (Did not notice that earlier.) I will fix that now, with official 2016 data. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Elgin. Thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help, Creating new article, Galt, Ontario (redirect problem)[edit]

Good morning, @Hwy43 (or others).

We agreed yesterday that Galt, Ontario needs a separate article like the one we already have for Preston, Ontario, both part of the amalgamated Cambridge, Ontario. I am ready to do so, but cannot because Galt redirects to Cambridge, so it won't let me create an article for Galt.

I'm sure there is a simple solution and hope you can do so for me. As soon as that is done, I am ready to publish at least a short version of Galt, Ontario. (I will condense the Cambridge article which, at the moment, is overloaded with Galt content, because it was also acting as the Galt page.)

I have created several new articles in the past, so am familiar with the rules for doing so. WP:NEW I just cannot remember how to solve the redirect problem.

Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter - this one's easier than you might think. You can overwrite the code - the trick is to find it: (1) Go to Galt, Ontario...you'll be redirected to Cambridge. (2) There will be a little notice that you were "Redirected from Galt, Ontario", but notice that it's an active link. Click on it, and you'll see the page for Galt which indicates the redirect situation. (3) Click on "Edit source" at the top of the page. (4) Erase the "#Redirect" code, and add your new content. (4) After you've done this and saved your work, please go to the Talk page for Galt, and add a WikiProject Canada banner there. Cheers! PKT(alk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PK Thank you; that worked!
The Cambridge, Ontario article is still the one with the primary content so this article is short except for its History. I need to do more research to have a decent Economy section since the Cambridge article had little about that topic for Galt.
The Galt, Ontario page is off to a start. Edits by other Users are welcome as part of the effort to improve this new page.
I rated Galt, Ontario as Start and Low importance. The Cambridge page is of greater importance. Hope that is OK. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to get Climate charts? for Canadian community articles[edit]

Good morning, I am working on quite a few Ontario community articles, such as Kingston, Ontario and some do not have a Climate section or chart.

Where do we get those charts that are in many other articles? Can anyone provide instructions/help in this respect?

Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, you can find the data for them at http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. What I do to add a new chart is I find a city article with an existing chart and I cut and paste the code into the article I want to add the information over to and I just replace the values with the new ones from the source here. Let me know if you have more questions. Air.light (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Air.light. Wow, it's not easy creating one of those charts, but your advice may make it less complicated. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deloraine, Manitoba photo issue[edit]

It is so petty, but would anyone care to wade into the debate taking place on Deloraine, Manitoba. An editor keeps adding a poor quality and out of focus photo to the page. Not sure what the issue is, but I would appreciate a third opinion. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Krazytea(talk) 03:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done so. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Manitoba community lists proposed for merger[edit]

FYI, a proposal has emerged at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba about merging List of cities in Manitoba, List of towns in Manitoba, List of villages in Manitoba, and List of rural municipalities in Manitoba into List of municipalities in Manitoba. You are invited to provide your comments on that discussion here. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Resort municipalities in Prince Edward Island proposed for merger[edit]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Category:Resort municipalities in Prince Edward Island. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on City of Delta-related articles please[edit]

Hello, we have an IP, and perhaps now a newly registered editor making incorrect assertions at List of towns in British Columbia that North Delta and Ladner are towns, absurdly in accordance with Settlement hierarchy#Example of a settlement hierarchy as opposed to BC's legislated town classification. Related edits have trickled into North Delta, British Columbia, Ladner, British Columbia, Tsawwassen, and Delta, British Columbia accordingly. Based on what I can only guess is original research and/or personal opinion, the three distinct communities within the City of Delta are being described a forest town, an agricultural town, and a beach town respectively. As I am only sporadically active, I am asking others to help watch these pages until the bizarre editing behavior stops. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 Bot Beta[edit]

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change consensus on settlement_type parameters for Ontario municipalities[edit]

Your review and input is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario#Proposed amendment to the settlement_type parameter for Ontario municipalities. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of Rural municipality[edit]

See proposal at Talk:Rural municipality#Requested move 29 June 2019 Hwy43 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of County of Minburn No. 27[edit]

See discussion at Talk:County of Minburn No. 27#Requested move 30 July 2019, referring to the past discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alberta/Archive 5#Proposed move of rural and specialized municipality articles. Hwy43 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfDs of Category:Indian government districts in British Columbia and Category:Naskapi village municipalities in Quebec[edit]

Please review and provide your comments at:

Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting A Better Location Map for Greater Winnipeg[edit]

I've been doing a lot of heavy editing since this pas Spring. The location map provided for the greater Winnipeg area is a satellite map. There is no colour; it is just plain black and white. Looking for someone with artistic mapping skills to create a coloured map of greater Winnipeg, allowing for pushpins. Jimj wpg (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Bay, Ontario, I worked on the notable people list, and got a very odd response[edit]

Hello Canadian Communities people, I, as a reader of wikipedia, looked up North Bay, Ontario (Yes I had been watching the latest series of Cardinal). I chased up Giles Blunt through the Notable People list. I noted that the Notable people list had issues. It did not include dates (were these people contemporary or colonial founders, were they alive, active, or were they dead), it contained sexist terms, redundant terms ("former", Julius Caesar, former general), no info on reason of notability and a duplicated item. So I worked on it. It all got reverted on the basis that the dates were unsourced, must have references, "wikipedia is not a source". Which is strange, the whole list is constructed on the basis that wikipedia has articles on these people, that generall only those people who have a wikipedia page are really eligible for a notable peoples list. I do not disagree with policies on unsourced material or on the NLIST. I do find mindless reverting unhelpful, and I do find arbitrary editing based on an individuals interpretation of polices from one part of wikipedia to another part of wikipedia that falls under a further set of protocols frustrating. Could people please look at the list of Notable People at North Bay, and the edit war that has transpired, and comment please. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetwynd, British Columbia Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Chetwynd, British Columbia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rural municipality edit warring against consensus[edit]

Hello all, we have an IP-hopping editor that is warring at numerous rural municipality (county-equivalent) articles and lists, particularly at List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, renaming the municipalities contrary to the consensus here for Alberta and the extrapolated approach of that consensus here for Saskatchewan. The IP editor finally reached out to me on my talk page here. Following my response, the editor evidently didn't like it and reverted me yet again with this edit with a strange and unfounded accusation. Would interested members of this WikiProject please watchlist List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan? I'm about to revert again and apply a level three warning on the editor's talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tinawatawa location[edit]

Hello,

I started and have been working on Tinawatawa which was a small village or encampment in 17th century Huronia, somewhere around Hamilton. There are various theories about where the town is located and I've been working on it based upon sources specified on Talk:Tinawatawa. I am a bit confused whether some of the locations are the same place, like whether "Anacasta" between Dundas and Brantford" is the same as "Halfway to Brantford and the Grand River". It just seems strange that if it was halfway - and the halfway point was Anacasta, that it wasn't stated outright in one of the sources.

Any help is helping to clarify this is very much appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada#Requested move 14 May 2021[edit]

I made a mistake with a proposed name change linked in the section heading but have reviewed other similar largest city lists so I plan to nominate

  • List of the 100 largest population centres in Canada
  • List of the 100 largest cities and towns in Canada by area
  • List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population
  • Lists of the 100 largest cities in Canada by population

to:

  • List of the largest population centres in Canada
  • List of the largest cities and towns in Canada by area
  • List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population
  • Lists of the largest cities in Canada by population

Are there any objections?- Catchpoke (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the outcome of the previous move discussion, this warrants an official move request. Hwy43 (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes[edit]

Is it a WP:EASTEREGG violation to pipelink a community status type (e.g. city) in an infobox settlement_type parameter to the list article applicable to the context in which it is located (e.g. [[List of cities in British Columbia)? Other examples as well.

If you care to comment, see the RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Piped link#RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes. Hwy43 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Magazine rankings in city articles[edit]

In 2016, a discussion about magazine rankings occurred here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?

Your input is welcome at a similar discussion at Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included? - Magnolia677 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Creek Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Dawson Creek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. maclean (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels, Ontario[edit]

At Brussels, Ontario, an editor has added details about F0 tornadoes (that never hit Brussels), as well as an unusual demographic history. I cleaned it up, but the editor reverted. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic information included previous census data in the format of the demographic history for the town. As for information regarding tornadoes, the editor provided near-impact tornadoes within an extremely small radius (10km) in order to enhance the weather section of the article, including the historic weather (I.e tornadoes). I think this information should be allowed as it all relates to the history of the town, it’s economic/demographic growth over time, and the climate hazards (that impact residents or business owners), being that the town is based around its rural community. JustinWx (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canadian_communities&oldid=1171284338"