Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Ontario/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of municipalities in Ontario[edit]

List of municipalities in Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and is structured in a similar manner to other featured lists of municipalities including List of municipalities in British Columbia and List of cities and towns in California. Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, why have the links been removed from all of the images? 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The links seem to be working, can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on the images resulted in nothing, normally it would take you to the file page. User:Hwy43 has since linked them to the city articles. Is there a featured article guideline, that I am unaware of, which recommends links to file pages be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little pair of boxes just to the lower right of each image which takes you to the file pages. Is that what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't previously seen or used the link parameter before. Yesterday's efforts were trial and error efforts to figure it out. Just moved a link parameter outright. Upon click, you go to the file's page, which is what I'm accustomed to. Returning the link parameter but leaving it blank prevents clicking altogether. In both scenarios however, I'm failing to see the alt parameter generate as a hot tip on the image. I suggest we remove all link parameters. No point in linking the image to an article if a wikilink in the caption does the same. Simply redundant. Still don't know how to get the alt to appear though. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the alt is for "situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment). I believe it is primarily for blind users. So you are not supposed to see the alt. "The alt parameter text is not normally visible to readers but may be displayed by web browsers when images are switched off". So I think it's good as is. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely the alt text was appearing when the three maps were nested in the gallery template. Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All
;Comments:
  • Website names shouldn't be in italics (ex: www12.statcan.gc.ca.). Also, I would just put Statistics Canada instead of www12.statcan.gc.ca. Statistics Canada.
  • It appears the |website= parameter defaults to italics. Should we just avoid usage of the parameter? Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done removal of "www12.statcan.gc.ca." in favour of just "Statistics Canada". Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would do the same thing for the other websites as well (ex: www.amo.on.ca. Association of Municipalities of Ontario → Association of Municipalities of Ontario). – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref 3 → |format=pdf
  • At the top of the page, add templates: {{Use mdy dates|date=July 2013}} {{Use Canadian English|date=July 2013}}
  • Add for all images → |alt=
 Done Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put all refs in order: [9][8] → [8][9]

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First set of resolved comments from Nergaal
;Comments
  • To a first time reader it is weird to see upper-tier municipalities being smaller than the lower-tier municipalities
  • Need more clarification. Are you suggesting a bottom-up approach (single and lower-tiers section first and then upper-tiers section afterwards) rather than the current top-down approach? Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does geographic area mean? should it be an upper-tier one?
  • Changed to census division. Upper-tier does not work as northern Ontario is without upper-tier and has districts instead, which aren't municipalities. Census divisions are inclusive of both upper-tier municipalities and districts. Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See next bullet. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • isn't there an image with the division of Ontario into municipalities - at least for the upper tier one
  •  Done I will add maps showing the locations of the types of upper-tier municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved maps to a gallery. I found that mixing them into the images of cities on the right was a little random looking. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be taking you up on your offer to revert. The Toronto and Ottawa images were placed in the lead, and the maps at the start of each section, per WP:IMAGELOCATION that states "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image." Both Toronto and Ottawa are mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead, whereas the maps correspond to the text in the leads of each section. This brings to mind that all other city images are within the Upper-tier section when they would actually be more relevant in the Single and lower-tier section where the subject cities are actually listed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this looks much better now. Mattximus (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images are good, although they could probably be merged into a single image with multiple colors. The thing I am still bugged (I have not read the article carefully though) is what is the exact distinction between the upper and lower tier municipalities. Some readers like me would assume that an upper tier is divided into multiple lower tier ones. A sentence explaining how the two differ together perhaps with a map would alleviate this confusion. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An image like File:Russian Regions-EN.svg would be best. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed correct. All upper tier ones (first list) are divided into multiple lower tier ones. However, there are two types of lower tier (second list): ones that are part of an upper tier and ones that are not but they both function essentially the same. This is why there are two lists, one for upper and one for lower. Is this not clear in the text and images? Certainly willing to change to make more clear. Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that there are two types of lower-tier. Another way to look at, which is different than I described below, is that single-tiers are "multi-tiers" that span both lower-tier and upper-tier responsibilities. I've created a map for the upper-tiers. Hwy43 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • for some reason the note reads strange
  • Should we just let sleeping dogs lie and remove the note altogether? Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, should we just be silent on why/how the least-populated municipality has a population of 0? As an alternative to removal, I have revised the note in an effort to address. Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, have all your comments since been sufficiently addressed? Not sure if your last comment above refers to all your items or just the last item. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • Not sure if I am too close to this, but IMO single and lower-tier municipalities should be split into separate sections. Each of the three types of municipal status should have its own section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do like those two combined, as they both serve largely the same function (as opposed to upper-tier municipalities which are rather distinct and deserve their own list). Dividing the single and lower-tier municipalities will also make it impossible to sort municipalities by population (and population growth, and area, and density...), one of the purposes of having sortable columns and listing all types of municipalities in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you can combine all and use color-codes to differentiate among the three. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how correct these the lower tier map is, could someone perhaps correct my confusion? Something seems wrong with the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map. It does not show many single tiered municipalities, for example London, Ontario or Orillia, but does show a northern ontario single tiered municipality Greater Sudbury. Unfortunately, at this scale I don't believe the color-codes would work for the lower tier as there are far too many municipalities to display. I believe this map should be removed. However, the upper tier maps could be merged into a two colour system as they are easily visible at this resolution. Would you recommend that Nergaal? Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map is wrong. It actually presented 9 single-tiers that are equivalent of census divisions, of which not all were in southern Ontario. Map has been removed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, Upper tier municipalities are divided into lower tier, while single-tier ones are both upper and lower tier at the same time. In that case, I would merge the upper and single tier ones together, and create a map for them only. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but that's my fault for not being clear here or in the article. Upper tier are special in that they have lower tiered municipalities inside them, so they function rather differently than lower tier (having less municipal duties). Some are not found within an upper tier municipality, and they are called single tier, and function almost exactly like lower tier. So it makes sense to merge the top two maps, as they both show upper tier municipalities, and get rid of the bottom map since it's inaccurate (just waiting on Hwy43's opinion). Mattximus (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Single-tiers are responsible for providing all local municipal services. Lower-tiers are like singles by providing some of the same local municipal services. Upper-tiers are also like singles by providing the balance of local municipal services not provided by the upper-tiers. Upper-tiers are the sum of two or more lower-tiers.

As singles are a combination of both uppers and lowers, including them with lowers is comparing apples to oranges and alternately including them with uppers is comparing apples to peaches. Although keeping singles and lowers together have merit for population comparison purposes, there is also merit in grouping singles and uppers together for the same. Since that would be redundant, I continue to suggest that all three statuses should be separated. It is certainly the cleanest and, IMO, least confusing solution (or least confusing within the already much too confusing municipal structures established by Ontario). Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your argument, and it makes sense. However, I believe the most useful format is the one currently provided. For example, imagine a kid doing a school project and needs to find the largest cities and towns in the GTA by population. Right now that student can sort, and find the answer. With the three tables suggestion, the student will have to sort, write them all down, then scroll down, sort again, then write those all down, then compare the two lists. This is just one example. I feel that in order for this to be useful, the list should be sortable. The division we have now makes sense, since the first table is not what people would consider a city/town, but the second list is what most people would indeed consider a city/town. I believe this division is the most pragmatic approach to this page. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recognized and valid, but we do however have List of cities in Ontario and List of towns in Ontario that allow readers to sort all cities and all towns within the province respectively regardless if they are singles or lowers, not to mention the StatCan source that provides the same sorting functionality for census subdivisions (municipalities or municipal-equivalents), which allows comparison of all cities with all towns, villages, etc. I'm not certain we have to cater to all permutations of potential researcher needs when there are alternatives a click away to meet their needs.

Regarding your example, note that a researcher is unable to determine the largest cities and towns in the GTA on this article as there is not a column in which the GTA is an attribute. I assume that the Greater Toronto Area article already covers this in some manner. If not, it should. Regardless, your point about this being one of multiple examples that could apply here is understood. Hwy43 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't receive a reply to the above. Want to say that resolution of this matter is not a must, in my opinion, for achieving FL status. Let's not let this stand in the way. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my example was not the best, but I'm glad you see merit in keeping the list format as is (counties/districts in one, and cities/towns/villages in the other). When you have a large list like this, I much prefer the ability to sort and use the information over the technical divisions which may not be as pragmatic. I want to make wikipedia a useful resource for my students and feel that this format would be optimal. I would consider it resolved as is, but perhaps we can hear what Nergaal has to say? Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second set of resolved comments from Nergaal
*I like how the list is progressing now. However, I would like a bit more info in the intro, which I think would clarify things even more. In the second paragraph, after ""a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated"." please say how much of the total population and total area does that mean. Also, at the end of the paragraph, please say how many municipalities of each three types are there, and how much population and area do each cover. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can do on the latter. The former can't really be done as there would be double counting as lower and upper tiers have overlapping jurisdiction. Hwy43 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then just count the total without double-counting (single+lower). Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh! I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Facepalm Facepalm. Hwy43 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both now  Done, although I added the percentages of the total population and land area to the first rather than the second paragraph. I trust there is no issue with that. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'd like to see the requirements for municipal corporation in Ontario, as done at List of cities and towns in Arizona. What is the general requirement to become a city there? Are there any exceptions to the rules? In order to make this list complete, I'd like to see that information.
  • There are no similar/conventional incorporation requirements for cities, towns, villages, townships, etc. anymore. Per this reference:
"The official name of your municipality may include a term such as township, village, town or city."
"However, such terms usually do not determine the legal powers and responsibilities of a municipality."
"The Municipal Act, 2001 allows your municipality to change its official name as it sees fit, as long as the new name is not already used by another municipality and proper notification is given. However, the change of name will not affect its status as an upper tier, lower tier or single tier municipality."
Furthermore,this reference verifies that there are no similar/conventional requirements:
"How to become a city
Ontario: The process is simple. Once a town enacts a bylaw asking for a status change, it merely sends a copy to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It cannot change its name to one already being used. There is no other size or population requirement."
So, essentially it is a name change process in which Ontario’s least populated municipality can become a city. It is unconventional. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. TBrandley (T • C • B) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the parameter "area" refer to just land area or total area?
  • Specific featured lists also maintain the date of incorporation for statistical purposes on the table. Would you be able to add their incorporation dates if possible?
  •  Not done – this information is not readily available on the web AFAIK like it is for Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I don’t think this should not be a barrier to attaining FL status, but this could certainly be a “to do” item added to the talk page for those with the time to research 444 dates. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add scope cols and rows to the table's formatting to conform with MOS:ACCESS
  • Is this what is sought? If so, I'll do the same for the other table. Hwy43 (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's perfect. Thanks. TBrandley (T • C • B) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now  Done. Thanks for confirming. Hwy43 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much of the province's total population and area is covered by municipalities? What is the total area for these municipalities? What is the average population of all municipalities, as stated at List of cities in Ontario? Please expand upon this.
  • Per above, the overlapping of lower and upper-tier municipalities complicates satisfying these three questions. However, we could answer these questions for each status type on their own if that works. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)  Done first in lead, second in last row of each table, and the third in the lead of each of the two sections. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor thing: density column should say that it refers to per sq km. Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the population is concentrated within the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor, I believe details there would be appropriate. What percent of their municipalities within Ontario cover of the province by population as well.
  • This would be original research if the boundaries of Ontario’s portion of this region aren’t specifically defined by a reliable source and contiguous with municipal boundaries. Ultimately, this would be more appropriate at the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor article. If we include this, then I guess we’d have to do the same for the Southern Ontario, Northern Ontario, Golden Horseshoe, etc. articles. Such is more appropriate for regional articles than here IMO. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to this, the last paragraph at Quebec City–Windsor Corridor#Geography proclaims 67% of Ontario's population in 2006 was within the corridor, but alas its is either unreferenced or it is verifiable by the original target of the deadlinked reference at the end of the paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best, TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "908,607.67 km2" really, do we need this level of precision? Especially in the lead, I'd expect more like "a little over 900,000 km2" or similar. Apply to rest of lead and prose.
Question This is the level of precision given by the Statistics Canada source, the level of precision in the tables of this page, and also the level of precision in other Featured Lists such as List of cities and towns in California. However I don't really have a strong opinion and would be willing to change if you deem it necessary. Mattximus (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rounding to the a precision of -5 is quite troublesome. An accurate land area figure is necessary to determine the percentage of land area covered by municipalities. The total land area covered by municipalities is presented at the bottom of the second table. For rounding of census populations, I follow WP:CANSTYLE#Population, which states "do not round population figures off." I extrapolate this to other published census data such as land area, density, etc. As WP:CANSTYLE#Population isn't explicit on rounding of other census figures, perhaps there is an argument to round land area. If it were absolutely necessary however, I would only support rounding to the nearest whole number (908,608). Hwy43 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summary so rounding to the nearest 100,000 is fine. Elsewhere, perhaps more accuracy, but not two decimal places of a square km, is expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does "nearly 909,000 km2" sound? Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"approximately" is probably better than "nearly". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mattximus (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "444 municipalities[2] covering 17% of the province's land mass." so the ref is mid-sentence implying it refs just the 444 and not the 17%. Is that referenced?
Reference applies to the 444. The 17% is the sum of all referenced land areas in the second table (see 155,653.00 in bottom row) divided by the referenced total land area of Ontario (908,607.67). Perhaps use of the {{percentage|155653.00|908607.67}} is in order, with the refs from elsewhere in the article duplicated and placed at the end of the sentence. Please advise. Hwy43 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just looks like an odd sentence with one stat ref'd, the other not at all. Deal with it as you see fit, but it looks odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Hwy43 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A municipality in Ontario is "a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated".[4]" per WP:ATTRIB, according to whom?
 Done Hwy43 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the City of Toronto with" why is City capitalised here if it's not part of the official title (or wikilink)?
This article is about municipalities. Here we are referring to the legally defined municipality. Toronto's official legal name is the "City of Toronto". Hwy43 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure % are all given to same level of precision.
This was unintended. This is a concatenation formula issue with Excel in which I use to build these tables where it automatically trims any zero off that is at the end of a number to the right of the decimal point. I see Mattximus is hard-coding these back in. Thanks Mattximus. Hwy43 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mattximus (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with other columns.
See reply to above. Hwy43 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mattximus (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my Safari browser, the images down the right-hand-side of the "Single and lower-tier municipalities" section push the table down and create a huge swath of white space. Perhaps they're too large?
I get the same on one of my laptops, but not the other and not at work. Depends on screen resolution. Hwy43 (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions which are complete sentences (e.g. "Toronto is Ontario's most populous municipality") need a full stop.
 Done Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget in sortable tables that anything that's linkable should be linked every time.
Question Really? All 21 instances of Algoma within the second table's "Census division" column need to be wikilinked? I thought this would be redundant and contrary to WP:OVERLINK. Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting OVERLINK, I see it states "links may be repeated in ... tables", which reads as it is optional. If you continue to feel strongly, I could link the duplicate entries. Hwy43 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all recent FLs follow that paradigm. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you clarify this point, not sure what you mean? Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is what was sought. If correct, then  Done. Hwy43 (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd ] in ref 5.
 Done Mattximus (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Note 2 referenced?
It is now.  Done Hwy43 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third set of resolved comments from Nergaal
*Quick question: why are there only like 10 purple things in the image, instead of some 170-something? Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map is of census divisions by type. Nine of Ontario's 173 single-tier municipalities are designated as census divisions by Statistics Canada. The remaining 164 are components of census divisions. Hwy43 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
God this is not a straightforward system at all. Then why not list these 9 also in the first table using italics or something to distinguish them? Nergaal (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggested solution that might simplify things a bit. Why not have the first map just show the municipalities listed in the first table (Upper-tier municipalities). So it would be the same as now, minus the single-tier municipalities. This would alleviate any confusion and we are not really interested in census divisions for the page anyway. Plus it makes sense for the map to show the contents of that section and only that section. Would this be hard to do? Mattximus (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not hard to do. I'll undertake. Hwy43 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the list looks much better now (and feel free to cap/hide my multiple comments left here). Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we still have the map showing where the municipalities are? Probably beside the 17% statement. This new one shows Toronto as unincorporated as Northern Ontario. A single-tier map might also be helpful, to offset the upper-tier one. Just some thoughts to throw out there. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't show it as unincorporated. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show it as incorporated either. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Among the 19 other census subdivisions, differentiating the 10 unincorporated districts from the 9 incorporated single-tier municipalities would be a revert of the effort to resolve the above concern.

Separate maps showing the 17% land coverage and a single-tiers are possible. However, the land areas of some municipalities will be so small that they may be indiscernible at the scale of the upper-tiers map. Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These new maps are excellent and think they address the question about 17% of the land surface incorporated. I am wondering if we could do without the first as it is both a little redundant (the third map shows exactly the same thing, but with a bit more detail), and also messes up the formatting. Just a suggestion. Mattximus (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding the first redundant. As the lead is intended to be a generalized summary of the article's content, the generalized map in the lead is appropriate. Also, I'm not seeing any problems with formatting on my end. Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_municipalities_in_Ontario/archive1&oldid=567797100"