Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Towns of Alberta/archive1

Towns of Alberta[edit]

Self-nom. List of towns in the province of Alberta, Canada, with some statistical data. List is comprehensive, stable (numbers would change every 2 years, but are easy to update), accurate, uncontroversial. It's well linked to, as part of the {{Alberta}} navbox. --Qyd 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Town population can exceed 10,000 people unless the council requests a change to city status," - this sentence isn't written correctly. Why are some towns listed with "(located in)"? Rmhermen 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input; Reworded sentence; the larger towns are administratively autonomous, even if when they are surrounded by land governed by county authorities; removed "located in", as it's specified at remarks that those towns are stand-alone municipalities. --Qyd 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list was rated B on the quality scale, which suggests it is either not comprehensive, not entirely accurate, or has other problems (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment). Could you please provide your comments on this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I tagged it as B myself, as part of the WP:CANADA article assessment. I tend to be rather conservative when rating an article, as I believe that (generally) a page should go through WP:GAC, WP:PR of WP:FAC/WP:FLC before receiving anything higher than B. This is the reason why I assessed it as B, even though I know it is complete and accurate, and I believe it is comprehensive. But I'm open to any suggestions for improvement. --Qyd 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. I just wanted to make sure that nothing is amiss.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, explanations of and/or links to the terms used in the Remarks column would be helpful. What's a "specialized municipality"? "Area Board"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Without knowing who actually rated this article, and what their concerns are, I, frankly, find the assessment to be worthless. To my eye, the list appears to be complete, and factually accurate. I do agree about the lack of definitions for those categories. Though "Area Board" is anagolous to County/Municipal seat, since the special areas are defined as neither It may help to include this somewhere. Resolute 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Made marked-up links to Special Areas Board, Alberta, List of Alberta municipal districts#Specialized municipalities, the definitions are provided there. The other terms mentioned at remarks, municipal district and county, are wikilinked above the table--Qyd 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that helps. On an unrelated note—the article currently states that communities with populations falling below the 1,000 limit may retain town status. What do you mean by "may"? Is it interesting enough to have written more about? Also, there are links to city and town, by neither of these two articles has a section specific to Canada. Is it possible to target the links more accurately?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any community to renounce town ststus in favour of village, although teoretically it is possible (changes from village to hamlet, city to town and even city to hamlet exist). I felt the comment was necessary because a population below 1000 would not warrant the incorporation as a town. Rephrased to Communities with shrinking populations are allowed to retain town status even if the number of residents falls below the 1,000 limit, hope that makes it clear. City and town... I could link city to List of cities in Canada, but that wouldn't explain the concept. The fact is that incorporation of communities in Canada is legislated by the provincial governments, and thus can vary from province to province. The reference provided at the end of that sentence contains the Alberta-specific definitions. --Qyd 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. The way the sentence was structured before, I was under impression that communities the populations of which fell below 1,000 mark were to become a subject of some kind of review, the outcome of which would decide whether or not their town status should be retained. I thought more information on that might be of interest to readers, but I guess I read too much into it :) As for the city/town status being different in each province, do you think creating a series of articles on each province incorporation policies is possible? I have exact same problem with Russia, and am planning to do just that eventually, because I can't think of any other efficient way of dealing with it. I am not going to make this a condition for my support (that'd be cruel :)), but it is something you might want to consider eventually. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked to List of cities in Canada#Alberta, just noticed that a brief definition is given there. --Qyd 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete, factual, my only (minor) concerns addressed. Resolute 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please move the sources to a new subheader under "References". Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: That was already the case, all external references use the inline citation style. De-linked "Alberta Municipal Affairs", so it doesn't create the appearance of an inline external link (also, it's already wikilinked above). The sources were initialy anchored in the table header, but I had to move them, due to incompatibility with css class "wikitable sortable". --Qyd 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant taking the sources, changing their format, and then moving it under notes/references. See the Stargate SG-1 episode list as an example. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean using {{cite web}} for the inline references? I could do that, but all that cite web does is format an external link using a template (the goal being to achieve a unifom format). The references are already consistently formated (I just changed the one that was slightly different), the only thing that I could add is the access date, but honestly, I fail to see the point in having wikilinked dates attached to an external link. A non-wikilinked date I could manulay add, but again, I don't see the relevance. I might be wrong though. Regarding moving the sources, do you mean using the {{note}} + {{ref}} system? My preference is having them inline (this way, changes don't require editing in two separate places, and I find the plain html tags easier to descipher when compared to the note-ref coordination). --Qyd 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appologize, I guess I misread you suggestion (again). You were suggesting to have a subsection called "Notes" under "References"? That would only apply when the notes explain someting in the text (like footer notes in a book), less so when citing sources.--Qyd 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well you can also just move the sources to the section, without adding subheaders. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That would imply using {{note}} + {{ref}} (for inline citations, which are a must). While the note+ref system has its advanages (such as customisable order), it is my opinion that it confuses new contributors, making the article harder to edit. The rendered page would, however, be identical with the currently used Cite.php style.--Qyd 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment the ability to sort by each column of the table is really cool. I think this feature is not very common in WP and needs an explanation sentence or two so readers will know how it exists/how to use it. Hmains 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I took it from List of Dartmouth College alumni, listed just below in FLC (thanks Dylan). It looks like usage of class "wikitable sortable" is becoming more common lately. Added explanation below table. --Qyd 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support good list and useful Hmains 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Small oppose~~ - lead is too short & choppy. Also convert references to {{cite web}} format. Renata 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Used {{cite web}}.--Qyd 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. Renata 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]