Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Cities

List reorganization

With all the recent undisambiguating significantly expanding the lists by provinces at WP:CANLIST, it is now difficult to determine the cities from the other municipalities and unincorporated communities. I'm going to experiment with reorganizing Alberta into sub lists. If it looks good, we should consider doing the same for the other provinces. Hwy43 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The list at WP:CANLIST#Alberta has been broken down into four separate lists by general type. Is this useful? If so, would it be useful to further break down into even more lists by every community status type (e.g., urban municipalities into cities, towns, villages and summer villages; rural and specialized municipalities into municipal districts, improvement districts, special areas and specialized municipalities; and unincorporated communities into hamlets and urban service areas), or is that too much? Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't by population (à la PRIMARYTOPIC) be more useful than by status? 117Avenue (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that would be more useful, but others may disagree with me, so I'm curious to know the thoughts and other possible solutions from all regular contributors here (Skeezix1000, Skookum1, CambridgeBayWeather, Steam5, Mindmatrix and Bearcat). Populations change every five years for the majority of communities here, while others don't have populations published by StatCan whatsoever. Therefore, the order of the list would have to change every few years, and what would we do with those with no reliable WP:CANSTYLE-compliant population figures available? Updating the list five times to reflect five status changes over five years seems less intensive than reordering 50% or more of the 1,000 communities here every five years. Hwy43 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Unincorporated communities

In the "Municipalities and unincorporated communities" section I removed the sentence "Articles on unincorporated communities (e.g. hamlets, former municipalities, etc.) can be listed here if they were subject to a move proposal and discussion pursuant to WP:CANSTYLE." and changed the first sentence to read "The following list contains articles on incorporated municipalities and unincorporated communities located at the plain title."

It turns out that I moved a bunch of hamlets in Alberta which are unincorporated communities. I hadn't seen the sentence as I was only looking at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles, #2 in the places section. Also I had, wrongly, assumed that hamlets in the south were the same as the NWT/NU and incorporated. It was added way back here and wasn't in the WP:CANSTYLE at that time either. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about this too much; the section you revised is really just an outdated summary that didn't keep up with the actual state of consensus when the requirement for an advance discussion was dropped. Our actual rules are no different for unincorporated communities vs. municipalities, with the sole exception that an unincorporated community is far less likely to be able to invoke "primary topic" over other things with the same name — but it can still be undisambiguated if its name is unique, and it doesn't really have to clear a higher process burden than any other topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the sentence in question several years ago. I have no recollection of what my motivation or intent was at the time. I assumed earlier today that it reflected WP:CANSTYLE at that time, but CBW shows even that's not true. It should be deleted, as I clearly pulled it out of my ***, and this page should not contain any guidelines or instuctions anyway.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (ETA: edited to add "no" recollection --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC))

CBW, thanks for bringing this up here and resolving this. Hwy43 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed it but I noticed that some of the ones I moved were moved back and looked as if they were done based on the sentence. As far as I know all the ones I've moved are unique. There were quite a few that were at "town, province" without a corresponding "town" redirect. Some of them I moved but some like Therrien and Widewater I created as disambiguation pages. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, just to clarify, at the time the consensus was that a page move on CANSTYLE grounds always had to be proposed for discussion first (see Places #6 in that CANSTYLE diff, "However, a discussion should take place on the article's talk page before a move is implemented, so that we have documented proof that people have put adequate research into the uniqueness or importance of the topic.") The consensus has since evolved such that a page move can happen immediately, and discussion is only required if you want to file an objection that the page should go back to "Place, Province" instead. So the "discussion required" consensus that prevailed at the time is clearly what Skeezix was trying to get at — it just isn't the consensus that prevails now. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying a discussion must happen to revert the move? I must boldly disagree. You are proposing a violation of WP:MOVE, which states moves may only take place if they are uncontroversial. If I see a move I disagree with, I revert it, and wait for the full rationale of the original move to be explained on the talk page, in the spirit of WP:BRD. I reverted some of CBW's moves of Alberta places, which have since been reverted by Skeezix1000, risking a move war, and interfering in link counts, which may have an affect on a move discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you mean WP:MOVE as that is a redirect to Wikipedia:Moving a page which is a manual explaining how to do a move. I think you meant Wikipedia:Requested moves.

I've made quite a few moves of places from "Foo, Province" to "Foo" since I started in earnest around the end of March. So far nobody has said a word about them until Hwy43 mentioned it at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Alberta community article moves. After making all those other moves how was I to know that

Foremost (now a disambiguation page and something I should have caught but the search threw up odd results)

Rivercourse (search)

St. Edouard (search)

Welling Station (search)

were going to be problems. If there was a problem why didn't you come and tell me so that I would stop? Because you moved the pages back rather than using the undo feature I never got a notification that the pages had been reverted. Plus none of those four are on my watchlist so I wouldn't have seen it that way either. So in that case it is unlikely that I would have opened a discussion on the talk pages of any of those. The only reason I found out about them was seeing you make these edits. From there I went to to your talk page to ask why you would change the Métis to Metis and things like "[[List of communities in Alberta#Urban service areas|urban<br>service areas]]", a direct link, to "[[List of urban service areas in Alberta|urban<br>service areas]]" which is a redirect, and the redirect List of communities in Alberta#Urban service areas is in the same format.

Regarding Métis to Metis, I assume 117 is following my lead of moving all eight settlements from their disambiguated titles with the "é" to their undisambiguated titles without the "é". For background on this, go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Alberta/archive1 and expand "Resolved comments from Mattximus". It is "Metis settlements", not "Métis settlements", according to provincial legislation, ministry publications and news releases, as well as the Metis Settlements General Council (MSGC). I investigated this after a member of the MSGC posted a message at Talk:Kikino Metis Settlement#Spelling of Metis. Hwy43 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway we are here now so rather than go to another talk page what exactly was wrong with those four, Foremost was my mistake, so I guess it is what is wrong with the other three? Also why did you change the spelling and direct links to redirect? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, 117Avenue, your complete failure to assume good faith is just breathtaking. You knew very well what the applicable MOS said about reverting back, because we've discussed it in the past. As I said on your talk page, basic respect and courtesy would have dictated that you leave a note for CBW to discuss your concerns. This is an incredibly time consuming task, and editors who donate as much of their time to it as CBW has deserve some benefit of the doubt, not snippy edit summaries. I am not sure what he's done which suggests he is unapproachable or unreasonable. You couldn't be bothered extending basic courtesies to me in the past, but I at least thought you might have done so for someone like CBW. And the only one has been "risking a move war, and interfering in link counts" is you, so please stop with the accusations. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

117, just keep in mind that the mere fact that you have an objection does not, in and of itself, make a move a "controversial" one that should never have happened in the first place. Some people's objections have, in the past, boiled down to "I reject CANSTYLE and think that all places should always have the province disambiguator whether their names are unique or not" — which is not a valid reason for an arbitrary move of a title that isn't actually causing any problems. And others have been along the lines of "Toronto should be a dab page because Toronto Public Library, Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto Blue Jays, etc." — which is a complete misreading of the purpose of dab pages and thus also not a real controversy. And then there's probably my favourite non-controversy ever, "Victoriaville should be left disambiguated because its component parts, Victoria and ville, each have other meanings when they're uncoupled from each other" — which, er, no. That's why a discussion is required first: because not all possible objections to a page move are actually valid ones that create a legitimate "controversy". Sure, some objections are valid ones — but many others aren't. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. To be clear, though, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that 117Avenue's concerns were not valid ones to have (whether we agree with them or not - hard to know, because other than Foremost I am not sure what they are). He might have valid points on the substance once he explains his concerns. But as I said to him on his talk page, there were no signs here (past discussions or past moves) that would have given CBW any indication whatsoever that these moves were potentially controversial. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's exactly my point. A user might have a valid reason for objecting to a page move, or they might have an invalid one — but we obviously can't assess the validity or invalidity of their reasons if we don't know what those reasons are. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I did mean WP:MOVE, but both it and WP:RM mention uncontroversial. I don't have a problem with what you are doing, there was no reason to ask you to stop, I know you have good intentions. I just disagreed with a few. I changed the remaining Métis to Metis to be consistent within the template. I replaced the direct section links with redirects because section links do not turn bold in a template, like redirects, and the redirects are treated like articles, with categories and talk pages. I could cite WP:NOTBROKEN here, but I don't entire believe in that guideline. The problem I had with those four is that I feel they are not the primary topic, or have a unique name, this is detailed greatly in WP:CANSTYLE#Places. @Skeezix1000: actually at the time I didn't know WP:CANSTYLE said "do not move the page back to the disambiguated title", so I can understand your feelings. I respect the other users here, but no one gets the "benefit of the doubt", all edits are subject to review. I'll try to explain my "interfering in link counts" comment so that we don't continue to accuse each other of interfering with each other. I believe in WP:STATUSQUO, that pages and links remain as they are so that they can be reviewed by other users during a discussion. Likewise I believe it is bad faith to re-organize or empty a category during a category discussion, or move a page during a deletion discussion. @Bearcat: I recognize that you have been in a lot of discussions, and have seen some bad objections, which is why the reasoning for moves is very detailed at WP:CANSTYLE#Places. But I believe any objection (by a user willing to talk), constitutes controversial, and a discussion should be held to see where the consensus is. 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussions have been opened on Talk:Rivercourse, Talk:St. Edouard, and Talk:Welling Station. 117Avenue (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care about them being moved back just that it would have been a good idea to notify me. Part of the original problem is the new beta search gives different results that the old regular search. And it looks as if the {{reply}} isn't working for me as it is supposed to. I should have got a notification that you posted here but nothing came up. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. WP:STATUSQUO, an essay, doesn't trump the guideline, but I agree that you ought to have left all pages and links as they were and not reverted CBW's edits. Please simply follow the process set out at CANSTYLE in the future, and do not revert without initiating a discussion on the talk page. Better yet, be courteous and contact the editor who did the moves to see if you can resolve your concerns. And I think you are completely missing the point of what people are telling you here and on your talk page about what constitutes controversial. You not liking something after the fact ≠ controversial. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please clarify that last comment? I did not like what after what? I did not like the move after the move? I did not like the move before the move. 117Avenue (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. CBW wasn't able to read your mind, 117Avenue. If you think that makes it controversial, then you are missing the entire point of the discussion above. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversial

I think that the fact that we are still talking about this makes it controversial. What I don't understand is, how does a user know when a move is controversial unless he WP:BOLDly moves it, or starts a discussion? 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a few indicia that an edit or move is controversial: if something is contrary to policy or guideline, if an action is contrary to consensus, if there are past discussions on the article talk page which would reasonably suggest that the action is controversial, etc. etc. For example, if I moved Montreal to Montreal, Quebec, or replaced all references in the article to the city with Montréal, those would on their face be controversial edits, given applicable guidelines, the article edit history and the article talk page. Other times, there are articles where moves or significant edits are likely to be controversial due to the nature of the subject matter itself, and editors should tread lightly (e.g. Grand River land dispute, Rob Ford, Haida Gwaii for a time, etc.). Another example - one glance at the talk page should convince any reasonable person that Chatham-Kent should not be moved without first initiating a further discussion on the talk page.

However, where none of those usual signposts exist in respect of a particular article (as was the case here), editors are not expected to be omniscient or 100% perfect. They can implement bold actions where they are acting in good faith and reasonably believe that the action conforms to policies and guidelines. It doesn't mean that the editor is necessarily always correct, or that others can't take issue with his/her action, but rather that the action wasn't controversial in the sense that the editor ought not to have boldly done it in the first place. It might become controversial vis-a-vis future actions (for example, there was nothing particularly controversial about CBW moving Rivercourse, Alberta to what I think was the then redlink Rivercourse; you were concerned, there was a fairly lengthy discussion, and Rivercourse now redirects to River. If someone now tried to boldly move Rivercourse, Alberta to Rivercourse, I'd say it was now a controversial move given the recent past history even if it wasn't a couple of weeks ago when CBW first moved it). Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting the primary topic discussion

It seems to me that WP:CANSTYLE has become a tool to move pages without consequences. I would like to know how the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion should be started on articles that have been recently moved, and how the sentence "then do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily; rather, start a discussion on the talk page requesting a move back to the comma-province title" can be changed. In a move and a primary topic discussion, I feel that the status quo should be held in order for participants to asses the situation, and form an educated opinion. However, wading through page moves and navbox edits does not make that easy. I especially do not like the word "arbitrarily", as the move would be a move back to the last stable version. 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Without consequences" is nonsense, and you appear not to have read any of Bearcat's comments above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the essay WP:STATUSQUO refers to text changes in an article; it doesn't mention page moves at all. It also says "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement". Mindmatrix 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know how the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion should be started on articles that have been recently moved, and how the sentence can be improved. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The guideline is pretty clear, as is how one would start a discussion (i.e. start it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've witnessed a lot of unnecessary hostility regarding 117Avenue's recent revert attempts here and on his talk page while on my recent hiatus. Two things are obvious. Though (1) an editor boldly moving a page based on the assertion of WP:CANSTYLE cannot read the minds of one or more editors that may oppose such a move without a discussion to first confirm the page is truly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, (2) an editor that would oppose such a potential bold move cannot read the minds of one or more editors that might make the bold move. As one other editor has commented on one of the resulting RM discussions, there is the db-move template to revert an undiscussed move. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I think utilizing this template to revert an undiscussed move (or a similar action to return it to its original title) is perfectly acceptable due to a lack of formal discussion. That is, an editor boldly moves the article under the assertion of PRIMARYTOPIC in compliance with CANSTYLE, another editor reverts it, then the original editor engages in a discussion (preferably via a formal RM request) because the past consensus is the page should be at the disambiguated title. All need to step back and remember AGF. Someone opposing a bold move does not automatically mean that person is only doing so simply because (s)he doesn't like it. It could simply be that the editor is not confident that the page qualifies as a PRIMARYTOPIC without evidence (an edit summary advising such during the revert would help). A formal RM discussion, after a bold move being reverted, provides the opportunity to provide the evidence, thereby enabling the desired comfort and confidence with the move proposal. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there has been hostility, but there has been justified annoyance at 117Avenue's behaviour. He failed to show basic courtesy, he ignored the rules, he was disingenuous about not being familiar with the rules, and even this past week he's still spouting on his talk page about how the rules don't apply to him. The irony in all this if 117Avenue had simply adhered to CANSTYLE in the first place (and better yet, also had the courtesy to first discuss his concerns with CBW), his concerns would have been quickly addressed with little fuss. The problem here isn't the applicable guideline. In any event, enough has been said about this. I apologize to 117Avenue if I have beating a dead horse.

As for your other comments, nobody expects anyone to read anothr editor's minds, and CANSTYLE doesn't require it. If another editor has a PRIMARYTOPIC or other concern, CANSTYLE spells out the process and provides all the comfort and confidence necessary. I disagree with your proposal, for these reasons and others expressed much more succinctly above by Bearcat. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've been only skimming the past week while monitoring, I did not see the following at WP:CANSTYLE: "If you disagree with the suitability of a page move that has already taken place, however, then do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily; rather, start a discussion on the talk page requesting a move back to the comma-province title." Given this, I agree that this should remain the appropriate process. Hwy43 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. There has been more drama in this discussion than substance (and I have contributed to the drama), so skimming was a reasonable course. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Skeezix1000: I assume by "he ignored the rules" you mean the sentence I started this discussion about. In the future I will be glad to abide by the rule if the members of WikiProject Canada provide good reason for "then do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily; rather, start a discussion on the talk page requesting a move back to the comma-province title" to be included in the MOS. Currently I see it fulfilling no service, and it should be removed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but there needs to be consensus for it to be changed. Bearcat has already provided the rationale for the rule. In the meantime, you don't get to pick and choose which rules you want to follow. As Bearcat advised you on your talk page, "it's not appropriate to just arbitrarily decree that the existing consensus doesn't apply to you just because you disagree with it". At the time you replied "I understand that", but clearly you do not. Good luck (you're going to need it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your reason. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

First, no one here owes you anything. Second, the rationale was already provided to you above quite some time ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to hold a user to a rule, there needs to be consensus and confidence in that rule, currently there is not. 117Avenue (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You not liking it ≠ lack of consensus. Anyway, I'm done talking about this with you - you're making so many incorrectpronouncements, and asking questions that have already been answered, that at this point I can only assume that you're pulling everyone's leg. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I know a change to an MOS requires discussion, and this is not a discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

City names in article text

I was surprised to find here, a recommendation that location names in article text should always be given as [[City, Province/Territory]]. This, and the example given ("Ottawa, Ontario"), seem to be in conflict with the subsequent section stating that article titles of Canadian locations should generally be undisambiguated unless essential. Surely the intention is not to require "Toronto, Ontario" or "Montreal, Quebec" in article text, even though their article titles omit the province? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the intention. In body text, it is sometimes contexually relevant on first mention of a city to provide additional information about where that city is located — e.g. "Jane Smith (born January 1, 1901 in Toronto, Ontario) was a Canadian milkmaid". The section you're referring to is not mandating that the city must always be referred to as "Toronto, Ontario" in all mentions throughout the entire article — the only thing it's mandating is that in the specific places where it is contextually important to write "Toronto comma Something", we write "Toronto, Ontario" or "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" and not just "Toronto, Canada". Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought that's probably what was actually intended, but that's not how it reads to an outsider. It appears to state unequivocally that Province/Territory is always required (in the same way that most US cities are normally "city, state"). Might I suggest a clarifying change? Something like this:

Where it's necessary to clarify that a mentioned location is in Canada, the first mention should include the province/territory, even when this is not necessary for disambiguation: that is, either [[City, Province/Territory]], Canada or [[City]], Province/Territory, Canada, as appropriate. Examples are "Hamilton, Ontario, Canada" or "Montreal, Quebec, Canada".

Colonies Chris (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll look into rewording it for improved clarity. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)