Talk:Whitchurch-Stouffville

Canada: Ontario / Communities Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Rename page[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Mind matrix

Rename: Whitchurch-Stouffville, Ontario → Whitchurch-Stouffville

This page should be renamed per the criteria at WP:CANSTYLE. It appears to be the primary use of the term Whitchurch-Stouffville, and an internet search for the term, excluding the term "Ontario" to find occurrences not related to this town, yields numerous hits, of which the first 100 are almost all related to the town. Mind matrix 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Mind matrix 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per CANSTYLE, unique name; dab not needed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

Write here

The coordinates to not point to Stouffville; Neufast (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Neufast (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed pretty darn close to the center of the settlement. Nevertheless, I've tweaked them a bit. Any problems now? Deor (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the coordinates on the Whitchurch-Stouffville page, and then the Google Map, MapQuest or Yahoo Map options, it takes me way east of Stouffville. I'm I doing something wrong? Neufast (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. When I go from the GeoHack page (what you get when you click on the coordinates) to Google Maps, MapQuest, or Yahoo Maps, the pushpin is practically on top of the label "Stouffville"—at the intersection of Main St. and Church St., to be precise. Can you give me a better indication of what you're seeing? What label is the pushpin near on the Google map, for instance? (Sorry about the tardy response, by the way. Even though I asked you a question, I forgot to watch the page.) Deor (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: From the road boundaries given in the article's lead, it looks as though the geographical center of the municipality is about 44°00′49″N 79°19′14″W / 44.0136°N 79.3206°W. Do you think those coordinates would be better, even though they don't correspond to a very populated part of the town? Deor (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. The coordinates should refer to the municipality, not a single community within it. (The Stouffville article should point to the centre of that community, of course.) As an aside, do we have polygon-based coord templates? All I've found are a few short discussions about adding that functionality, but nothing further; see this and this. Polygons would be particularly useful to describe the municipal boundaries. Mind matrix 14:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so emended. I don't really know enogh about the matter to answer your "polygon based" question; if that is possible, I'm not familiar with it. Deor (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; Neufast (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from search: "Stouffville"[edit]

I've put a redirect from "Stouffville" to "Whitchurch-Stouffville". Those looking for Stouffville will find the Whitchurch-Stouffville page to be the most comprehensive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neufast (talk • contribs)

I've reverted it. The term Stouffville should redirect to the most appropriate page for its subject, in this case Stouffville, Ontario. The fact that the article is weak compared to this one is inconsequential. Mind matrix 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to merge. No one will ever search for "Whitchurch-Stouffville" (unknown, even to locals!). When searching for "Stouffville," they should be directed to the Whitchurch-Stouffville article. Neufast (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be merged. However, the municipality should be at Stouffville, Ontario, and Stouffville should be redirecting to this article. when most people think of "Stouffville", they think of the built-up town, and not the division of York Region. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

You should take this over to Good article nominations, its an excellent, comprehensive and well-sourced article and I imagine it would pass without much issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Because I've written most of the article as it currently stands, I might be in a conflict of interest. Hopefully someone else will make the nomination. Neufast (talk

Actualy nominations by the person doing the work are definitely encouraged! Someone else would review the article for you, and you'd be in the best position to answer any concerns that they have. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved with consensus — Andy W. (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitchurch–Stouffville → Whitchurch-Stouffville – The current name contains a hidden unicode character... Geo Swan (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this isn't exactly "hidden", it's an en-dash as opposed to a hyphen. This looks like it was done deliberately as the style is consistent throughout the article. Although en-dashes are generally used in dashes – like so – and not for hyphenation like-this, the en-dash here could be justifiable as a connecter between two quite separate things. See this page for how en-dashes can be used as more than a dash. That said, the real question here is, do people usually use an en-dash or a hyphen when referring to this town? The town's website uses a hyphen, suggesting that hyphen is the conventional choice, and Wikipedia should reflect that. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 07:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes specifically requires use of en-dashes in article titles and suggests that a redirect from the equivalent using a hyphen be put in place. I don't necessarily agree with this but that's the way it is EncycloCanuck (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, MOS:DASH specifies that articles whose subject matter is more appropriately described with an en-dash should not a hyphen as a substitute in the title. In this case, it seems that the town is more often written with the hyphen. MOS:DASH doesn't say anything about that. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actual wording is '"In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand)." which does not seem to suggest any exception. Where does it say whose subject matter is more appropriately described with an en-dash - a search on that page for that text string does not return any results? I certainly agree that the town is more usually written with a hyphen - creating a redirect instead of a move would have the desired result and abide by the MOS. Either that or make the wording in the MOS clearer. I'm good with either approach. EncycloCanuck (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to confuse! I didn't mean the italicisation to imply a direct quotation, I was just trying to make a long sentence a bit more readable. My words were merely an awkward paraphrasing of what you quoted. I don't really know how we're interpreting that sentence so differently? "Do not use a hyphen as a substitute for a dash" doesn't mean "never use a dash". Anyway, I'm getting off-topic! I think we're actually agreeing! —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 09:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK - no problem. Yes we seem to be in agreement and the MOS could be made more helpful by using clearer language. I do seem to recall, however, that somewhere some time ago, maybe on this page or maybe on another one I was working on, that some Wiki bot actually did make a change from hyphen to en dash in a situation like this which is why this particular issue caught my attention. EncycloCanuck (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been even more confusing—I meant "doesn't mean 'never use a hyphen'. Oh dear! I'm so sorry! Anyway!!!!!!! (That is odd about that bot though...) —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 15:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hyphenation used on town website and other places on web. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 15:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As much as I prefer using n-dashes to separate entities, the municipality itself uses a hyphen and that's good enough for me. Same as Beloeil, Quebec not using the œ-ligature, even against the Commission de toponymie du Québec. FUNgus guy (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Formatting mistake in Demographics section[edit]

In the Demographics section of the article, there is quite a blatant formatting error. I don't know how to fix this, so I thought I would just point this out. Blorper234 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✔1st map correct; ❌2nd pushpin map incorrect = Contradictory Maps[edit]

This page's 2nd pushpin map - the map whose caption reads: "Whitchurch–Stouffville in relation to southern Ontario" - *incorrectly* locates the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville quite far southeast with a pushpin on the Niagara region.

This error stands in contradiction of the page's 1st map appearing immediately above it ("Location of Whitchurch–Stouffville within York Region") which correctly identifies the town shaded in red, and further contains an additional in-set map that also shows the correct location of the town (also shaded in red).

The incorrect "Whitchurch–Stouffville in relation to southern Ontario" map requires moving of the pushpin from its current [as of 18 March 2022] location on Niagara Region, northwest up to the town's actual location in York Region. Elysium0820 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - there was a transcription error from the source, with the latitude starting at 43 degrees instead of 44 degrees. Mind matrix 13:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]