Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alberta/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Municipal seats
The application of the municipal (county) seat concept to Alberta's specialized and rural municipalities has bothered me for some time now. With these recent edits [1][2][3] at List of municipal districts in Alberta, I thought now might be the appropriate time to open a discussion.
Frankly, I suggest we abandon application of this American-based concept to Alberta community articles as it is not formally in use in Alberta. I'm not aware of an WP:RS that verify the formal application of this concept. I'll do a bit more digging, and welcome comments from others in the meantime. Hwy43 (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Those seat columns have bothered me for a long time as well, because I have never heard of the concept in Alberta, but as municipal organization is way outside my expertise, I never took any action until now. Towns etc are not part of the MDs that surround them, so how can they be the "seat" of the MD? Are these towns given this special designation by the legislation/regulations that establish the MD? Or is the column WP:OR? I am glad to see some discussion of this - that was part of my intent when I made this edit. "The quickest way to get the right answer on the Internet is to post the wrong answer." Indefatigable (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. Cant say as I have ever heard the term used either. If there are no sources supporting it, I would agree with removal. This would impact the infoboxes on the country/RM articles as well. Resolute 13:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- To respond to Indefatigable's questions: the county seat article states "A county seat is usually, but not always, an incorporated municipality"; no legislation or regulation applies a special "seat" designation; and not totally sure if OR. In a previous discussion with User:117Avenue (which I can't find), I recall rationalizing Blairmore must being the seat of Crowsnest Pass, and Hanna of the three special areas, based on a map published by the AAMDC. I don't have the map handy, but recall that communities home to rural/specialized municipality administrative head offices were symbolized with a star, including these two communities. I don't recall the term "seat" being used in the map however (legend or elsewhere). If it wasn't used, perhaps this is OR and potentially speculation to boot.
To respond to Resolute, if consensus is to remove, I can sweep all articles including infoboxes. Where there is prose present, I can revise "Foo County's municipal seat is the Town of Foo" content with "Foo County's administrative office is located within the Town of Foo". Hwy43 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- While it may not be important to list the seats within the list at List of municipal districts in Alberta, and on List of hamlets in Alberta, I think it should be mentioned how MDs place their administrative offices. It is important, from an economic standpoint, to mention which MDs are putting their money where their mouth is, and moving themselves to where they want the development. After Indefatigable added the statement that they were all within cities, towns, and villages, I started going through the list to verify that. The first on the list is Acadia No. 34, which has its offices in a hamlet, realizing that some were a hamlet I removed Indefatigable's statement. I've gone through the list now, and created a section on the MDs that have their office in their jurisdiction. I was surprised by the number, 25. I think this section can replace Indefatigable's statement, and the seat column. I think the location of the offices should stay in the infobox for each MD, they're just like a capital of a place or a headquarters of a company. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I like the new section authored by 117Avenue at the MD list article and agree it can now replace the seat column. If office locations remain in the infoboxes, I suggest any instance of the "County/Municipal seat" label be replaced simply with a "Municipal office" (or "Office location") label, and perhaps the label could wikilink directly to the new section within the MD list article. Hwy43 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Further, should we then remove the colour coding of municipal seat locations at List of hamlets in Alberta, List of villages in Alberta and List of towns in Alberta? I say yes. Hwy43 (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, remove the colouring, it doesn't make them any more special than any other hamlet/village/town where a company has decided to set up shop. 117Avenue (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- The column is useful information; the only problem is the heading seat, which is an Americanism not used in Alberta, and these towns are not really analogous to U.S. county seats. Once we change the heading to "Administrative centre" or one of 43's suggestions, the data all becomes verifiable, not accusable of original research. "Office location" I think is the best option. Some of the entries will need to be tweaked such as "near Stony Plain" in cases where the office in not in town. Indefatigable (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the column as more useful than the paragraph I wrote about. Each article on the MD says where its offices are, but the table is for data compressment and comparison. Readers go there to compare data like population or area, or find its extremes. Who wants to know that there are no office locations that start with a G, or that Sturgeon and Starland have office locations with similar names? Having a branding column would be just as important. 117Avenue (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that sorting by that column would never be useful. But I think the column is useful for geographical orientation. I think our readers are more familiar with town names and their locations than they are with MD names. For example I can imagine a reader pursuing the table and saying "Bighorn? Which one is that? Ah, it's the one around Exshaw."
- That's what the article is for. 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Tend to agree with 117, and find usefulness for geographical location flawed anyway. I can imagine a reader saying "Bighorn? Which one is that? The one around Exshaw... Hmm, where is that?" In that case, Canmore would likely be more helpful to the reader, but it is not the office location. Hwy43 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I can see your points. Indefatigable (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Tend to agree with 117, and find usefulness for geographical location flawed anyway. I can imagine a reader saying "Bighorn? Which one is that? The one around Exshaw... Hmm, where is that?" In that case, Canmore would likely be more helpful to the reader, but it is not the office location. Hwy43 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's what the article is for. 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that sorting by that column would never be useful. But I think the column is useful for geographical orientation. I think our readers are more familiar with town names and their locations than they are with MD names. For example I can imagine a reader pursuing the table and saying "Bighorn? Which one is that? Ah, it's the one around Exshaw."
- I don't see the column as more useful than the paragraph I wrote about. Each article on the MD says where its offices are, but the table is for data compressment and comparison. Readers go there to compare data like population or area, or find its extremes. Who wants to know that there are no office locations that start with a G, or that Sturgeon and Starland have office locations with similar names? Having a branding column would be just as important. 117Avenue (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The column is useful information; the only problem is the heading seat, which is an Americanism not used in Alberta, and these towns are not really analogous to U.S. county seats. Once we change the heading to "Administrative centre" or one of 43's suggestions, the data all becomes verifiable, not accusable of original research. "Office location" I think is the best option. Some of the entries will need to be tweaked such as "near Stony Plain" in cases where the office in not in town. Indefatigable (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, remove the colouring, it doesn't make them any more special than any other hamlet/village/town where a company has decided to set up shop. 117Avenue (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- While it may not be important to list the seats within the list at List of municipal districts in Alberta, and on List of hamlets in Alberta, I think it should be mentioned how MDs place their administrative offices. It is important, from an economic standpoint, to mention which MDs are putting their money where their mouth is, and moving themselves to where they want the development. After Indefatigable added the statement that they were all within cities, towns, and villages, I started going through the list to verify that. The first on the list is Acadia No. 34, which has its offices in a hamlet, realizing that some were a hamlet I removed Indefatigable's statement. I've gone through the list now, and created a section on the MDs that have their office in their jurisdiction. I was surprised by the number, 25. I think this section can replace Indefatigable's statement, and the seat column. I think the location of the offices should stay in the infobox for each MD, they're just like a capital of a place or a headquarters of a company. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- To respond to Indefatigable's questions: the county seat article states "A county seat is usually, but not always, an incorporated municipality"; no legislation or regulation applies a special "seat" designation; and not totally sure if OR. In a previous discussion with User:117Avenue (which I can't find), I recall rationalizing Blairmore must being the seat of Crowsnest Pass, and Hanna of the three special areas, based on a map published by the AAMDC. I don't have the map handy, but recall that communities home to rural/specialized municipality administrative head offices were symbolized with a star, including these two communities. I don't recall the term "seat" being used in the map however (legend or elsewhere). If it wasn't used, perhaps this is OR and potentially speculation to boot.
- Hmm. Cant say as I have ever heard the term used either. If there are no sources supporting it, I would agree with removal. This would impact the infoboxes on the country/RM articles as well. Resolute 13:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to start implementing. First the MD/SM articles, then their office location community articles, then removing colours at the town, village and hamlet lists and finally removing the seat column from the MD list. Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- The above is now done. What to do now with Category:Municipal seats in Alberta? Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete it. 117Avenue (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for nominating. Hwy43 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete it. 117Avenue (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Former towns in Calgary (split proposal)
Bowness, Alberta, Forest Lawn, Alberta and Montgomery, Alberta, each being former towns absorbed by Calgary in the 1960s, all presently redirect to Bowness, Calgary, Forest Lawn, Calgary and Montgomery, Calgary respectively. Meanwhile, the three major urban municipalities absorbed by Edmonton (Beverly, Alberta, Jasper Place, Alberta and Strathcona, Alberta) do not redirect to [[Name, Edmonton]] equivalents.
I've done a significant amount of research recently on Bowness, Forest Lawn and Montgomery and their successor neighbourhoods. What I've discovered is that the current boundaries of each neighbourhood differ from the boundaries of their respective former towns. There is a glaring difference in the former and current boundaries of Forest Lawn. In fact, the majority of the discrepancy between the former Town of Forest Lawn's population in 1961 (12,263) and the Forest Lawn neighbourhood's 2012 population (7,857) is attributed to the latter having a significantly smaller area than the former.
I've looked at the histories and talk pages of the redirects and the targeted articles. Two were moved with no discussion, while the remaining was a redirect I created. I'm not concerned about the lack of discussion then. Consistency within Calgary was the goal, although it came at the cost of inconsistency with Edmonton's former urbans. However, looking at this now, with new information about the boundaries being different, I would like to propose that the three Calgary articles be split into former town and current neighbourhood articles.
The bulk of existing content within the current articles would remain with the neighbourhood articles, while much of the detailed pre-annexation history of them would be transferred to the former town articles and expanded upon. The history sections of the neighbourhood articles could then summarize the detailed pre-annexation history from the former town articles and carry on into their post-annexation histories as neighbourhoods. The recently added population history tables could be transferred to the former town articles as well.
Bottom line is that these three former towns were all notable communities within the province prior to being absorbed and along with Beverly, Jasper Place and Strathcona played significant roles in the history of municipal restructuring in the province. They were the 8th, 7th and 14th largest urban municipalities respectively in Alberta prior to annexation (1961 census) and along with Beverly and Jasper Place represented Alberta's five largest bedroom communities at that time.
I look forward to your comments. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the key question is whether (for example) Forest Lawn should have seperate articles for its neighbourhood status (Forest Lawn, Calgary) and its former town status (Forest Lawn, Alberta). If there is only one article, then its name should reflect the present situation (i.e. neighbour, and hence "name, city"). Certainly all neighbourhoods in both cities should have articles, but I can see there being some former towns of the same names that don't end up with dedicated articles. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The issue of what to call Cdn neighbourhood articles (including articles on former municipalities than have been amalgamated into their neighbours) was the subject of lengthy discussion four (?) or so years ago, and the resulting consensus is at WP:CANSTYLE. In the end, the consensus was to not base the article name on subjective and debatable criteria such notability/importance/population/renown/etc., but rather to base it on an objective and clearcut test: if Canada Post treats the place as a separate municipal address, the title is [[Place, Province]], otherwise it's [[Place, City]]. For that reason, consistency with Edmonton articles is not issue (the Edmonton articles are potentially incorrectly named - who knows). Having said that, I have not looked at the histories of these particular articles, so I have no idea if the current article titles meet the WP:CANSTYLE test or not.
As for splitting the articles, I think you should be WP:BOLD if you think they merit the split you described. In my opinion, the real question is whether you have enough content to justify requiring two articles, even if there is a significant boundary discrepency between the old municipality and the current neighbouhood. Normally, I wouldn't think we'd have separate articles, and I wouldn't see separate articles as being particularly helpful to the reader, unless today's geopgraphic borders are radically different from what they used to be when it was separately incorporated. Neighbourhoods are living organisms, and the boundaries in many places tend to vary with time, as development/conventions/municipal wards/understandings change over the years. These changes can often be handled through one well-written article. However, my comments are general in nature, and I am unfamiliar with these particular places. I defer to your knowledge and good judgment on this one. Whatever you decide is probably best. I agree with the manner in which you propose to name the separate articles, and agree with Tompw's comments as well. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The issue of what to call Cdn neighbourhood articles (including articles on former municipalities than have been amalgamated into their neighbours) was the subject of lengthy discussion four (?) or so years ago, and the resulting consensus is at WP:CANSTYLE. In the end, the consensus was to not base the article name on subjective and debatable criteria such notability/importance/population/renown/etc., but rather to base it on an objective and clearcut test: if Canada Post treats the place as a separate municipal address, the title is [[Place, Province]], otherwise it's [[Place, City]]. For that reason, consistency with Edmonton articles is not issue (the Edmonton articles are potentially incorrectly named - who knows). Having said that, I have not looked at the histories of these particular articles, so I have no idea if the current article titles meet the WP:CANSTYLE test or not.
- Thank you for your comments. I agree that all neighbourhoods in both cities should have articles. I also agree “notability/importance/population/renown/etc.” are subjective and debatable criteria. The Canada Post criteria as described above is flawed however (unless there is more to it). CP may not recognize these communities with separate municipal addresses now, but CP did prior to amalgamation. All are recognized as place names in the CGNDB, all are recognized as localities by StatCan (Calgary and Edmonton), and all were once independent municipalities (where there are numerous examples of articles for former independent municipalities across the country). These criteria are objective and clearcut. There has also been a longstanding consensus that all census subdivisions (municipalities and municipal equivalents) in Canada are eligible for their own articles. Needless to say these former municipalities are also former census subdivisions.
The key thing here is that if a reader wants to learn more about these former municipalities, they shouldn’t have to be redirected to articles that are focused on present day neighbourhoods where the content on the former municipality is limited and it is clouded as to whether current neighbourhood content is relevant to the former municipality as it was defined before amalgamation. Undoubtedly post-split, the neighbourhood articles will have more content as there is less information readily available to build a sizeable former municipality article immediately, but it can be done over time with trips to libraries and archives. Dab tags at each article can be utilized to point readers to their originally desired articles or to learn more about the different incarnations of the place, and the opening sentence in the leads and associated infoboxes can make it quite clear that the place in question is a neighbourhood or a former town.
Neighbourhoods are living organisms in some respects, but their boundaries in Calgary and Edmonton rarely change over time once they are built out, particularly in mature areas as well as in new areas where their ultimate boundaries are prescribed by bylaw through council-adoption of land use plans. They aren’t revised to reflect municipal ward boundary changes that can vary every few years or decades. In my personal observations and professional experience as a city planner, Cgy and Edm do their best at assigning their ward boundaries to follow neighbourhood boundaries. There are only four instances of ward boundaries splitting residential neighbourhoods in Cgy, but the neighbourhood boundaries remain the same. There is only one split residential neighbourhood in Edm, and that is where the ward boundary was in place before the neighbourhood’s boundary was established. Not sure why Calgary has four, but I have some theories for a couple of them. Hwy43 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I agree that all neighbourhoods in both cities should have articles. I also agree “notability/importance/population/renown/etc.” are subjective and debatable criteria. The Canada Post criteria as described above is flawed however (unless there is more to it). CP may not recognize these communities with separate municipal addresses now, but CP did prior to amalgamation. All are recognized as place names in the CGNDB, all are recognized as localities by StatCan (Calgary and Edmonton), and all were once independent municipalities (where there are numerous examples of articles for former independent municipalities across the country). These criteria are objective and clearcut. There has also been a longstanding consensus that all census subdivisions (municipalities and municipal equivalents) in Canada are eligible for their own articles. Needless to say these former municipalities are also former census subdivisions.
TLDR. If the former community went from a municipal status to a neighbourhood of a town or city, without its boundary or population changing much, then one article for pre and post annexation will work, for example Shepard, Alberta. However for a large town, that is now several neighbourhoods, a separate article is required to discuss the town, for example Jasper Place, Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- As you are aware, Shepard didn't hold municipal status, but was an unincorporated community that was recognized as a hamlet prior to annexation. It was moved to Shepard, Calgary under the assumption it was automatically recognized as an official community upon annexation, which it didn't. Rather, it is presenly within a vast community named "Residual Sub Area 12A". It should be moved back to its former title IMO as being an article on a former hamlet now within Calgary. Once the greater area is assigned a proper community name, some consideration could be given to its title. Hwy43 (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood my comments. I wasn't suggesting any of these places should or shouldn't have articles at all or that WP:CANSTYLE speaks to that at all. On this issue, WP:CANSTYLE simply deals with article names. How Canada Post might have treated these munipalities before amalgamation, or how Statscan treats them, isn't really related at all to the point I was making or any of the rationale for the current WP:CANSTYLE naming convention. Sorry I was unclear. I was simply saying there is a clear rule about how neighbourhood articles should be DABbed, if DAB is even required. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Readers are not as sophisticated as us editors: they probably don't know whether they want to read about the modern neighbourhood or the historical town when they arrive at an article, and a terse hatnote probably won't help them too much. I think the best approach would be to have an article that covers both, with a well-written lead that highlights the distinction and then sections on the two entities. Only if the article grows too big for a single article should we split it. Indefatigable (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, here is a map comparing Forest Lawn's circa 1960 boundaries with current neighbourhood boundaries. Given the boundaries of the neighbourhood and the former town are significantly different and a considerable amount of content associated with each unique geography can be found, I may be bold and create the Forest Lawn, Alberta article. Hwy43 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"Montgomery Municipality" was also apparently an urban district in the vicinity of Millet, Alberta, according to the 1916 Canada Census of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.[4] Graywriter (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Never heard of it, and unable to learn more from the link provided as a subscription to ancestory.com is required. Hwy43 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Recently learned that "Montgomery No. 458" is a former municipal district that existed between 1915 and 1943 within what is now the County of Wetaskiwin No. 10. Hwy43 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Athabasca
The use of Athabasca is being discussed on the commons at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Athabasca Landing, Slave River, Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Athabasca Landing, and Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:Athabasca. 117Avenue (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
For those not aware, the above recently passed FLC to become a featured list to join its BC, Manitoba and Ontario equivalents. Check it out! The equivalent List of municipalities in Saskatchewan is currently under FLC review. Hwy43 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Wabamun Lake "unauthorized development" section NOTNEWS?
Is this Wabamun Lake#Unauthorized development section WP:NOTNEWS? See my concerns expressed on its talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)