![]() | 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 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)