The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of municipalities in Nova Scotia[edit]

List of municipalities in Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) and Mattximus (talk)[reply]

This is chapter 10 in a 13-chapter effort to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 9 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Looks good. Just a couple of things to fix before I can support:

  • It would be nice to have more info added onto the "Rural municipalities" section. You could add an explanation on the difference between a county and a district.
I wonder if the content that follows in the subsections doesn't already do this. Let me think further about this. Perhaps there is a solution without appearing to be redundant in close proximity. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallery of pictures in the "List of municipalities" section could be more visually appealing if both rows are centred with the page, with the bottom two pictures having the same length.
Mattximus, you are more often successful with image-related edits than I am. Care to take a stab? Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the gallery mode actually automatically adjusts based on your screen resolution, so if we did make an edit it would look well on K. Annoyomous' computer but would look worse on the vast majority of others. Specifically, only monitors with resolutions less than half the average laptop would be affected by having two lines of images that you are seeing. As far as I can tell, without hyperbole, almost every computer that is not set up for visually impaired users or cell phones should see the images as on a single row. Sorry, but to be more specific I would have to know your screen resolution. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had no issues on my two laptops and work computer. Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kings County is Nova Scotia's largest county municipality." Clarify that it is the largest by population, and not by area.
Good eye. Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you consider adding a general references section? There are a number of citations that are referred to a good amount of time that could simply be put in a separate general references section.
I haven't considered it and it hasn't been a suggestion received in the 10 predecessor FLCs. Allow me to consider this and other options that may be available. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this and this, which has reduced the repitition of the second reference by 12 (from 26 to 14). Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #14 is a dead link.
Fixed. It died sometime within the past three weeks. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is User:Canadaolympic989 not a part of the nominators? Seems like he was a major contributor in addition to you two.
No sleight intended. Canadaolympic989 started the article over two days in early 2013. Subsequent edits to add villages didn't stick since they aren't considered muncipalities in Nova Scotia. The effort to begin bringing to FL status began in December 2013, while the only subsequent additions (2001 census data) didn't survive either as 2001 census data isn't included in the 10 others and can be problematic where municipality boundaries before 2006 differ from those in 2011. If Canadaolympic989 would prefer however, I am not aware of there being a maximum of two co-noms. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm semi-retired, and I don't check my watchlist that often, so please message me on my talk page. Kind regards. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K. Annoyomous, thank you for your review. Interim responses provided above. I'm on the road for the next 36 hours and will swing back again to finish up after I'm back. I'll ping again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, K. Annoyomous. Please review my latest replies and advise if there are any further concerns. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43, see above: please message me on my talk page --PresN 17:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will do so now. Thought I'd try a less intrusive ping first. Hwy43 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support until data is updated to 2016 Census data. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry

Agreed and fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The approximation is based on a request on past FLCs for the other provinces and territories. I much prefer not to round. I'll change it to our preference now, but I hope a future commenter doesn't want it changed back. Seems like a preferential style thing that differs from editor to editor and has little weight between what is and isn't a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As co-nom, I agree, I much prefer not to round, in fact if there are no objections, I might change the other lists to precise numbers. Mattximus (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, no objections here. I was planning on doing that myself today. Please proceed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43 Doing it now, but I just realized that two of statscan sources differ! [2][3]. This seems rather odd, but I think I'll stick with the latter number since it's more recent. Any idea why the land area differ so much? Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, this source should not be used at all. Just the actual census source. Obviously there are two different StatCan methodologies at play here. Using the StatCan census land areas for municipalities and provinces/territories allows for a proper apples-to-apples comparison. The other StatCan source is an orange. Hwy43 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all done. I rounded to the nearest square km, hope that's ok! Mattximus (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were. See fourth bullet from first commenter and replies. I'm happy to return and hope the first commenter understands they are necessary. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume in the second paragraph because it should be a commonly understood term per WP:OVERLINK. Correct? Done. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a title of a printed work, albeit legislation. This has been done per requests on past FLCs. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As there is one figure exceeding ten, we are permitted to use one format (written words) or the other (numbers) throughout as long as we are consistent, if I recall corectly. I'll review to see if there are any inconsistencies.
It is not a classification per se. It is the title for a group of two classifications. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vensatry, thank you for your review. See replies above. Some actions done already while others in progress. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hurricanehink
Support from Hurricanehink

Just a few comments (having stumbled from my own FLC)

  • Nova Scotia is the seventh-most populous province in Canada with 921,727 residents as of the 2011 census - I feel like a comma is needed in there before with. There is a natural pause there.
There is not a natural pause there when I read or speak it. Perhaps this is a subjective or preferential thing where some people pause and others don't? Respectfully, I hope leaving as is doesn't prevent an eventual support. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nova Scotia's 50 municipalities cover 99.8% of the territory's land mass, and are home to 99.0% of its population." - what is the remainder? Parks, or waterways, I'm guessing?
Actually it is not, but we anticipated this question and we added a note saying: "The remaining 1.0% of Nova Scotia's population resides on Indian reserves, which occupy the remaining 0.2% of the province's land mass." Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very good observation similar to those raised by other sharp reviewers in past Canadian municipality FLCs. Thank you Mattximus for bringing Hurricanhink's attention to the note. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nova Scotia has a historical system 18 counties." - this doesn't make sense grammatically
Nice catch, changed: "Present county municipalities of Nova Scotia originate from a historical system of 18 counties." Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, I hope, is "Nova Scotia's county municipalities originate from a historical system of 18 counties." Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is better wording than my sentence. Mattximus (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most recently, Nova Scotia's 12 district municipalities have been continued as district municipalities under the authority of the Municipal Government Act of 1998." - seems like there's a redundancy that could be reworked.
How is this wording? "Nova Scotia's 12 district municipalities continue administratively as district municipalities under the authority of the Municipal Government Act of 1998" Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the revised wording, though I think the perceived redundancy persists due to the repetition of "district municipalities" in close proximity. In past nominations, there has been a desire by reviewers to understand how municipalities of each type are incorporated (e.g., incorporation requirements such as population, land area, density, assessment, petitions/votes, etc.). Under current legislation, there are no such requirements for this type of municipality, which is why we have this wording. Based on my recollection, the current (and original) wording is largely a softened version of how it is written in a redundant legalese manner within the MGA. Hope this explanation is helpful. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nova Scotia's largest and smallest district municipalities by population are Lunenburg and St. Mary's with 25,118 and 2,354 residents respectively." - you really don't like commas, do you? :P
See reply to similar comment under first first bullet. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nova Scotia's largest district municipality by size is Guysborough which spans 2,111.42 km2 (815.22 sq mi) and the smallest by size is Yarmouth at 585.75 km2 (226.16 sq mi)." - this should also be split up with commas and conjunctions
In hindsight, I'm not happy with this sentence. The term "size" is ambiguous, while "spans" usually refers to length as opposed to area. I've changed it to read "Nova Scotia's largest district municipality by land area is Guysborough at 2,111.42 km2 (815.22 sq mi), while the smallest by land area is Yarmouth at 585.75 km2 (226.16 sq mi)." Hwy43 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canada 2016 Census is releasing the results of the 2016 census in two days. I'm sure it would be an easy fix for the populations, but since it is coming so soon, I won't be able to support until after the 2016 results are in.
Yep, the plan is to remove the 2006 column entirely and updated with the 2016 data. Please give me a few days for the update. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be assured, Hurricanehink, we have every intent to update this list and the others. :) We've already been in discussions about it even. After I plow through Alberta municipality articles and update various Alberta lists with the 2016 census data on Wednesday, I will turn my attention to this list first in the event Mattximus hasn't gotten to it yet. Perhaps, if you are satisfied with the other responses above, you can provide a "support subject to...". ;) Thank you for your review! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I just wanted reassurances that it would be updated. I appreciate the effort to keep Canadian province articles in such good shape. I've been an editor for a long time, and I've seen for years that Canadian provincial articles are more often than not in Featured X category. Keep up the good work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hurricanehink! I'll be sure to ping you (properly this time) once the condition of updating to the 2016 census is completed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, the list has since been updated with the latest figures from the 2016 census. Does this effort therefore remove the condition associated with your support? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More