Talk:Brantford

Canada: Ontario 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.

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

anyone hear of the BCI protest today?? students were protesting the rebuilding of the school on a new site, they wanted to keep the school on the current site.

You might want to include talk about our famous athletes besides Wayne Gretsky, (David Hearn, Kevin Sulliven etc)

There is no one greater than The Great One!!! But you're probably right that Kevin Sulliven and David Hearn should be mentioned. Unfortunately I don't know enough about either of them to put together more than a stub article. --NormanEinstein 17:43, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting this comment deletion as it is both pertinent and accurate. Dajhorn 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of Wilfrid Laurier University in Brantford is token, and happened only because the city paid the school to come. Calling the WLU facilities a "campus" is embellishing, as the buildings are spread across freebie properties the commercially dead Brantford downtown core. (eg: The old Holstein Building, the abandonded Cineplex theatre, the old library, the Eaton Centre, etc.) The WLU Brantford facility does not have a proper library, it does not offer gradudate studies, and it is mostly disconnected from the main Waterloo campus.

Brantford, like many other communities in Southern Ontario, seems to be trying too hard to rehabilitate a dead downtown core. Dajhorn 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes it a great place to shoot Silent hill (film).

We should list all of the films that were shot in Brantford

The WLU Brantford campus is growing...Last I heard their enrollment was something like 1400. That doesn't seem token to me.

There could have been 1,400 students in some of my frosh major courses.

I did a significant part of my undergrad at WLU, and the facilities in Brantford are just a shadow of the main campus, which again is tiny compared to a comprehensive university like UW.

Consider how WLU is piggybacking on the third floor of the city library. The Brantford campus will be 'token' until WLU begins spending their own money to build real facilities. It is, however, sensible for WLU to continue accepting gifts from the city. Dajhorn 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Johnson

I've requested a peer review for this article. If you're interested in giving some feedback, click here. Thanks, Bobanny 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 to move, apparently.
This is to propose that this article be renamed to Brantford. This is clearly primary usage within Canada. When searching the U.S. Gazetteer [1] for "Brantford", only 2 entries for "Brantford Township" are returned (one in KS, the other in SD, neither has a 1990 population of more than 158). UK Ordnance survey doesn't seem to have a Brantford [2] and neither does any Brantford appear on the UK Coal Authority's gazetteer.[3] Google on "brantford -ontario" seems to return only Brantford, Ontario related items anyway. Seems Brantford is overwhelmingly WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and simplification should not pose any ambiguation problem. Dl2000 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of plain "Brantford" returns results overwhelmingly related to the Ontario city. Clearly the primary usage of the name, and the move is consistent with the applicable naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved by another editor shortly after this discussion was initiated. Although the normal practice is to allow a discussion to play out, except perhaps in cases of WP:SNOW, nobody has come out of the woodwork since the move to object either to the proposal or the pre-emptive move. So, I guess we can assume that the move was uncontested and uncontroversial. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (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.

Demographics section

I haven't been adding the demographics section over the last week or so, but is there any reason why it can't stay? I see it's been reverted several times.... Ahsile (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why it can't stay. The problem with the previous edits was that the editor was spamming his website across many articles. I'll add the section back and link to the original Statscan source data. --NormanEinstein (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Statscan info is a more reliable source than a third party site. Ahsile (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King George VI Secondary School

Hello Brantfordians - I found the article for King George VI Secondary School today, which is in rough shape. The problem is that I cannot find any information about the school; no address, no website, nothing. Does the school exist? Can some of you please update the article? Thanks, PK T(alk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needs to be properly cited

A lot of information, including entire sections, is not given a source. I've added some sources and will continue to do, but the entire article needs work, especially the lead, the history section, and the economy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon1930 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brantford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the link to the The Canadian Military Museum to http://canadianmilitaryheritagemuseum.ca/

Corrected the link for Frosty Fest to a 2015 news item: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2015/02/08/frosty-fest-celebrates-winter

Corrected the link for the Wayne Gretzky Int'l Tournament to http://brantfordminorhockey.com/Tournaments/3256/Wayne_Gretzky_International_Hockey_Tournament/

Corrected the link to the Sports Hall of Recognition to http://www.waynegretzkysportscentre.ca/AboutUs/SportsHallofRecognition.aspx

PK T(alk) 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations template

I think the article has sufficient citations now. If no one objects, I'm going to remove the template message. MaxwellArcher (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. BTW, new messages should be added to the bottom of talk pages. PK T(alk) 12:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Brantford in Brant County?

The infobox is saying that Brantford's county is Brant and that it is independent from Brant. I don't see how Brantford may, for geographic purposes, be within Brant County. They are both single-tier municipalities and therefore, for municipal purposes, they are geographically separate.

O. Reg. 180/03 prescribes that single-tier municipalities within the same geographic area (defined in Schedules 1 and 2 of the regulation) as an upper-tier municipality are, for geographic purposes, situated within the respective upper-tier municipality.

Historically, some local municipalities as well as the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Provisional County of Haliburton were, for judicial purposes, geographically situated within a county (or, for the case of Haliburton County, another county) but were geographically separate from the respective county for municipal purposes. Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497 Haliburton Act, RSO 1970, c 198

If Ontario municipalities are considered census divisions and subdivisions, I think Brant County should be considered a census subdivision and not a census division.

The County of Brant and the City of Brantford are single-tier municipalities within a single census division with the generic type "Census division". Similarly, the single-tier municipalities of Haldimand County and Norfolk County are within the single census division Haldimand-Norfolk with the generic type "Census division".

A census subdivision exists with the name "Brant" and type "City". Prior to Municipal Act, 2001 coming into force, the single-tier municipality of Brant may have had the former official status of a city. The census subdivision type may be "City" due to the former status of the municipality. Alternatively, the census subdivision type may be "City" because the type "County" is nonexistent.

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion I had with a few people fome time to time. I can say for sure is that Brantford is smack dab in the center of Brant County. I couldn't find an up-to-date map of Brant County on Wikipedia, but if you google a map of Brant County, you'll see what I mean.

According to the article on County of Brant states "Although the city of Brantford appears geographically to be located in the County, it is a fully independent city with its own municipal government." with 3 citations after it, so you were right about one thing at least.

It's not uncommon for people to assume that Brantford Is a part of Brant, due to similar names and the actual location of the city, but Brantford is, in fact, independent form Brant County.

--Diriector Doc (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the infobox be modified? Brantford is not in Brant County for municipal purposes. They are two separate single-tier municipalities. Since Brant County is shaped like a ring, there are two separated "outsides": Brantford is one, and the rest of the world is the other.

Brant County and Brantford share a census division like Norfolk County and Haldimand County. Section 2 of O. Reg 180/03 states that some single-tier municipalities are deemed to be within upper-tier municipalities for geographic purposes. The regulation does not specify any single-tier municipalities that are deemed, for geographic purposes, to be within another single-tier municipality. All single-tier municipalities that share a census division with an upper-tier municipality are deemed to be within the upper-tier municipality for geographic purposes. Like numbered census divisions in other provinces, the census divisions, Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk, have the generic type, Census division. County of Brant and Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk are both names of former two-tier structures.

Should the infobox be modified? Should the line be removed from the infobox?

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:9164:EAFC:96A6:314B (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely worth mentioning that Brantford is completely surrounded by but is not a part of Brant County somewhere in the article (if it has not already been mentioned). If it were completely up to me, I would have the infobox read something along the lines of "County Brant (See appendix 1)" and have the appendix explain its situation and relation to Brant County.

Since the infobox is technically wrong, it should be acted upon in some way or another. Whether my idea gets implemented or the County section gets removed completely are both viable options. The article already says "(independant)" next to Brant, so unless it is unsuitable, incorrect, or something better comes along, it should be left as is for the time being.

--Diriector Doc (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of the article (as of now) says, "It is surrounded by Brant County, but is politically separate...." - so that's already in the article. I'll think about how to tweak the infobox, as it's a little unclear IMO. PK T(alk) 23:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brant slave trader

It's part of Brant's history true, it's simply given too much prominence in the lead. It did not define Brant and I would not characterize him as a trader, more simply a slave owner. He was also a soldier and farmer. Not mentioned, so it is a bit of cherry-picking to put slave trader first. Alaney2k (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add also that it does not fit into the sentence considering the 'during the American Revolutionary War' and then led his people ... Alaney2k (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaney2k: First, I think you are one of the best editors about Canadian topics on Wikipedia. Regarding Brant, it just seems everything written about him in recent years is about his slave ownership, see [4][5][6]. In these days of Biden and Trudeau, what seems obvious is that the notable qualities of historic figures is fluid. Look at John A. for example. I understand Canadians at one time viewed him as the builder of the CPR and a hero. Now you're tearing his statues down. Brant owned 40 slaves, and was probably Canada's largest owner of African slaves. That's way more notable than being a military hero, no? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't want it ignored. But the sentence implied he was a slave trader during the War. I have not read up, but other than buying and selling one slave, I am not sure if you would characterize him as a trader first -and- a Mohawk leader second. I have done further copy edit on the lead. It simply is more detail than is needed in the lead section. I noticed also that it mentions his descendents living in Six Nations. It is unsupported and seems wrong in tone also. Alaney2k (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaney2k: You're correct, I'm not. Major slave owner, minor slave trader. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mayor

After reading the Lord Mayor article, it seems there is a discrepancy, as apparently Walter Gretzky was named the Lord Mayor of Brantford. Please read PDF for more information. Cltjames (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 5 and 6 are irrelevant and without any real information. And 7 is questionable.

Citation 5 is from 2016 about a PROPOSED boundary change, and that's about all it says. Just one blurb about some vague boundary change proposal that was signed, which certainly doesn't support the statement it's used as a citation for, as it doesn't explain any details at all about said proposal.

The page itself is just an archive from Way Back Machine, so it not functional beyond just showing the text. It offers a PDF you "can download" to explain said boundary change proposal, but the link isn't even a link. It's just plain text, as far as I can tell. There's certainly nothing to download as this is an archived copy of the original article. Ultimately, the only information it gives is the fact that SOME boundary change was being proposed, but that could be any boundary. North, south, east, etc. It's very much open to interpretation as it is.

The page on Citation 6 just doesn't work at all. It brings up a website. But again, the website has nothing relevant, or even importanty. It's just a picture of city hall, the words "Your Government" and an offer to subscribe to said page, for some reason. And some contact info on the side. Nothing about the city limits, Brant county, or anything relevant to the statement it's supposed to support.

Citation 7 is a little better. It consists of a very quality map of Brant County, showing The City of Brantford in the middle of it. However, nothing is labeled at all. Not the county, not the city, no landmarks, nothing. And with the low resolution, it's difficult to make anything out. If I was a random person who didn't know what Brant County looked like, I would have no idea what I was even looking at. There isn't even a title for context. Which forces the user to rely on things like logic and experience, which is not how Wikipedia, and especially the citations on it should work.

If the content of a Wikipage has to be explicit and not force the user to rely on logic, inferences and "common sense, it shouldn't be acceptable for citations, either.

For the record, I'm not arguing that The City of Brantford is a separate entity from Brant County. I know this very well. My issue is with the poor quality of the citations that were used to back up this claim. I know there are better resources.

I think said citations should be removed, and replaced with something proper. If possible. It's publically available information, so shouldn't be difficult to find detailed resources on it, I would expect. I could be wrong.

Thanks in advance for any and all contributions to this discussion, or the page.

VoidHalo (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]