Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba

Requirements

If there is a minimum population and density necessary to incorporate, why are there so many listed that do not meet those criteria? --Lasunncty (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because of legislation changes over time where the minimum requirements changed with it. e.g., At one point, in Alberta, 700 was the minimum population requirement to incorporate as a town. That was a few acts ago. It is now 1,000. Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is the table of contents on the right?

I notice that the table of contents for this page is on the right, as it is for list of municipalities in Alberta, list of municipalities in Ontario, and list of municipalities in Saskatchewan, but not for list of municipalities in British Columbia.

Having the table of contents on the right looks weird to me, and I suppose the Manual of Style allows for it, but probably 90-95% of articles with a table of contents have it on the left. Is there any compelling reason to have it on the right? The articles on municipalities in British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba are currently featured lists, and the one for Saskatchewan is currently a featured list candidate. Whether the table of contents is on the left or on the right, shouldn't it be the same for all articles of this type? AmericanLemming (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• We are trying to standardize all of these list of municipalities articles and have placed the TOC on the right so far. The BC one was from a different generation and still needs to be brought up to par. I believe the logic for the TOC on the right was that it eliminated the white space that the left orientation produces. There could be another reason but I cannot find it in the archives for featured list nominations. I'm not fixed on either one personally, as long as they are standardized. Perhaps other editors can offer input? Mattximus (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Two reasons - to avoid the unnecessary white space that comes with the default left-aligned TOC format, and to have the entire TOC, or as much as possible, viewable upon arrival at the articles to avoid/minimizing scrolling down to view the TOC. No harm in right-aligning the BC list now to be consistent. Same can be done for the remaining provincial/territorial lists as they are standardized incrementally. We've been concentrating our efforts on one or two at a time. Hwy43 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can live with that. I'd prefer to have it on the left myself, but you've given two reasonable reasons for having it on the right, and all I have is "but almost all other articles have it on the left" and "it looks weird on the right", neither of which is a particularly good reason in itself. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I've proposed adding a guideline on the position of TOCs on the MoS's talk page; the proposed addition currently states "the table of contents should be floated left unless there is a compelling reason to have it on the right." "The table of contents may be floated left or right, but general practice is to have it floated left (the default setting)" I'd appreciate any input you have on the proposed addition. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• What do you think of the TOC placement in List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories? That seems to me to be clearer. If you agree I can make that a standard for all of these lists including this one. Mattximus (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

This article lists Manitoba as containing 94% of Canada's population, which cannot be correct if the province's population is currently ~1,282,000 compared to the total population of Canada (~35,160,000). I currently can't edit this personally - but as a featured article, it should be verified.

Concern over population claims within the article - municipalities containing 94% of the province's population. Re-checked everything and realized that I attributed population incorrectly. Concern retracted. 129.128.86.204 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. In subsequent FA nominations for municipal lists for other provinces and territories in Canada, your same initial observation above was raised by others, so we began implementing notes to proactively answer the question raised upon reading that sentence. I've just swung back to add that note. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Merging redundant articles

List of cities in Manitoba, List of towns in Manitoba, List of rural municipalities in Manitoba, and List of villages in Manitoba have no unique information warranting separate articles. I will redirect them soon unless there is an objection. There is no reason for such redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 07:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for numerous reasons.

  Per WP:NOTPAPER, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It is digital. There is no limit to number of pages. These reasonably sized articles have an important role in maintaining Wikipedia's accessibility. List of municipalities in Manitoba is quite large and makes accessibility to consume the sought after info more difficult in different mediums. See a similar RfD from 2013 that was a speedy keep here.

  While these articles appear redundant, their histories are greater than those of the main municipalities list. They were, and mostly still are, stubs quickly summarizing each status type followed by a list that was elevated into the main article (and improved upon to achieve featured list status). Rather than merging, they deserve attention to add more comprehensive detail under their now-child roles. Look at the equivalent List of cities in Alberta, List of towns in Alberta, List of villages in Alberta, and List of municipal districts in Alberta articles. They expand upon the municipal status information summarized at List of municipalities in Alberta. This is what these now-child articles should aspire to. List of towns in Manitoba has an initial building block already with additional "unique" info included about communities that formerly had town status (i.e. a list of former towns).

  Merging these lists by municipal status type breaks the Canadian status type topics such as {{Canada topic|List of communities cities in}}, {{Canada topic|List of towns in}}, {{Canada topic|List of villages in}}. Manitoba will lose its entries in favour of redirects where sifting is required and there is inability to break the list into only entries of the single municipal status sought.

  Overall, merging is a bad idea, and absolutely no harm is done by leaving them as is, even if someone doesn't immediately step up to expand and top them up.

  As a courtesy to the other article creators, contributors, and affected WikiProjects, I will notify them of this discussion to cast a wider net for engagement, which didn't happen earlier this year when an RfD was proposed for New Brunswick's child town, village and rural communities lists. The lack of notification was questioned here after the discussion on the little advertised RfD was closed. Had affected parties been engaged, the outcome there may have been different.

  Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose

The argument is strong that wikipedia is not paper so there is no harm in having the extra pages. Ideally, the individual lists will contain information that is too detailed for the main list of municipalities, which has nearly reached this point with the Alberta pages cited above. There is possibility to tweak the hyperlink architecture a bit so that the main municipalities list are portals to the more detailed lists, so that users see better quality lists first, rather than the other way around, but even then it doesn't warrant deleting the individual pages. Mattximus (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus:, would you have had the same oppose/keep position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of towns in New Brunswick had you been aware of the discussion? Note the potential solution to salvaging the redirected articles at the end of this discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hwy43: Yes, I wasn't aware of that discussion and would have supported your view. Structurally, I'd rather a random reader come across the municipality list first, then if they want more detail go to the individual cities/towns lists. So it is a bit annoying they might miss the higher quality (and often more up to date) featured list altogether, accessing only a lower quality list. But your argument of wikipedia is not paper is very strong, so my issue is not with their existence and I will support your view on future discussions (as long as I'm aware of them...!). Mattximus (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattximus. Just a note that I am not canvassing for you to support my views on future discussions. Any future discussion(s) will have its own merits and we may not have same positions in future. I was just curious to know what your position would have been in the past New Brunswick AfD, particularly given your contributions to List of municipalities in New Brunswick (like your contributions to the List of municipalities in Manitoba article, which is affected by the above discussion). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RM Carlton?

On this Vital Statistics page search for: BIRTHS, CITY="RM Carlton" exactly will produce 123 results. Why is "RM Carlton" not mentioned on this page? Where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbax (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears to no longer exist. The last mayor is listed as 1889 [1]. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Where WAS it then?Fbax (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)