Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alberta/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta. 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 3

Alberta region articles clean up proposal

Following the talk that took place within the Maps of Alberta regions talk section and the finding a lot of articles about the unofficial regions of Alberta has been created from former unofficial regions created by Travel Alberta for promotional purpose and not even census regional units, I have the following proposals about them:

Northern Alberta: article removal and/or fusion of any sourced content with Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation,
Southern Alberta: article removal and/or fusion of any sourced content with Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation,
- Peace River Country, a geographical region with sourced citations: keep and improve (if possible) the article,
- Palliser's Triangle, a geographical region with currently only one sourced citations: keep and improve (if possible) the article,
Alberta's Rockies, a geographical region with sourced citations but with outdated content: replace the map and remove any outdated Travel Alberta reference,
Calgary Region, a geographical region with many sourced citations: keep and improve (if possible) the article, replace the map,
Edmonton Capital Region, a geographical region with many sourced citations: keep and improve (if possible) the article, replace the map,
Central Alberta, article removal and/or fusion of any sourced content with an Central Alberta Economic Partnership article to create and/or Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation,
- Calgary–Edmonton Corridor, a geographical region with sourced citations: keep and improve (if possible) the article.

What do you think? Please help me to decide what to do with those articles. :) --— Foldo Squirrel ^(nuts?) 18:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I propose in terms of movements, most of which aligns with the above:

Keep Peace River Country, Palliser's Triangle, Alberta's Rockies, Calgary Region, Edmonton Capital Region and Calgary–Edmonton Corridor
Move the List of regions of Alberta (currently a redirect) to a new Lists of regions of Alberta article, and include sections for "Tourism regions", "Land-use framework regions", "Metropolitan regions", "Economic regions", etc.
Redirect Northern Alberta, Southern Alberta and Central Alberta to subsections under Lists of regions of Alberta#Tourism regions
Redirect Central Alberta Economic Partnership to a subsection under Lists of regions of Alberta#Economic regions

Looking forward to continued comments. Hwy43 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You've both outlined the keeping and deletion of the same articles, so either option sounds good. 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I just think a single consolidated place to summarize all various regions of Alberta would be better than pointing tourism regions to the ministry article. Further, I don't believe redirecting Central Alberta to a new Central Alberta Economic Partnership article is wise as the former is more expansive than the latter and I don't believe the latter is notable enough to warrant its own article either. By the way, if we go with the single consolidated article idea, it may not actually turn out as a list, so the title Regions of Alberta may be more appropriate than Lists of regions of Alberta. Hwy43 (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hwy43 proposals looks good to me too. And yes, maybe making a list for the regions is not really necessary, we'll see. Also, I just remembered the existing stub categories for Alberta articles are formed by those former tourism regions (and their models too). Guess we should move the stubs in the upper category or reorganize the subcategories? — Foldo Squirrel ^(nuts?) 20:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've prepared an outline for the new article in my sandbox. Thoughts? As for categories, my first inclination is we should move them up a category. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I currently can't give a long look for now, but I already noticed the lack of the Central Alberta Economic Partnership we talked about. Waht are you plans for it? — Foldo Squirrel ^(nuts?) 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Central Alberta Economic Partnership is a municipal membership-based economic development alliance that happens to take its name from a geographic area within the province. Its true boundaries change every time a new member signs up or an existing member quits. As it is more so an organization than a true region, I have no plans for it at all. Hwy43 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Category:Alberta geography stubs is already too cluttered. For communities, I think they should be placed in a new child category named Category:Alberta community stubs. Hwy43 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think we should create subcategories for each kind of community too? — Foldo Squirrel ^(nuts?) 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Although there are numerous community types, most of the stubs would fall only in one or two community type subcategories making the subcategories of little value. I'd be interested in hearing what 117Avenue has to say about categories. He's got more experience with them than I. Hwy43 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering what to do with the stub categories as well. It would be nice to keep them grouped by region, but if regions can't be used for even this, census divisions can be used. I'm not sure how they would break down, if 19 categories are too many, I think 7 categories would work. They would be 1-5, 6, 7-10, 11, 12-14, 15, and 16-19. Transferring them would be a lot of work though, over 800 articles would have to be inspected for census division, and edited. 117Avenue (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about this, I don't see a problem with how the stubs are currently grouped. Sure, Alberta's Rockies and Northern/Central/Southern Alberta appear to have been based on previous iterations of Travel Alberta tourism regions, but quite frankly, Alberta residents, the media, the province, etc. use these to described different areas in the province without specifically intending to refer to them as defined by Travel Alberta. Northern and southern are cardinally correct with central being the gap in between, while the Rockies are geographically distinct from the balance of the province. I think status quo is the best option, and better than forcing cats into groupings of numbered census divisions that very few people recognize, understand, or relate to. It would save us a lot of work too, except for maybe some adjustments along the boundaries. The Capital Region and Calgary Region sub cats definitely can stay. Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about the regions: we are going to have to remove regions from Alberta municipal infoboxes, I guess. Isn't it someone with Auto-Wiki Browser (or a bot) here that could do that? Foldo (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of rural and specialized municipality articles

This is a consolidated two-part proposal to move the following 70 (68 existing and 2 former) rural and specialized municipality articles to their common, undisambiguated names. See the subsections that follow the below for a description of both parts of the proposal. If there is no consensus to move these from within our provincial WikiProject community, I will open a more formal RM. Hwy43 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Beaver County, Clearwater County and Wheatland County are excluded as their undisambiguated names are dabs while Strathcona County is already at the undisambiguated Strathcona County.

Entries #1-35

Entries 1 through 35 are already at their common name (before the provincial disambiguator). They are also at their official legal names (before the disambiguator). All the bluelinked targets are redirects to the current article names. There are no other articles on Wikipedia that could contend for their undisambiguated names. In fact I could only find four articles that start with the common name (i.e., "Foo County"), all of which are redirects (Lacombe County municipal by-election, 2011; Lethbridge County Airport; Rocky View County municipal by-election, 2012; and Yellowhead County municipal by-election, 2012).
It is therefore proposed that they be moved to their common undisambiguated names. Hwy43 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Entries #36-70

Entries 36 through 70 are neither at their common nor official legal names. Rather, they are at a short form name format applied by Statistics Canada. The StatCan short form names of these municipalities definitely are not their common names.
Note: It is presumed StatCan applies this format to simply enable alphabetical sorting of municipalities by the given component of their official legal names (i.e., "Barrhead County No. 11" rather than "County of Barrhead No. 11").
Unlike urban municipalities where usage of the given name is more common that the official legal name (e.g., "Foo" rather than "City/Town/Village/Summer Village of Foo"), rural and specialized municipalities are rarely referred to by "just" their given names (e.g., referring to the "County of Forty Mile No. 8" as simply "Forty Mile" or "Forty Mile No. 8" is not widespread). Their official legal names are by far more common than the StatCan short forms and would also meet the article naming criteria.
Finally, using the official legal name format for non-urban municipalities is consistent with what is done for rural municipalities in Manitoba (see Category:Rural municipalities in Manitoba) and those improvement districts of Alberta that have their own articles (specifically Kananaskis and Nos. 9, 12 and 349). Also see the following upper-tier municipalities from Ontario at their official legal names:

It is therefore proposed that all of entries 36 through 70 be moved to their official legal names. If moved, the same set of moves should be considered for the countless rural municipalities in Saskatchewan. Hwy43 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Additional comment During my first couple of years on here, I would have opposed this very idea, but I have evolved after becoming more familiar with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA and what has been done elsewhere (MB & ON) in accordance with both. The evolution happened shortly after this discussion where I think it was evident from my empathy that I was torn. I'm now confident that it is time to move on from the StatCan short form article naming convention implemented presumably in good faith during Wikipedia's infancy. Hwy43 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. The proposal removes unneeded disambiguation, which will make these articles easier to link to. We might consider dropping the numbers from the titles ("County of Stettler" instead of "County of Stettler No. 6"), but using the full legal names will be less controversial and more consistent. Indefatigable (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support entries 1 through 35, ~~except 17,~~ these can go to their common, undisambiguated names. I'll try to open a discussion with the Australian WikiProject to see if we can determine that Mackenzie County and County of Mackenzie are both at their WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oppose entries 42 and 48, as you've stated official names work with rural municipalities, but I feel Crowsnest Pass and Jasper are urban communities, as this is how mail is addressed. Support entry 70, this is probably the best way to disambiguate Wood Buffalo in Alberta, and it also meets common name. I am having a tough time supporting the move of the remainder because they probably do not meet COMMONNAME, the longest being "Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124". My guess of what its common name would be is "M.D. of Lesser Slave River", or "Lesser Slave River No. 124", but you make a convincing argument to err on the side of official name rather than something arbitrary. 117Avenue (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree with your point regarding Jasper. It was an urban community prior to incorporation and it is predominantly an "urban" specialized municipality. I have struck it from the above.
Not quite sure what to think regarding Crowsnest Pass. It has held the official name of "Municipality of Crowsnest Pass" for 35 years now. Do people say they are going to "Crowsnest Pass" or do they say they are going to "Blairmore", "Coleman", "Frank" or the other urban communities within the municipality? I'm not sure.
You've provided a couple possible frequently used name scenarios for the MDLSR124. To add further complexity, it often refers to itself as "MD 124". Like this one, there are probably at least two possible frequently used names for each of the remaining MDs/counties. Due to the various scenarios, I doubt any complex web search comparisons would be able to conclusively determine which is the most common for each, and if so, the results would likely result in inconsistent formats among all. Erring on the side of official name as stated would be a satisfactory alternative to determining the most common of all, and also as stated would achieve consistency and be less controversial. Hwy43 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

People will always say that they are going to the larger, more recognizable name. You don't have to go far to see that "Crowsnest Pass" is treated like a town when referred to, and in naming places and events there. I think it is very easily the best name. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm convinced. I've struck that entry from the list.
I see there was a response at the Australia WP. It appears Alberta's "Mackenzie County" would be the primary topic. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added hats to the two Mackenzies, I think we're good there. 117Avenue (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As it is unanimous thus far to move #1 through #35 and #70, I'm going to start moving them per above. I'll hold off on moving the balance for now in case there is any further comments. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no further comments over the past 12 days, the current consensus is to move #36 through #69, excluding #42 and #48. I'll begin processing tomorrow evening if I hear nothing further by then. Hwy43 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The above is now complete. I've just opened a similar discussion at the Saskatchewan WikiProject about doing the same for its 296 rural municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Drayton Valley's Frank Maddock High School nominated for deletion

See discussion here. Hwy43 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)