Talk:List of township municipalities in Ontario

Merge Proposal?

I'm wondering if this page could be redirected to List of municipalities in Ontario as that article contains nearly everything from this article, making it redundant. It is also a featured list and will get more exposure/traffic. The individual township pages could also be linked to the List of municipalities in Ontario for a more parsimonious configuration. Thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per past speedy keep consensus at similar delete/merge proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities in British Columbia. Similar to this, List of municipalities in British Columbia is also a featured list, but its status as such held no weight in that discussion.

  List of municipalities in Ontario is intended to cover all municipality types in general, whereas the intent of this article is to present only those that are of a certain sub-type of municipalities. As stated in the similar discussion, some data duplication between two list articles is not a problem per WP:NOTPAPER, and the inclusion parameters between each are sufficiently different. Furthermore, List of municipalities in Ontario does not have the functionality to sort all township municipalities by size like this does due to the inclusion of other sub-types in the the former.

  This article has the opportunity to be significantly expanded with other content (see List of towns in Alberta) and such detail would be too granular for List of municipalities in Ontario, which already is excessive in size anyways at 132 kb. Hwy43 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • May I propose a counter argument? I do agree that List of communities in Ontario is not a fork as it contains information that is not found in List of municipalities in Ontario for the same reasons cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities in British Columbia, especially "The featured list refers to incorporated municipalities, while this list is intended for incorporated and unincorporated communities, so it is not a duplicate.". However for townships, 100% are overlapped with municipalities, so it's a complete fork. Your argument for functionality does make sense however and so I'm now debating whether this functionality alone makes the redundancy valid. Thanks for the quick reply! Mattximus (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pardon my repetition but the scope of munis article is types of municipalities, hence its current organization. Within the two tables, sub-types are attributes of each muni. Though the table at the munis article was duplicated from the content at the townships article, the prose from the latter is not duplicated at the former; therefore not a complete fork. Further to the functionality aspect, the article can be significantly expanded in terms of prose and other content to better appear as a sub-article rather that its current surficial appearance as a fork. I can add information on former townships to expand. Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)