Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island edit

List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominators: Hwy43 (talk) and Mattximus (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We return with our 12th (out of 13) municipalities nomination with the goal of bringing 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, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador (British Columbia already had FL status before we began collaborating on this initiative). We have also taken suggestions from the previous 10 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*"property assessment value that meets or exceeds $750-million" - no reason for that hyphen there
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "property assessment value that meets or exceeds $200-million, but is less than $750-million" - same again
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each of the towns elect a mayor" => "each of the towns elects a mayor"
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each of the rural municipalities elect a mayor" - same again
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Borden-Carlton incorporated as a town on July 31, 2012." - if this is the case, what did it incorporate as in 1995? This applies to several of the notes and could do with clarification.
I believe the former community status before the status was rebranded as rural municipality. This and review of the several other notes will take a bit of time so I will park this until the evening. Will ping you once done. Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since fixed for all four instances. Hwy43 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:Thank you, ChrisTheDude, for commenting on another one of our co-nominations. I have responded to all of your comments. Let us know if all have been sufficiently addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I just picked up - "The 2016 population of Central Prince is the post-amalgamation sum of the population counts associated with two former rural municipalities (Ellerslie-Bideford and Lady Slipper)" - I would say this also applies to the 2011 figure, doesn't it? Also, is some sort of note needed clarifying the 2011 population of Bedeque and Area given that it didn't incorporate until 2014? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed for Central Prince and North Shore. Not necessary for Bedeque and Area as that amalgamation occurred before the last federal census so Statistics Canada has already published a revised 2011 population count for it for comparison purposes with the 2016 population count. Hwy43 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Reywas92
Resolved comments from Reywas92 (talk)
*"Municipal statuses in Prince Edward Island include" -> "are", the set is comprehensive
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meets or exceeds" should just be "exceeds" for both uses of the towns.
I remember authoring this. It was the best solution I could come up with at the time to avoid any perception of COPYVIOing content from its source that states "an estimated population of over 4,000 persons, but not more than 14,999 persons and a total property assessment value of over $200,000,000, but not more than $749,999,999." If "an estimated population of 4,000 or more" is sufficiently different, then consider this done. Hwy43 (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three Rivers is the largest town by area, not Cornwall.
Fixed – this was authored before Three Rivers was incorporated. Thanks for catching that. Hwy43 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why List of towns in Prince Edward Island exists and is linked as the "main article". This does not serve the reader because it is just a WP:DUPLICATE of content already in this article, except that the populations are outdated; it is not actually a main article providing the reader further information.
I now remember where I first remember crossing paths. We had differing opinions at Talk:List of towns in New Brunswick while in a fairly inactive in a near-retirement state. Regarding the towns list, the only thing I'll initially add to my previous arguments there is WP:NOTDONE, whereas this overarching article is effectively done except for the need to maintain and update it as things change over time (municipal restructuring, new census results, etc.). I won't rehash old arguments beyond that because this isn't the place, but I recognize that the towns list does need to be updated and more content does need to be added to sufficiently make it a child list article for towns above and beyond what exists currently in this article. As working from home during covid has brought me out of near-retirement, I can put this on my to do list.

As for what is happening here, I understand your comment about it being linked as the "main article", so I have changed it from the {{Main}} template to the {{See also}} template. Hwy43 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not a see also either. You're giving a link to the reader that they would expect to have additional information but there is none and that is a disservice. What can possibly be added to the towns list that shouldn't be added to this list? If Towns is expanded, then Municipalties won't be up to FL snuff by missing relevant information. Leaving this WP:REDUNDANT page is baffling. Reywas92Talk 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
‎Reywas92, what is your proposed or desired solution for this FLC then? To remove the {{See also}} template? If so, that can be done. Also await your confirmation that the balance of your comments has been addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with respect to the FLC, the link does not add to the article and should be removed. Outside this, the towns list should be redirected. The other comment responses are great, thanks. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed {{Main/See also}} tag. Hwy43 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Population density column doesn't need to include "/km2" in every item, just put the unit in the header.
Fixed – fortunately saved by there being a disp parameter in the template. Hwy43 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not n is missing a ".
I've applied italics instead. If that is okay then consider this done. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the totals at the bottom take into account the amalgamations? The populations of the former places would be included in the 2016 totals but the not the 2011 totals since they're not in the table at all.
Yes. I did the population adjustments for the amalgamated municipalities just prior to nomination and those totals were done properly as confirmed by a doublecheck just now. However, there were two errors in the land area totals, which are now fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second EL may not be needed since you have the third.
Fixed Hwy43 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice list! Reywas92Talk 17:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Reywas92, for commenting on another one of our co-nominations. I have responded to all of your comments. Let us know if all have been sufficiently addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Reywas92. I believe all your comments are now addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Therapyisgood
Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can review this later. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be eligible for city or town status, certain minimum estimated population and total property assessment value criteria must be met can you be specific as to what these are?
  • These are specified in the respective sections above the table (under cities and towns). I'm not sure it would be a good idea to repeat them in the lead as they are not really important to the summary of the table and different depending on municipality type. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the recent FLC for NL municipalities, we were asked to be mindful of not repeating things too closely together. During that review, that comment reminded me that lead sections are supposed to be summaries of articles where details are more appropriate within the body. As Mattximus has advised, the thresholds are presented two and three paragraphs later (for cities and towns respectively). Not a hill to die on, but if we do add to the lead we risk inducing a concern about repetition similar to that voiced in the last FLC review. Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The province's lone resort municipality that was established by order in council in 1990 continues as such would be helpful to know which this was.
  • Oh the resort municipality is called resort municipality. I could link it so that it says The province's lone resort municipality that was established..." But it feels a bit easter-egg like. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resort Municipality" is just a short form of the lone resort municipality's official legal name. I have wikilinked it based on its official legal name and revised wording. Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • continues as such in the Municipal Government Act but no new resort municipalities may be created pursuant to what?
  • I'm a bit confused with this comment, it's pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, which is in the sentence. Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed by way of altering wording in tandem with addressing previous and next comments per these three edits. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • continues as such as of when?
  • The incorporation in 1990, which is in the previous sentence? Sorry also confused with this comment. Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically its status as a resort municipality, granted originally in 1990, continued from the point in December 2017 when the MGA came into force. These three edits should address this and the previous to comments. If so, consider this fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall I would feel better about supporting if more context was added to the first paragraph about Prince Edward Island, for instance when it was colonized by Europeans, colonized by natives or vikings, first charted or recognized by the Canadian government, naming taxonomy, etc.
  • Although the Miꞌkmaq and their ancestors have been there for several millennia, they did not establish any of the municipalities we have on this list. The vikings never visited and any old colonies of the French and English also are not reflected on this list, which begins with the incorporation of Charlottetown in 1855. I believe any additional history before that found in the table is really beyond the scope of a list of current municipalities of PEI. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that this request is outside the scope of the article. None of the 10 previous FLC reviews have triggered the need for such and implementing in this one would make it out of alignment with the 11 other FLs. That said, I understand the spirit and intent of the request, so I have added History of Prince Edward Island as an entry in the See also section. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution of Prince Edward Island's 72 municipalities by municipal status type perhaps add "as of 2017" with Template:As of
  • Will have to consult Hwy43 as it is his map and he knows the caption standards and dates. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added as of template like so. I’ll put updating the map to 2020 on my to do list should the necessary open data be available. Hwy43 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Starting with the municipal elections in 2018, both cities elect a mayor and a minimum of eight councillors. is that pursuant to a law? How often do they get voted into office, how often are elections?
  • Added "every four years". Technically it is every four years on the first Monday in November, but I think that is a bit much. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pursuant to the MGA. Added mention to the MGA in all four instances. Temporarily removed the every four years piece until a reference is provided confirming such (I don’t dispute it at all, just need a source). In place of the first instance I added when the next election is based on a source I accessed recently. I’ll be back tomorrow. Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now fully addressed – we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses two more bullets below. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps abbreviate Municipal Government Act to its abbreviation so you won't have to repeat it to the readers over and over.
  • I'm hesitant to do this as it might constitute WP:OR, since it is never once abbreviated in the 128 pages of the Act itself. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that's fair. Although a Google search for "Municipal Government Act" 2016 "(MGA)" shows ~76k results for MGA. Also Edmonton uses it predominately here. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not hesitant at all. See acronym in action. I have added. Consider this addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming if the population dips below the threshold for creation of a city, municipality, etc it's OK to keep that form of government? Is there any leeway in the MGA about changing? Can the municipality vote etc?
  • Yes the rules are for establishment only. The government can change, but they then must meet the same requirements, so I don't think that's needed as it would be repetition. I did add one line to resort municipality as it has a "maximum" population of 2000 before it is upgraded to a municipality. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the Fisheries minister change a municipality on a whim because the population declined? That would be worth a mention. Otherwise OK. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MGA states "Where the Minister is satisfied that a municipality no longer meets the criteria for its class as (1) specified in subsection 13(1), the Minister may recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that the class of the municipality be changed to a class that is appropriate." This applies to cities and towns only. I have since added this. No explicit opportunity for the municipality to vote on the minister's recommendation. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting with the municipal elections in 2018, again, pursuant to anything? how often?
  • Added "every four years" to the other 3 sections. Was that your recommendation? And pursuant to the Municipal government act, which is mentioned. Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now fully addressed – as mentioned above, we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses one bullet above and one more below. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the previous Municipalities Act when was that one passed?
  • Added 1988, do you think we should also add a reference linking to this act? Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be helpful for context if a reader wanted to read it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and actually 1983. The 1988 version of the Municipalities Act was a consolidation of the Act five years later. The 1988 version reference remains, embedded within the associated note. Hwy43 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting with the municipal elections in 2018 same
  • Now fully addressed – as mentioned above, we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses two more bullets above. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the "hide" function is really necessary on the table.
  • I agree, I checked the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and did not see this requirement. It is also found on all other lists. I will check with others to see the reason this is here in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done by removing collapsible parameter. Since the list is the focus of the article, no need to collapse the list unless there are multiple lists in an article. Hwy43 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not a requirement, but would suggest archiving the sources before they inevitably die. Otherwise looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a bot that does this? It's an excellent idea. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. All 23 refs now have archive urls added. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Therapyisgood! I've addressed all your concerns. Some were easy fixes, but others require your response to my comments. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood, I echo Mattximus' appreciation. Thank you! All but two comments have yet to be formally responded to or addressed. I will return in the evening to address the population decline comment (this will take some effort as such new content would have to be sourced and it is difficult to source something that the MGA might not explicitly say). Once addressed, I can tackle the proactive archiving (final bullet). In the meantime, please advise if all other comments have been addressed or sufficiently responded to, if you have the time. I'm particularly interested in if you are satisfied with our responses to your first and fifth bulleted comments. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: Everything looks good aside from the population. Though you do have one "Municipal Government Act" left in the "Rural municipalities" section. I would like some clarification on if that was on purpose. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not on purpose. Heavy eyelids last night had the blinders obscuring that instance. Hwy43 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: the comments about population decline implications and archiving of the sources are now addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources both look fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_municipalities_in_Prince_Edward_Island/archive1&oldid=967390302"