Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Geography 2 General comments 3 "The" or not to "the" 4 Canadian English 5 Re: places 6 Use of French-Canadian vs. Quebecer/Québécois 7 French names 7.1 Diacriticals in English Canada 7.2 Montreal street template 8 Neighbourhoods 8.1 Draft 8.2 Neighbourhoods 8.2.1 Comments 9 First Nations 10 Radio stations 11 Parks - geopolitical or geophysical? 12 Newfoundland and Labrador physical features 13 Disambiguation of border-straddling entities 14 Government Departments/Ministries

[edit] Geography

Bear, actually the first river you mentioned should have been labeled Whitefish River (Kaministiquia River) and the other one should be Whitefish River (Round Lake) according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Multiple rivers with the same name. The WikiProject River protocols should take precedence. Deet (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers protocol is as clear as mud. It allows multiple naming styles and has no clear sense of direction. I don't think this is something we want to use. Atrian (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where WikiProject Rivers requires that format; it merely suggests that as one option among several. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe we can come up with something for Canada and then port back to the river project if we can come up with something a bit better/clearer. I've always thought that what we need more than naming conventions is some sort of family tree editable chart tool that can map out tributaries (with links). Is there such a thing in Wikipedia? Deet (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, good question. I don't know the answer to that. It would be worth potentially coming to a decision here about how to handle Canadian rivers, but it might also be worthwhile to solicit a clarification discussion at the rivers project itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed recently that someone had split the Highland Creek article into two pieces, one for the creek and one for the community. The creek article ended up as "Highland Creek (Lake Ontario)". I moved the article to "Highland Creek (Toronto) since its watershed falls entirely within Toronto boundaries. But I also noticed a disparity in naming conventions for other local streams. For example, Taylor-Massey Creek is DABed as (Don) since it is a tributary of the Don River but Black Creek, a tributary of the Humber is DABed as (Ontario). I think it would be good create a more detailed description of what is the correct disambiguation to use for rivers. Atrian (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Thank you for doing all this work. It looks great. My comments are minor, and are as follows:

Places

• • Point 1 states: "A city's international fame, or lack thereof, has a direct bearing on criterion b". I believe that the reference should be to "a city's relative international fame" or "a city's comparative international fame", or something to that effect. Fame or significance should not be assessed in isolation from other places that share the name. "I have never heard of Edmonton" or "Edmonton has very little siginificance on the world stage" should not be valid reasons to disambiguate Edmonton -- the question should be is Edmonton, Alberta more known or significant than places like Edmonton, Kentucky?
  • Point 3 worries me a bit. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and Windsor and Hamilton are perfect examples of where it is correct. However, the argument one faces sometimes from British editors is that the place in the U.K. is always more significant merely because it is older or is the origin of the name (when the New World place is more significant). I'm not sure that this point needs to be revised -- I am just kvetching, and fear that this clause might feed into that argument.
  • Point 5 - I would suggest that "...or geographical features in a city" be "...or geographical features in or related to a city".
  • Point 6 - Perhaps clarify that the discussion should take place on the article's talk page. We used to see the comment sometimes that this sort of thing should be kicked up to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), God forbid.

French names

• • I am not sure why we need the phrase "accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling" -- we should just leave it at use actual English usage. Otherwise, do we need to move Montreal West to Montréal-Ouest? I can't think of any other potential problems, but it's possible there are other instances that we have not foreseen, where French spelling and actual English usage differ.

My concern is that some people might claim that "actual English usage" dictates something like "Trois Rivieres" instead of Trois-Rivières, or "Riviere du Loup" instead of Rivière-du-Loup, or "NDG" instead of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Could we figure out a way to resolve both concerns? Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Although you and I know that actual English usage isn't Riviere du Loup or Trois Rivieres (and NDG is a nickname), I see your point. Perhaps the last part of that para. could be reworded: "However, usage for most smaller cities and towns in the province is less clear-cut, due in part to the lesser number of documented English references. Accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling, unless there is clear evidence of widespread use of a more common English usage."--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion above, I think it is helpful to see how they have worded it over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand):"If a New Zealand place name is unique (or likely to be unique) in the world, then it alone is used as the article's title - (for example, Otorohanga). This form is also used if the New Zealand place is not likely to be confused with places with the same name overseas, by virtue of its relative prominence (for example, Dunedin). Confusion has to be likely, not merely possible: for example, Wellington, the capital, is known all over the world, whereas the other 30 or so places with the same name have fairly local significance only."

I think their use of the term "relative prominence" is better than "international fame", because the latter simply begs the boneheaded comment "I have never heard of it". The former encourages an objective analysis, rather than a subjective assessment of a place's "fame".

I think the caution "Confusion has to be likely, not merely possible" is a good one to include in the Canadian naming conventions (think back, for example, to the odd suggestion that Vancouver ought to be moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, so as to avoid confusion with a suburb of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver Island). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thought, as I read the draft again. In point 1, wouldn't "primary use" be more objective and straightforward to assess than "most important use", and more in keeping with Wikipedia convention? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The" or not to "the"

What is to be used in the articles on Yukon and the Northwest Territories?

Based on looking at the NWT government site, Government of the Northwest Territories, it would seem to me that NWT articles should include "the". Looking at other GNWT sites they all use "the", Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and Languages Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. Also the Hansards call it the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Right now we have some odd articles like Symbols of Northwest Territories with the legislative assembly calling them Official Symbols of the Northwest Territories. As noted above the commissioner's site use "the" but our article is at Commissioners of Northwest Territories but the category is Commissioners of the Northwest Territories. Here's a line that I pulled from the NWT article, "Unlike provincial governments and the Yukon, the Government of Northwest Territories does not have political parties..." Now either way that is wrongly worded as the GNWT calls themselves the Government of the Northwest Territories.

On the other hand it appears that Yukon prefers to drop "the", Government of Yukon. However there is the Commissioner of the Yukon but in the throne speech tends not to use "the" and Interim Supply Appropriation Act 2006 - 2007 says that it's a "Statutes of Yukon". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in high school, I was taught that "the Yukon" and "the NWT" refer to the region (esp. in a historical sense, as in "The RCMP was created to police the Northwest Territories"), and that "Yukon" and "NWT" refer to the province/jurisdiction. I don't know where my teacher got that, or if it is even corect. I note, however, that the Ukraine article (and the NY Times article cited therein) suggests that the shift from "the Ukraine" to "Ukraine" largely occurred in the early 90s, as that country transitioned from a region of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union to an independent country (somewhat comparable to what my high school teacher believed to the case for Canada's territories).

As for Yukon, the Globe & Mail style book indicates that the gov't does not use "the" in its official name (Government of Yukon, or Yukon Government), adding: "although in practice even the government uses 'the Yukon' at least as often as it does 'Yukon'." The guide then notes that to further confuse matters, the feds call their official representative "Commissioner of the Yukon" (as mentioned aboive by CambridgeBayWeather). In the end, the Globe and Mail advises: "When using official names and titles, respect the official style. Elsewhere, favour Yukon in news stories, but either form is acceptable in features, lighter pieces and opinion pieces. Whatever form is chosen, it should be consistent within the article." The Globe & Mail style book has no discussion of "the NWT" vs. "NWT" (and uses both forms in discussing the NWT/Nunavut split).

On the other hand, the Canadian Press style book appears to favour "the Yukon" (and "the NWT" for that matter), but without any discussion and it arises only in the context of a comment on whether or not Whitehorse and Yellowknife can stand alone as placenames.

Finally, I would add that the Yukon Act, 2002, c.7, does not use "the", whereas the Northwest Territories Act, N-27, uses "the".

Based on the information provided by CambridgeBayWeather, as well as the official statutes giving legal status to the territories (not to mention the gist of the Globe and Mail advice for Yukon, esp. with respect to favouring the official form and being consistent), I would say that we should consistently use "Yukon" (not "the Yukon"), but "the Northwest Territories" (not "Northwest Territories"). That would seem consistent with most of the existing practice on Wikipedia, the official forms of the names (despite any inconsistent uses in practice), and for NWT would be consistent with past discussions on the issue here, here, and here. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What I've added at this point is that for the Yukon, either form is okay in article text, since I don't see that as being worth monitoring all that obsessively, but that the title should always be in the form Yukon-without-the. Feel free to offer further input if you disagree with that. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian English

Should(n't) there be a section re Canadian English orthog/vocab? For example (but not limited to):

• -re and -our endings (centre vs center, honour vs honor – but always honorary)
• offence/defence vs offense/defense
• -ize vs -ise, where applic (homogenize vs homogenise)
• grade N vs Nth grade for schools
• Second World War vs World War II
• Tim's vs Starbuck's (just kidding)

Just a thought. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems covered sufficiently by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Maybe a link there? –Pomte 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:ENGVAR. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: places

I propose that place names where a common word is used as a suffix or prefix should not be considered for an un-disambiguated title. For example places that use Fort, Port, River, Creek, Lake, Ridge, Park and similar words in addition to another name that would be ambiguous by itself. This would prevent having misleading article titles. --Qyd (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Limerick Lake or Fort York could be misleading. While someone could think that these places are in England or Ireland, there doesn't seem to be any other notable place with those names, so they aren't likely to search or click looking for some other place (if they are, then they'll create a new article with no harm done). A compound name containing ambiguous parts doesn't mean the whole name is ambiguous. –Pomte 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keyword is "misleading". Spruce Grove is not about spruce groves. Corner Brook is not about a bent creek. Sherwood Park is not about a park in some Sherwood, nor is it a tamed part of Sherwood Forest. Grand Prairie is not about a large prairie. Mountain Meadows is not about some alpine grassland. Country Hills is not about rural landforms. Sandy Beach is not any beach with sand. Fort Saskatchewan is not a fort, isn't even in Saskatchewan, and is not the only fort on the Saskatchewan River. High River is not a flood. Yellow Grass is not an autumn field. Eye Hill is not a horror movie. Echo Bay is not acoustics on water. South Dildo is not a toy. Northern Bay is not in the arctic. And so on. --Qyd (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

George Sand, Michael Learned and Rene Russo are not men, but we don't preemptively disambiguate them as "(woman)" just because their names, although unique, might be "misleading". Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that we have a convention, and here we point out possible exceptions. My opinion is that misleading names should not qualify for the exception to the rule. --Qyd (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Limerick Lake is indeed about a lake, and Fort York is about a fort. When I said "place names" I meant settlements, communities, should have made that clear (it's just that it's listed as Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#Places). --Qyd (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I held off commenting on this one for awhile, to see if I could think of any instances where this could work. I just don't see any ambiguities in most of the examples given above, however, and can't think of any logical way (or need) to predetermine the issue in the manner proposed. In the end, I feel that pages moves proposals are better assessed on their own merits, rather than tryin to come up with a suffix or prefix rule. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And by tryin', I meant to type trying. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of French-Canadian vs. Quebecer/Québécois

Should the guideline discuss it? Personally I use it to describe any Quebec (and expatriates, etc.) person who died before the 60s-70s, because the use of "Québécois" as an "ethnic" describer was not usual before that time. I would argue to keep it for people after the time too, because "Québécois" does not by any definition describe an ethnic group, and might cause further issues when describing Quebec-based immigrants. Circeus (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If a clear consensus has developed among Wikipedia editors on this point, I am not against incorporating it here, but last time I looked this issue tended to generate some controversy.Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French names

The para. in question reads:

For geographic names, again, the current practice is to reflect actual English usage. Specifically, the unaccented names Montreal, Quebec and Quebec City (not "Montréal" or "Québec") are the standard usages in English. However, usage for most smaller cities and towns in the province is less clear-cut, due in part to the lesser number of documented English references. Accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling. (bold added)

I don't believe that the last sentence (the one I bolded) is the product of any consensus. Not only is it not accurate (see Montreal West or Campbell's Bay), but the discussion above (from before this style guide was finalized) was left unresolved. And (correct me if I am wrong here), I don't think this sentence is the product of some past consensus. In my view, it's a little far reaching. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just kvetch, I propose that we modify the last sentence to read: "Accordingly, for all municipal names in Quebec apart from those noted above, use the French spelling, unless there is clear evidence of widespread use of a more common name in English." Any comments? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Campbell's Bay even have a separate French name, or is it referred to in French as Campbell's Bay? Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, the guideline as previously written would have been interpreted no doubt as requiring Baie Campbell. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diacriticals in English Canada

Should the style guide say anything about using French diacriticals on geographic names outside Quebec? In the last couple of months I have moved La Crête, Alberta, and Tête Jaune Cache, British Columbia, to add the accents, which appear in provincial and federal gazetteers. The latter move provoked some discussion, but it has not been reverted so far. The argument against the accents is that neither place is a francophone community, and the local residents don't write the accents. I think our style guide should put the burden of proof on those who wish to deviate from the spellings in the gazetteers. Indefatigable (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just have the more common usage, if it can be determined, rather than the relatively unused but probably more correct name? To use the diacritics on English Canada names, when they are not normally used, would lead to a rather odd comparison with Quebec names. Basically for names in Quebec the common English usage would be used, Montreal not Montréal, but outside it would be the official name not the common English usage, La Crête not La Crete. according to a quick search at the Govt. of Alberta site gave me one usage of La Crête and 202 usages of La Crete and the Chamber of Commerce also uses La Crete. By the way this would involve more than just French names, it might have an inpact on First Nations communities, Délįne and Łutselk'e spring to mind. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are actually much fuzzier than that, to be honest. We do use Montreal rather than Montréal and Quebec rather than Québec, but we also use titles like Trois-Rivières, Paspébiac, Gaspé and Rivière-du-Loup rather than the unaccented forms. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Given those Google results, and my interpretation of WP:ENGLISH and the section on English names in WP:NCGN, I believe that La Crete (no diacritics) is clearly the way to go. To put it another way, regardless of the French origin of the name, it has entered into common English usage without French accents, hyphens and the like, like so many other place names in North America. After all, a great many geo names in the U.S. and Canada are transliterations or corruptions of Aboriginal names, with their own various alphabets, but we wouldn't think to use those as main article names for, say, Massachusetts or Narragansett. This may seem like a strange analogy, but I think it holds: in both cases, a name started out in one language and got converted into a commonly used English adaptation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal street template

• A new editor refuses to recognize WP:CANSTYLE regarding English common use for the Montreal streets template, and I'm already at or past 3RR. Please see here. If other editors --or admins -- could get involved, that would be great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbourhoods

It would be fantastic if we could add some guidelines to the Canadian style guide in respect of article names for Canadian neighbourhoods. As it is now, there are no standards whatsoever, so we end up with a smorgasborg of approaches, including:

• Some neighbourhood articles use the "comma convention" (e.g. Willowdale, Toronto; Riverdale, Edmonton);

• Some neighbourhood articles use the "bracket convention" (e.g. Westboro (Ottawa); Mile End (Montreal)); and

• Some neighbourhood articles do not use any disambiguation at all (e.g. The Beaches; The Plateau; Rossdale).

In order to come up with a guideline, we need to address the following questions:

1. In terms of disambiguation, do we take the same approach as we would for cities and towns (places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles)?
2. Where disambiguation is needed, do we favour the comma convention or the bracket convention? Is the correct format Neighbourhood, Municipality/Neighbourhood (Municipality) or are there some instances where we would use Neighbourhood, Province/Neighbourhood (Province)? (I could not find any examples where the name of the Province was used to disambiguate the title, except in the circumstances set out in the next point, but I am sure some exist if we dig a bit).
3. Given the wave of municipal amalgamations in the 1990s (not to mention those that occurred earlier), there are a number of former independent municipalities that have their own articles. Some of the former municipalities retain a small degree of autonomy (e.g. St. Leonard (borough)), whereas others have no independent legal status (e.g. North York, Ontario; Kanata, Ontario) and are now effectively akin to neighbourhoods. How do we treat these articles?

I hope this helps start the discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After doing extensive study (I looked at four articles) I think that the best way would be to use a combination of no disambiguation and comma convention in that order. If there is no need of a disambiguation then don't use one. Thus the Riverdale in Edmonton would need the comma convention to seperate it from all the other Riverdales but Rossdale would not. This would be in line with things like Edmonton, London, Tottenham, SoHo and Soho. The bracket convention should be done away with as that is used more often for lakes or rivers. If the neighbourhood has the ability to stand on it's own then it should do so. Look at List of neighbourhoods in Toronto. I think there are too many to be merged into the Toronto article and I suspect the same could be said of other cities. Each neighbourhood would need to be evaluated as to its suitability for a stand alone article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The bracket convention should be limited to geophysical concepts, for example rivers or mountains. The comma convention is used throughout (the english) Wikipedia for geopolitical entities, so we should use that in preference to the bracket version for neighbourhoods. I would select an article's name in the following order:

• Neighbourhood
• Neighbourhood, Municipality
• Neighbourhood, Province
• Neighbourhood, Municipality, Province

However, the first option should be restricted to well-known neighbourhoods, such as The Beaches or Downtown Eastside. That is, "yes" to your first question, and "comma" to your second question. An example where the province is needed to disambiguate is Pine Grove, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (see the dab page Pine Grove, Ontario).

I'll have to give some thought to the issue of amalgamations. Mindmatrix 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken the last entry from my comment above - that point is actually unrelated to this discussion. However, this brings up the issue - how do we treat a community like Pine Grove, once a distinct entity which has now been absorbed into a much larger community (Woodbridge, Ontario. which is itself part of the city of Vaughan, Ontario)? Do we consider it a neighbourhood, similar to The Beaches, or is it a community that isn't sufficiently distinguished from other nearby communities to warrant that kind of treatment? That is, should we consider moving its article to Pine Grove, Regional Municipality of York (or something similar, per the standard we define here)? What criteria do we use to make that determination? Mindmatrix 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I would say that, with sources that Pine Grove currently lacks, it should have its own article. I would also dab it with the community it is most closely associated with. In this example, Pine Grove (Woodbridge). DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather go with Pine Grove, Vaughan, as it is administered and governed by the city of Vaughan, Ontario. --Qyd (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with Qyd — Vaughan is the actual municipality, and the thing that people who know very little about the area are more likely to at least have heard of. (Those are, after all, the primary audience for an encyclopedia article about it — the locals might be interested, but the primary purpose is to give information to people who don't already know it.) Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that point of view but still argue that it belongs with the community dab more. Firstly, if there is not enough for an article about the neighbourhood, the info would go in the community article rather than the municipality article and if it was to be later broken out, it makes sense that the (dab) would be the community it just came from. Secondly, readers who are interested in learning more about a neighbourhood would most likely know it as an area in the community. I suppose I see it as concentric circles and it makes sense to me to use adjacent rings rather than skip over the community "ring". To illustrate from a further "ring" out from centre, even though there is only one London in Canada, we don't dab as London, Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pine Grove, Vaughan too, but I think I phrased my question incorrectly - what criteria do we use to determine that a community is a neighbourhood of a town or city, instead of a settlement of the province? (Pine Grove, Vaughan versus Pine Grove, Ontario) There are hundreds of these settlements, many of them with significant history but little current "community" - in Vaughan alone we have Woodbridge, Edgeley, Concord, Hope, Maple, Ontario, Kleinburg, etc. (The latter can be ignored, since it was essentially isolated from the others until a few years ago, so it wasn't truly a "neighbourhood".) While these all have "community" in that they are distinct from each other, I'm not sure we should be moving them to Woodbridge, Vaughan et al. Where do we set the bar? I think we've ruled out an article about Nashville, Kleinburg... Mindmatrix 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I think we might simply recognise the communities recognised by Canada Post as settlements of the province and dab with ", Province" and call others neighbourhoods of a community. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was autonomous once, it probably would make sense to use "community, province" (not for pine grove, where more dab is necessary). That would also prevent back and forth moves in cases such as de-mergers (like that that of Montreal).--Qyd (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes Neighbourhood, Province would be most appropriate. But "if it was autonomous once" should not be the test. For example, Yorkville was once a separate town, but absolutely no one calls it Yorkville, Ontario. The histories of our large cities are full of annexations and amalgamations, and it is surprising how many neighbourhoods were once separate municipalities. I like the idea of relying on whether Canada Post treats it as a separate postal address. It's objective and simple, and will capture those places that are typically better known by "Neighbourhood, Province" than "Neighbourhood, Municipality." Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neighbourhood, Municipality rather than Neighbourhood, Community/Larger Neighbourhood. First, we need to keep the naming convention as simple as possible, and we already appear to be heading to a system whereby disambiguation would sometimes be Neighbourhood, Municipality and other times Neighbourhood, Province - we do not need to add other levels of disambiguation. Second, neighbourhoods do not have official, precise boundaries -- they are the subject of convention and common understanding, often change due to new developments and changing demographics (and real estate agents), and are often in flux and in dispute. I know in Toronto it would be contentious whether, say for example, Player Estates in part of the larger Riverdale community or not (just to name an example near my home). On the other hand, municipal boundaries are official - I would much rather tie DAB'ing to something objective and clear, rather than to something subjective and that could give rise to disputes. Finally, despite the good arguments put forward by DoubleBlue, diambiguation and the merger/spliting of articles are completely separate concepts, and the former need not be based on the potential for the latter. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One could also say that the potential for disputes or changing boundaries need not affect the dab consensus but I do find that compelling. I indeed can see that more than one community might claim a (neighbouring) neighbourhood. Perhaps, using the municipality is then somewhat preferable. I still argue for a parenthesis though: Player Estates (Toronto). DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the bracket convention better too, but I can live with the comma given that the use of the parenthesis is reserved for geographic features. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would opt for the Neighbourhood, City convention. Smaller municipalities, with few neighbourhoods (4-6), could have a single article detailing all neighbourhoods. Larger cities, with hundred plus well documented neighbourhoods, would need articles for each neighbourhood. Using "The" to assume uniques is a stretch though. The Plateau or The Beaches can be anywhere. But then again, it is my opinion that un-disambiguated titles should be adopted in truly exceptional cases only. So far, Montreal is a mix of undisambiguated (accents, composed names) and brackets, Edmonton uses mostly brackets, Calgary uses comma convention throughout, Toronto uses comma and un-disambiguated titles, Vancouver and other BC cities use brackets and undis. --Qyd (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, neighbourhoods which don't need disambiguation should, as with any other topic, get plain titles. Comma convention when disambiguation is needed. In terms of the stack of disambiguation options, my suggestion would be this: "neighbourhood, province" if the community might actually be referred as such in the real world, such as if it has its own distinct postal code — frex, people do say Long Branch, Ontario and Manotick, Ontario, but nobody would ever say "Cabbagetown, Ontario" or "Billings Bridge, Ontario". "Neighbourhood, city" otherwise. "Neighbourhood, municipality, province" should almost never be necessary at all (it would require that two cities with the same name in different provinces or countries also contained neighbourhoods with the same name), but should be kept as an option under the "never say never" clause.

Re: amalgamations, former municipalities should generally be kept if they have substantial and well-referenced articles, but should be redirected to the new municipality if they have only stubs or redlinks. Another example is the former municipalities within Greater Sudbury, Ontario. Each individual neighbourhood within the city is currently a redirect to the main article on the pre-2001 municipality that it was a part of — so instead of having 40+ individual stubs on Whitefish and Coniston and Copper Cliff and Falconbridge, there are seven longer and more thorough omnibus articles in Category:Neighbourhoods in Greater Sudbury. Wanup still stands alone as a really bad stub, but there's no viable redirect target for it since it was an unincorporated standalone community prior to 2001. Bearcat (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I have much to contribute. I support undisambiguated titles for unique ones and "Neighbourhood, City" for others. --Kmsiever (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2¢:

1. I agree with not using a dab when places have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant.
2. When disambiguation is desired, I favour the use of parentheses as per WP:DAB but since the standard for Canadian municipalities was chosen to be Municipality, Province, I believe we should continue to follow the way people would expect to name/find articles. Thus, my order of preference is:
   1. Neighbourhood
   2. Neighbourhood, Province (though, as Bearcat says, if it would never be referred to like this omit)
   3. Neighbourhood (Municipality)
   4. Neighbourhood (Municipality, Province)
3. I have no problem with neighbourhood articles, even good stubs, that meet NPOV, V, and NOR. The amalgamated municipality article can include very brief details and link to neighbourhood articles for more information. Well-sourced neighbourhood articles can be very interesting and useful and are more likely to be expanded when an article already exists but likely would be trimmed when it's only a section of a greater municipality article.

DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is sourced, though. Neighbourhood articles are very frequently unsourced and commonly on the approximate literary and informative level of "Foo is a neighbourhood in City. There is an arena that has had graffiti on it for ten years (insert slow-moving edit war over the phrase "because the city council are too incompetent to clean it up" here). Stub notice. Category." A good article on a neighbourhood, absolutely. But most of the articles we have on city neighbourhoods ain't good. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft

The comments were extremely helpful. I have tried to capture the emerging consensus in the following draft, which would follow be placed above the territories subheading under "Places" in the style guide. I have avoided using the word "community", due to recent efforts to distinguish between settlements/places and communities of interest (see WP:CANTALK for more details).

[edit] Neighbourhoods

[note to draft: edited as per comments below]

Article titles for neighbourhoods (and other areas within cities and towns) are subject to the same considerations as municipalities, as set out in points 1 to 7 above.

For neighbourhoods which do not qualify for undisambiguated titles, the correct title format is [[Neighbourhood, City]] (not [[Neighbourhood (City)]], as the "bracket convention" is generally reserved for geophysical features such as rivers and mountains).

Where a neighbourhood is recognized as a distinct and valid municipal address by Canada Post (see database here), the title may be at [[Neighbourhood, Province]] rather than [[Neighbourhood, City]] (e.g. East York, Ontario, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia). Such neighbourhoods were usually once autonomous municipalities that have since been annexed or amalgamated, or are semi-autonomous municipalities (e.g. Montreal's boroughs). Where the [[Neighbourhood, Province]] form of disambiguation would give rise to a conflict (see, for example, Pine Grove, Ontario), [[Neighbourhood, City]] should be used.

A neighbourhood article should never be titled [[Neighbourhood, Canada]], [[Neighbourhood, Former City]], [[Neighbourhood, Upper-tier Municipality]], [[Sub-Neighbourhood, Larger Neighbourhood/area]], or anything along the lines of [[Neighbourhood (Borough)]].

A discussion should take place on the article's talk page before any page move is undertaken to implement these guidelines (please see numbered point 6 above), except where the move simply converts a title from the "bracket convention" ([[Neighbourhood (City)]]) to the "comma convention" ([[Neighbourhood, City]]).

Neighbourhood articles are still subject to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V, and consequently a neighbourhood should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets those core policies and guideline. A neighbourhood whose article does not meet that threshold (e.g. an unreferenced three or four line stub) should exist only as a redirect to its city, or to an appropriate subpage of the city, until a properly referenced article can be written about the neighbourhood as an independent topic.

Comments? Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Looks good. It would take a large effort to move all neighbourhoods to the comma convention, it would be nice if that was concerted. --Qyd (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We should do that. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think if we use the "Canada Post-recognised" rule, then we won't actually have the Pine Grove, Ontario, problem outlined here as they only recognise the Woodbridge one. I don't believe that Canada Post allows that sort of ambiguity problem but, if it should occur, then I would think we could make a rule then (and I think that [[Neighbourhood (Municipality), Province]] might actually be a better solution in that unlikely possibility). DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I didn't think that through. The sentence should probably be removed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd add a clause noting that neighbourhood articles are still subject to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V, and that consequently a neighbourhood should only have an article independent of its parent municipality when an article can be written that meets those core policies. A neighbourhood whose article does not meet those policies (e.g. an unreferenced three or four line stub) should exist only as a redirect to its city, or to an appropriate subpage of the city, until a properly referenced article can be written about the neighbourhood as an independent topic. Otherwise, though, I like this. I've also removed the current "communities" subsection from the guideline, since this will basically supersede it. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Minor fussy point: WP:RS is not a core policy; only a guideline for interpreting WP:V and WP:OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very useful discussion. I'll be following this. For example, as a lifelong Montrealer I found Victoriatown, Quebec to be rather confusing when I first came across it. My first reaction was that it was off island, somewhere in the regions. According to the proposal, this would be redirected to Victoriatown, Montreal, is that right? I do feel it should be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears so. In that particular case, by moving the Victoriatown article to Victoriatown, Montreal, we'd also alleviate some potential confusion with Victoriaville, Quebec. The Victoriatown article is very interesting, BTW. I had no idea. Similar to Africville and Lebreton Flats. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that move would be a good idea. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since one article has already been moved in accordance with this discussion (The Battery, St. John's), I have inserted the revised text above into the style guide, since we appear to have general agreement on it. Obviously, it still remains subject to any additional comments. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the sentence "Where a neighbourhood straddles a municipal boundary and is located in two separate municipalities, the correct title format is [[Neighbourhood, Province]] (e.g. Thornhill, Ontario).". I imagine this point is not controversial. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, first I 'd like to dispute one of the points that I made. (I knew that, eventually, I'd have an argument with myself...) I stated that the bracket convention is used for articles about geophysical concepts, whereas the comma convention is used for geopolitical concepts. I've noticed recently that articles about parks (geopolitical) seem to use the bracket convention. I'm not sure if this is the result of a few editors doing their own thing, or if its more widespread. We should investigate this more thoroughly for all article classes that would fall within the scope of Canadian geography or geopolitics.

Second, are we making this rule an exception to the convention Location, Province, or is this a standard rule. I was under the impression that this would only apply to a small group of articles, but after reading the draft, it appears that most settlements in Canada would fall under the Neighbourhood rule, since they don't appear in the Canada Post database. For example, for the township of King, Ontario, only three communities are listed in that database - King City, Schomberg, and Nobleton. This leaves another nineteen that would be considered neighbourhoods of King, and possibly titled Settlement, King - this seems wrong to me, as most would simply regard them as settlements of the province, rather than neighbourhoods of the township. We should define the policy more clearly and rigourously. Mindmatrix 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the parks, I can guess why there appears to be some confusion. Although I understand why you consider them to be geopolitical matters (and are probably most appropriately treated as such), I can see why some editors may view them as geophysical concepts. It is certainly a new issue we should consider.

As for the other issue, three things strike me as I review the King, Ontario article. First, it seems to make sense to me that King City, Schomberg and Nobleton would be the only ones at [[Neighbourhood, Province]]. The others all seem incredibly tiny (references in the articles to "consisting of a few homes" or "sparsely populated" or "only a few buildings remain"), or seem more noted as environmental protection areas than as settlements (Happy Valley, Arnnorveldt, Pottageville), or the articles suggest that they are considered parts of the larger communities (such as Everslay, which is stated to have been "subsumed by King City", and Lloydtown which is described as often being considered part of Schomberg). The only ones that gave me pause were Kettleby, Ontario, which turns out to be on the Canada Post database, and Temperanceville, Ontario because it straddles and boundary (so the guideline would keep it at Province for that reason). It makes sense why Canada Post does not treat the others as separate postal locations. I think such settlements are better disambiguated with the municipality than the province. Second, I personally think that the Canada Post database is an excellent objective standard to be using. To borrow your wording, it is a very clear and rigorous manner in which to proceed. Determining whether settlements are considered "settlements of the province" versus "communities of the municipality" is not a workeable standard, in my opinion, as it is so subjective and would lead to grief (I can already foresee the editor who insists until he is blue in the face that everyone knows his neighbourhood as "Cabbagetown, Ontario"). Third and finally, I think based on the language that Bearcat drafted, some of the articles on the various hamlets in King Township should probably be merged into the main Township article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside: Regarding the fact that some of the community articles for King seem to reflect environmental issues more than the communities, well, that's because I was the primary editor for most of these, and I tend to focus on such things. I haven't (yet) bothered with other details, such as history, because it takes far more effort to research and verify facts in those areas. Don't infer things about those places based on the current state of their articles, which are far from comprehensive and do not adequately cover the subjects. Mindmatrix 21:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although people often disagree, for what it's worth I honestly think that a significant number of unincorporated communities really don't need to exist as separate articles. Especially for small communities within townships, there's very seldom much of anything that can really be written about the local settlement as a distinct topic from the municipality, and most of the time the arguments in favour of keeping short stubs about individual communities really boil down to some variation on the logical fallacy that articles exist to serve categories — and thus if a category exists then everything that could possibly be filed there has to have its own separate article regardless of quality. Which isn't really how Wikipedia works, especially since it is possible to directly categorize a redirect. But I digress.

It should also be kept in mind that a redirect is not a permanent ban on the topic ever having its own article; the parent municipality's article can always be subdivided again at a later date when it's longer and more solid references are available. Some people respond to the redirect solution as though redirecting causes the topic to disappear completely, or makes it impossible to ever write a separate article — and neither one of those is the case. It's also much easier for us to monitor one article for quality and verifiability than it is to monitor twelve separate stubs about various aspects of the same municipal entity — I can't even tell you how many times I've come across uncaught vandalism and inappropriate/unreferenced edits about non-encyclopedic matters in the process of redirecting community stubs. FWIW, anyway.

I'd agree that coming up with our own standard for distinguishing "settlements of the province" from "communities of the municipality" is essentially setting ourselves up for a whole lot of grief, and we should basically agree to stick to a clear and unambiguous external source for that kind of thing. The Canada Post database is the best solution that I know of, but I'm not wedded to it if other useful resources exist that can serve a similar purpose. Parks, to me, are kind of a funny middle ground between our geopolitical and geophysical standards, being sort of both at the same time — their boundaries are defined under provincial law in a very similar manner to a municipality, but at the same time they aren't self-governing entities. So my own preference would be to err on the side of geophysicality. And, of course, a park which is either the primary use of its name or has an entirely unique name should remain undisambiguated anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested in assisting in the implementation of the guideline (e.g. moving neighbourhood articles from the bracket convention to the comma convention), please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide/Neighbourhoods. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed Bearcat's comment below about using the common rather than official name. I'm delighted, because one of the thing that's been bothering me about the Victoriatown, Montreal article that I just moved from Victoriatown, Quebec, is that no one ever calls it by that name. That's why I'd never heard of it. I know Goose Village. In fact, I had worked with David Fennario in the Black Rock Theatre group and we visited the Rock, out on Bridge Street, for a memorial. So I'll rename and redirect to Goose Village. Question: Can I just call the article Goose Village? Must I call it Goose Village, Montreal? There is no other Goose Village on WP and as my city's principal act towards the Village was to utterly wipe it out, I rather not give them the credit, if I don't have to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Bearcat, I had not noticed until just now that you were editing the Victoriatown, Montreal article at the same time as me, trying to resolve the image issues. Had I, I would have gladly stepped aside and waited for you to finish. Anyway, I've tried to arrange the images a little better, but there seems to be no way to get rid of that blank space, at least as it displays on my screen. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see from the Talk page for Victoriatown, Montreal that there just was a confusion between this and some other Goose Village, so Goose Village, Montreal, it shall be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the discussion at Talk:Blossom Park, Ontario? One editor seems to have decided the guideline does not apply, and had unilaterally reverted a few page moves, without bothering to comment on the talk pages. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Nations

While we're at it, I think we should also clarify a direction for how we write about First Nations. There's a bit of inconsistency right now, with two different directions taken in different cases: sometimes we have separate articles about the band and their reserve (e.g. Whitefish Lake First Nation vs. Whitefish Lake 6, Ontario), while at other times the reserve is just a redirect to the First Nation (e.g. M'Chigeeng First Nation vs. M'Chigeeng 22, Ontario).

The thing about this is, the number in a reserve's census division name is a purely bureaucratic feature which only rarely has any relevance to how the reserve or its band are actually referred to in day-to-day conversation, and may even be difficult to remember precisely because it's mostly irrelevant — in fact, most reserves which do have separate articles with the census number in the title also have redirects from the format "Plain Name Without the Number, Ontario". As a rare example where the number is relevant, the Northwest Angle 33 First Nation uses the 33 to distinguish itself from the Northwest Angle 37 First Nation.

There are occasional examples where a single reserve is shared by multiple distinct nations — but for the most part it's a one-to-one correspondence.

Personally, I really don't think most reserves actually need separate articles from the First Nations which occupy them — in practice, this mostly just results in having two separate articles about different names for the same thing — it's very comparable to having two separate articles on Toronto and Torontonians, which we obviously don't do. But obviously we need to come to a consensus. So I'd like to ask how we should treat these:

1. Individual First Nations and their reserves should always have separate articles.
2. Merged articles titled with the reserve name with the census number, in the format Foo 52, Ontario.
3. Merged articles titled with the reserve name without the census number, in the format Foo, Ontario.
4. Merged articles titled with the First Nation's name, in the format Foo First Nation. Separate article for a reserve only where a reserve is shared by multiple first nations and consequently can't be easily redirected.

Note also that the merged options could also entail merging the Category:First Nations reserves and Category:First Nations governments categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison with Toronto is a little off, because torontonians don't consider Toronto a nation (well... some do, but not officially). We don't have separate articles on Toronto and Torontonians, but we do have separate articles on, say, France, French people, and the Government of France. In some places (though not usually Ontario), a band government may have a reserve (or multiple reserves), and then there's the distinct nation/cultural group to whom that land belongs - each of which could get its own article.

Still, the issue you're concerned about is band governments and reserves, which are determined by the federal government, so they should be easy enough to standardize. We could, theoretically, merge most reserves into "government" pages. In such cases, we should drop the reserve number (unless it's necessary, like your Northwest Angle 37 FN example) and the Province. All the reserve names can of course be redirected. In cases where there are multiple governments on one reserve, I'm not sure what to do. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reverse is also true in some cases, one reserve is shared by multiple first nations. Being as it is that the first nations are theoretically not administered or governed in any way by the provinces (but by the department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada instead), the province suffix is not appropriate (that's a no to "Foo, Ontario"). First Nation governments are something between an ethnic group (French Canadian) and local government (Calgary City Council), whereas reserves are communities/settlements, so in many cases separate pages would be required. Both governments (or tribal councils) and reserves are numbered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, so official names include the number. Statistics Canada also includes the number in their community profile pages. I would opt for Foo First Nation for tribes/bands/councils/governments, and for Foo Nation 123 for reserves. --Qyd (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia isn't bound by or obligated to title an article with the topic's official name — the rule here is most common name. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder, there are 6 possible situations:

• FN government without reserves, without settlement
• FN government without reserves, with settlement(s)
• FN government with reserve(s), without settlement
• FN government with reserve(s), with settlement(s)
• FN governments sharing reserve(s), without settlement
• FN governments sharing reserve(s), with settlement(s)

and some settlements are reserves, some settlements are contained within a reserve. The key here is even if there are redirects to the article, the category should be linked to the appropirate article/redirect so that the settlement is correctly categorized as a community, while FN goverment is categorized as a government entity and the IR would be correctly categorized as such.

I agree that Foo First Nation should be the government article (with possible IR and village/settlement information as well if there isn't a separate article yet), Foo Indian Reserve 00 (with possible village/settlement information as well if there isn't a separate article yet) for the IR (with dedicated Foo 00, Province redirecting to the IR article), and Foo, Province for the village/settlement. Of course, as mentioned, some FN do have a reserve number in their name, some reserves don't have a reserve number in their name, some FN don't call themselves "First Nation". For these cases, the INAC name (i.e., the "official name" would be the best, with the FN's own name mentioned near the head of the article. Also, some FN are better known either by they IR or village/settlement instead of by their actual name, and yet others are better known by a totally different name (because of a carry-over of a historical Band name, because of the former location of the settlement, etc.). For these, redirects would be the most appropriate. CJLippert (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is still that in practice, separate articles simply end up repeating the same information as each other, with very little differentiation. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio stations

From the guide:

“

In such cases, all of the call signs should be redirects to a single article about the network itself. (Note that in actual effect, this practice only pertains to provincial educational networks and/or First Nations community radio co-ops.)

”

The note is wrong (CKUA, for instance, is neither an educational network nor a First Nations co-op, and I'm sure there are many other examples), poorly written (and/or?? There's a provincial educational network that's also a FN co-op?), and unnecessary. I suggest deleting it. --NellieBly (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CKUA is also the actual call sign of the stations in the network, so this doesn't really stand as a disproof of the statement. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parks - geopolitical or geophysical?

Mindmatrix raised an issue above, in the neighbourhood/community discussion, that I didn't think should get lost in the context of that separate discussion

It had been earlier been pointed out that the practice in the English Wikipedia is to limit the "bracket convention" to geophysical concepts, such as rivers or mountains (e.g. French River (Ontario)), whereas the "comma convention" is used for geopolitical entities (e.g. Victoria, British Columbia).

Later, Mindmatrix noted:

I've noticed recently that articles about parks (geopolitical) seem to use the bracket convention. I'm not sure if this is the result of a few editors doing their own thing, or if its more widespread. We should investigate this more thoroughly for all article classes that would fall within the scope of Canadian geography or geopolitics.

Bearcat and I responded as follows:

Skeezix1000: In terms of the parks, I can guess why there appears to be some confusion. Although I understand why you consider them to be geopolitical matters (and are probably most appropriately treated as such), I can see why some editors may view them as geophysical concepts.

Bearcat: Parks, to me, are kind of a funny middle ground between our geopolitical and geophysical standards, being sort of both at the same time — their boundaries are defined under provincial law in a very similar manner to a municipality, but at the same time they aren't self-governing entities. So my own preference would be to err on the side of geophysicality. And, of course, a park which is either the primary use of its name or has an entirely unique name should remain undisambiguated anyway.

Any thoughts on this? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My only thought is pleasure at this being raised. I am preparing to move Parc Jarry to its still-commonly used English name Jarry Park, per WP:NCGN, and I suddenly realized I had no idea about what really should go there -- bracket, comma or nothing at all -- because I've seen 'em all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Jarry Park is the primary use of that name and does not require any disambiguation. There is a DAB page at Jarry Park that currently distinguishes between the park and the stadium located in the park - that strikes me as unnecessary. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the DAB page was unneeded, as well. When I do the move to primary name Jarry Park I'll see about getting rid of the DAB. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that they should be treated as geophysical entities. Most parks will simply exist at an undisambiguated name anyway. I'll support the bracket convention on this one. Mindmatrix 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newfoundland and Labrador physical features

Regarding disambiguating information, are we applying the same rules to geophysical entities as we do for communities in Newfoundland and Labrador? For example, do we keep Marble Mountain (Newfoundland), or move it to Marble Mountain (Newfoundland and Labrador)? For these, a case can be made that the physical feature only exists in the one location, unlike communities which belong to the single geopolitical entity "Newfoundland and Labrador", which consists of two physical entities. I'm inclined to keep things as they are right now, but we should provide clarification in the style guide. Mindmatrix 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed over the current title, but I thought that we typically use the province for disambiguation, even for geophysical entities (unless I am mistaken). Yes, the feature exists in one location, which for the purposes of disambiguation that one location is the geopolitical entity "Newfoundland and Labrador". If we start disambiguating by geophysical entities, how do we decide which one is used? For example, this article could also be at Marble Mountain (Long Range Mountains).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, an exception could be made, and either Newfoundland or Labrador should be used in dab titles. It sounds weird and false to place a geographic feature in both such different locations. --Qyd (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's one of the points I was trying to make (not very clearly as it turns out) - we wouldn't be disambiguating it with two separate locations. Newfoundland and Labrador is one place -- that's the name of the province. Just because the province shares a name with a region and an island, we aren't suggesting that Marble Mountain is somehow located in both the region of Labrador as well as the island of Newfoundland (although Marble Mountain, Labrador and Newfoundland are all geophysical entities located in the same geopolitical entity - Newfoundland and Labrador). I'm not sure how this is any different from a lengthy discussion we've already had, except for the fact we're dealing with a geophysical subject so would use the bracket convention. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation of border-straddling entities

User:CambridgeBayWeather raised an issue on my talk page - what do we do about places that straddle borders (especially if multiple such places with the same name exist), and gave the example of Victoria Island, for which there is only one article about a Canadian location, at Victoria Island (Canada). However, there are other Canadian islands with this name, some of which overlap borders. Usually, we would use (Canada) as a disambiguator, but this can't be done for multiple islands. I've seen some articles use formats such as Victoria Island (Nunavut-Northwest Territories), but I'm seeking greater consensus about this. Ideas? (I'm OK with this format, but I'd support a better alternative.) Mindmatrix 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess one option might be to disambiguate by a larger geographic feature which surrounds the feature in question: for an island, the body of water that it's in (Victoria Island (Arctic Ocean)). I can foresee this method working most of the time, but there might be occasions when it fails because an island separates two bodies of water, instead of being surrounded by one. Indefatigable (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Indefatigable here; in most cases where disambiguating by country, province or territory wasn't sufficient, I'd go with the lake or ocean. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's quite clear that it refers to a major body of water and not something like Victoria Island (Amundsen Gulf), Victoria Island (Dolphin and Union Strait), Victoria Island (Dease Strait) or Victoria Island (Prince of Wales Strait). Though that would work with Indefatigable's comment above about islands separating two bodies of water. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government Departments/Ministries

Discussion started here RE Saskatchewan...Naming conventions Government departments and ministries Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)