Jump to content

Talk:Halifax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Halifax

[edit]

I am restoring this as the Talk page of Halifax - it makes no sense to redirect a talk page to an article. Guettarda 19:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault entirely. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make this a disambiguation page, and make Halifax be the city in Canada, which I think is the most famous Halifax. What do you all think? --AW 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, based on the weird municipal government thing they have now --AW 19:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax vs. Halifax (disambiguation)

[edit]
Just come here. That seems like the best plan. How can it be done? Billlion (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Halifax, West Yorkshire should be the prime topic Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax, Nova Scotia

[edit]

Halifax, Nova Scotia is a metropolition area and a community according to the Nova Scotia government.19960401 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, but the metropolitan area is the Halifax Regional Municipality, "HRM" being the official acronym; Halifax, Nova Scotia is a certain part of it. It's true the HRM includes lots of rural araes and other cities; but the Halifax Metropolitan Area, if defined separately, would still be larger than Halifax, Nova Scotia proper, if only part of HRM....Skookum1 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about these?

[edit]

I added Halifax West, the other Halifax-named federal electoral districts; but there's also these provincial electoral districts:

I wasn't sure they were to be included because of the compound names; I'd think so, as listings of electroal districts with "Halifax" in the name owudl seem to be necessary to make the dab complate.Skookum1 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Maybe List of Halifax electoral districts might be necessary; these are former provincial electoral districts:

Such items need more to be in chronological order and division-trees, if that's the way they evolved, rather than alphabetical; see Kootenay (electoral districts) and New Westminster (electoral districts).Skookum1 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most often list in lede

[edit]

I have added a most often list in the lede, in line with other large dab pages (eg Richmond, Portland or Mobile. I was intending to add entries for the two significant Halifaxes (one in northern England, to other on the eastern seabord of Canada).

But the WP article structure for the latter is a complete muddle. The name I was expecting to use (Halifax, Nova Scotia) is just a dab page. There are several other Halifax articles, describing different permutations of areas, and going into some detail about local government organisation (yawn), but nothing that describes the holistic total of the place and its history over time. I can see no alternative but to omit the Canadian Halifax from the most often list, until this is fixed. -- Starbois (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but listing only the UK Halifax is not the appropriate solution at all. If you are looking for a Canadian one, the best bet would appear to be Halifax Regional Municipality. --Ckatzchatspy 10:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back to the one with both Halifaxes, as I agree that just listed the UK one is misleading. But my reading of Halifax Regional Municipality is that it is an article about a local government body, not about a place. As such I doubt it merits a most often reference. So I've left it at Halifax, Nova Scotia. -- Starbois (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HRM seems to have resulted from a 1996 reorganization of local governments in Nova Scotia, from what I've seen in a brief scan of the talk page archives. (There's probably more to this, but it would appear that HRM refers to what most Canadians outside of Nova Scotia would consider to be "Halifax".) I'll keep looking. --Ckatzchatspy 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put back the "most often" list as there seems to be confusion as to how to find the page for the Nova Scotian Halifax. I've also cleaned up the Nova Scotia section to make HRM government/municipal structure clearer.
You're completely right Ckatz, the HRM is in fact the capital of Nova Scotia, despite the name "Halifax Regional Municipality" only being used formally and not colloquially (and yes, we Haligonians are trying to get the name of the city changed back to plain "Halifax"). W.andrea (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion.

[edit]

There is a move discussing involving this page at Talk:Halifax, West Yorkshire. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

There is a discussion about a merger proposal to merge City of Halifax into Halifax, Nova Scotia here. This would facilitate a clean up of the entries on this page relating to the place in Nova Scotia.--Mhockey (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal, Halifax, Nova Scotia to Halifax#Nova Scotia

[edit]

Incomplete disambiguation page - complete dab is at Halifax. Merge proposal for this to be merged and redirected to Halifax#Nova Scotia to avoid the current duplication and move it in line with disambiguation guidelines, see WP:INCOMPDAB. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I do not agree that this is a case of incomplete disambiguation. There are only two topics which are likely to be referred to as "Halifax, Nova Scotia" in a non-specialist context - City of Halifax and Halifax Regional Municipality. And it is at least arguable that "Nova Scotia" is more than simple disambiguation, it is a way that the place in NS is commonly referred to - by airlines, the post office, Statistics Canada. If we cannot agree on which article is the primary topic for Halifax, Nova Scotia, then this is a case for double disambiguation. If we can agree on the primary topic, the ambiguity can be dealt with by a hatnote at the primary topic.--Mhockey (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved clearly no primary topic has been established. Keith D (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When people refer to Halifax, they refer to the urban core of the Halifax Regional Municipality, not to the entire Halifax Regional Municipality itself. The situation can be compared to Honolulu - the primary topic of the title "Honolulu" refers to the urban core of Honolulu County, Hawaii. As such, "Honolulu" is neither a disambiguation page nor an article on the county that encompasses the entire island of Oahu. "Halifax" is too common a name to be sitting as a disambiguation page. Jiang (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree This proposal makes a lot more sense than the current name. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are other things being disambiguated here. In the UK, the city of Halifax, West Yorkshire and the Halifax bank are much better known than the Canadian city. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 11:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By global standards the Canadian city is doubtless the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current page fails to make clear which Halifax article points to the common usage of the term. I wanted to read the article about the Canadian city, but was given a disambiguation page that over complicated the number of Canadian political divisions covering the same place so I had no idea which article to click on. The first thing on the list, Halifax (electoral district), is clearly not it.--Jiang (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 'For goodness sake!' Haven't you seen the amount of move requests done already, above? Bringing this up ad-infinitum, when there is no need for it, is a waste of editors time. When I refer to Halifax I refer to the Town of Halifax, West Yorkshire which is my place of birth, not the urban core of the Canadian Halifax Regional Municipality, when I refer to 'The Halifax' I mean the local bank, not the city in Canada. This page is not an article, it is a disambiguation page, designed to advise readers of articles using the name of Halifax. Therefore the Canadian city is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as there is no primary topic at all. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no prior move proposal. A prior move proposal to have Halifax, West Yorkshire be the primary topic was shot down on the grounds that the Halifax in Canada is more commonly known, not on grounds that a primary topic does not exist. I think the most pressing issue is that Halifax, Nova Scotia links to this disambiguation page - as the topics are not mutually exclusive, the disambiguation there is inappropriate.--Jiang (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the countless prior move requests. Even "Halifax, Nova Scotia" isn't a primary topic. 117Avenue (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There isn't a clear primary topic here with the bank (named after the British town) being quite prominent as well as the Canadian city and British town. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has been advertised on the talkpage for the Canadian regional municipality (and the former city automatically) but not, AFAICS, on talkpages of other potential claimants, particularly the British town. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as formulated, since it's not clear that the Canadian city is the undisputed primary topic. However, a solution is needed to make Halifax, Nova Scotia no longer be a redirect to a disambiguation page. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been discussed enough, there is no primary topic there, the current municipality and the former city are almost equal in usage. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The current municipality and the former city are not mutually exclusive entities. WP:CONCEPTDAB applies. It is plainly impossible for a casual reader searching for "Halifax, Nova Scotia" to know which one of those links they are supposed to click on to get a general overview article of the city. Even if we keep "Halifax" a dab page due to the British town and bank, the setup for "Halifax, Nova Scotia" is simply unacceptable.--Jiang (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They very much are mutually exclusive entities. They aren't even remotely close to being the same thing. One is only a small portion of the other. The name definitely has to point to a dab page. This has been discussed over and over again for years and years. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am going to Halifax next week." - it is impossible to disambiguate this sentence on its own. Halifax (former city) is a subset of the municipality. If "Halifax, Nova Scotia" overwhelmingly refers to the historical core, then that is where it should redirect. If not, then it should redirect to Halifax Regional Municipality as the more inclusive article. Disambiguation is inappropriate just because scope may be inconsistent per WP:CONCEPTDAB. --Jiang (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is historical context, we don't just go by what is currently the situation. That would be inappropriate recentism. Since usage currently is split between the two meanings we have to go to a disambiguation page because we can't guess what the user is wanting to go to. Lots of people/articles use Halifax, Nova Scotia to mean just the old city. Others use it to mean the whole HRM. When we can't say there is a clearly primary topic we disambiguate. This is the case here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes we do. Take Chongqing for example - the city of Chongqing was merged with three other prefectures to become a provincial-level municipality the size of Scotland in 1997. The historical Chongqing is only a fraction of the current municipality but it is not a disambiguation page. This can be solved by coverage in the lede and history sections and use of Wikipedia:Summary style. An article referring exclusively to the old city with a link to the whole HRM is not committing any factual mistake because the HRM includes the old city.--Jiang (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...Chongqing is a really bad example to be holding up: The idea that information on a city of 5 million people, and a province "the size of Scotland", should be crammed together in one article, is not a happy one. The information there would be much more accessible split into separate articles on (for example) Chongqing (city) and Chongqing (province); but that's a discussion for there, not here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is never ever a justification to turn Chongqing into a disambiguation page, as should also be the case for Halifax. When a topic is so expansive that it cannot be covered in one article, we should be using Wikipedia:Summary style. Local details should go into individual district articles at Chongqing#Administrative_divisions (BTW, there is no "Chongqing province"; Chongqing is called a city and the city has the same status as a province). Under the same logic, should Scotland be turned into a disambiguation page too? I don't have an opinion on how content should be distributed among various Halifax articles, but Halifax, Nova Scotia is effectively functioning as a WP:CONCEPTDAB at the moment and should be replaced with text. --Jiang (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I just undid it. Halifax, Nova Scotia applies to both the former city and the current municipality. Now-a-days it no longer means the former city, it is used more in conjunction with the current municipality. Thus it is an ambiguous name and has to point to a dab page. This has been gone through in so many different discussions its ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage is split, that is why it goes to a dab page. We don't use recentism, because usage is split between the two locations then we have to end up at a dab page if one clearly isn't the primary. This is the case here. In historical texts it will be the former city, in current texts it will be the current city. As such we disambiguate. In the case of London there is very clearly a primary topic. That hasn't happened with Halifax yet only being a decade and a bit old. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The former is just too recent, we can reassess in twenty years, but for now this issue is dead. 117Avenue (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per the many move requests on this topic we finally found a workable solution a few months ago and we get yet another move request. Clearly usage is split so it needs to be a dab page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear from this RM that the fix a few months ago was not a workable solution. A workable solution needs to work for those users (not editors) who want to find out about the place called Halifax in Nova Scotia. There is a long history of discussions started by puzzled users looking for the article on Halifax, Nova Scotia. Such users are now redirected to a section of a dab page which gives them a choice of 12 articles of which only 2 are likely to be relevant. It's just unhelpful.--Mhockey (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those discussions have been since we fixed things a couple months ago. To me that signals that perhaps things have been fixed. I think you underestimate our readers if you think they can't tell which of the two are the relevant ones taking into account both the indenting and parenthesis. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not intuitive. We cannot assume background knowledge on the part of reader. I filed this move request because I simply wanted to read about the city prior to my first visit to it next month - knowing nothing about its administrative scope - and was met by a simply confusing disambiguation page (I had no idea which link to click!). This usually means that WP:CONCEPTDAB has been violated. Perhaps my move proposal above was inappropriate due to the UK references to Halifax, but the organization of the Canadian Halifax article is simply confusing and inaccessible for the casual reader. --Jiang (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted to read about the city you were about to visit? Well thank-you for coming to Wikipedia, I think you learned something as soon as you searched Halifax. 117Avenue (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dab page clearly says the capital of Nova Scotia. I am just blown away that that wouldn't be enough information to go on. Especially since the other one is listed as the former city. By listing it as the former city clearly it isn't the one you are going to next month so that crosses that off the list immediately. As such out of the two options one is clearly not what you are looking for because it doesn't exist anymore leaving only the the one that clearly says it is the current location. Frankly to me it seems very intuitive. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Halifax (former city) is purely written on an entity that no longer exists? Given how the article is currently written, this doesn't seem the case, as it refers to stuff in the present tense, but this is not something we can't immediately fix. That "Halifax (former city)" is meant to be on something only of historical interest is all the more reason to move Halifax Regional Municipality to Halifax, Nova Scotia since whenever we say "Halifax" in 2012 we can reasonably mean "Halifax Regional Municipality" (as opposed to using "Halifax" to refer only to the urban core and only the full name "Halifax Regional Municipality" to refer to the existing political division). Is this the case?--Jiang (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as can be seen in the previous move requests, it can still mean the urban core. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in some contexts it can mean the urban core to the exclusion of or in contrast to the other parts of the HRM and in other contexts it can refer to the HRM as a whole, and usage of the former roughly equal usage of the latter? If this is the case, what's wrong with this proposal, which is modeled after the London article? The urban core and the HRM are not mutually exclusively entities; the urban core is contained within the HRM. --Jiang (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your first couple of statements do basically sum it up. In the province of Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia tends to only refer to just the Halifax (former city) part of the HRM. Outside the province of Nova Scotia when people say Halifax, Nova Scotia they tend to mean Metropolitan Halifax or to a lesser extent the entire Halifax Regional Municipality. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're crediting outsiders with a knowledge of NS local government which they do not have. Most outsiders think of Halifax, Nova Scotia as the largest city in NS, with a long history, and are not bothered about its precise present legal status or extent. They can read about it on this Nova Scotia government website (which calls it a city), but not easily on Wikipedia!--Mhockey (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its precisely because I don't think they have the knowledge that I make the comment above. This is why I say the usage is split and why it needs to go to a disambiguation page, because readers don't know the one they actually want to go to and need the help of a disambiguation page to do so. I would note that isn't the government website. The government website is novascotia.ca. If we were going to redirect to any page it would be Metropolitan Halifax because that is what most people would consider the largest city in Nova Scotia if they were going by how its often referred to. It wouldn't be the former city article or the HRM article. But doing so would only create even more confusion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't create confusion in similar cases (e.g. Leeds or Bradford). But if there is really no primary topic for Halifax, Nova Scotia it needs to be a dab page where the most common usages can be placed at the top (per MOS:DABORDER). And if Halifax (former city) is supposed to be just about history, a better title would be History of Halifax - and it should not be in the dab page (except possibly as a "see also"). That would at least give users a better chance of reaching the info they need quickly. (Incidentally the website is not the government website, but it is a NS government website - read the disclaimer.)--Mhockey (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because "usage is split" does not necessarily mean there should be a disambiguation page. People have differing conceptions of the same topic all the time - that doesn't mean we should create WP:CONTENTFORKs. A disambiguation page is only justified when substantially unrelated topics share the same name. For example, Tibet could either refer to the historical and cultural region of Tibet, or it could mean the much smaller Tibet Autonomous Region. We do not have a disambiguation page at Tibet.--Jiang (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the former city article is intended to just be a historical article about an entity that no longer exists. However, previous naming problems led to both articles being edited to sound like they are the current city. The recent name change to (former city) was to help clear that up. The editing of the article itself however, has not yet been cleaned up fully to adhear to that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so clear. Halifax (former city) is an ambiguous title. It could mean "the place called Halifax which has been destroyed (or renamed?)", or it could mean "the place called Halifax which used to be a city but is now some other kind of settlement", in which case Jiang may well be visiting it.--Mhockey (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't agree to the name "Halifax (former city)", but that move discussion closed only five months ago. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the nomination, when people in the UK (a not inconsiderable chunk of the English-speaking world) refer to Halifax, they generally refer to the town in Yorkshire, so the notion that it’s a toss-up between “the urban core of the HRM” and “the entire HRM itself” is a bit parochial.
And as there are at least half-a-dozen articles that describe the various incarnations of the Canadian city, the idea that any one of them is primary over the other five, let alone over the other uses of the name, is a trifle optimistic.
And the statement “ ‘Halifax’ is too common a name to be sitting as a disambiguation page” is plainly contradictory; it is precisely because it is a common name that it needs to be a disambiguation page. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

January 2013

[edit]

Another discussion on Halifax, Nova Scotia, here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placed the three most likely uses - Yorks, Nova Scotia and UK bank - in the lead paragraph

[edit]

After reading through the various discussions and votes, it seems clear to me that there are three primary uses - the Yorkshire town, the Nova Scotia city and the UK bank - and a number of secondary uses. Most of the discussion seems to revolve around which of the three primary uses is the most important. I think that is a false choice, I don't think that will ever be resolved, and furthermore I don't think forcing a resolution would be helpful to readers.

However the page until now had mixed these three primary uses in with the lengthy list of secondary uses. That is not at all helpful; the vast majority of readers would have wanted to head for one of those three primary uses, but were being forced to scroll through a long, long list of secondary uses. There seems very little discussion on, for example, the Irish bank, the mountain range or the river in Florida, and I suspect that the number of readers arriving here wanting to find those secondary uses are orders of magnitude fewer than those seeking the primary three.

Therefore I have been a little bold, and placed these three primary uses into the lead paragraph, giving each equal weight, whilst keeping the long list of further uses entirely intact. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the controversy about which NS article is the primary, seems to have been resolved and stabilised by the redirect of Halifax, Nova Scotia to Halifax Regional Municipality as per the result of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_16#Halifax.2C_Nova_Scotia. Ergo my lead article link also follows this convention. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the principle of dealing with the most common uses first, but it is better to keep to the bullet point format for clarity. See Lincoln for an example.--Mhockey (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Mhockey. Bullet point is much more clear. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead entries don't have to be pulled out of the full list, do they? 117Avenue (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I would still put them at the top. I just wouldn't write it with prose. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "and the current community." should be on the end of the Halifax (former city) line

[edit]

Hi. There are an awful lot of links in the body of this about Halifax, Nova Scotia. Really, some of those articles should be merged. However, for the moment, we do have all of them, and they should be clearly and simply described here so that people can find what they're looking for. Clearly, we have an article called "Halifax (former city)" about the city that existed pre-1996-merger, and the territory that it contained. I believe that "Halifax (former city), the city until 1996" is a sufficient description of that, because if you're looking for the former city, then that's what you need, and if you're looking for the neighbourhoods, there are several articles on them. The formal distinction of the General Service Area is about as relevant as a polling division or a zoning boundary, and we don't have individual articles for all of those. I do not believe that the line should read "Halifax (former city), the city until 1996 and the current community", which it does now - however, I was reverted when I removed it, and I want to have this discussion here, not via some sort of revert-war. I am interested to hear others' thoughts on this. AshleyMorton (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those who live there know which article refers to which area and what is in those areas. However the Majority of readers do notI I personally find that description relevant in advising me which article I am looking for. However I didn't like the extensive description for Halifax Nova Scotia, which is not necessary, so I have trimmed that down. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Haligonian" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haligonian. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:UCRN, WP:DPT and possibly WP:NWFCTM, Halifax is a common name used in North America and, to an extent, around the world for a city (Halifax, Nova Scotia) that is both larger and arguably more relevant than either Halifax, East Yorkshire or Halifax, the bank. pageviews show that apart from irregular spikes, Halifax, Nova Scotia gets more daily pageviews than either of the other main contenders for the page title, and although Halifax is commonly used in the UK and related areas to refer to the bank or the town, I would argue that worldwide, and for a majority of English Wikipedia users, Halifax is a name that best suits the Halifax, Nova Scotia page. this page could then be moved to Halifax (disambiguation) to clarify the other, less viewed Halifaxes from the main page titled Halifax MishchaytWiki (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halifax&oldid=1167042397"