Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Canada: Saskatchewan / Communities / Saskatchewan communities

	Canada portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
	This page is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Saskatchewan communities.

Rename

Because this project was renamed without discussion, renaming of its categories did not meet the criteria for speedy renaming, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 6#WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods. There are also sub-pages and templates that will to be moved as well, then all the links to these pages will need to be fixed. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all unincorporated places are hamlets

It appears there has been a longstanding misconception that all unincorporated communities in SK are considered hamlets. This is not the case. There are three types of hamlets recognized by the Govt of SK – "northern hamlets" (11 of them), "organized hamlets" (152) and generic "hamlets" (20). This can be verified by visiting the MDS Search site, selecting the one of these three statuses from the "Status" pull-down menu, and clicking "Search".

So I've recently fixed the cats of the 11 northern hamlets and 152 organized hamlets. They are no longer within the Category:Hamlets in Saskatchewan. They are in the new and accurate Category:Northern hamlets in Saskatchewan and Category:Organized hamlets in Saskatchewan respectively. This leaves 20 generic "hamlets", yet 282 entries remain at Category:Hamlets in Saskatchewan. I'm about to go through a long, tedious cleanup to remove this category from all the articles on communities that are not actually hamlets. Instead, they will be placed under Category:Unincorporated communities in Saskatchewan.

With the above information being provided, please avoid any further assumptions that all unincorporated communities are hamlets and avoid placing the incorrect categories when establishing new articles. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the confusion arises because in most other provinces or US states, "hamlet" isn't a special designation that has to be conferred on any community by an outside authority, but is simply a standard generic class noun that automatically includes all non-urban unincorporated communities. You're correct that if Saskatchewan uses the term differently than most other provinces or US states, then we have to respect and follow that distinction here — but I just wanted to clarify why the error happens. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I also suspect that in Saskatchewan there is knowledge of the "hamlet" concept being applied to unincorporated communities, and as such it is assumed that it applies to all unincorporated communities, whereas it is actually a type of unincorporated community. Similarly 15 years ago, I thought all unincorporated communities in Alberta were hamlets as I was aware that the hamlet concept existed in my home province, but was totally unaware that unincorporated communities could only carry the designation under certain conditions. Hwy43 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the cats are now assigned according to official provincial designation. Now begins the even longer and more tedious task of cleaning up the articles to remove references to hamlets. Hwy43 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Once again we have good faith edits attempting to assert certain unincorporated communities are hamlets in their articles and associated RM articles. Some of this is being done without any supporting evidence that they are designated as hamlets, while others are being done based on incorrect information published by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Statistics Canada (StatCan). The primary and definitive source for which unincorporated communities are in fact hamlets is the Government of Saskatchewan (GoS). It lists all northern hamlets, organized hamlets, resort hamlets, generic hamlets and special service areas in its comprehensive "Municipal Directory System" (MDS). If this direct link doesn't work, you can access the MDS here.

To see which are designated, select Entire Directory in the "Download in PDF Format" pull-down menu and click Generate PDF.

Northern hamlets are found on pages 5 through 13.
Organized and resort hamlets are found on pages 14 through 39.
Generic hamlets and special service areas are found on pages 225 through 230.

If you come across NRCan or StatCan information stating an unincorporated community is a hamlet, cross-reference with the GoS's "Municipal Directory System" (MDS) before giving any weight to what NRCan or StatCan state. If NRCan's/StatCan's entry checks out within the MDS, then NRCan's/StatCan's entry for that community is accurate. If it doesn't, dismiss NRCan's and StatCan's information as being incorrect. Their information may have been correct at one point, but can become out-of-date over time as hamlet designations are changed by the GoS and either NRCan/StatCan aren't apprised of the changes, or they just never get around to updating their databases despite being informed by the GoS.

I have informed the editor and hopefully the problematic editing behaviour is adjusted. It is suspected that the current editor is the same editor(s) responsible for good faith edits that created the problems the first time around. Attempts to communicate with these past editors have gone unheeded (i.e., no responses). If this behaviour continues, I suggest the assume good faith period has long since passed and such edits would constitute vandalism by way of persistent deliberate addition of factual errors. Hwy43 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of rural municipalities

This is a proposal to move the following 296 rural municipality municipality articles to their common, undisambiguated names. The articles are currently at a short form name format applied by Statistics Canada and are disambiguated by the province's name (i.e., Foo No. X, Saskatchewan) rather than their official and more common, undisambiguated names (i.e., Rural Municipality of Foo No. X).
Note: It is presumed StatCan applies its format to simply enable alphabetical sorting of municipalities by the given component of their official legal names (i.e., "Aberdeen No. 373" rather than the "Rural Municipality of Aberdeen No. 373").
Unlike urban municipalities where usage of the given name is more common that the official legal name (e.g., "Foo" rather than "City/Town/Village/Resort Village of Foo"), rural municipalities are rarely referred to by "just" their given names (e.g., referring to the "Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344" as simply "Corman Park" or "Corman Park No. 344" is not widespread). Their official legal names are by far more common than the StatCan short forms and would also meet the article naming criteria.
Finally, using the official legal name format for non-urban municipalities is consistent with what is done for rural municipalities in Manitoba and recently in Alberta (see Category:Rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and Category:Rural municipalities in Alberta and entries within its subcats). Also see the following upper-tier municipalities from Ontario at their official legal names:

If there is no consensus to move these from within this provincial WikiProject community, I will open a more formal RM. The following lists all 296 proposed moves. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Having heard nothing in the past five days, I will begin moving these. Hwy43 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I kind of see the change on Wikidata a I have juste a comment like that. In Mémoire des noms de lieux d’origine et d’influence françaises en Saskatchewan The rural municipalities noted in the registery are simply noted like: Gravelbourg No. 104, Lac Pelletier No. 107 or Rocanville No. 151. --Fralambert (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Foo No. X" is one of numerous short form versions of the official "Rural Municipality of Foo No. X" format. Others are "Rural Municipality of Foo", "RM of Foo", "RM No. X", etc. Using the full official legal name allows for consistency and erring on the side of caution because determining the most common of the short forms will be inconclusive for most RMs and consistent among those RMs where it is conclusive. Hwy43 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: It mosty put my comment because the "generic" of the populated places or regions is not recomanded in french[1]. I don't find any rules or norms on the subject in english in Canada. Note that the number seem to be important in Saskatchewan. My book simply locate the geographical name by the Dominion Land Survey number and the rural municipality under the for of "RM No. XX".--Fralambert (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All have now been moved as well as three former RMs. Category keys need to be added for their entries at Category:Rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, which I intend to get to, but will only be done when the subcategories are renamed to match the new naming convention. Hwy43 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Runnymede No. 271, Saskatchewan

FYI, the above has been proposed for deletion. You can comment at the AfD discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article can be improved, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 08 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods → Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities – The current title of this WikiProject is verbose and redundant. "Community" is an umbrella term. A "neighbourhood" is a type of "community". The proposed title is concise and inclusive. If the consensus is to move as proposed, I will move the subpages to match. Hwy43 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment the proposed new name aligns with the Canadian parent project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities. Hwy43 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose Hwy43's anti-neighbourhood campaign. Just kidding. This is common sense. Support. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that this. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support While wp:concise only applies to mainspace entries, "neighbourhood" is a bit redundant to "communities". I tried to say very quickly five times in a row, I was impressed at how long it took, try it for yourself. Cheers, ^walk victor falk^talk 16:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strawberry Hills and Strawberry Ridge

These articles are pretty much the same. Is there anything different about these two places? If not, I am suggesting a merge. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Statistics Canada nor the CGNDB confirm either place exist within the RM of Aberdeen No. 373. [2] [3] [4] The lone reference in the one article verifies nothing either. [5] Both articles refer to the places as having 10-30 residences on 10-acre parcels. Rural subdivisions/real estate developments of this nature are typically not notable. Both should be deleted to tell you the truth. Hwy43 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one link only shows these place names as being places in Alberta. Also, just because it's not recognized as being in the RM of Aberdeen doesn't mean it isn't. We need a larger concensus on these two places. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. Not suggesting they don't exist. They do. However the two sources resulting in no hits do suggest they are not notable based on past consensus from AfDs for similar articles in the past. I've searched both on the web and find no sources that establish their notability. I'm going to open AfDs. Hwy43 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Hills, Saskatchewan and Strawberry Ridge, Saskatchewan have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strawberry Hills, Saskatchewan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strawberry Ridge, Saskatchewan. Hwy43 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wartime Station, Saskatchewan

FYI, the above has been proposed for deletion. You can comment at the AfD discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages...--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rural municipality edit warring against consensus

Hello all, we have an IP-hopping editor that is warring at numerous rural municipality (county-equivalent) articles and lists, particularly at List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, renaming the municipalities contrary to the consensus here for Alberta and the extrapolated approach of that consensus here for Saskatchewan. The IP editor finally reached out to me on my talk page here. Following my response, the editor evidently didn't like it and reverted me yet again with this edit with a strange and unfounded accusation. Would interested members of this WikiProject please watchlist List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan? I'm about to revert again and apply a level three warning on the editor's talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: Read WP:IPBE and WP:BP. Both contain great information on things related to this. If it continues and you continually have to revert, take it a noticeboard and the IP address should get banned. That's all I can suggest. Oh and yes, I did add them to my watchlist for three months. This should be resolved by then. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Your input would be appreciated since I seen you reverted edits. Thank you. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: See my comments at WT:CANADA. suggest not having this discussion at many different places. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: As you can see, it wasn't me who started this discussion. Now Hwy43 can go there. Plus, a notification on the appropriate talk pages should have happened. Direct people there who might be interested. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100 and RandomCanadian: I dropped this notice/request on multiple relevant talk pages but didnt’t expect discussions to be triggered in multiple locations. Next time I will alter my approach rather being a lazy copy/paster. Hwy43 (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]