Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia

message: I think that's a mistake.  It doesn't mean anything.  Anybody have any idea how to fix it?  I think it's some kind of bug in the infobox.  Maybe that's supposed to be the Metro density? 64.141.49.29 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Demonym Density" in info box 

message: The main page link to this article on 4/1/10 reads "1996 – The government of Nova Scotia ordered the people of the City of Halifax to mate with over 200 multiple partners around the area." 
The words "to mate" are bold and are supposed to link to an article that is relevant to this main page title. It takes you to the Halifax article where there is no content about what the link says.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.81 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to be temporary vandalism. I don't see any such link as of right now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page Link on 4/1/10 doesn't seem to be relevant

message: From what I understand, Sable Island is part of the HRM, but it's only mentionned offhand once in the Economy section. Would someone with a bit of knowledge care to make a bolder mention of it somewhere, perhaps in the Geography section? Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sable Island in Geography 

message: Being one of the two navy bases in the whole country, I can't believe that there isn't a section on the navy in Halifax.  This is a serious deficiency for this article!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Navy in Halifax 

message: Since this is the article about the current municipality of Halifax I added the corresponding link to the German article about the municipality of Halifax. 
There are a lot of other language articles about Halifax (the present city and municipality). I think we should also add them here.
Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other languages 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Halifax which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. --Jiang (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The collage is a problem - it only reflects landmarks of the urban core. At the very least shouldn't an image of the Peggy's Cove Lighthouse be included? If someone knows how to make changes to collage would you consider this suggestion.--Hantsheroes (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage Image 

message: Hi all. I deleted a table of statistics this morning, and here's why:
* The statistics cited a source that had nothing to do with the data (the source cited was for Pickering, Ontario)
* The statistics had been modified in order to be included in the article (A category for "White", that did not exist in the data, had been created).
* The table listed as "Ethnicity" a group of categories that were actually about "Visible Minority" or "Aboriginal Identity" groups (closer to "race" than "ethnicity", but certainly not what was being advertised).
* The table included a really selective listing of the author's thoughts on ethnicity. For example, "Inuit" was listed, with 155 people, and apparently 0% of the population, yet there was a category called "Other Visible Minorities" that had over 6,000 people in it.
* The core problem, however, is that this takes "Aboriginal identity" numbers, mixes them into "Visible Minority" status, does some mathematics to come up with a remainder, invents a category called "White", publishes it under the label "Ethnicity", and then provides a source that has nothing to do with the topic. It is original research that borders on fiction, with a link to an irrelevant source.
Then, without addressing the concerns (truncated, I know) that I put in the edit summary, my edit was reverted. The edit summary for the reversion claimed that the source was "reputable", which it is, but its statistics about Pickering are still not relevant for Halifax, and the statistics for Visible Minorities and Aboriginal Identity are not the same thing as Ethnicity. Please see the discussion that took place 3 years ago (above). I believe that this was done in good faith, but I still believe that it was incorrect. So I reverted it, and started writing this explanation. Before I could finish, it had been reverted again. So - I'm going to delete this material again, now that I've explained why I believe that it cannot be included. I understand that some will say "then make it better", but I believe I did several years ago when I included the "Ethnic Origin" table further down the same section. This data is really just manufactured, and in my opinion neither it, nor anything closely similar can be included. AshleyMorton (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an idea, why don't we just redo the table without linking the Pickering stats as a source? IMO, this issue would be resolved if it linked to the Halifax stats only. Or if the table is too much, why don't we just list the top 5 visible minority groups by population percentage, alongside the Aboriginal population percentage, in a sentence? I think that's better than completely removing the table, with no mention of visible minorities and Aboriginals afterwards, and relying solely on the ethnic origin responses as the be-all end-all. Blackjays1 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't personally think that's of huge value, but I totally understand that some people would disagree with me. As long as the data isn't original research, isn't so large as to take over the entire section, and cites a reasonable source (the StatsCan sources for this stuff aren't too hard to find), then I won't go deleting it again. Your suggestion seems completely reasonable to me. AshleyMorton (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another go-around on Ethnic / Visible Minority Statistics 

message: Hello, I suggest adding the following link under "See also": Destination Halifax.ReegieD (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested links under "See also" 

message: I propose someone add "Destination Halifax is a not-for-profit society fulfilling the role of destination marketing organization (DMO) for 201 communities within the Halifax Regional Municipality. It is a partnership between the Halifax Regional Municipality, the Hotel Association of Nova Scotia, the Province of Nova Scotia, and participating industry members. Its mandate is to dramatically increase tourism expenditures on a year round basis. The organization is responsible for promoting to both business and leisure travelers from external markets. The organization’s priority is sales and marketing programming directed to audiences in the domestic, cross border and international markets." ReegieD (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition under "Tourism" 

message: Consensus is to move to Halifax, Nova Scotia. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Halifax Regional Municipality →  – The Regional Municipality have now had their say on this. Effective today, the name for all but the most formal legal processes is to be simply "Halifax". Here's the Municipality's "rebranding" site: . Here are two news reports from local media: , . Here is the report from the staff with the recommendation within it . This has long been the accepted way to refer to the location in general, if not the formal Municipality. Even at that, it can be seen that most organisations ignore the "...Regional Municipality" outside of the most formal situations - the way people don't usually call it the "Commonwealth of Virginia" - they just call it "Virginia". Here's an example of that - the 2011 Census results, when searching for "Halifax" in Nova Scotia:  We can see that the Population Centre is called "Halifax", the Census Metropolitan Area is called "Halifax", and the Census Division is called "Halifax (Regional Municipality)". The airport is the "Halifax Stanfield International Airport", not the "Halifax Regional Municipality Stanfield Airport" . Once (if!) this is accepted, I (and I'm sure others) will go about fixing the other required changes, such as the opening text, etc. Finally, this would much better meet every one of the  Wikipedia Article Title guidelines: Recognisability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency. AshleyMorton (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2014

message: Hi folks. This seems to fall broadly into the same category as a number of topics that have been on the go here a fair bit lately: the geographic point for the article. User:Vbond changed it to a point in the downtown core of Halifax, and then User:19960401 changed it back. I understand the arguments - one is about the concept of Halifax as a place, regardless of its municipal borders, the other is an identification of the centre of the municipality. Actually, I'm not as sure on this one as I was on the other ones. I offer, for consideration, three possible relevant maps, all from StatsCan. The Municipality , the Census Metropolitan Area  (which are effectively identical), and then the Population Centre . I see several strategies:
* Centre of the municipality (as per Toronto & Vancouver - but these cities have a "core built up area" that extends all the way to their municipal boundaries, also St. Catharines)
* Downtown / City Hall (as per Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec City, London, Victoria)
* Compromise "middle of the built-up area", but not necessarily the centre of downtown or City Hall (as per Edmonton, Kitchener, Oshawa, Windsor, Saskatoon)
I am leaning towards that last option (which might, for example, put the dot in the Narrows somewhere), but I would be interested to hear what others think. AshleyMorton (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with option #3. Perhaps even the Legislature/Grand Parade area. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

text: *For most cities there is an official point that is considered the centre point. I don't know if the HRM has one being that it isn't a city. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

text: On the policy basis, I would say that it fits into the "villages, towns, communities, etc." category. In my opinion, it is an article about the place Halifax, not one about the administrative entity called the Halifax Regional Municipality. However, that might be pretty academic, because a dot on City Hall or a dot on the population core would be pretty close to each other. Here's what I propose - we use just (44 39 N, 63 34 W), because those are roughly correct for the downtown core and City Hall, but they actually fall in the water of the harbour. If we get more detailed, we can have a fight over a pretty irrelevant point. Sticking to minutes of latitude and longitude, rather than going to seconds maintains some useful fuzziness. AshleyMorton (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic Location 

message: I see in the infobox the metropolitan and municipality population figures are different.  In the case of Halifax, isn't the municipality the only component of the CMA?  So, wouldn't that mean the figures should be idenitical? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Metropolitan area is smaller than the municipality. I believe Metro is only made up for Dartmouth, Halifax, Bedford and Lower Sackville. The rest of the municipality isn't part of the Metro area. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I was under the impression that the base components of CMAs were municipalities.  What are the base components for CMAs in Canada?  Statistical divisions like Census tracts? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to look to be sure. But I can say that the Halifax Regional Municipality which is what this page is about (although its recently been moved to hits common name of Halifax, Nova Scotia) is alot different than most municipalities. It used to be a number of different cities and has since been made a single municipality covering hundreds of square kilometers. I am guessing due to this it may be handled slightly differently by Stats Canada. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is relevant. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I figured as much (that census subdivisions are used as the base components).  Unfortunately, it still leaves me confused about Halifax in particularly.  I'm guessing that for statistical purposes, maybe Halifax is a special case that the municipality is actually divided into census subdivisons, where as in almost all other cases a municipality is, itself, a census subdivisions.  But, I can't confirm this.  Perhaps, if someone could find a map showing the CMA as it relates to the municipal boundaries, that would be helpful.  And, if Halifax is a special case, that would certainly be worthy of note both the page describing census subdivisions and Halifax's article. Thanks for all of your help thus far, though. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipality vs. Metropolitan Area 

message: I propose merging Metropolitan Halifax into Halifax, Nova Scotia. Most of what appears in Metropolitan Halifax already appears in Halifax, Nova Scotia. A separate article seems unnecessary and, being made up of redundant content, makes maintenance more difficult. It causes unnecessary confusion – and a number of articles link to Metropolitan Halifax when there is no reason for them not to simply link to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The concept of the "urban area" can easily be explained within a subsection of Halifax, Nova Scotia – which is already the case (section 2.1). Citobun (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The infobox pictures do not represent the whole of the Halifax Regional Municipality it only represents the area of the downtown area of Halifax 142.177.130.26 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point. Some of the most iconic Halifax things are clearly in the core, and you couldn't have a Halifax article without a picture of the bridges, but I think having a picture of one of the Eastern Shore fishing wharves or one of the great beaches would definitely fit, and make it better. AshleyMorton (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box Pictures 

message: During my last visit to Halifax I tried to add photos to some articles that didn't have any. But there are still many Halifax-related articles without photos of the main subject, or missing photos altogether. I've collected 50 below. Can any residents of Halifax help?
For anyone is unfamiliar with the process of contributing your own photos to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Uploading images. In a nutshell, you must upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which entails releasing it under a free licence. Then you can add it to the article here on Wikipedia.
Once you add a photo, please strike out the article name in this list and leave a note if you like. Cheers, Citobun (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do the downtown ones maybe even later on today.  I have a meet at 4pm and if the rest of my day goes well I can head out a bit early.  WayeMason (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ones struck out above, you can see them here have not had time to place them!  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WayeMason WayeMason (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Placed them!  :) WayeMason (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Waye! Fantastic photo of the Grand Parade. Citobun (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I got HRM corporate communications to rights release a bunch of photos.  Reasonably high res but not print quality, unfortunately.  Have not had time to correlate them to the list above! See them here:  WayeMason (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halifax photo hunt 

message: In this paragraph:
"The urban core is home to several blocks of typical North American high-rise office buildings, however segments of the downtown are governed by height restrictions which prevent buildings from obstructing certain sight lines between Citadel Hill and Halifax Harbour. This has resulted in some modern high rises being built at unusual angles or locations."
What's so "unusual"?  According to whom?
"Unusual" in this context is a weasel word.  This sentence is essentially meaningless.
:Agreed.  The sentence could be removed.  Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unusual" angles and locations... 

message: I don't think the fact that a school board decides to announce unceded territory (the provided reference) counts as support for the fact that the territory is unceded - it only supports the fact that the school board has in fact decided something.  I've been looking for a clear statement that this is unceded territory.  The best I have come up with is this:  https://novascotia.ca/abor/office/what-we-do/negotiations/current-status/  "The Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia claim Aboriginal title to the lands and waters of Nova Scotia and adjacent areas of the offshore, and maintain that they did not give up their land rights through treaty, voluntary cession, or otherwise."  But this too does not support anything beyond the fact that  "the Mi'kmaq ... claim ... and maintain...."  Anyone have a better source? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the school board would not do something that public without studying it first. That said, there are references in books, not the internet. I'll do some digging. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the onus be in the other direction, though? Presumably, if territory was once someone's, and they ceded it to someone else, then there should be evidence of that. Proving a negative (that there has never been an act of cession) can be almost impossible, because you have to prove that you have explored all possible avenues and come up empty. I'm not trying to be combatative here, but... are you aware of any proof *of* cession? If it happened, then it should be pretty straightforward to demonstrate. For example, there are all of the numbered treaties across the Prairies. There are clear arguments that they were unfair, illegal, etc. - but no one can debate the idea that they exist, and that they discuss transferring land to the Crown. In reading the treaties that concerned Mi'kmaq groups (texts available through links here: ), it's tough to find any indication that land was ever ceded... AshleyMorton (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the British decided that they had taken the land by conquest by defeating France, and rejected the Mi'kmaq's proposed boundaries, I don't think there is anything to find like that. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but normally, when someone takes something by conquest (as happened in Europe for millennia...) there is usually some document at the end of it all, saying who now owns what. We can debate the legitimacy of taking territory by force, I suppose, but there's still normally something in writing. I don't think we even need to have that debate. We can just say that no Mi'kmaw group ever actually signed a document (or equivalent) saying "Yes, this is your land - no longer ours." That, to me is the definition of "unceded" - Even if *you* believe that you've taken this, *we* haven't agreed. ("you" and "we" in that sentence aren't meant to be from my voice - I'm not Mi'kmaq.) AshleyMorton (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Historians have analyzed the treaties. The Mikmaq agreed to surrender and not fight the British. They then proposed boundaries that were rejected by the British. There is no land claim treaty. Not to be too critical, but I think your sentence is too unwieldy. More like "Halifax is located on land which the government of Nova Scotia acknowledges is Mi'kmaq unceded territory." Alaney2k (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They agreed to surrender, the first paragraph in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship shows that. It also claims that the Native populations will not attack Fort Anne, the capital at the time. Fort Anne was attacked 6 times. The "unceded" arguments comes from the British claim that they would only build on Fort Anne and Canso, provided they were not attacked. They were. To the British at the time, they believed that voided the Treaty, and they build on Halifax. Halifax did not "become" the Capital, as per the article, rather it was built explicitly to BE the Capital as Fort Anne was considered undefendable, given it was attacked at least 6 times. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Government of Canada -- in whose supreme interest it would be to maintain that the Mi'kmaq did cede their land in the treaties you mention (there was more than one) -- says they didn't cede the land. Period. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:F044:E397:D8E7:80F9 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  unceded territory 

message: the SS Mont-Blanc, a French cargo ship carrying munitions, collided with the Belgian Relief vessel SS Imo; but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion states The Norwegian vessel SS Imo collided with SS Mont-Blanc, albeit chartered by the Commission for Relief in Belgium.--Manfariel (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Halifax Explosion

message: The map is wrong. Halifax HRM extends to the Musquodoboit river only.  The map shown in this article shows the legal boundary of Halifax COUNTY.  Not HRM.
Please fix this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The MAP of Halifax HRM is wrong 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haligonians. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  feminist (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Haligonians" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: From the current [6] source in the article, we can see that among the 25 largest municipalities in Canada, Halifax stands at 6th place in terms of fastest population growth between 2016 and 2021. Will it be okay to state so in the same sentence in the article?  Latin Beau  18:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest population growth - okay to include in the article? 

message: I propose that the Wikipedia article about the history of Halifax and the HRM, currently found at Community of Halifax, Nova Scotia, should be moved to History of Halifax (former city) and the Halifax Regional Municipality. The name is a bit longer and clumsier than I would prefer, but it's more logical than the current name because it accurately reflects the actual page topic. Feel free to join the discussion. Carguychris (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the proposed title to History of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Simpler and more logical. Carguychris (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed history page move 

message: i’ve read some of the above discussions and i understand that the usage of ‘halifax, nova scotia’ was appropriate for the time but is it really necessary to have ‘nova scotia’ as a denominator today? this city is surely the most prominent city to be named ‘halifax’, and i don’t think all the other articles about this city would cause any confusion name-wise MishchaytWiki (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are suggesting a move then the correct place would be Talk:Halifax and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, but a pageview analysis of popular Halifax topics shows that this page does not have a huge lead over Halifax, West Yorkshire; it averages about three times the daily page views, but sometimes only has a slight lead, and was almost equal on one day in the 90-day sample. There's no hard-and-fast rule for WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, but I've monitored a few such discussions, and they typically get approved when one topic leads all others by at least 6:1 to 10:1 consistently, like this. Carguychris (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i've moved the discussion here if any of yall wish to participate MishchaytWiki (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to ‘halifax’? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Halifax which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress