Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Cities

message: With all the recent undisambiguating significantly expanding the lists by provinces at WP:CANLIST, it is now difficult to determine the cities from the other municipalities and unincorporated communities. I'm going to experiment with reorganizing Alberta into sub lists. If it looks good, we should consider doing the same for the other provinces. Hwy43 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The list at WP:CANLIST#Alberta has been broken down into four separate lists by general type. Is this useful? If so, would it be useful to further break down into even more lists by every community status type (e.g., urban municipalities into cities, towns, villages and summer villages; rural and specialized municipalities into municipal districts, improvement districts, special areas and specialized municipalities; and unincorporated communities into hamlets and urban service areas), or is that too much? Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't by population (à la PRIMARYTOPIC) be more useful than by status? 117Avenue (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that would be more useful, but others may disagree with me, so I'm curious to know the thoughts and other possible solutions from all regular contributors here (, , , ,  and ). Populations change every five years for the majority of communities here, while others don't have populations published by StatCan whatsoever. Therefore, the order of the list would have to change every few years, and what would we do with those with no reliable WP:CANSTYLE-compliant population figures available? Updating the list five times to reflect five status changes over five years seems less intensive than reordering 50% or more of the 1,000 communities here every five years. Hwy43 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List reorganization 

message: I think that the fact that we are still talking about this makes it controversial. What I don't understand is, how does a user know when a move is controversial unless he WP:BOLDly moves it, or starts a discussion? 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few indicia that an edit or move is controversial: if something is contrary to policy or guideline, if an action is contrary to consensus, if there are past discussions on the article talk page which would reasonably suggest that the action is controversial, etc. etc. For example, if I moved Montreal to Montreal, Quebec, or replaced all references in the article to the city with Montréal, those would on their face be controversial edits, given applicable guidelines, the article edit history and the article talk page.  Other times, there are articles where moves or significant edits are likely to be controversial due to the nature of the subject matter itself, and editors should tread lightly (e.g. Grand River land dispute, Rob Ford, Haida Gwaii for a time, etc.).  Another example - one glance at the talk page should convince any reasonable person that Chatham-Kent should not be moved without first initiating a further discussion on the talk page.  However, where none of those usual signposts exist in respect of a particular article (as was the case here), editors are not expected to be omniscient or 100% perfect.  They can implement bold actions where they are acting in good faith and reasonably believe that the action conforms to policies and guidelines.  It doesn't mean that the editor is necessarily always correct, or that others can't take issue with his/her action, but rather that the action wasn't controversial in the sense that the editor ought not to have boldly done it in the first place.  It might become controversial vis-a-vis future actions (for example, there was nothing particularly controversial about CBW moving Rivercourse, Alberta to what I think was the then redlink Rivercourse; you were concerned, there was a fairly lengthy discussion, and Rivercourse now redirects to River.  If someone now tried to boldly move Rivercourse, Alberta to Rivercourse, I'd say it was now a controversial move given the recent past history even if it wasn't a couple of weeks ago when CBW first moved it).  Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: It seems to me that WP:CANSTYLE has become a tool to move pages without consequences. I would like to know how the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion should be started on articles that have been recently moved, and how the sentence "then do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily; rather, start a discussion on the talk page requesting a move back to the comma-province title" can be changed. In a move and a primary topic discussion, I feel that the status quo should be held in order for participants to asses the situation, and form an educated opinion. However, wading through page moves and navbox edits does not make that easy. I especially do not like the word "arbitrarily", as the move would be a move back to the last stable version. 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Without consequences" is nonsense, and you appear not to have read any of Bearcat's comments above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that the essay WP:STATUSQUO refers to text changes in an article; it doesn't mention page moves at all. It also says "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement". Mindmatrix 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The guideline is pretty clear, as is how one would start a discussion (i.e. start it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've witnessed a lot of unnecessary hostility regarding 117Avenue's recent revert attempts here and on his talk page while on my recent hiatus. Two things are obvious. Though (1) an editor boldly moving a page based on the assertion of WP:CANSTYLE cannot read the minds of one or more editors that may oppose such a move without a discussion to first confirm the page is truly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, (2) an editor that would oppose such a potential bold move cannot read the minds of one or more editors that might make the bold move. As one other editor has commented on one of the resulting RM discussions, there is the db-move template to revert an undiscussed move. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I think utilizing this template to revert an undiscussed move (or a similar action to return it to its original title) is perfectly acceptable due to a lack of formal discussion. That is, an editor boldly moves the article under the assertion of PRIMARYTOPIC in compliance with CANSTYLE, another editor reverts it, then the original editor engages in a discussion (preferably via a formal RM request) because the past consensus is the page should be at the disambiguated title. All need to step back and remember AGF. Someone opposing a bold move does not automatically mean that person is only doing so simply because (s)he doesn't like it. It could simply be that the editor is not confident that the page qualifies as a PRIMARYTOPIC without evidence (an edit summary advising such during the revert would help). A formal RM discussion, after a bold move being reverted, provides the opportunity to provide the evidence, thereby enabling the desired comfort and confidence with the move proposal. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there has been hostility, but there has been justified annoyance at 117Avenue's behaviour.  He failed to show basic courtesy, he ignored the rules, he was disingenuous about not being familiar with the rules, and even this past week he's still spouting on his talk page about how the rules don't apply to him.  The irony in all this if 117Avenue had simply adhered to CANSTYLE in the first place (and better yet, also had the courtesy to first discuss his concerns with CBW), his concerns would have been quickly addressed with little fuss.  The problem here isn't the applicable guideline.  In any event, enough has been said about this.  I apologize to 117Avenue if I have beating a dead horse.As for your other comments, nobody expects anyone to read anothr editor's minds, and CANSTYLE doesn't require it.  If another editor has a PRIMARYTOPIC or other concern, CANSTYLE spells out the process and provides all the comfort and confidence necessary.  I disagree with your proposal, for these reasons and others expressed much more succinctly above by Bearcat. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've been only skimming the past week while monitoring, I did not see the following at WP:CANSTYLE: "If you disagree with the suitability of a page move that has already taken place, however, then do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily; rather, start a discussion on the talk page requesting a move back to the comma-province title." Given this, I agree that this should remain the appropriate process. Hwy43 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  There has been more drama in this discussion than substance (and I have contributed to the drama), so skimming was a reasonable course.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

text: You're entitled to your opinion, but there needs to be consensus for it to be changed.  Bearcat has already provided the rationale for the rule.  In the meantime, you don't get to pick and choose which rules you want to follow. As Bearcat advised you on your talk page, "it's not appropriate to just arbitrarily decree that the existing consensus doesn't apply to you just because you disagree with it". At the time you replied "I understand that", but clearly you do not.  Good luck (you're going to need it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for your reason. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First, no one here owes you anything. Second, the rationale was already provided to you above quite some time ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to hold a user to a rule, there needs to be consensus and confidence in that rule, currently there is not. 117Avenue (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You not liking it ≠ lack of consensus.  Anyway, I'm done talking about this with you - you're making so many incorrectpronouncements, and asking questions that have already been answered, that at this point I can only assume that you're pulling everyone's leg.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a change to an MOS requires discussion, and this is not a discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting the primary topic discussion