Talk:List of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador

message: What is your population for a city? Isnt  Stephenville considered a city WayneRay (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can decipher, it will take an ACT of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (GoNL) to allow a location to be called a city. I believe there are certain criteria, one of them been population is mandatory. When Mount Pearl became a city it had to have a population of 20, 000 (I believe). If you look into the City Act’s on the GoNL website you will only find three cities, St. John's, Corner Brook and Mt. Pearl. Places like Labrador City and other fairly populated areas are not listed amongst them. It would be wonderful if someone was able to resurrect the GoNL regulations for City status... --HJKeats (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is the GoNL website Alphabetical List of Statutes. --HJKeats (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes a city 

message: I thought it would probably make more sense if this page was mergered with the list of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador page similar to what Nova Scotia has done List of communities in Nova Scotia. I was wondering if there were any reasons why this wasn't done and if it would be a problem for me to merge the two pages in to one. Jordo72 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging pages 

message: I wonder if we can add Inuit community governments as one of the municipality types and include them in the main list? They appear to have a governance structure similar to towns and there is data from stats can. Mattximus (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we find any confirmation that the ICGs are considered municipalities by the Government of NL, I suggest they be excluded. Better to exclude than assume. In the meantime, I have inquired with NL's Dept of Municipal Affairs to find out if ICGs are considered municipalities or not. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hwy43, I'm wondering if you have heard anything back? I suspect they should be considered a municipal governments since they seem to have the structure of a municipality.... but I will await your response. I think this list is almost complete once that issue is sorted. If we do move the ICGs to the main list, could I rewrite the "former" municipalities as a paragraph rather than another list? Maybe nominate this one for featured list after that? Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Response was "These communities are termed ICGs in accordance with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and related legislation. These communities are still eligible for certain programs offered by the Department of Municipal Affairs so are still municipal clients of ours. In part, their continued reference as Towns allows this municipal support to continue." This is ambiguous, and given there is absolutely nothing published that we've found yet explicitly confirming they are municipalities, I suggest we err on the side of caution by referring to them as former towns. Hwy43 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking into this, I'm wondering if we can err on the side of inlcusion even though it is, as you say, ambiguous. My reasoning is that the town councils and administrative structure were maintained when they became Innuit community governments. Much of the municipal functions are also retained, which at the least, make them functional municipalities. They even have mayors (renamed AngajukKâk), and assemblies. They also belong to the Department of Municipal Affairs, and the statscan still counts them as towns (which I know you mentioned earlier is not a good source). I've made the changes to the paragraph structure, the table (new sums for all categories), updated the body, and moved the former towns into a sourced line in the towns section. I personally think it's better this way, however I will make the changes in one big edit, so you can revert if you are against this change. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide me with sources here to support the above. When the Govt. of NL is itself not listing them as "towns" or "municipalities", we are going to need compelling evidence otherwise. Remember, First Nations have band councils, but that does not make Indian reserves "municipalities". 22:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Hearing nothing back yet (perhaps you have been inactive), and having reviewed the history of discussions, I am not prepared to support an assumption-based err on the side of inclusion that the five ICGs are municipalities. I would rather be supportive of their inclusion within a "Former towns" section after the list section. Within, there could be subsections for ICGs and dissolved towns. The latter would include towns that simply disincorporated or amalgamated to former larger towns e.g., Fogo Island. I'm going to revisit some past research and look for new info now that a year has passed. If I don't pass out in the meantime, I'll provide an update on what I've found. Hwy43 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sorry I'm busy with work at the moment to provide you with sources I forgot to bookmark while I was browsing, but I trust your judgement, and I made it easy to revert if you so choose. I do prefer this format of course (keeping the dissolutions within the towns subheading, and assuming proper sources are found), but you are the expert and will not protest a revert. Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Further to the strikethrough above, finally found something that both confirms the five are no longer municipalities under the Municipalities Act, 1999, and confirms they are now ICGs. See Part 17.38 on the bottom of page 283 of the Labrador Land Claims Agreement. Thus they can be presented as ICGs on this list in my opinion. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

text: *Hi  I've made the changes that you suggested, fixed all the totals, merged the "former municipalities" into a single line of text in the towns section, and created a short section for the ICGs. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi , I'm not sure you are too active anymore but I do have some time and I'm thinking of nominating this page for featured list. I believe I made your recommendations. Think it's good to go? Mattximus (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *, if you could step through line by line of every Canadian municipality list we’ve co-nominated or nominated individually as a checklist to ensure everything raised previously elsewhere has been addressed here, I would support a co-nomination for this one. Call me a perfectionist or anal-rententive, but I prefer the smoothest ride possible especially since I have reduced time to be overly active in response to FLC suggestions. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I went through the previous nominations (most of our collaborations were from 6-8 years ago, time flies doesn't it?) and it looks like the vast majority of suggestions are already implemented, I think we did these as we went along. There is the perennial argument about the page being a fork of the individual municipality types, but I think we can just refer back to previous debates for that one. The only thing I could see possibly being asked is to add more details to municipal powers. I took the liberty to add a few already to the inuit section, and can add more if reviewers request it. What do you think, shall I co-nominate with you on this one? I will be fairly active over the next few weeks so you do not need to be very active at all. Mattximus (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , minor fixes implemented. Please proceed. Hwy43 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and I will be able to monitor the progression regularly. Thanks for the collaboration! Mattximus (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

text: There are 277 on the map. The difference is Sally’s Cove. Perhaps I can update the map to show it as an inactive town that is not yet disincorporated. Hwy43 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that. What you did does not necessitate a change to the map at all. Hwy43 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Inuit community governments? 

message: Hi . Regarding your reversion of my edits to the article lead, I thought I would try to explain the rationale behind my changes a little better, and allow us to discuss their merits to the article:
*MOS:PERCENT says that percentages should normally be spelled out as "percent" or "per cent" in running prose – I believe "per cent" is what's generally used in Canadian English (but please correct me if I'm wrong), which is why I decided to go with that.
:*Percent is certainly the most common used in Canada. I believe "per cent" is an archaic spelling. 
*While it's true that MOS:NUMERAL says that numbers from zero to nine are spelled out, there is an exception to this under MOS:NUMNOTES – namely "comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Writing "three cities, 269 towns, and five Inuit community governments" uses both spelled-out and figured numbers, and I think it would look better if all three were consistent.
:Fair enough! I get your point for this one, sorry for the bulk revert! Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just on an aside, your recent edit of "and at 445.88 km2", I don't think this is grammatically correct. I don't believe you can "at" an area figure. Mattximus (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks – I've made the two suggested edits above (with unspaced "percent" and consistent figures). Also, after a bit more consideration, I agree that "at [area]" isn't really grammatically correct; I've undone this one. On another note, do you think that rephrasing the first sentence of the lead would be a good idea? It currently has "ninth-most populous province" as two consecutive links, which should be avoided if possible. I did make an attempt to fix this initially, but was wondering whether you have a suggestion for this. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am comfortable with the wording of the lead sentence you proposed here to rid the sea of blue infraction. The same approach can be cascaded through the other municipality lists by province and territory in the topic too. Hwy43 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS