Talk:Sydney, Nova Scotia

message: The parenthetical expression is unnecessary, as there is nothing to disambiguate "Sydney, Nova Scotia" from. - Montréalais 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done speedily, as this seemed a non-issue. older ≠ wiser 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The population of the CBRM is 105,968, which is correct in the article according the the source cited. The article states that the population of Sydney is 24,115, although I ca find no source to verify this. To be sure, the population of Sydney is most definitely not 105,000. Freshfighter9talk 21:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check out the census tracks relating to Sydney, and cite them in the next few days. Also community/metro area seems to be mixed up.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think some work will be required to get everything accurate. Thanks. Freshfighter9talk 22:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have updated this two-years ago: better late than never. Post-amalgamation, there is no census data for Sydney specifically, only for the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. Unlike a major city like Toronto, where census tracks exist almost block by block, the CBRM's population density isn't sufficient to warrant that level of detail. So, the most accurate data would be to list the 1991 census data, which is the last time a census was performed under the City of Sydney boundaries. Any post-1995 population would be impossible to list now, since Statistics Canada no longer has a metric for that figure, at least in a publicly accessible format that can be quoted. Since the information needs to be verifiable WP:CITE, post-1995 figures must be avoided.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken Heaton found publicly accessible 2011 census data that roughly corresponds to Sydney's former boundaries. So, as of the 2011 census, 31,597 appears to be the population (though this may include Westmont, Sydney River and some other parts of the old county).--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 24,000 ?  the data seems way off, the 24,000 people live in an area less than 10 miles squared.  Glace Bay is basically linked up with Sydney along one of its main streets.  The data understates Sydney and the size of the region around it.  CBRM should be treated as Metro Sydney since it covers an area half the size of the Halifax Regional Municipality and has close to 120,000 people or more.  The urban area around Sydney has to be a lot larger than what the data implies.Grmike (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Sydney no longer exists as a legal entity, Statistics Canada only collects data for the much larger urban area now known as the CBRM; which could be construed as "Metro" Sydney, but I doubt Glace Bay or New Waterford would like that much. No accurate census data that is specifically based on the old city boundaries exists. The only accurate data is for CBRM as a whole.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but the census data is broken down into much smaller sections than just the CBRM so it is posible to come up with census figures for Sydney.  I'll check with the CBRM Planning Department to see what is available as they use this data frequently for establishing voting districts, for service delivery, etc. Ken Heaton (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be "Metro" Sydney, but at least it is properly cited and from the most reliable source out there: Statistics Canada. Thank you for locating this info Ken.--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro Population 

message: Because random unexplained changes to climate numbers are becoming a problem here, I wanted to compare the material in text with the source, but the one in the article is directing to a page not found. This link here  appears to be the new link for the information, but the Environment Canada site can be quite confusing with so many different sets of numbers that I want to be sure we have the right link before adding it to the article. I'm hoping one of the editors who do these types of edits regularly and know the Environment Canada site can verify that these are in fact the numbers that would correspond with the dead reference link. If this is the correct link, then some changes will have to be made as not all the numbers on the new link match the numbers in this article. Cmr08 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't checked these figures in about two-years. Will do so in the next few days.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked the site, and it seems much of the article's figures are fictious. I'll try to go through all of them this week.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I figured. I guess the numbers were being randomly changed so many times that eventually some of the changes were getting undetected. Since we now have a working link as a source to compare when changes are made, we should be able to keep the numbers correct. Thanks for looking into this. Cmr08 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000  

message: Il n'est pas fair play de ne pas dire que parmi les premiers habitants de la Nouvelle Ecosse il y avait des pêcheurs bretons, et ceci depuis au moins 1527 (carte espagnole), il existe deux cartes qui montrent le drapeau breton à cet endroit, voir article agence de presse bretonne, de patay lejean, avec des références; cette région s'appelait au 16è siècle la Terre et le cap des Bretons, pas des britanniques, demarrer l'histoire de cette région en 1700 n'est pas sérieux. cqfd.--88.141.91.11 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  breton of brittany 

message: This article should be deleted and moved into a new page covering all the sydneys .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easternhfx (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by a new page covering all the Sydneys? Are there other Sydneys in Nova Scotia we don't know about or are you just trying to disrupt other articles because you are upset the HRM article name was changed? Cmr08 (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He (she?) means North Sydney, Nova Scotia, Sydney River, Nova Scotia, Sydney Mines, Sydney Forks. Thing is they're not even all contiguous, even though all near each other.  Like the RMs on counties that this SPA has fielded, this is spurious in nature and not in accordance with guidelines and established practices.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Noting also that if the CBRM one does go ahead, that this would be titled Sydney, Cape Breton as a result.Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if the editor who proposed this move would take the time to give us a reason why they should be merged, instead of just saying they should be merged. Just because these articles have the word "Sydney" in their name doesn't mean they should be lumped together as one. We have a former city, two former towns, and two areas that were in Cape Breton County, all of which are separate communities. I know the editor is upset that the name of the Halifax Regional Municipality article was changed, but the fact of the matter is that it was changed by consensus, and that's something we have to live with. Other than making a point, what do all these other proposed moves and mergers actually accomplish? Cmr08 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a flaming dumpster fire.  I think the way forward is to focus on CBRM (as I have been doing the last week) and make it better written, better organized, and properly sourced.  I have no problem going into the Sydney page sometime in a couple months and deleting every un-cited claim, though I suspect that will leave a stub, no article.  Let's focus on the key article(s) like CBRM, history of CBRM, Politics of CBRM (which doesn't exist) and save the scalpel work for after there are good articles to carry the weight.  WayeMason (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed move to CBRM page

message: Why would the French Navy have been re-coaling at Sydney in 1781 when the first steam-powered oceangoing ship was not built until decades later?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1781 naval engagement 

message: So the sources section has been tagged for almost 3 years, and consists of a bunch of "sources" not being used as sources for anything. They're just a bunch of random links masquerading as references. Material in the article is properly references, these are not proper sources or links and quite frankly are just a mess. Any reason to not hit the nuke button on them? Canterbury Tail talk 00:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement: "... and consists of a bunch of "sources" not being used as sources for anything." isn't actually true.  While I agree the references are a bit of a mess, still there are a quite a number of references that use both the Citations section as well as the Sources section.  Many other references do not as there has been an inconsistency between editors in which format of reference has been used. Mixing formats for references in Wikipedia is a no no, this article is an example for why that rule exists. If you do nuke the sources, all the info needed for quite a number of the citations to be usable will disappear. As examples, the first two references don't work at all as they aren't formatted properly. The third "Akins (1895), p. 82" does work properly, so does the 4th. The fifth doesn't work, and so on. Citations 8 thru 13 are all set up correctly as each reference the same two volumes of Cape Breton History by Robert Morgan, but each Citation is for a specific, and different page number in those volumes. This type of formatting (when it is done properly) allows each Citation to both connect to a source, so you can find it to reference it, and also allow each Citation point to a specific page number, without having to put the entire source reference in each time you reference a work. Does this make sense? Ken Heaton (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I see what you're saying now. Okay answer then is to tidy up the references and sources. I suspect there are a couple of just random links in there, but won't know until go through them. Okay, consider the above proposal completely off the table and a tidy up proposal on it instead. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can take the time to sort it out, and don't mid doing it, that would be great. That's the sort of thing I only seem to find time for mid-winter... Ken Heaton (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources section 

message: From the current lede. Odd wording: it's a town of 30,000. Is this a Canadian nuance I'm missing?
I propose to change it to "city" or "town". Comments?
:Wording was odd. It is neither incorporated as a city nor a town. It is now one of many unincorporated communities governed by a regional municipality. Hwy43 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "former city and current community"