Talk:Shepody, New Brunswick

Canada: New Brunswick / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Merge proposal[edit]

It appears to me that Chipoudy and Shepody refer to the same place. If so, Chipoudy should be merged into Shepody as part of the history section. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and

Done Klbrain (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do not, @P199 and @Klbrain.

Shepody, NB is the place name for the present day locality to the east of (and perhaps included in to the eastern extent) the former Chipoudy, although the name is derived from the later. You enter Shepody when you leave Hopewell Hill.

The Shepody river, marsh, etc. are of course related to the region the original refers to. PonapsqisHous (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category former municipality appropriateness[edit]

I see no mention of the incorporation or granting of charter to the Thibodeau settlement. I am uncertain if there is argument for it's inclusion in the category what so ever. That said, I am glad the community history was brought to my attention this way. But I am interested to discuss the proposal for some consolidation. Placeographer77 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Placeographer77I've gone ahead and removed the category as well as the tourist attractions of new brunswick category, because Shepody, NB Canada isn't a tourist attractions itself if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps someone would like to argue that it is. PonapsqisHous (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerge proposal[edit]

Chipoudie and Shepody, NB should not have been merged as they were not good candidates for article merger. They should be made distinct again.

One idea to do this is to wp:move page renaming it Chipoudie in order to conserve the bulk of the article, and explaining it as requested move, then recreating the simple page "Shepody, NB", the locality. PonapsqisHous (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not uncommon at all in past centuries for localities to relocate but retain the same name, because place names were fuzzy, not delineated with exact boundaries. But that doesn't mean that we need new WP articles for every location; the article can describe that adequately (see for example Fort-Coulonge). Same for Chipoudie and Shepody. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding the argument @P199; the article will not need to describe that adequately. I do not see the argument for the two to reside together in the merge proposal, either. PonapsqisHous (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the merge, done more than 5 years ago without objections since then, does still seem the right decision on the grounds of short text, context and overlap. Both pages were short (and hence best consolidated), on closely-related (if not identical) topics, where a discussion of one aids the interpretation of the other. If you'd like to propose that they are separated, you can do that by proposing a SPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were likely short because they were started as stubs, and undoubtedly saw little attendance for objections to be raised. In the French language wiki entry Chipoudie you will find that the topic is considerably attended to.

I suggest we attend to a disambiguation somehow.

Also, @Klbrain, do you intend to respond on behalf of @P199? PonapsqisHous (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Shepody, NB has moved? From where has it moved? PonapsqisHous (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PonapsqisHous:Thanks for the suggestion; I've edited the lede (and once in the history) to clarify the difference in terms further (that is, to disambiguate); please do correct this if I have it wrong. I don't have the authority to respond on behalf of another user such as P199, but was responding to the line of argument (as befits an article talk page rather than a user talk page). Klbrain (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Klbrain. Thanks. I don't want to do it willy-nilly so I'll share here: Shepody, NB, Canada, the locality of 20 or so residents, is not formerly Chipoudie as stated in the opening line. "Shepody" is both the locality of 20 or so, and, the area formerly known as Chipoudie (Chepotee, Chepody, etc.) which included the river the lake the mountain the settlement. It was not a village in the legal sense. The principle settlement location became called Hopewell, then Hopewell Hill, but there was also settlement up river and on the south side of the river it is documented. So what allows for the unknowing reader to distinguish?

Also, what allows the reader to understand the progression of the name across linguistic boundaries and time? Is this an example of transliteration?

We don't want to be seen to be putting an constraints on things, do we? PonapsqisHous (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the leded as you suggest; feel free to improve it further! Klbrain (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Okay... had you seen the edits I had made before being reverted by @Trappist the monk?

Have a look at them if you would> here

As you might gather, my improvement desire is principally to do fairness to all and discuss how Shepody is not simply formerly Chipoudie in the lead. The Shepody of the past is not the Shepody of today. You will see by my edits how I did that so that the assertion is not that Shepody, NB replaced Chipoutie.

That should be reasonable.

Secondly, by going the merged route, the sections of the article also need to balance between the two, also. I propose to do this with by leading with the primary subject of Shepody, New Brunswick, Canada, and expanding from there.

Let me know any thought you (et al) may have! PonapsqisHous (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I write this here because of a post on my talk page (permalink). I have no particular interest in this article. I came here because Editor PonapsqisHous made this edit which included this broken citation. That broken citation caused this article to be listed in Category:CS1 errors: empty citation. The listing of the article in that category was what caught my eye. Because the edit was unsourced, I reverted. I would recommend that before anyone does anything else to this article, that you first locate reliable sources to support any existing or new article content. Without reliable sourcing, the article is likely to someday be deleted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THank-you for the recommendation @Trappist the monk. Ironicly, the citation was an attempt at "Reference needed". Other issues in the article include un-edited machine-translation of French language wikipedia also unreferenced. I suppose it is unfortunate it seems it is the machine like logic will impede the growth and improvement by participatory methodology by those interested. PonapsqisHous (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P199@Klbrain Please have a look at my most recent edits and let me know if you have additions to the contributions. Thanks, PonapsqisHous (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]