Talk:List of designated places in New Brunswick

One list of all census areas would be useful
If this were merged with List of population centres in New Brunswick, the resulting article would be greater than the sum of these two parts. --Cornellier (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * List of population centres in New Brunswick deals with areas that include more than one CSD. This article would more properly belong with CSDs, just as the population centres one would belong with census metropolitan areas. Both seem like more natural combinations to me.
 * We could combine the various tabular articles of census material but there might be some length issues. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Some designated places overlap with population centres and some are within municipalities, so either prospect would result in a list with double-counting and be unadvisable. Hwy43 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean "some designated places overlap with population centres"? since ccording WP, a designated place is "a type of community or settlement ... that does not meet the criteria used to define municipalities or population centres". If there's a hierarchical structure where some census areas are within others, I don't see that as a problem. My suggestion is that the census divisions (generically speaking) should all be listed on one page called something like List of census areas of New Brunwick which would follow the structure on Census geographic units of Canada e.g. :
 * Indian reserves
 * Designated places
 * Census metropolitan areas
 * Population centres, etc. --Cornellier (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It happens. Per the census dictionary, “designated places and population centre overlap is permitted.” See Langdon DPL and Langdon POPCTR. Population centres are also problematic because they short change the true urban population of a community. Urban block faces that front other urban block faces but have rural areas behind them are excluded from population centres. See the Fox Creek DPL as compared to the Fox Creek CSD. About 250 people living in about 145 dwellings at urban densities are omitted. CMAs and CAs use boundaries that are inclusive of urban and rural areas. DPLs include all urban block faces even if some back onto rural areas. POPCTRs are urban excluding urban block faces that back onto rural areas. If all were listed on a single article, population information would have to be excluded as it is improper to compare to one another. This is why StatCan publishes DPLs independently from POPCTRs. Combining the two would arguably be WP:OR. StatCan only publishes CMAs and CAs together because they are part of a continuum in the same methodology. DPLs and POPCTRs are not in a continuum as their methodologies are different. If you want to create List of census areas in New Brunswick, I recommend census stats be excluded and that all named geographies be included (so all CSDs are included and not just IRs). That said, there is already List of communities in New Brunswick, which could be an alternative. Hwy43 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking closer at Census geographic units of Canada, did you have in mind different sections for census divisions, census subdivisions, census metro areas, census agglomerations, population centres, and designated places? Keeping them as separate sectionized lists for each except we could keep CMAs and CAs together due to the continuum/methodology rationale stated above? Hwy43 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Cornellier (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the created article is not a vehicle to propose mass deletion/redirect of existing list articles for the various geography/administrative types, like what happened here without our awareness, then I am generally supportive. Such would disrupt the set of cross-Canadian lists of the same by province/territory. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Links to "designated places" don't link to designated places
The items listed under "Name" are presumably "designated places", all but one of which is described as Type="Local service district". The expectation therefore is that clicking a link under name would open an article about an LSD that is a DPL. But that is not the case. Here are just a few examples:

--Cornellier (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * and are redirects to Alcida and Dauversière and Regional Municipality of Tracadie respectively. Presumably the DPL portion of Alcida and Dauversière applies to the former. Not seeing Beaubassin East, New Brunswick or Douglas Parish, New Brunswick in the list or the StatCan source table. Presumably redirects of DPLs are taking you there. If the target articles of the redirects don’t mention the DPLs that point there, assistance would be appreciated rectifying these. I see ~65 DPLs are redirects based on the frequency of italicized entries at Category:Designated places in New Brunswick. Hwy43 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That would be your expectation. In an ideal world every link would go to an article that perfectly described all the details of each census LSD, its differences if any from a provincial LSD/portion of rural community/portion of regional municipality. It's not an ideal world. You could try reading the footnote in the second paragraph of the article as a starting point. Maybe do some basic reading of appropriate government documents that pertain to the subject. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's break this down. Start with the first line, there's no WP page for the DPL (it is unlikely that a DPL with a population of 208 is notable enough to have a page), nor for the LSD that contains it. The DPL of Gauvreau-Petit Tracadie has no page, but the municipality that contains it does. It is accurate to present it as: According to Statistics Canada Beaubassin East and Douglas Parish are not DPLs but are a Rural community and Census subdivision respectively, so not sure they should be in a list of DPLs. --Cornellier (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be better to use Census Subdivision as a column, since all the DPL LSDs are part of a CSD, without crossing any CSD boundaries; this would make the lettered portions easier to understand. Then wikilinks could be done away with until there's an appropriate article to link to. Pokemouche should link to Pokemouche, New Brunswick as there's a developed article; places like Cap-Bateau should link to Shippagan Parish, New Brunswick as it's covered in a section on LSDs there, and so on. I'm not sure how I'll describe the census status in those articles as I don't know which (probably few) DPL LSDs have boundaries different from the provincial LSDs.


 * Local government doesn't work for a column as technically there is no local government in provincial LSDs, just provincial administration, with regional service commissions contracting for many of the services received and LSD advisory committees (where they exist) tasked with developing budgets and giving advice which the province often ignores when it bothers to listen at all. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The newly expanded table was already built for eventual inclusion of a column for a higher level geography, just like List of designated places in Alberta and List of designated places in British Columbia. They have "Municipality" and "Regional district" columns, which are census subdivisions and census divisions respectively. There is hidden column header in this table in which I have just changed its title to "Census subdivision" per Timothy. An alternate could be going another level higher to "County" (or "Census division"). The source to populate content within the column is also within the hidden content. Completion of this column is on my to do list, but by all means please jump in and help. As for the redirects, I build these updated tables through an Excel-based concatenation process. My process has evolved already since doing this list. It auto-builds wikilinks for every designated place. If I have to customize to remove wikilink code where articles don't exist or to bypass existing redirects (as was the case with Douglas Parish, New Brunswick to avoid ), I might as well build these from scratch. This would take forever to do and as such I wouldn't be motivated to do in the first place. At the end of the day, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP and some of these DPLs may already warrant articles (we have thousands of community articles for places with population counts less than 208). As StatCan publishes census profiles for these communities, we can have people coming over from StatCan searching Alcida, New Brunswick hoping to find out more. Let's give them a place to land rather than a search yielding no results. For the ~65 DPLs that are redirects, let's make sure each targeted article says something about the DPL subject to the incoming redirect (see how Dennis-Weston, New Brunswick redirects to Saint Stephen Parish, New Brunswick). This is also on my to do list but I could go largely inactive at any moment for an extended period like most recently July 2020 to July 2021. It appears you both are editors from New Brunswick and are probably more efficient given your local knowledge. I would greatly appreciate the help on that rather than being subjected to grief about how a four-year long overdue table update isn't perfect. Hwy43 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm from New Brunswick. No idea about Cornellier, but the fact he's never heard how Fredericton is pronounced even on the provincial CBC radio programs might be a clue.
 * No grief intended from me. I've been working through the various Parish articles and adding in LSD stuff due to the strong overlap between the two. It's a time-consuming task and requires breaks for real-world issues.
 * And boy, do I understand grief from people who want it done wrong. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and amen brother. As for Fredericton, when I met two locals, I heard them say they were from "Frickton" (how it sounded phonetically to me). Had to have them repeat two times before I realized they were saying Fredericton. I was expecting four syllables, and convinced I only heard two. Surely they were saying frɛ.drɪk.tən but doing such so quickly I couldn't detect the first syllable was actually two syllables! Hwy43 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether the second r is pronounced depends on the person, but caring strongly about it is an older-generation thing. CBC's Shift afternoon show is produced in Fredericton, and the hosts usually pronounce it more like frɛd.ɪk.tən or frɛ.dɪk.tən. Most websites plagiarise from the same ultimate source, so the only site I could find with the local pronunciation was The Manatee, the Fredericton-based satirical site. I gave up on trying to keep the alternate form on the city's page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

So it should be like this (right four columns omitted)


 * Nope. I should either be this:


 * or this:


 * ... plus the four omitted columns. In the latter "County" could be substituted for "Census division". If so, Gloucester County would then be further piped Gloucester. The proposed approach of populating a column with language like "Local service district of the parish of Beresford" is overly detailed and lengthy. Hwy43 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I like the first one better. Having both CSD and CD shouldn't be a problem, though. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Alcida is not a Local Service District. It's an "an area with enhanced services within the Canadian local service district of the parish of Beresford". Why then have Type="Local Service District" ? This looks wrong, and if it's correct by some convoluted logic, it's unhelpful and confusing to readers. Would you please explain? --Cornellier (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If it is wrong, contact Statistics Canada. I did that over a decade ago about them erroneously classifying the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo as a regional municipality when it is actually a specialized municipality with regional municipality in the official name for branding purposes only. They fixed it. StatCan is not perfect with respect to current/correct spelling, status types of CSDs/DPLs, etc. Until they fix, the solution is to acknowledge what StatCan uses but include a referenced note next to the type indicating that “Although Statistics Canada classifies this designated place as an LSD, it is not recognized as an LSD by the Government of New Brunswick.” A similar referenced sentence can also be added to Local service district (New Brunswick). Wikipedia is not perfect, but we have approaches like this that help to overcome imperfections. Hwy43 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I just made a minor change to the Local service district (New Brunswick) page. Have the Type Local service district link to Local_service_district_(New_Brunswick), where the distinction is explained.

It's not convoluted logic. It's easy enough to understand if you actually read the cited materials. One term, four different uses or misuses. It's not a concept anyone else seems to have trouble with. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent. You could change the heading at that article to simply “Other uses” so that the heading isn’t redundant with the article title. Hwy43 (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That is better. Done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Great. I will alter the links here after I am done my current effort on DPLs in BC. Hwy43 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I created a new redirect that lands at Local service district (Statistics Canada). I then applied  to the 157 instances in this article so that, if the "Other uses" heading is ever changed at Local service district (New Brunswick), we only have to change the target in one location rather than in 157 locations. Hwy43 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Linking to redirect page
Is this different from linking to a disambiguation page? I was under the impression it was to be avoided. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTBROKEN. Hwy43 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't know if I made a false connection or was misinformed long ago. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We've both been around here a long time. Coincidentally, I only realized the same a week ago when viewing Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 27. There is a linked discussion embedded within that indicates users have been blocked for not heeding WP:NOTBROKEN. I certainly dodged bullets in my early days when I was bypassing redirects like a villain that weren't broken after page moves! Hwy43 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , check out WP:2REDIR that is from the same page as WP:NOTBROKEN. Hwy43 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Now my head hurts. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I get it. Hwy43 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)