Talk:Unorganized North Algoma District

Archive of reasoning behind move

 * I'm proposing merging the two distinct unorganized sections of Algoma. Even though they are separate divisions, they would be best explained together, where the distinction could be made. The southeast part, however, is a WP:permastub. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Move made, no response after two weeks. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 weeks is too short for a discussion. Besides I oppose since it is a separate geographical entity. Are we going to merge other small municipal entities into larger neighbours just because they are permastubs? Restored Algoma, Unorganized, South East Part, Ontario. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One week is the actually the standard time. What you just explained is already done everywhere in Ontario, and yes. It is common practise to merge permastubs (that have sat unchanged for years and have no potential for expansion) into an article where they can serve to be more comprehensive. That's why Midhurst redirects to Springwater, Craighurst to Oro-Medonte, and most of the communities in these unorganized areas to the unorganized area article, at its monstrosity of a name. It's also why having a separate article for the southeast part with the sole reasoning being that its listed seperately by StatsCan is pointless. That article will never have more significance (or any really). Commonname certainly argues against using official names if they are unwieldly, and that is definitely the case here. Thanks for reverting everything back to statscan "official" names. I'll go move Toronto to City of Toronto, because that's its official name. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One week standard time for a merge discussion!?!? Please give me a reference to that standard. Noticed that I wrote "municipal entities". You are referring to small unincorporated communities. And yes, I agree with merging small community stubs within its municipality, and I have myself been doing this frequently. But Algoma Unorg SE doesn't fit that category. As for official vs. common names, the common place name would be the individual communities, not the unorg. census subdivision. Renaming this will need to be discussed at Wikiproject Ontario. Regards. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGE states
 * "Close the merger discussion and determine consensus – After a period of time when discussion has ceased, a rough consensus may or may not emerge, move forward with the merger. In discussions where enough time has passed (normally 1 week or more), and there has been no discussion or where there is unanimous content to merge, any user may close the discussion to merge and move forward with the merger."
 * Note also that unorganized areas aren't municipal entities, they are a lack of any municipal entity or organized government. Aside from having two entries at stats can, nothing stops a single article from explaining both unorganized parts of Algoma whilst pointing out that they are distinct places. I've started a topic at WT:CANADA, as the Ontario Wikiproject receives little traffic. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the final name format for unorganized areas is at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Unorganized areas of Kenora District which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)