Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Nova Scotia/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

List of municipalities in Nova Scotia

 * Nominator(s): Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) and Mattximus (talk)

This is chapter 10 in a 13-chapter effort to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 9 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   Looks good. Just a couple of things to fix before I can support:
 * It would be nice to have more info added onto the "Rural municipalities" section. You could add an explanation on the difference between a county and a district.
 * I wonder if the content that follows in the subsections doesn't already do this. Let me think further about this. Perhaps there is a solution without appearing to be redundant in close proximity. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this work? Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The gallery of pictures in the "List of municipalities" section could be more visually appealing if both rows are centred with the page, with the bottom two pictures having the same length.
 * , you are more often successful with image-related edits than I am. Care to take a stab? Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, the gallery mode actually automatically adjusts based on your screen resolution, so if we did make an edit it would look well on K. Annoyomous' computer but would look worse on the vast majority of others. Specifically, only monitors with resolutions less than half the average laptop would be affected by having two lines of images that you are seeing. As far as I can tell, without hyperbole, almost every computer that is not set up for visually impaired users or cell phones should see the images as on a single row. Sorry, but to be more specific I would have to know your screen resolution. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had no issues on my two laptops and work computer. Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Kings County is Nova Scotia's largest county municipality." Clarify that it is the largest by population, and not by area.
 * Good eye. Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you consider adding a general references section? There are a number of citations that are referred to a good amount of time that could simply be put in a separate general references section.
 * I haven't considered it and it hasn't been a suggestion received in the 10 predecessor FLCs. Allow me to consider this and other options that may be available. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See this and this, which has reduced the repitition of the second reference by 12 (from 26 to 14). Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ref #14 is a dead link.
 * Fixed. It died sometime within the past three weeks. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is User:Canadaolympic989 not a part of the nominators? Seems like he was a major contributor in addition to you two.
 * No sleight intended. Canadaolympic989 started the article over two days in early 2013. Subsequent edits to add villages didn't stick since they aren't considered muncipalities in Nova Scotia. The effort to begin bringing to FL status began in December 2013, while the only subsequent additions (2001 census data) didn't survive either as 2001 census data isn't included in the 10 others and can be problematic where municipality boundaries before 2006 differ from those in 2011. If Canadaolympic989 would prefer however, I am not aware of there being a maximum of two co-noms. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm semi-retired, and I don't check my watchlist that often, so please message me on my talk page. Kind regards. -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your review. Interim responses provided above. I'm on the road for the next 36 hours and will swing back again to finish up after I'm back. I'll ping again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . Please review my latest replies and advise if there are any further concerns. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hwy43, see above: please message me on my talk page -- Pres N  17:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do so now. Thought I'd try a less intrusive ping first. Hwy43 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Conditional support until data is updated to 2016 Census data. -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Support -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   03:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry
 * Pipe-linking Canada 2011 Census to 2011 borders WP:EASTEREGG
 * Agreed and fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 53,000 km2 (20,000 sq mi) - Why approximates when you have the exact figure?
 * The approximation is based on a request on past FLCs for the other provinces and territories. I much prefer not to round. I'll change it to our preference now, but I hope a future commenter doesn't want it changed back. Seems like a preferential style thing that differs from editor to editor and has little weight between what is and isn't a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As co-nom, I agree, I much prefer not to round, in fact if there are no objections, I might change the other lists to precise numbers. Mattximus (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , no objections here. I was planning on doing that myself today. Please proceed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doing it now, but I just realized that two of statscan sources differ! . This seems rather odd, but I think I'll stick with the latter number since it's more recent. Any idea why the land area differ so much? Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , this source should not be used at all. Just the actual census source. Obviously there are two different StatCan methodologies at play here. Using the StatCan census land areas for municipalities and provinces/territories allows for a proper apples-to-apples comparison. The other StatCan source is an orange. Hwy43 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, all done. I rounded to the nearest square km, hope that's ok! Mattximus (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * All notes should be cited.
 * They were. See fourth bullet from first commenter and replies. I'm happy to return and hope the first commenter understands they are necessary. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delink Town
 * I assume in the second paragraph because it should be a commonly understood term per WP:OVERLINK. Correct? Done. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is Municipal Government Act (MGA) italicised?
 * Because it is a title of a printed work, albeit legislation. This has been done per requests on past FLCs. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "3 regional municipalities, 26 towns, 9 county municipalities and 12 district municipalities." -> "three regional municipalities, twenty-six towns, nine county municipalities and twelve district municipalities" to comply with WP:MOSNUM. Check for the rest of the article too.
 * As there is one figure exceeding ten, we are permitted to use one format (written words) or the other (numbers) throughout as long as we are consistent, if I recall corectly. I'll review to see if there are any inconsistencies.


 * Is the Rural municipalities classification defunct?
 * It is not a classification per se. It is the title for a group of two classifications. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

&mdash; Vensatry (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your review. See replies above. Some actions done already while others in progress. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Certainly - thanks so much for the quick update! Full support now. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.