Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Ontario/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 User:Hahc21 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

List of municipalities in Ontario

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and is structured in a similar manner to other featured lists of municipalities including List of municipalities in British Columbia and List of cities and towns in California. Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, why have the links been removed from all of the images? 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The links seem to be working, can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the images resulted in nothing, normally it would take you to the file page. User:Hwy43 has since linked them to the city articles. Is there a featured article guideline, that I am unaware of, which recommends links to file pages be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a little pair of boxes just to the lower right of each image which takes you to the file pages. Is that what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hadn't previously seen or used the link parameter before. Yesterday's efforts were trial and error efforts to figure it out. Just moved a link parameter outright. Upon click, you go to the file's page, which is what I'm accustomed to. Returning the link parameter but leaving it blank prevents clicking altogether. In both scenarios however, I'm failing to see the alt parameter generate as a hot tip on the image. I suggest we remove all link parameters. No point in linking the image to an article if a wikilink in the caption does the same. Simply redundant. Still don't know how to get the alt to appear though. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the alt is for "situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment). I believe it is primarily for blind users. So you are not supposed to see the alt. "The alt parameter text is not normally visible to readers but may be displayed by web browsers when images are switched off". So I think it's good as is. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strangely the alt text was appearing when the three maps were nested in the gallery template. Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Not sure if I am too close to this, but IMO single and lower-tier municipalities should be split into separate sections. Each of the three types of municipal status should have its own section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do like those two combined, as they both serve largely the same function (as opposed to upper-tier municipalities which are rather distinct and deserve their own list). Dividing the single and lower-tier municipalities will also make it impossible to sort municipalities by population (and population growth, and area, and density...), one of the purposes of having sortable columns and listing all types of municipalities in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you can combine all and use color-codes to differentiate among the three. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how correct these the lower tier map is, could someone perhaps correct my confusion? Something seems wrong with the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map. It does not show many single tiered municipalities, for example London, Ontario or Orillia, but does show a northern ontario single tiered municipality Greater Sudbury. Unfortunately, at this scale I don't believe the color-codes would work for the lower tier as there are far too many municipalities to display. I believe this map should be removed. However, the upper tier maps could be merged into a two colour system as they are easily visible at this resolution. Would you recommend that Nergaal? Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map is wrong. It actually presented 9 single-tiers that are equivalent of census divisions, of which not all were in southern Ontario. Map has been removed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, Upper tier municipalities are divided into lower tier, while single-tier ones are both upper and lower tier at the same time. In that case, I would merge the upper and single tier ones together, and create a map for them only. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but that's my fault for not being clear here or in the article. Upper tier are special in that they have lower tiered municipalities inside them, so they function rather differently than lower tier (having less municipal duties). Some are not found within an upper tier municipality, and they are called single tier, and function almost exactly like lower tier. So it makes sense to merge the top two maps, as they both show upper tier municipalities, and get rid of the bottom map since it's inaccurate (just waiting on Hwy43's opinion). Mattximus (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Single-tiers are responsible for providing all local municipal services. Lower-tiers are like singles by providing some of the same local municipal services. Upper-tiers are also like singles by providing the balance of local municipal services not provided by the upper-tiers. Upper-tiers are the sum of two or more lower-tiers. As singles are a combination of both uppers and lowers, including them with lowers is comparing apples to oranges and alternately including them with uppers is comparing apples to peaches. Although keeping singles and lowers together have merit for population comparison purposes, there is also merit in grouping singles and uppers together for the same. Since that would be redundant, I continue to suggest that all three statuses should be separated. It is certainly the cleanest and, IMO, least confusing solution (or least confusing within the already much too confusing municipal structures established by Ontario). Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your argument, and it makes sense. However, I believe the most useful format is the one currently provided. For example, imagine a kid doing a school project and needs to find the largest cities and towns in the GTA by population. Right now that student can sort, and find the answer. With the three tables suggestion, the student will have to sort, write them all down, then scroll down, sort again, then write those all down, then compare the two lists. This is just one example. I feel that in order for this to be useful, the list should be sortable. The division we have now makes sense, since the first table is not what people would consider a city/town, but the second list is what most people would indeed consider a city/town. I believe this division is the most pragmatic approach to this page. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Recognized and valid, but we do however have List of cities in Ontario and List of towns in Ontario that allow readers to sort all cities and all towns within the province respectively regardless if they are singles or lowers, not to mention the StatCan source that provides the same sorting functionality for census subdivisions (municipalities or municipal-equivalents), which allows comparison of all cities with all towns, villages, etc. I'm not certain we have to cater to all permutations of potential researcher needs when there are alternatives a click away to meet their needs. Regarding your example, note that a researcher is unable to determine the largest cities and towns in the GTA on this article as there is not a column in which the GTA is an attribute. I assume that the Greater Toronto Area article already covers this in some manner. If not, it should. Regardless, your point about this being one of multiple examples that could apply here is understood. Hwy43 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't receive a reply to the above. Want to say that resolution of this matter is not a must, in my opinion, for achieving FL status. Let's not let this stand in the way. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my example was not the best, but I'm glad you see merit in keeping the list format as is (counties/districts in one, and cities/towns/villages in the other). When you have a large list like this, I much prefer the ability to sort and use the information over the technical divisions which may not be as pragmatic. I want to make wikipedia a useful resource for my students and feel that this format would be optimal. I would consider it resolved as is, but perhaps we can hear what Nergaal has to say? Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support the list looks much better now (and feel free to cap/hide my multiple comments left here). Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Could we still have the map showing where the municipalities are? Probably beside the 17% statement. This new one shows Toronto as unincorporated as Northern Ontario. A single-tier map might also be helpful, to offset the upper-tier one. Just some thoughts to throw out there. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show it as unincorporated. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show it as incorporated either. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Among the 19 other census subdivisions, differentiating the 10 unincorporated districts from the 9 incorporated single-tier municipalities would be a revert of the effort to resolve the above concern. Separate maps showing the 17% land coverage and a single-tiers are possible. However, the land areas of some municipalities will be so small that they may be indiscernible at the scale of the upper-tiers map. Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These new maps are excellent and think they address the question about 17% of the land surface incorporated. I am wondering if we could do without the first as it is both a little redundant (the third map shows exactly the same thing, but with a bit more detail), and also messes up the formatting. Just a suggestion. Mattximus (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not finding the first redundant. As the lead is intended to be a generalized summary of the article's content, the generalized map in the lead is appropriate. Also, I'm not seeing any problems with formatting on my end. Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support TB randley  (T • C  • B) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.