Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Saskatchewan/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:Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

List of municipalities in Saskatchewan

 * Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC), and co-nominator (talk)

We are nominating this for featured list because it is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities within the Province of Saskatchewan in Canada. It follows the same format of successful nominations for the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba (and |Alberta, currently a Featured List Candidate). We are hoping to ultimately complete a featured topic for all municipalities in Canada. If this nomination and the nomination of Alberta below are successful 4 out of the 13 provinces and territories will be featured lists using this new and rigorous format. Thanks for your input! Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment to reviewers: A record of our collaboration can be viewed on my talk page. I'll now use this page to further collaborate with on this article concurrent with your reviews. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment to Mattximus: The "Rural municipalities" and "Northern municipalities" sections both should mention the largest and smallest by population like the urban municipality subsections. Could you add this content? Also, please review the comments received on the Alberta nomination from and  received to date and consider implementing the same suggested changes where/if applicable as I anticipate some of them may emerge here. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added largest/smallest. Will see if recommendations can be used from other nomination. Mattximus (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Comment: Stumbled upon this Municipal System History page which has incorporation dates for urban, rural and northern municipalities. I've added the original incorporation dates for the 24 northern municipalities. Though the current lack of the same for the urbans and rurals should not preclude achievement of FL status (it wasn't a barrier for List of municipalities in Ontario), I think these should be added eventually. The sheer number of urbans and rurals makes this a significant undertaking that could occur after FL achievement in my opinion. That being said, I have contacted the Saskatchewan government to ask if they could provide the PDF tables in Excel format, in the spirit of open data, to help streamline the eventual additions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any reply? I could always start plugging away if there is no alternative. Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Given the time of year, not surprised if there is no reply until the week of January 6-10. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Response from Saskatchewan Municipal Relations "Sorry all I received for posting are the pdf files that are currently up on the site." Drat. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Do you see incorporation dates as integral to the list of municipalities in Canada pages? Would you like them to be eventually in all the articles? If so I certainly don't mind helping you input them, but it will take a bit longer than the scope of the featured list review. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, and per the successful outcome of the Ontario FLC review where inclusion wasn't a barrier to promotion, I don't think its necessary to add them before the FL review closes. However, I do think it should be an action item for this article afterwards since the data is immediately available. I'll ask some co-workers if they can convert the PDFs to Excel format to save us some time. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Keep me posted on the conversion, if it's not possible I can do the manual inputting. Mattximus (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The lists of urban and rural municipalities are very long with no breaks. Making the name the default field and adding Template:Compact ToC, as was done with Alberta, would make it easier for readers to find a municipality they were interested in.
 * Comment is it possible to do a compact TOC that allows links to towns a, b, c, etc, then villages a, b, c, etc? It would be nice to retain the current default sort of cities alpha, then towns alpha, then villages alpha, the resort villages alpha. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You could post a question on the ToC talk page. I am not sure how it would work. I find ToC helpful when searching long tables, but I do not think it is crucial if you want to keep the default sort.
 * "A village can be created from an organized hamlet by Saskatchewan's Minister of Municipal Relations by ministerial order via section 51 of The Municipalities Act if it has: been an organized hamlet for three or more years; a population of 100 or more; 50 or more dwellings or businesses; and a taxable assessment base that meets a prescribed minimum." It is not clear from the wording whether it has to meet one of the criteria or all of them.
 * Comment they have to meet all. I can re-word. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done Hwy43 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the third column under urban municipality, rural municipality. How are they related?
 * Comment third column advises which rural municipality surrounds the urban municipality. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need a note explaining this. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would changing the column header to read "Surrounding rural municipality" be sufficient instead? Hwy43 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. You would need to ask someone who has not already read your explanation. I think a footnote might be better, but I will leave you to decide.
 * Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from AmericanLemming I recently left a note on the talk page of list of municipalities in Manitoba regarding the placement of the table of contents. Since my questions regard all 13 articles of this type (and particularly those which are FLs or FLCs, like this one), I thought I would bring it up here as well. I have two questions:
 * 1. Why is the table of contents on the right for this article when almost all other articles have it on the left?
 * 2. Why is the table of contents on the right for the lists of municipalities in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan but on the left for British Columbia (and yes, I know BC was promoted to FL status in 2007)? Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other?

I'm new to the featured list process, so it's quite possible that list articles are more likely to have the TOC on the right for some reason unknown to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See replies at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba. Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've proposed adding a guideline on the position of TOCs on the MoS's talk page; the proposed addition currently states "the table of contents should be floated left unless there is a compelling reason to have it on the right." "The table of contents may be floated left or right, but general practice is to have it floated left (the default setting)" I'd appreciate any input any regulars at the featured list candidate process have on the proposed addition. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the TOC placement in List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories? That seems to me to be clearer. If you agree I can make that a standard for all of these lists including this one. Mattximus (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for getting back to you so late; I delisted this discussion from my watch list because I thought my concerns had been addressed (that is, I learned that it's okay to have the TOC on the right). But about your question, I very much prefer having the TOC where it is in the Northwest Territories article. It looks better and isn't stuck between the lead and the first section of the body. Please do change all of the articles to look like that. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry and, but it should not go where it is in the Northwest Territories article per #5 at Help:Section. Hwy43 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was a way to force the floated-right TOC that is stacked next to images to appear precisely after the first paragraph, let's do it. I've been unsuccessful in my previous attempts. Hwy43 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @: Um, I'm a little confused. #5 states "However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text." (emphasis mine) That means in some cases you can have it be otherwise, such as here. I'm inferring that you personally prefer to have it follow at least the first paragraph of article text? Because the guideline doesn't say that it always has to follow at least the first paragraph of article text. Anyway, I'm sure you have you reasons for wanting to have the TOC right-floated and sandwiched right between the lead and the first paragraph of the body, and I am willing to respect your preferences. You've spent a lot more time working on these articles than me, anyway. :)
 * We could ask around at the help desk or the village pump about your proposed solution, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , actually, where Mattximus put it is exactly my preference (with the dead white space resolved between the two adjacent images, which can be resolved). However, it is my interpretation that #5's "should in most cases" is the alternative to #2's "should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text". #2 goes on to say "Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." That last bit is key here. My preference is at the top, but we are constrained by these guidelines. Trying to put it after the first paragraph seems to be the best compromise between the end of the lead and before any text. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of TOC positioning discussion from above

I have started my reply on a new line because, when you need eight colons to indent your reply, it's time to start over. Anyway, I have to agree with you,, that putting it immediately after the first paragraph in the lead would be preferable, considering guideline #2. As such, I have asked around at the Help desk: Placing the TOC immediately after the first paragraph in the lead. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Though I have to say I agree with and  about placing the Table of Contents immediately after the first paragraph in the lede, on the left. Great job overall by  and, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please change title of sect Notes to Footnotes. Notes is for citations, Footnotes is for commentary about main article body text. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I made the change, but I'm wondering if you have those two mixed up? I thought notes were for commentary and footnotes are for references. Mattximus (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have reviewed WP:FOOTNOTES and it appears it is "Notes" per WP:REFGROUP as the footnotes in question here are clarifications of content. Hwy43 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, no worries. I think my idea is the case when there are three sects: Footnotes, then Notes, then References. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a reasonable read through revealed no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.