Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Tasks
Should population history tables be a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates?
The following 14 Canadian community articles are classified as featured articles (FAs) or good articles (GAs):
|
|
Of these, 10 of them have population history tables. Those that don’t are the Hamilton (high), Scarborough (mid), Chetwynd (low) and Tumbler Ridge (low) articles. Despite not having tables, Hamilton, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge do have historic population line charts.
A population history table is a brief and concise encyclopedic summary of a community's size/growth over time. Its content is appropriate to both the "History" and "Demographics" sections of community articles.
Ottawa is currently being prepared for a GA review. I have suggested that a population history table be returned to this article to align with the majority of other FAs and GAs within the Canadian community WikiProject (two tables are available at Demographics of Ottawa). This has met some resistance.
I am looking to this community to see if there is a consensus that population history tables be a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates within the WikiProject. In the event there is no consensus, I am seeking a consensus that, should someone go through the effort to add such a table to a GA or FA candidate, that there is no justifiable reason it be removed so long as it is properly referenced in accordance with WP:CANPOP.
Please provide your comments below. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comments
- Support population history tables being a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates. They add value to GAs and FAs and I don't see how inclusion of such would be a detriment to a candidate so long as it is done properly. Hwy43 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support, with the proviso that the tables conform to the sources, i.e. those many tables out there which use "White" instead of "European Canadian" and lump in aboriginal peoples with visible minorities need to be revised before being valid for GA/FA. Whether or not Demographics sections should include income and marital status and such as is done in US demographic tables instead of obsessing on race-only as is the prevalent case so far is another matter.Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Skookum1, but in this specific case, can you be more explicit that your support applies to population history tables? I assume it does but want to be sure.
The additional stuff you raised falls under other stuff exists, and I don't want these other demographic table issues to cloud or confuse this discussion. (As I think you know, the issue you raise about using proper labels, i.e., "White" vs. "European Canadian", is one of which I totally agree with you on.)
Thank you in advance for clarifying. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)- Yes, population history tables should be part of FA/GA requirements. As for "other stuff exists" I don't that applies in the case of demographic-content standards; it's not just the US that has better/wider content than racial statistics, the UK also tends to have more genuine non-racial census content; I'd like to see more relevant ethnic composition tables but those are only available for certain places from StatsCan/Census, unless paid for. That there are 0.2% Filipinos in Kitimat is nowhere near as relevant to the place as its Portuguese component, likewise with Hungarians for Terrace and Prince Rupert, Germans in the Cariboo and elsewhere, and Italians in Trail and Revelstoke. Pretty much all I've seen is the racial content demographics, sometimes religion; on smaller-place articles than those listed I don't think I've ever seen a population history table.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Skookum1, but in this specific case, can you be more explicit that your support applies to population history tables? I assume it does but want to be sure.
- Oppose if there's a separate article (say, Demographics of XXX), I think the inclusion our not of such a table in the main article should be considered an editorial decision. I think I'd recommend such a table, but a valid argument could be that having it in two our more separate articles could lead to having conflicting tables, as one gets updated while the other doesn't, or if they use different sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Transclusion of the population history table from the main article to the "Demographics of XXX", or vice versa, would address the conflicting tables/updating/different sources issue. Of all the content within a Demographics section that could be split off into a "Demographics of XXX" article, I think the most important table to remain at the main article is the population history table. As for other tables in this situation, transfer those about age, gender, religion, ethnicity, education, etc. to the "Demographics of XXX" article and only summarize this data back at the main article. Hwy43 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the tranclusion I just did at Edmonton and Demographics of Edmonton that shows how the issued raised can be addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's one thing to recommend such a thing; it's another to require it. I still think it should be an editorial decision. There are potential issues with transclusion: for instance, it's not obvious to template-ignorant editors (thus any new editor) how to edit it.
- The particular way you've done it is problematic—you include "Edmonton" while excluding virtually all of Edmonton? That's a hack I'd never recommend, and it makes those <onlyinclude> tags a mystery to anyone trying to edit Edmonton—"Why are these here?!?"). At least stick it on a separate page and transclude it on those pages that will use it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: I don’t understand your include/exclude concern. Notwithstanding, I have flipped it around so that it transcludes the opposite way from Demographics of Edmonton to Edmonton.
As for a separate page, can you suggest which space would be appropriate? Article space? Wikipedia space? Elsewhere? Maybe there is a precedent somewhere you could point me to.
For other editors, I’ve found placing a hidden comment at the transcluded destination to be helpful. I just placed <!--The population history table in this section is transcluded from another article. To edit the table, visit [[Demographics of Edmonton]].--> at Edmonton. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)- I think I've done something like that in the past, and put the table in Template space (say, Template:Edmonton population history table). It makes so much more sense to me than to transclude the whole Edmonton article, except for the whole Edmonton article, kinda thing. Semantically very wrong, and confusing. I don't know how you would handle it, but it would be helpful if the template had V T E links in the corner to edit it the way that navboxes do.
- Also, I just want to be clear: I'm not opposed to having these tables inthe municipality articles—I'm opposed to taking away editorial discretion. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: Your suggestion is quite helpful. I'll try to befriend an experienced template creator to learn the ropes. I understand the editorial discretion concern. If I were to start this discussion over again, I'd seek consensus for adding the table to Ottawa in prep for GA review rather than making it a mandatory minimum requirement. Based on what I'm reading in this thread, I would speculate that there would be a consensus that supports its inclusion with only one dissenting position. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: I don’t understand your include/exclude concern. Notwithstanding, I have flipped it around so that it transcludes the opposite way from Demographics of Edmonton to Edmonton.
- I like them ....but every GA review I have been in recommends the data from charts by written out in a paragraph. The reason people said this was tables and charts are not read by auto readers and is skipped over by people doing "spoken articles". That said after the GA review over at Canadians I added back the chart anyway....might be best to leave out during GA and FA reviews. -- Moxy (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Moxy: it appears you are not necessarily against inclusion of the population history table, but your past experience with GAs is that tables are not preferred. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I’d like to see Ottawa go into a GA review with the population history table included as the only table within the Demographics section. Without the involved, biased editors bringing attention to it (myself included), I’d like to see if uninvolved, unbiased GA reviewers even bring it up. What do you think? Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Moxy: it appears you are not necessarily against inclusion of the population history table, but your past experience with GAs is that tables are not preferred. Please correct me if I am wrong.
- I actually agree with having data from most charts written out, especially for religion, languages, and even ethnic groups. It makes the demographics section of the articles look and read better. However the historic population table specifically does not lend itself to a text narrative. Since it's just dates and numbers, stylistically and practically they are best suited for a table. Would having the table defaulted in collapsed form be an adequate compromise? Mattximus (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: agreed. It would be excessively lengthy to transfer everything from the table into narrative format. Some highlights from the earlier years within the table could certainly be incorporated as narrative into the History section in addition to being presented in the table, just as the most recent data is incorporated as narrative in the Demographics section. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Historic population history tables should be a requirement for FA/GA status, as long as they consist of only official Canadian census numbers and not estimates or mid-census municipal counts. It strongest argument is that it gives context to the text of the article at a glance, which is very hard to achieve by reading the entire history section and then clicking on the demographics link. Standardization like we are proposing makes comparisons easier to make, since it's not just Canadian cities, but almost all wiki pages of cities on earth have this demographic table. Say you want to compare Montreal and Toronto populations, you would have to find each page, scroll down, see if it's there, if not click on the individual demographics page, then search through those to find the table. Or you can just have it in that section for the main page like almost every other city. Adding the table in collapsed form might be a nice compromise since it allows quick access, and can be ignored by those thinking it's less useful. As an aside, the statistical data is readily available and easily sourced. Mattximus (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's quite easy to compare the current populations of Montreal and Toronto; to compare historic populations it might be more effective to use an article dedicated to that topic, such as Demographic history of Canada or the like. Since the tables where they exist are associated with the Demographics and not the History section, they do little to provide context there. And no, often it isn't so easy to source these tables. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: sure it is easy to source the tables. Here in Edmonton, all I have to do is go visit the public library, University of Alberta library, or the provincial archives and pull the data from past StatCan census documents. Something I did for Moxy for Ottawa, for which he was appreciative. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: such tables can and often do overwhelm main city pages, which are meant to be a concise summary of the topic; detailed historical statistics are better suited to daughter articles. Also per Curly Turkey. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Resource for map data for municipal & IR boundaries et al
- Geospatial Reference - useful for more than hydrography
- Parcel Fabric & Registry Services this contains links to the Online Cadastre I used to cite Land Districts of British Columbia and materials linked through here will provide shape files for those charting rivers, municipal, IR and park boundaries and more. Skookum1 (talk)
Lejac created, with comments about "clusters" of communities in BC
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Columbia#new_article_Lejac_and_related.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Maple Ridge neighbourhoods template
Please see Talk:Whonnock#neighbourhood_template_deletion and where it links through to (the template's talkpage where I made some comments about the content.Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?
Numerous city articles have content reporting how the cities rank on certain lists in comparison with others at the national and international levels. For example, "Fooville is ranked as the second cleanest city in the world according to a study by Magazine/Newspaper X" or "Footown is ranked as the fifth safest city in Fooland by the Fooland Academic Society on Crime". Usually the amount of these types of contributions is relatively low in number and limited to Canada’s larger cities. However, some time ago, Calgary was inundated with these types of edits. IIRC, many of them were being added to the lead section. They were added in good faith as far as I could tell, but the more there are, the more the content converts the article into as a vehicle to promote the city. Without finding any past discussions here or on WP:CANTALK about this topic, I haven’t done anything about it, other than consolidate this content into its own section (Calgary#World city rankings). With this observation from Moxy, I feel raising this issue is the best place to start in both cleaning up that article and others that have similar content.
What does the Canadian community feel about these? Hwy43 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, this content is trivia created in most cases to sell papers/magazines or for the publisher to achieve some other gain. The lists generate routine media coverage after they are unveiled, yet lack enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS. They also become sources of information to promote the cities in a manner that calls their articles' WP:NPOV into question. I say this content should be discouraged and deleted unless it is published from a well-respected reliable source based on readily verifiable facts such as Statistics Canada (e.g., "Milton, Ontario was the fastest growing municipality over 5,000 people in Canada between 2006 and 2011"). Hwy43 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with your judgement on this — such things are quite commonly inserted into articles as promotional horn-tooting rather than as an effort to impart anything genuinely encyclopedic about the city. For the same reason, we don't add it to articles every time a local newspaper conducts its annual "Best of City" reader poll, or when a newspaper does a Buzzfeed-type "Ten best local MPs" listicle. As far as I'm concerned, if the ranking isn't a thing where Wikipedia would normally be expected to replicate, and maintain our own copy of, that same list (as, frex, we do for Statistics Canada data like population or land area), then it doesn't warrant mention in the city's article either. There might occasionally be a valid exception where a stronger case for inclusion can be made than "because I can source that somebody said so" — economic or demographic stats from a reliable body besides StatsCan alone, etc. — but those would be very much in the minority compared to the ones that we just don't have a genuinely encyclopedic reason to care about. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I say deleted with caution - Some of the rankings are fabricated and those are easy to investigate. Others are genuine ranks and some are even recognized by the UN. So don't turn this into a witch hunt and keep the decisions evidence based. Mkevlar (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that these rankings serve primarily to promote the city rather than inform objectively. I would, however, keep rankings that are sourced directly from Statistics Canada, The United Nations, or peer reviewed academic journals. I am on the fence about The Economist which tends to publish these lists quite frequently and I do find them rather well sourced. Regarding any blog/travel magazine/online polling/newspapers/anything like that should be an immediate delete. Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
RfC pointer re: WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes
You are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Redundancy model. Hwy43 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
