Talk:Halifax

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved clearly no primary topic has been established. Keith D (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Halifax → Halifax (disambiguation)
• Halifax (former city) → Halifax

agree This proposal makes a lot more sense than the current name. Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there are other things being disambiguated here. In the UK, the city of
  Halifax bank are much better known than the Canadian city. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 11:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • By global standards the Canadian city is doubtless the
    Halifax (electoral district), is clearly not it.--Jiang (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There is no primary topic by global standards - the Canadian city is not a global city and has little or no profile outside North America. Just sort the list of Canadian topics into a more appropriate order. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 15:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - 'For goodness sake!' Haven't you seen the amount of move requests done already, above? Bringing this up ad-infinitum, when there is no need for it, is a waste of editors time. When I refer to Halifax I refer to the Town of
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as there is no primary topic at all. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There is no prior move proposal. A prior move proposal to have Halifax, West Yorkshire be the primary topic was shot down on the grounds that the Halifax in Canada is more commonly known, not on grounds that a primary topic does not exist. I think the most pressing issue is that Halifax, Nova Scotia links to this disambiguation page - as the topics are not mutually exclusive, the disambiguation there is inappropriate.--Jiang (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the countless prior move requests. Even "Halifax, Nova Scotia" isn't a primary topic. 117Avenue (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This specific move request has not been made before.--Jiang (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what I meant to say is: There have been countless prior move requests, and attempts, to determine a primary topic for "Halifax, Nova Scotia", thus there is no primary topic here. 117Avenue (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There isn't a clear primary topic here with the bank (named after the British town) being quite prominent as well as the Canadian city and British town. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This discussion has been advertised on the talkpage for the Canadian regional municipality (and the former city automatically) but not, AFAICS, on talkpages of other potential claimants, particularly the British town. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as formulated, since it's not clear that the Canadian city is the undisputed primary topic. However, a solution is needed to make Halifax, Nova Scotia no longer be a redirect to a disambiguation page. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been discussed enough, there is no primary topic there, the current municipality and the former city are almost equal in usage. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The current municipality and the former city are not mutually exclusive entities.

  WP:CONCEPTDAB applies. It is plainly impossible for a casual reader searching for "Halifax, Nova Scotia" to know which one of those links they are supposed to click on to get a general overview article of the city. Even if we keep "Halifax" a dab page due to the British town and bank, the setup for "Halifax, Nova Scotia" is simply unacceptable.--Jiang (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  They very much are mutually exclusive entities. They aren't even remotely close to being the same thing. One is only a small portion of the other. The name definitely has to point to a dab page. This has been discussed over and over again for years and years. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "I am going to Halifax next week." - it is impossible to disambiguate this sentence on its own.

  WP:CONCEPTDAB. --Jiang (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The problem is historical context, we don't just go by what is currently the situation. That would be inappropriate recentism. Since usage currently is split between the two meanings we have to go to a disambiguation page because we can't guess what the user is wanting to go to. Lots of people/articles use Halifax, Nova Scotia to mean just the old city. Others use it to mean the whole HRM. When we can't say there is a clearly primary topic we disambiguate. This is the case here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yes we do. Take Chongqing for example - the city of Chongqing was merged with three other prefectures to become a provincial-level municipality the size of Scotland in 1997. The historical Chongqing is only a fraction of the current municipality but it is not a disambiguation page. This can be solved by coverage in the lede and history sections and use of Wikipedia:Summary style. An article referring exclusively to the old city with a link to the whole HRM is not committing any factual mistake because the HRM includes the old city.--Jiang (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm...Chongqing is a really bad example to be holding up: The idea that information on a city of 5 million people, and a province "the size of Scotland", should be crammed together in one article, is not a happy one. The information there would be much more accessible split into separate articles on (for example) Chongqing (city) and Chongqing (province); but that's a discussion for there, not here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is never ever a justification to turn

  WP:CONCEPTDAB at the moment and should be replaced with text. --Jiang (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment If all your unhappy about is ending up on this disambiguation page, when you have typed
  Halifax (former city), which I have just done. Now will someone please close this unrequired discussion? Richard Harvey (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And I just undid it. Halifax, Nova Scotia applies to both the former city and the current municipality. Now-a-days it no longer means the former city, it is used more in conjunction with the current municipality. Thus it is an ambiguous name and has to point to a dab page. This has been gone through in so many different discussions its ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then move
  Halifax Regional Municipality is not wrong. Should be turn United States into a disambiguation page because in 1815 it did not include California? Should London be turned into a disambiguation page because it could refer to either the City of London or Greater London? --Jiang (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Usage is split, that is why it goes to a dab page. We don't use recentism, because usage is split between the two locations then we have to end up at a dab page if one clearly isn't the primary. This is the case here. In historical texts it will be the former city, in current texts it will be the current city. As such we disambiguate. In the case of London there is very clearly a primary topic. That hasn't happened with Halifax yet only being a decade and a bit old. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If usage is split, we stick to the broader concept as the primary article. This is how it is done at both
  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (covering different geographical scope in different time frames).--Jiang (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The former is just too recent, we can reassess in twenty years, but for now this issue is dead. 117Avenue (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per the many move requests on this topic we finally found a workable solution a few months ago and we get yet another move request. Clearly usage is split so it needs to be a dab page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear from this RM that the fix a few months ago was not a workable solution. A workable solution needs to work for those users (not editors) who want to find out about the place called Halifax in Nova Scotia. There is a long history of discussions started by puzzled users looking for the article on Halifax, Nova Scotia. Such users are now redirected to a section of a dab page which gives them a choice of 12 articles of which only 2 are likely to be relevant. It's just unhelpful.--Mhockey (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those discussions have been since we fixed things a couple months ago. To me that signals that perhaps things have been fixed. I think you underestimate our readers if you think they can't tell which of the two are the relevant ones taking into account both the indenting and parenthesis. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not intuitive. We cannot assume background knowledge on the part of reader. I filed this move request because I simply wanted to read about the city prior to my first visit to it next month - knowing nothing about its administrative scope - and was met by a simply confusing disambiguation page (I had no idea which link to click!). This usually means that

WP:CONCEPTDAB has been violated. Perhaps my move proposal above was inappropriate due to the UK references to Halifax, but the organization of the Canadian Halifax article is simply confusing and inaccessible for the casual reader. --Jiang (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You wanted to read about the city you were about to visit? Well thank-you for coming to Wikipedia, I think you learned something as soon as you searched Halifax. 117Avenue (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page clearly says the capital of Nova Scotia. I am just blown away that that wouldn't be enough information to go on. Especially since the other one is listed as the former city. By listing it as the former city clearly it isn't the one you are going to next month so that crosses that off the list immediately. As such out of the two options one is clearly not what you are looking for because it doesn't exist anymore leaving only the the one that clearly says it is the current location. Frankly to me it seems very intuitive. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So

Halifax Regional Municipality to Halifax, Nova Scotia since whenever we say "Halifax" in 2012 we can reasonably mean "Halifax Regional Municipality" (as opposed to using "Halifax" to refer only to the urban core and only the full name "Halifax Regional Municipality" to refer to the existing political division). Is this the case?--Jiang (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, as can be seen in the previous move requests, it can still mean the urban core. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in some contexts it can mean the urban core to the exclusion of or in contrast to the other parts of the HRM and in other contexts it can refer to the HRM as a whole, and usage of the former roughly equal usage of the latter? If this is the case, what's wrong with this proposal, which is modeled after the London article? The urban core and the HRM are not mutually exclusively entities; the urban core is contained within the HRM. --Jiang (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your first couple of statements do basically sum it up. In the province of Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia tends to only refer to just the

Halifax Regional Municipality. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you're crediting outsiders with a knowledge of NS local government which they do not have. Most outsiders think of Halifax, Nova Scotia as the largest city in NS, with a long history, and are not bothered about its precise present legal status or extent. They can read about it on this Nova Scotia government website (which calls it a city), but not easily on Wikipedia!--Mhockey (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its precisely because I don't think they have the knowledge that I make the comment above. This is why I say the usage is split and why it needs to go to a disambiguation page, because readers don't know the one they actually want to go to and need the help of a disambiguation page to do so. I would note that isn't the government website. The government website is novascotia.ca. If we were going to redirect to any page it would be

Metropolitan Halifax because that is what most people would consider the largest city in Nova Scotia if they were going by how its often referred to. It wouldn't be the former city article or the HRM article. But doing so would only create even more confusion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well it doesn't create confusion in similar cases (e.g.

History of Halifax - and it should not be in the dab page (except possibly as a "see also"). That would at least give users a better chance of reaching the info they need quickly. (Incidentally the website is not the government website, but it is a NS government website - read the disclaimer.)--Mhockey (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because "usage is split" does not necessarily mean there should be a disambiguation page. People have differing conceptions of the same topic all the time - that doesn't mean we should create

WP:CONTENTFORKs. A disambiguation page is only justified when substantially unrelated topics share the same name. For example, Tibet could either refer to the historical and cultural region of Tibet, or it could mean the much smaller Tibet Autonomous Region. We do not have a disambiguation page at Tibet.--Jiang (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, the former city article is intended to just be a historical article about an entity that no longer exists. However, previous naming problems led to both articles being edited to sound like they are the current city. The recent name change to (former city) was to help clear that up. The editing of the article itself however, has not yet been cleaned up fully to adhear to that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so clear.

Halifax (former city) is an ambiguous title. It could mean "the place called Halifax which has been destroyed (or renamed?)", or it could mean "the place called Halifax which used to be a city but is now some other kind of settlement", in which case Jiang may well be visiting it.--Mhockey (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't agree to the name "Halifax (former city)", but that move discussion closed only five months ago. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No clear primary topic, given the confusion over the Canadian city and the fact that Halifax is also a major town in England. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, also per
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  .

In reply to the nomination, when people in the UK (a not inconsiderable chunk of the English-speaking world) refer to Halifax, they generally refer to the town in Yorkshire, so the notion that it’s a toss-up between “the urban core of the HRM” and “the entire HRM itself” is a bit parochial.

And as there are at least half-a-dozen articles that describe the various incarnations of the Canadian city, the idea that any one of them is primary over the other five, let alone over the other uses of the name, is a trifle optimistic.

And the statement “ ‘Halifax’ is too common a name to be sitting as a disambiguation page” is plainly contradictory; it is precisely because it is a common name that it needs to be a disambiguation page. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.