Talk:List of municipalities in New Brunswick

	List of municipalities in New Brunswick is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on March 21, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 2, 2016 Featured list candidate Promoted

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: New Brunswick / Geography / Communities High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick. This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I reverted the recent addition of financial information for several reasons. First, it seems to run afoul of

I am the other user quoted above and I agree the recently added (and since deleted) information is too granular and not relevant to this list. Its placement front and centre before the list of the municipalities themselves certainly was not helpful and gave this trivial information more weight than the most relevant and important information in the list article. Not sure if its own article is warranted either. Research should be undertaken to determine if precedent articles have been created along the same vein before boldly creating one. Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. As with all novel ideas, it is encountering resistance. I certainly don't think the financial information meets the

WP:TRIVIA definition, unless someone can point to a bullet point on that list. I'll place it *after* the list of municipalities themselves, as per Hwy43. I accept that we do things differently in NB, and hope that other Canadians can accept wiki as a tool for diverse people. 47.54.9.44 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's slow down a bit here. Pardon the revert but we need to arrive at a consensus-based solution. I'll create a sandbox for us to paste the reverted content and collaboratively craft it so that it can be laced into the article. I'll return in a couple hours to set that up once I have an extended period of free time. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the issue isn't the content that you are adding, I actually think it does belong on wikipedia, and deserves it's own page. My issue is that it doesn't really fit well in this page. This page is just a list with very basic demographic information, and that's it. Any addition would be trivial relative to the purpose of this list. Should we add another section on number of lakes? Hospitals? Schools? There are separate pages for many of those. It doesn't make sense to put everything in one list. But we can link a new page from here for sure. Would that be an acceptable compromise? Mattximus (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

47.54.9.44 and Mattximus, I have created a sandbox with two options. Each option includes my suggested edits, comments and requests for citations and clarifications. You can view it at User:Hwy43/List of municipalities in New Brunswick/sandbox. I look forward to your comments. The more I have thought about this, I am leaning to Option 2. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a lot of work put into that page. I strongly support option 2, primarily because each wikipedia page should have one focus. Mattximus (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow goes for me too, Hwy43! I agree with a lot of your constructive criticism. Mattximus, would a change of title of the present article from "List of municipalities in New Brunswick" to "Municipalities in New Brunswick" help you overcome your difficulty? That way we could have sections on "list of" and "municipal finance" all on one page. The benefit would be that we wouldn't need to grow our "see also" list, for example at New Brunswick, and we needn't have a sentence like "For a list, see the list page" on the muni finance page, and vice-versa. Growth of redirection link is also an evil to be avoided. But I do like Hwy43's option 2 myself. 47.54.11.193 (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's wise to include two completely different topics in a single page. But thankfully Hwy43 made a great alternative, and I think all the data you inputted deserves it's own page, specifically because municipal finance is a distinct subject. For the same reason we also don't include list of river length per municipality, lakes per municipality, crime rates, etc... in this page. I would think a page titled Municipal finance in New Brunswick would be perfect. Mattximus (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: feel up to the task of updating this list article to reflect incorporation of Haut-Madawaska? Need new entry in the table for this new rural community, plus removal of four villages. Prose in the Rural community and Village sections would also require updating, as well as likely the overall article lead. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I can work on that this week no problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mattximus (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: Ok I think I've updated the table and prose, the only hiccup is that I could not find the land area anywhere, but I did make a note of this in the table. Is there anything I missed? Mattximus (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Government of NB page Types of Local Governments, the following are legally defined:

• Municipalities: cities, towns and villages, which are functionally the same and differ only in size AFAIK.
• Regional Municipalities: introduced in May 2013, so far just the Regional Municipality of Tracadie.
• Rural community: is an incorporated community that has a locally elected council.

Anybody (1/3 of the population) not in one of the three above types is in an LSD, administered by the Minister of Environment and Local Government. This should be made clear in the prose, and a linked to Local service district (New Brunswick) and List of local service districts in New Brunswick. I suggest that the page be organized to reflect that. I gives undue weight to the distinction (which is what?) between towns, villages, and cities, and should give some context about LSDs. --Cornellier (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something what you said is exactly reflected in the lead: "Approximately one-third of the residents of New Brunswick do not live in municipalities but reside in local service districts, which are unincorporated communities administered by the Minister of Environment and Local Government and have no local government of their own". I've added a link to Local service district (New Brunswick) in the lead though, that is a good suggestion. List of local service districts in New Brunswick is also present in the see also section. I believe that covers it, no? I don't think there should be any details about LSD in the body as this is a list of municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As LSDs are unincorporated communities and the scope of this article are incorporated communities (i.e. municipalities), what we have here on this article, as amended by Mattximus, is appropriate. A list article inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities would be List of communities in New Brunswick, which could use some improvement. Hwy43 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick feedback. My main point, which got obscured by LSDs, is that per the gov't the following entities exist:

• Municipalities
• Regional Municipalities
• Rural community

But the article says these types exist:

• Cities
• Towns
• Villages
• Regional municipalities
• Rural communities

Cities towns and villages are all legally and functionally the same thing. This is not reflected in the page. --Cornellier (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the clarity. I'm going to revert your edits for the time being to allow investigation into this and further discussion to seek consensus, given this article's featured list status and how the edits you've made makes this list article inconsistent with the 10 other featured lists of municipalities across Canada's other provinces and territories. Hopefully you can sit tight for a bit. Cheer, Hwy43 (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Municipalities Act, which enables incorporation of local governments (i.e. municipalities) in the province, is long in the tooth. Upon review, it dates back to at least 1973 and possibly further back to 1967. It is evident that, back then, there were only three different status types of municipalities – cities, towns and villages – with different incorporation requirements. In 2005, the Act was amended to provide the opportunity to pursue a fourth incorporated local government or municipal status type – rural community. In 2013, it was amended again to enable a fifth incorporated local government or municipal status type – regional municipality. Thus there are five status types enabled by the Municipalities Act that all walk and talk like incorporated local governments (i.e. municipalities). It is unfortunate that semantics in both the Act and the webpage make this confusing. It is evident that the spirit and intent is that there are five different municipal status types providing local government in the province, and such is acknowledged by Statistics Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency.

As for the minor reorganization, see how it deviates from the standardized organization implemented for the equivalent featured lists of municipalities in

Thanks for the info, I was unaware that conformity with homologous articles of other provinces was a requirement. I'm proposing a layout like that of the List of municipalities in Manitoba for these reasons:

• the Municipalities Act states: "'municipality' means a city, town or village".

Yes. This goes back to my long in the tooth comment. When the Act was amended in 2005 and again in 2013, the definition of 'municipality' should have been amended to "means a city, town, village, rural community or rural municipality", or re-termed as "'urban municipality' means a city, town or village" to disambiguate from the two other types of municipalities introduced by these amendments decades later. The GoNB has therefore created this semantics-based confusion. Hwy43 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This Revenue Canada page List of municipalities - New Brunswick groups municipalities together in one list, distinguished by type.

Yes. The feds therefore also see that there are truly five types of municipalities in NB (though they are missing the "Regional" prefix for Tracadie's status type). Hwy43 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This Government of NB page Types of Local Governments clearly states that there are four types of local government: Municipalities, Regional Municipalities, rural communies, and LSDs. --Cornellier (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, their semantics on the webpage, which is consistent with their semantics in the dated Act that has a definition that hasn't been updated properly, has created this current confusion.

If we think about the casual readers that visit this article that aren't as knowledgeable as us about the intricacies of municipalities in NB, the following article heading organization would create further confusion.

List of municipalities in New Brunswick

Municipalities

Cities

Towns

Villages

Rural communities

Regional municipalities

List of municipalities

etc.

The consequence is we get casual readers asking questions like "does this mean rural communities and regional municipalities aren't municipalities?"; "if so, why are they even mentioned in this article?"; etc. At the end of the day, how many types of

WP:SYNTH

?

List of municipalities in New Brunswick

Urban municipalities

Cities

Towns

Villages

Rural communities

Regional municipalities

List of municipalities

etc.

If there is consensus that this would not be inappropriate, I suggest this would be an ideal compromise.

As for LSDs, they are not incorporated municipalities, whereas LGDs in MB are incorporated municipalities. This is why LSDs are not included in this article. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second idea can't work because villages are not urban. You asked "how many types of incorporated municipalities, as the concept generally known and understood by society, exist in NB?" Well the NB government answers that at Types of Local Governments. There are three.

• municipalities: towns villages and cities according to size
• regional municipilities
• rural communities

We should present it as the government does. Anything else, justified by not confusing the "casual reader", could be "violating

Hi Cornellier, I have put some further thought on this. Just waiting for Mattximus to return and weigh in. Hwy43 (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider my related remarks at WikiProject_NB. --Cornellier (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that the Municipalities Act was replaced by the Local Governance Act in 2017.

Also, the provincial government itself is inconsistent in stating in press releases and web documents whether rural municipalities and the regional municipality are distinct from municipalities. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed the same in Alberta. Sometimes the provincial government says special areas, improvement districts, and Metis settlement are municipalities and other times they aren't. It is frustrating because we like to strive for things to be perfect and non-contradictory on here.

Based on Timothy's advisement (thank you) about the new Local Governance Act (LGA), I am going to try to re-articulate a different way to reveal that both Cornellier and I are correct in different ways. At Municipality, it states "In Canada, municipalities are local governments established through provincial and territorial legislation...". The terms municipality and local government are effectively synonymous in Canada. Drilling down however to the New Brunswick context, according to the LGA, "local government" means a municipality, rural community or regional municipality and "municipality" means a city, town or village. This means that they are not synonymous according to New Brunswick legislation, so I now understand, more than previously, where Cornellier is coming from. Rather, "local government" is an umbrella term above "municipality" instead.

To recap, Cornellier sees it as three types (bolded in light grey cells) based on legislated definitions whereas I see it as five types, or three types where one type has three sub-types, based on how municipalities are generally synonymous with local governments in Canada (italicized in light grey cells). I hope the above helps understanding of where my concerns are coming from.

Ultimately, we are tasked with determining if the organization of the list article should fully match the legislative hierarchy/definitions or what is generally understood in the Canadian context. If there is consensus to do the former, I have put some thought together on how to do so while respecting the theme and approach applied across all provincial/territorial entries in the scope of the List of municipalities in Canada topic. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the average reader the most important thing would be to use what is generally understood in the Canadian context. I think the table by Hwy43 sums up the two competing categorizations. I understand where the 3 categories (with 3 sub categories) comes from, however to prevent confusion with the very title of this article, I recommend keeping the organization as we have it, with a comment mentioning that New Brunswick categorizes cities towns and villages as "municipalities" distinct from regional and rural municipalities in the lead. I believe a line to this effect in the lead will allow us to keep the 5 categories and reduce confusion while still being true to the concerns raised above. This is just my 2 cents. Mattximus (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A fine distinction that's meaningless or unknown to most people (even many who work in the field) gets in the way of usefulness when it comes to writing articles.

Rural communities and the regional municipality are quasi-municipalities but retitling the article List of municipalities and quasi-municipalities in New Brunswick would be absurd. Changing to List of incorporated communities in New Brunswick seems to slide into the "distinction without a difference" logic fallacy. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I'll go with the flow. I suppose I was motivated by a (too?) literal interpretation of the NB Government's Types of Local Governments, and a desire to keep things simple. But as has been pointed out, the term "municipality" is overloaded. Also, the term "village", "town", "city" often make up part of a municipality's official name. So Infobox settlement should be populated as follows (?):

• settlement_type: one of

• Village
• Town
• City
• Regional municipality
• Rural community
• county
• parish
• Local service district

The first five will have to link to List of municipalities in New Brunswick for now. government_type could be populated with the same values except parish and county. --Cornellier (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For City in the infobox you could alternately link to List of cities in New Brunswick. There were separate lists for towns, villages and rural communities but they were successfully AFDed arguably without satisfactory consultation (e.g. the New Brunswick, Canadian community, and Canadian geography WikiProjects weren’t notified). I might RfC two or all three of them in future with additional detailed content on current towns/villages, lists and details about former towns/villages, etc. Hwy43 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All-encompassing table or template

Thanks Hwy43. What do you think about having an all-encompassing list like this:

Might not be too onerous to build the first time if I take a CSV file from the governement site and do a scripted transform into a wikitable. Obviously this will create more maintenance work for the

I like your thought process but what that AfD discussion failed to consider is

WP:NOTPAPER, etc., and that sub-lists by status can be expanded to be more than a duplicate by adding additional details. Look at how List of towns in Alberta has much more additional content on towns than the main municipalities list at List of municipalities in Alberta. The proposed AfDer for the NB sub-lists has sights set on List of towns in Prince Edward Island based on comments at the current FLC discussion for List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island. I've since taken initial steps of following the Alberta approach, taking it from this to this, but I have more work to do. I am currently researching former municipalities by every status across every province and territory so that I can start integrating more former municipalities in each sub-list article.

I think the best solution to take the load off gnomes from having to update with, for example, new census info that would need to be repeated on two or more articles of slightly different scope is to build a template. Say you build the above table for all CSDs in NB as a template instead. It could then be placed on List of communities in New Brunswick in its entirety (your proposed table is most appropriate there because that list article's scope is both incorporated and unincorporated communities). It would be built with invokable parameters to only display cities, towns, villages, rural communities and regional municipalities for use when placing the template on List of municipalities in New Brunswick, and then only the cities parameter invoked for display at List of cities in New Brunswick. The gnomes then only have to update the template once every five years in one location rather than updating in three different tables every five years. Compound this across all provinces and territories and their statuses, a huge load would be lifted. This is something I want to do, though I have never created a template before and am not familiar with its necessary additional coding.

What are your thoughts on that being an ideal long-term solution? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I like your template idea. I'll take a crack at developing one. Templates do take parameters, so it's conceivable that all of the, say, census data for a province could live in one template, and then be displayed as a subset on the page for a county or city. That template could even be built programmatically once every five years by parsing a downloaded data set from statcan. Here's another idea: Statistics Canada has exposed all 2016 census data for a geo of interest via an API which responds with JSON. For any non-programmers reading this, it means that we could create a template which would take as a parameter the GEO_UID of a place, then fire off a query to statcan to retrieve pop data. We do something like this when we add {{Coord}} to {{Infobox settlement}} and use that to build a map based off information at OpenStreetMap. See Fredericton for an example of how I did that. Ideal long-term solution? Those are hard to come by in the ever-changing world of IT, but I think this could be a fruitful line of investigation. --Cornellier (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Could you sandbox a quick and dirty template showing how the API/JSON routine accesses StatCan data to enable this non-programmer’s understanding? Also, some questions about parameters. In my mind I have parameters that toggle on and off rows within the table template based on the scope of article. Can parameters also toggle on and off columns in the template? Can they also switch the names of column headings? Using your quick table above as an example in relation to the current table at List of municipalities in New Brunswick, there would be parameters that: toggle on columns for 2011 population, percent change, population density, and incorporation date; toggle off the governance and county columns; and change the "CSD type" heading to read "Municipality type" or simply "Type"? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as of 2023, according to this GNB page, the province is subdivided as follows:

• Local governments ("also commonly known as municipalities")
  • cities
  • towns
  • villages
  • rural communities
  • regional municipalities
• Rural districts

--Cornellier (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how rural communities and regional municipalities are now properly nested alongside the other three types. The province corrected its unintentional semantics error introduced in the 2000s this time around, at least on the GNB page. The page still isn’t perfect however as there is no acknowledgement of reserves, which will be voids in the fabric of local govs/munis and rural districts. Hwy43 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The table refers to census units; local governments are a different matter. The discussion below deals with this. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the table at the top of this thread, CSD type remains the proper column title due to the presence of reserves (and we are assuming StatCan will create the new CSD type of rural districts, which will eventually be confirmed once StatCan’s interim list publishes the adjustments). Hwy43 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, someone is going to be bold by editing the table that lists all municipalities to match the outcome of the recent local governance reforms. This would be problematic because we have no amended census data for those municipalities that experienced boundary changes. My suggestion is, instead of replacing or editing the existing table, simply adding a second table that lists the post-reform municipalities. More specifically, it would simply share the first four columns of the existing table but exclude the final five columns because no census data is available. This means the existing table goes untouched other than branding it as the pre-reform list of municipalities. I will implement this at some point. Once the 2026 census results come out in early 2027, we can return to having just one table. Happy to receive feedback on this suggestion in the meantime. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable but the first table would need an introductory note stating the the second table exists. I've already had to revert a couple of bad edits elsewhere that stated a former municipality was now included in the census data for a neighbouring rural CSD without bothering to adjust the numbers to new figures, which of course haven't been released yet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection headings would negate the need for an introductory note. We aren’t writing a user manual. Articles shouldn’t have content that describes “how to” use the article. Hwy43 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to StatsCan asking if there's a release date for data based on the new municipal boundaries. The response: "The data you are requesting is not available as a standard product. However, it may be available through a custom order (fees may apply)."

Not much help there. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StatCan’s interim lists are published annually, usually in the fall. It will either be reflected in this year’s forthcoming list or, due to the volumes of changes, next year’s list. For all the recent changes in PEI, it wasn’t until the second edition after the effective dates of the changes that the adjustments were published. It is assumed the delay was due to the volume of changes. Hwy43 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A second response from StatsCan: "The next release for New Brunswick (NB) census data based on the new municipal boundaries effective January 2023 would be included in the release of the Census of Population 2026 data. At this time, Census 2026 release dates have not been determined." G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that @g Walton will continue to have a alternative motive (perhaps political or bureaucratic), and I would like to develop a test for this theory by requesting a consensus involving the community of contributors. But in the meantime, I am asking that a simple and current list of municipalities and perhaps near municipalities in New Brunswick be established without accompanying paraphernalia. Questions? Seconder? Spooninpot (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idiom is ulterior motive and no, I don't have one. I'm quite open in my motive of trying to make information on our governance, past and present, accurate and accessible.

If you want a full list of current municipalities, you can find that on the 2023 New Brunswick local governance reform page, though I don't actually maintain that or this beyond fixing typos if I see them. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and to the question @G. Timothy Walton? Spooninpot (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valley_Waters Spooninpot (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which question? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is a page about a community strictly about it's governance @G. Timothy Walton? Spooninpot (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It should be about its history, its places, its people, and so on, and so on. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: Do you think it would be reasonable to use some sort of markup in the table to indicate which municipalities weren't significantly affected by the reforms? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you had in mind? Hwy43 (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I was thinking of places where the boundaries were only slightly affected—no longer cutting across properties, for example—and not worth noting in the Regulation other than showing up on the new maps. A single shared footnote or cell colour should suffice.

Let me just check the Reg, and I'll give you a list.

• Saint John
• Quispamsis
• Rothesay
• Belledune
• Fredericton Junction
• Grand Manan
• McAdam
• Memramcook
• Neguac
• New Maryland
• Tracy
• Campobello Island
• Tracadie
• Upper Miramichi

There, that's all. Maybe a note stating that "these are the only municipalities whose census population data should be unaffected" would be the most accurate way of putting it. Campobello Island is probably the only municipality that had no boundary adjustments at all. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 14 municipalities above that were continued as they existed already have the note stating "The 2023 local governance reform did not affect Foo." I am doubtful there is a source that verifies "where the boundaries were only slightly affected—no longer cutting across properties" and/or "these are the only municipalities whose census population data should be unaffected". Such requires

WP:SYNTH at best. Hwy43 (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Whatever. The fact remains that any municipality other than those should not be noted as unaffected because the regulation only noted changes when they affected populated areas. Call it original research or whatever epithet you wish, a simple visual comparison of the new municipal maps with electoral map, highway maps, maps in the previous regulatons defining LSDs, municipalities, rural communities, and Tracadie all show that almost every single boundary in the province was changed, even in cases where no change is noted in the text. There's avoidance of original research and then there's sticking one's head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and pretending nothing happened.

Change the footnotes to "the text of the regulation did not mentioned any change in boundaries" or whatever. Strip off the absurd and misleading footnotes that such-and-such was unaffected except for annexing some unincorporated areas. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating 2021 population solely on municipalities affected is misleading in many cases due to the number of LSDs included. The 2021 census figures now list many of them with their parish CSDs and they should be included in calculations, marking those that are impossible to calculate due to the division of some LSDs by multiple new bodies. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RonCanada: please remove the final column. It is original research and in many cases incorrect as explained by GTW. Also please apply proper references to all remaining columns. This is a featured list. A bare bones reference with just a url in the title of the table is not sufficient. Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With no action, I have deleted the column myself now that I have some free time. Hwy43 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it looks like types of communities and census data both appear in multiple citations. Could somebody with the time and inclination do whatever updates and mergers are necessary? Thanks. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What citations are you referring to? #1, #7 and #23 are similar but all different. Hwy43 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

#1 and #7 can be merged; add in #23 if you're willing to combine two sources in the same citation. I guess #5 and #9 are different enough to leave alone. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

#1 and #7 should not be merged as #7 cannot verify "eighth-most populous" and "third-smallest province by land area". #1 on the other hand can verify as it lists all provinces in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is transcluded from List of communities in New Brunswick and List of villages in Canada. Transclusion isn't working correctly at all, as both of these articles show duplicated sections and terrible layout. It seems like this article is meant to provide the <section name=towns> for transclusion, but it looks like the end of the section is never detected and the balance of the article is transcluded instead -- disrupting the rest of the referencing article. I believe this used to work correctly, but I don't think there's a good way to figure out what change may have caused the problem.

Does anyone have insight into the way transclusion was meant to work here, before it was disrupted? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a peak. I think I know what went wrong and when. Hwy43 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities in New Brunswick#Towns and villages is fixed, though I disagree with them being bundled together. Hwy43 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed in both locations with additional fixes at the former, including the uncoupling of towns and villages. Hwy43 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]