Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia

image:Nova Scotia Logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think anything should be able to be deleted unless a group as a whole "nation as one" would agree before access to this ? tell me what you really think thank you a concerned person 2603:7080:C43B:5600:191:48EC:49F8:E2CE (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted nine years ago, apparently for licensing issues and lack of fair use rationale. --DB1729^talk 01:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Outline of Nova Scotia is the latest addition to the collection of outlines on Canadian Provinces.

Wikipedia outlines are multipurpose. First and foremost, they are conceptual maps of their respective subjects, identifying what topics belong to the subject, and showing how the topics are related to each other (what belongs to what). This helps familiarize the reader with the subject, and helps him find what he needs, even if he didn't know that to start with.

Outlines also serve as tables of contents to Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, because most of the topics are also article titles, which are linked. This helps with navigation. Once a reader finds what he needs, one click, and he's there.

This outline has been given a good start, but it is incomplete. Many essential topics are missing. It needs more links.

It also needs maps, charts, and pictures. See Outline of Iceland, Outline of Japan, and Outline of Thailand for examples of good image support in outlines.

Please make this the best outline on Wikipedia. Here are the most closely related ones:

• Outline of Canada
  • Outline of Alberta
  • Outline of British Columbia
  • Outline of Manitoba
  • Outline of Ontario
  • Outline of Prince Edward Island
  • Outline of Quebec
  • Outline of Saskatchewan

For more information on how to develop an outline, see

Nova Scotian editors may want to weigh in at the current AfD on Sunnyside Mall.

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was surprised Wikipedia:Meetup/Halifax/Keshen Goodman editathon wasn't mentioned here when I saw a poster for this and was like hmmm I didn't see anything in Wikiproject Nova Scotia about this. So I thought I would mention it here since its in like 2 days. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Category:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Outcome was withdrawn by nominator as premature (though now proposed again a few threads below). Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment at

 Outcome was moved as proposed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, and particularly Plasma east, Earl Andrew, Homestramy20, Canadaolympic989 and WayeMason as the applicable article creators and applicable non-blocked previous article movers of:

• Chester Municipal District, Nova Scotia
  ;
• Digby, Nova Scotia (municipal district)
  ;
• Lunenburg, Nova Scotia (municipal district)
  ;
• Shelburne, Nova Scotia (municipal district)
  ; and
• Yarmouth, Nova Scotia (municipal district)
  .

Rather than copy and paste the entire discussion, I request that you review the comments on my CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 7#Category:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia and then comment below on my unofficial move proposal. I'm trying to gauge the level of controversy, if any, on a proposed move of the above five articles to the format of Foo, Nova Scotia (district municipality).

As a short summary, as I learned through collaboration with Mattximus on the FLC nomination for List of municipalities in Nova Scotia, the official legislated municipal status types in Nova Scotia are "towns", "regional municipalities", "county municipalities" and "district municipalities" (not "municipal districts"). From what I can glean, usage of municipal district appears to be an error on Statistics Canada's part that perpetuated itself onto Wikipedia as perceived common usage. I can't explain why StatCan has erred, but I can speculate it has something to do with the verbose official legal name format legislated to district municipalities (i.e., they all must be officially named "Municipality of the District of" Foo). So what is the general feeling on the following potential moves? Again, please see the CfD for greater detail to support my short summary above.

• Chester, Nova Scotia (district municipality)
  ;
• Digby, Nova Scotia (district municipality)
  ;
• Lunenburg, Nova Scotia (district municipality)
  ;
• Shelburne, Nova Scotia (district municipality)
  ; and
• Yarmouth, Nova Scotia (district municipality)
  .

If there is overwhelming opposition, I'll consider simply not putting in the effort into a formal requested move. If there is overwhelming support, I may ask if this discussion would be a satisfactory alternative to a formal requested move of the five articles and then the applicable category. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I am afraid. As awkward as it is, the

WP:COMMONNAME's are as "Municipal Districts" or Municipalities of Districts, or Municipalities. District is rarely used on its own as the primary discriptor. I think the districts really only exist as administrative zones, rather than cohesive communities. This is the usage on websites, legal names, etc. The five you've tagged promote themselves on their websites thusly - Chester is "Municipality of the District of Chester" on the text by "Municipality of Chester" in the logo[2], Digby is "Municipality of Digby" on the website [3], "Municipality of the District of Lunenburg" does refer to itself as the District of Lunenburg in its newsletter and also MODL which is cool [[4]], "Municipality of the District of Shelburne" [5], and "Municipality of the District of Yarmouth" or MODY on their site [6]. So 4 out of 5 use municipality as the primary one word descriptor, not district. WayeMason (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Further, I wonder if consistency would mean that we should (arg) make the article names "Municipality of the District of X". Queens, CBRM both are written out, Queens is about to have a name change to drop "Nova Scotia" from the title. Halifax officially had a policy passed to use the shortened name so that is a different thing. WayeMason (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PARENDIS (also at COMMONNAME), "(district municipality)" distinguishes from the other usages and meanings of "(municipal district)" in the province described above. Also, no matter what is conveyed on municipal websites, the official legal name of all 12 district municipalities follows the format of "Municipality of the District of..." per a review of legislation, which frustratingly I can't find at the moment (see the end of section 7 of the MGA). However, tThis is verified in the UNSM's membership directory (there is no dispute they may choose to alter their names for branding and marketing purposes, or arrive at a concise URL solution for navigation purposes on the web). Given the varying usages and the lack on clarity as to which of the two is most common usage (see my analysis of the Google News search at the CfD), there has been precedent set elsewhere across Canada to then default to what legislation states. Hwy43 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@WayeMason: have you had a moment to review the above? Anything further to add re: "municipal district" vs. "district municipality" for category naming purposes? Also, see revised article naming proposal below. Hwy43 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree there needs to be a change, and I am open to your change, but I'm also wondering why we don't just call them their (awkward, but official and commonly used) name "Municipality of the District of Chester", "Municipality of the District of Lunenburg", etc... then we won't need the qualifier "Nova Scotia" at least. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus and WayeMason, I would be open to moving all twelve district municipalities to their official legal names of Municipality of the District of ''Foo'', but the secondary purpose of this discussion is to determine what we should be calling these twelve municipalities as well – municipal districts v. district municipalities – to help inform the CfD when it is re-opened. Hwy43 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are absolutely correct, the Municipal Government Act[10] is the source we must use for the names found within. I can't see any controversy in changing that since it was an error in the first place. I thus support using the term district municipality, and I also support renaming the pages after the official name. Mattximus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above feedback, I believe both WayeMason and Mattximus are proposing the following for all 12 district municipalities:

• Argyle, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of Argyle
• Barrington, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of Barrington
• Chester Municipal District, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of Chester
  (Note: redirect previously impacted by one or more moves)
• Clare, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of Clare
• Digby, Nova Scotia (municipal district) → Municipality of the District of Digby
• East Hants, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of East Hants
• Guysborough, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of Guysborough
• Lunenburg, Nova Scotia (municipal district) → Municipality of the District of Lunenburg
• Shelburne, Nova Scotia (municipal district) → Municipality of the District of Shelburne
• St. Mary's, Nova Scotia → Municipality of the District of St. Mary's
  (Note: redirect previously impacted by one or more moves)
• Municipality of the District of West Hants
• Yarmouth, Nova Scotia (municipal district) → Municipality of the District of Yarmouth

If correct, I can support this. Due to all the possible variants of the names of these municipalities, determining the common name for all 12 would be quite difficult and surely the results would be inconsistent. There is precedent for erring on the side of official legal name elsewhere in Canada where common name is ambiguous (see the names of the articles listed at List of municipal districts in Alberta, List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan and List of rural municipalities in Manitoba as three examples). This also assures consistency among the article names of all 12. Thoughts? Hwy43 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support only the changes on your list, and oppose trying to determine if each has a unique common name, that will be arbitrary and difficult to prove. The consistency in your list is perfect for me. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, works for me, just this list WayeMason (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've processed ten of the twelve moves and have placed

technical move requests for the other two as I can't move them over their redirects. Hwy43 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:St. Mary's, Nova Scotia#Requested move 16 January 2017. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Mattximus and WayeMason:, with the two formal move requests now complete, I've reopened the CfD for Category:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 30#Category:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment at

• I can't speak to every NS municipality above but strong support for Chester move specifically. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Outcome was moved as proposed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment at

 Outcome was moved as proposed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no article on J.D. Shatford. Anyone want to help on that? Crazy to me, just crazy!  :) WayeMason (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was rename Category:District municipalities in Nova Scotia and leave redirect. Derek Andrews (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October is

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looking at Colchester County, it is not always clear which of these things the article is about:

• the historical county itself, which has no governance and does not collect taxes and does include include Truro, Stewiacke, and Millbrook 27.
• the Municipality of the County of Colchester which follows the boundaries of the county, but does not include Truro, Stewiacke, and Millbrook 27 but does include Bible Hill and Tatamagouche, although the latter two seem to have some tax collection ability and budget to provided services as Village commissions incorporated and operating under the Municipal Government Act.
• the regional municipality, which is a federal census area, and includes everything but Millbrook 27.

I mention it here rather than on the Colchester County talk page because I wish to understand how NS WP pages relate to actual local governance. It seems that the district municipalities have a separate page from the county page, but that the county municipalities do not. And county municipalities are absent from List of communities in Nova Scotia although the government seems to consider district and county municipalities as functionally the same e.g. here which states, I paraphrase: "There are three types of municipalities: Regional, towns, and county or district". --Cornellier (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing
  for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages...--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Canada|ns=yes|class=Project}}
{{todo}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}

Barreravikki (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting Margaret Sibella Brown ready for a GA review. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's only today that I noticed the article Keltic Lodge and templated it as an advertisement, but it's been that way for a decade. The article cites no independent sources. For improvement, or for AfD? -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moving convo to the article's the talk page --Cornellier (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

-

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the Wikipedia article about the history of Halifax and the HRM, currently found at

I've changed the proposed destination page to History of Halifax, Nova Scotia, because it's simpler. Carguychris (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to look at Halifax Explosion in popular culture and then weigh in with your opinion at Articles for deletion/Halifax Explosion in popular culture

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place, which may effect provincial/territorial politician bio leads. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate input at this RFC about Levesque. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]