Talk:List of municipalities in Ontario

Untitled

To GaryWill's edits: District in some places is synonymous with Region. The term needs to be clarified because Ontario's municipal structure is all ready screwed up and confusing enough without using terms people can misconstrue. This is a big problem with Ontario government propaganda. Wiki is not part of the Government Propaganda Machine.WikiWoo 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of this list? It's pretty much the same as List of census subdivisions in Ontario. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is the municipal structure of Ontario with the Single and Double Tier municipalities categorized. Ontario has a very complicated patched up network of different structures not found in many other places of the world. I initially refered to it as the "unique structure of Ontario" and this has been evolving from there. The Census Divisions as a list is something different and it lacks any informative structure.WikiWoo 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To OsgoodeLawyer: I had all Single-Tier together in one list. You kept saying they are not all single tier. I prooved you wrong. So now you want to confuse which is single tier and which is within or (under as some people might read it) a district. In the US and other places District are like Regional Government and you are perpetuating the propaganda by confusion out Municipal Master create in Ontario to keep everyone confused. We have a confused municipal structure on purpose because it facilitates corruption in our municipal government levels by our non-elected senior administrators in power for life.WikiWoo 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo: the list CLEARLY states what is a single tier and what is dual tier in the first-rank headings. You don't need to reiterate that in the second-rank headings. If you want to make things clearer, what you should be doing is writing a blurb about each type under the heading. That way the headings, which are already unambigous, despite what you claim, can stay simple and you can get your point across that districts are not counties. (Although this is already stated in one of the paragraphs--how many times do you intend to state the same thing in your work?) OzLawyer 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok the way you have it now is less ambigious. I am not sure about the part that none of the ones you have listed as found in districts where never double tiers. There was a lot of activity with municipalities going single tier that were under other tiers over the last 10 years and the list keeps getting longer as more of them go Single-Tier. Where did you get the part about each of those never being under another tier? Muskoka for one had separation that I recall. I can't find the source of you info for your list. WikiWoo 23:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Muskoka is not in Northern Ontario. OzLawyer 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are these municipalities?

Neither the government site [1] nor AMO [2] list these as municipalities: Akron, Wawa, Shedden, Searchmont -- all in Algoma District. Do we have better information that says they are municipalities? --Gary Will 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Wawa is in Michipicoten Township. I think the others are also in townships. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the MAH link is this Disclaimer... The information is provided as a public service and is not an official list of municipal names. Although we endeavor to ensure that the information is as current and accurate as possible, errors do occasionally occur. Therefore, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information. Readers should verify the information before acting on it by contacting municipalities directly to confirm official municipal names. Although the list has been carefully prepared, the Ministry does not accept any legal responsibility for the contents of the list or for any consequences, including direct or indirect liability, arising from its use. This is the disclamer on the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They created them and even THEY don't know for sure what has been accumulated of the years in the close to 500 municipalities in Ontario they created...Says a lot about Ontario's Municipal Affairs, hey?. As far as AMO is concerned I would not trust a word they say or publish as an association. It's basically a group of Publicly Employed Gangsters. Ask the Mayor of Toronto David Miller even he said so. Its a self-serving club of corrupt bureaucrats and the politicians that bend over to serve them.WikiWoo 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be foolish. Wawa has never been a municipality. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the four off the list, and that gives us 445 municipalities, which is how many the government and AMO say there are. --Gary Will 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently deleted See also link

This link goes to a page which is a recreation of one which was recently deleted through AfD. It has a slightly different name, but it is clearly the same article. As such, it will be deleted. In addition, if anything could be done to save that page (but seeing as it's a recreation of a deleted page, it should be speedied), it would be adding information which would be better on this page. OzLawyer 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"found within..."

First off, it is incorrect to speak of being found in "census divisions" because that would imply that the counties and RMs are not census divisions themselves, and they are. And secondly, why do you keep insisting on reiterating the same information in your edits? The fact that districts are not municipalities is already clearly stated in the article. We don't need to keep saying the same thing over and over. I assure you that people can read. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New amalgamation

There are now 444 municipalities in Ontario (as of 2009), I will change this number on the main page but I can't find which ones amalgamated. So there is one municipality on this list that no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Toronto

The City of Toronto is not subject to the Municipal Act, 2001 (see s. 7.1 of the Act), but rather is unique in Ontario in that it has its own complete governing statute (City of Toronto Act, 2006) (there are are municipalities with their own statutes in Ontario, but none of them displace the Municipal Act as is the case with Toronto). I don't care how this information is presented in the article (so feel free to revise my edit), but I thought it was sufficiently important to mention (given how the Municipal Act was described in the first few paragraphs). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Skeezix1000. Definitely important to mention. Hwy43 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Municipal restructuring

I reverted this addition of municipal restructuring content because its placement at the end of the first paragraph in the lead interrupted the flow and the two references provided didn't support the content (the first of the two was a deadlink though). I do however think it would be great to have this type of content, properly referenced, added to the article within a new "Municipal restructuring" section. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

Does anyone know how to format the second table so that the images can be on the right of the table instead of on top with a lot of white space? Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Try adjusting your screen resolution. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Area reverts

I've noticed some back and forth editing regarding the area statistic in the lead. I think it's important to remain consistent with our list which features land area for each municipality (the amount of lake is irrelevant for the purpose of this article, people generally don't live on water, and this is about government and it's relation to human geography, not physical geography). I will revert this edit assuming good faith, and await any compelling reason to go against the purpose of this article and include water area in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

When we compare provinces, territories, countries, for the purpose of government entities, we normally include all the area that is under the jurisdiction of thes entities. People live, work, play, hunt, fish, drink, use vehicles, build, etc on every part of the territory, land and water. Laws (statutes, bylaws etc) are made, federally, provincially (or what ever the divison), and municipaly (all levels) that often include the water ways. The provinces, do not end at the shore line of a lake/river/etc, their jurisdiction is over their whole territory (yes given their "powers" vs "federal"), for example provincial authorities enforce blood alcohol boating laws, etc. Cities often have bylaws concerning swiming hours, for example, does their authority to enforce end at the shoreline? As a general comparaison of territories (country, province, territory, county, city) we usually use the whole area under the autthority we are talking about. As a comparaison, when someone says "average", it usually refers to the mean, not the mode or median. There are many different ways to compare "largest" "territory", this is the most common, most understood, most expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotWillyWonka (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read your argument, and it makes sense for many contexts, but not for these particular lists. For featured lists, the lead is a summary and reflection of the list itself, which uses land area. Unless you want to change all 444 municipalities of Ontario to land area + water area then there is a disconnect and the article no longer meets featured list criteria. I think it's just easier to keep it consistent with land area. In fact, if you insist, you would have to change the tables for all 13 provinces and territories (several thousand municipalities, or days of work), as well as the leads from all provinces. The lead must reflect the table, so either you change both or none. Frankly, it's a monumental task for such a small change.

Also note, that we are consistent with statistics Canada usage see [[3]] Mattximus (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I posted on my talk page, the standard among all lists within Canada's List of municipalities in... topic is "land area" in both prose and in the tables themselves. Cherry-picking "total area" (land + freshwater) for the benefit of Ontario in prose is inconsistent among all lists within the topic and incongruent internally with the "land area" columns in the tables within the article. (It is recognized that Ontario's rank as second-largest in total area is valid, which is why I embedded this note. Not sure if this edit was noticed.)

There is no compelling reason provided above to justify why the province's "total area" must be front and centre in the opening sentence of an article when all areas in the balance of the article (8 in prose, 440 municipality entries and 4 summed areas) are "land areas". Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty pictures

This "List of municipalities in Ontario" is a list and there is no need for any of those superfluous photos. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article especially when they disrupt the prime purpose of the article - which is to the list of details about Ontario's municipalities. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but this list is a FL. Per #5(b) at WP:FLCR, a FL must have images and other media, hence these photos. Inclusion of these types of photos and formatting oddities due to different screen resolution choices have not been issues that prevented successful WP:FLC reviews for this list and subsequent nominations for the equivalent lists for four provinces and three territories. Hwy43 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to force the table to conform to a certain width that allows the images to be on the right side of the table? Although my screen has the images on the right side, I tried another and found them all stacked above the table with lots of white space. This isn't a problem for the other lists. Any formatting ideas to keep the table and images in place? Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Throw them out! They serve no purpose and disrupt the viewing of the list content. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It is a problem on other lists, as I discussed with you previously. This page layout issue affects at least the B.C. and Quebec municipalities list too; I suspect it affects all of them. Failing a good solution, I'm with Secondarywaltz here – it is probably better if the images get tossed (or at least hidden for now as 'comment code') so that they don't "break" the table layout on certain computer displays. --IJBall (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

They were present when we brought up to featured status, and they add nicely to the otherwise very long table, so they should stay. The question is how do we better format the table so they fit along the right side on certain screens. I've tried the other provinces on several screens and Ontario is the only one that caused a problem, and then only on one of the many screens I tried (a small laptop screen). It works fine on mine. Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

PS to IJBall, yes I read our exchange before, your issue stems from reading off a very small screen. There is happily a very easy solution for your case. If you are using chrome you can just zoom out 10% and it should fix the issue, also it will make browsing easier as well (my personal preference anyway). Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Mattximus (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect population

The population numbers for Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry are way off. The census division for this area is 111,164. Then you have to subtract Cornwall from that, because it's not part of the upper tier government, which has a population of around 47,000 and then you have to subtract Akwesasne for the same reason, with a population of around 10,000. The upper tier municipality is only responsible for a population of just over 50,000. I wonder how many other population mistakes there are in this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.19.52 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe your observation is correct. When the upper tier municipality table was built, it was probably built using the populations of them as census divisions, which would have been inclusive of any single tier municipalities and Indian reserves enclaved by the upper tier municipalities. This is something that should be audited and corrected accordingly with accompanying notes that explain why the population counts are no longer consistent with the sourced census division populations. There is at least one eager editor watching this page in addition to me that could pull this off in due course if you don't have the time to undertake yourself. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

By quick review, Bruce, Dufferin, Durham, Grey, Haliburton, Halton, Huron, Lambton, Lennox and Addington, Muskoka, Niagara, Northumberland, Oxford, Prescott and Russell, Waterloo, and York don't appear to have single tiers and thus should have accurate populations, unless there are Indian reserves in some of these. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. The IP editor was correct, Cornwall is not part of that Upper Tier Municipality. I've made the changes, but the Akwesasne figures have already been removed so no change was needed there. I also fixed the percent change and area/density figures. Mattximus (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Images

I had turned the images in the "List of local municipalities" section into a gallery at the top of the list because in the current style, if the browser window (or the screen) isn't wide enough, images and table get stacked above each other instead of side-by-side, leading to a few pages' worth of whitespace between the section heading and the beginning of the table. I just noticed that despite repeated comments about these formatting problems the images are present not because they are felt to improve this particular article but because, quote, "a FL must have images and other media, hence these photos", and since the article passed FL review with several pages' worth of whitespace (or with reviewers whose screens were wide enough to not notice the issue), that's not seen as an issue in need of a fix. I disagree with this fixation on the FL review; that should not stand in the way of improving the list. Apparently the style of gallery I had chosen, which displayed the captions only if one hovers the cursor over the images, was a little too fancy; I'll choose a different style of gallery. If there is some genuine benefit to the whitespace layout, I'd ask those reverting me to please explain it to me. Huon (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Status changes

Note that Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands changed its status from "town" to "municipality" on February 1, 2011 (see here). Similarly East Ferris and Strathroy-Caradoc have both changed from "township" to "municipality". Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.brockville.com/economicdevelopment/index.cfm?ID=260
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202093525/http://www.countyofperth.on.ca/about_perth_county to http://www.countyofperth.on.ca/about_perth_county

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of municipalities in Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160130070116/http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/invest/profile/membermunicipalities.asp to http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/invest/profile/membermunicipalities.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency under "Municipal sub-type"

If "Regional municipality" is given as a municipal sub-type for Muskoka and Oxford, "County" should be given for the three former unions of counties. The table currently gives "United counties" for the three former unions of counties. In addition to defining the municipal statuses, the Municipal Act, 2001 defines these three terms: "regional municipality", "county" and "local municipality". The official names of these three upper-tier municipalities begin with "United Counties of", and their census division type is "United counties". However, Muskoka and Oxford do not have names beginning with "Regional Municipality of", and do not have the census division type "Regional municipality".

The table of local municipalities gives the census subdivision type under "Municipal sub-type". If this list gives the census subdivision type, the table of regional municipalities and counties should give the census division type under "Municipal sub-type".

Although the names of the single-tier municipalities of Brant, Haldimand County, Norfolk County and Prince Edward are respectively County of Brant, Haldimand County, Norfolk County and County of Prince Edward, their census subdivision types are all "City". The table of local municipalities does give the correct census subdivision type under "municipal sub-type" for these four single-tier municipalities. "County" is not census subdivision type, but it is however a census division type.

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a lot to sort and digest, especially at this late hour. Will circle back on the weekend to respond/address. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: unions of counties, are there sources that can be provided that confirm each were simply "counties" and that they were "united counties" in name only (branding purposes only)? If so, we can note them as "counties" in that column rather than "united counties".

Re: Muskoka and Oxford, even though they retained district and county in their names, they were/are still regional municipalities. The Act states “regional municipality” means an upper-tier municipality that was a regional or district municipality or the County of Oxford on December 31, 2002. See the note associated with each entry.

Re: census division types, StatCan has a history of making errors in assigning proper census subdivision types. It has happened (and been corrected by StatCan) in Alberta (Wood Buffalo and non-existent county status) and is still present in at least one instance in BC (Northern Rockies) and apprarently here at the census division level (with unified counties actually potentially being counties and others). The municipal sub-type columns are intended to achieve consistency between the two tables and to overcome StatCan's errors where present, which is why the columns aren't titled as "Census (sub)division types".

Re: single-tier municipalities, it appears you are just making a comment, agreeing that the municipal sub-types in that table are correct since I am not seeing any "county" entries in that column. Hwy43 (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the point I was trying to make. I was thinking "local municipality" as a municipal sub-type for all local municipalities would be consistent although redundant if "regional municipality" is used as municipal sub-type for Muskoka and Oxford. "City" is a census subdivision type. "City of" is a name prefix of many local municipalities. "District municipality" is the census division type for the District Municipality of Muskoka. "Regional municipality", "local municipality" and "county" are defined in Municipal Act, 2001.

Local municipalities are no longer "Cities", "Towns", "Villages" or "Townships". Similarly, Muskoka is no longer a District municipality. In most cases census subdivision types match official name prefixes. I don't think StatCan made an error when assigning types to the Muskoka and Oxford census divisions. Their types match the name prefixes of Muskoka and Oxford.

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:897:70E3:1EFD:FB18 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking that the three former unions of counties fell under the definition of "county". The structure of Ontario is confusing. Subsections 455 (1), (2) and (3) of Municipal Act, 2001 assign new statuses to Ontario's municipalities. Subsections 455 (4) and (5) state that unions of counties and unions of townships discontinue to be as such. Section 4 of Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497 is about unions of counties. --2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:897:70E3:1EFD:FB18 (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are aware that there are only three municipal status types in Ontario as of January 1, 2003 – upper-tier, single-tier, and lower-tier municipalities. In the Municipal Act, "local municipality" is an umbrella term used to inclusively describe municipalities that are either single-tier or lower-tier municipalities. "Local municipality" is therefore not a municipal sub-type. Rather, it is a grouping of two municipal types. This article accurately reflects the definition and its relationship to the two municipal types. The resulting list of local municipalities, where single-tiers and lower-tiers are presented, has had its "Municipal sub-type" column renamed as "Census subdivision type" to address that municipal sub-types technically don't exist.

In the list of upper-tier municipalities, before we consider renaming the "Municipal sub-type" column and/or revising the column's content, we need to flesh this out a little further. First, in the Municipal Act, "regional municipality" is defined as "... an upper-tier municipality that was a regional or district municipality or the County of Oxford on December 31, 2002". It is my understanding that on December 31, 2002, Muskoka was a district municipality, and Oxford was a county. Despite their official legal names respectively remaining as the District Municipality of Muskoka and the County of Oxford to this day, based on the above definition, they are officially regarded as regional municipalities under the Municipal Act. This is why they are presented as regional municipalities under the "Municipal sub-type" column rather than district municipality and county respectively (which is what StatCan classifies them as in the census division realm).
If there is no disputing this, then second, it looks like we are down to "united counties" vs. "county". The Municipal Act defines "county" as "... an upper-tier municipality that was a county, including the Frontenac Management Board, on the day before this Act came into force". Do we have reliable and verifiable sources that confirm:

1. on December 31, 2002, the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville held "county" status;
2. on December 31, 2002, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell held "county" status; and
3. on December 31, 2002, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry held "county" status?

Hopefully this helps, and thank you for your patience. Admittedly I am having difficulty understanding what your thought process is trying to convey. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect census divisions

For the single-tier municipalities of Haldimand County and Norfolk County, two inexistent census divisions are given by the table of local municipalities. Haldimand and Norfolk are actually within the single census division Haldimand-Norfolk with the generic type "Census division". Similarly, the County of Brant and the City of Brantford are single-tier municipalities within a single census division with the generic type "Census division".

The reference for the census division column is List of Ontario Municipalities. On this government web page, the column "Geographic Area" was mistaken for a column of census divisions. The entities given in the column "Geographic Area" are the geographic areas defined in Schedules 1 and 2 of O. Reg. 180/03.

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Nice catch. We have two options. First is to change the column title to "Geographic area". Second is to correct the census division for the two entries and source to [4], [5] and [6]. Hwy43 (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the local municipality table gives "Sudbury" as the name of Greater Sudbury's census division. Greater Sudbury is actually within a census division of the generic type "Census division".

In provincial law, the City of Greater Sudbury and the District Municipality of Muskoka are respectively within the Territorial District of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Muskoka. In Schedule 2 of O. Reg. 180/03, "Sudbury" is the name of a geographic area defined therein. As I stated above, geographic areas defined in this regulation were mistaken for census divisions.

I believe the creation of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury did not create a hole in the Territorial District of Sudbury. I believe the Territorial District of Muskoka was never dissolved when the District Municipality of Muskoka was created. Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497 This means the area municipalities of Sudbury Region geographically overlapped both the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Sudbury. Three layers could not "fit" into the two layer system of census divisions and subdivisions. As a census division, Sudbury District excludes the geographic area of the former Regional Municipality of Sudbury - now the City of Greater Sudbury. The census division "Muskoka" has the type "District municipality" but not "District". There is a census subdivision for each lower-tier municipality of the upper-tier municipality of Muskoka.

It looks like there is some confusion between territorial districts and DSSAB districts. The districts for the ten DSSAB's are defined in O. Reg. 278/98. The article for Kenora District says it has a district seat. Both the articles for the District of Algoma and the District of Kenora give websites of a DSSAB. Notice there are actually two DSSAB districts in the territorial district of Algoma. I have posted on the talk pages of both these articles.

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:5D18:AB8C:E3F2:58E7 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Would an easy fix simply be renaming this column "Geographic Area", and provide the source you gave in the references? Mattximus (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a lot to sort and digest, especially at this late hour. Will circle back on the weekend to respond/address. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice catch on Greater Sudbury's census division as well. Not sure I am seeing any further action necessary as it relates to Muskoka, but if I am missing something, please advise. If you are requesting action on how districts are presented on this article, please advise as well. Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: my suggestion would be abandoning the current source for the Census division column and replacing with the sources I link in reply to the anon's first post under this thread. I think having both Census division and Geographic area columns would be too confusing and would clutter. It is already a very wide table to begin with. Thoughts? Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done: hearing nothing, I have implemented what I suggested on December 17, 2018. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Definition of "Single-tier municipalities"

The definition of "single-tier municipalities" here contradicts the one at List of census divisions of Ontario. Please see Talk:List_of_census_divisions_of_Ontario#Definition_of_"Single-tier_municipalities" for discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)