Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Winnipeg[edit]

The article Winnipeg is on it's way to being a GA. Continue to improve it any way you can! GrooveDog 13:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) I would like to see more info on how the fur trading English (Brits) should be held responsible for the 'mistreatment'(for lack of a better word) of the Aboriginal/Metis people, and how unpaid land claims are still being fought and lost to this day![reply]

Manitoba Legislative Building[edit]

There are some edits happening at the Manitoba Legislative Building page that are not accurate. We need to have references for the information on the page too stop these edits once and for all. Can anyone assist me in this please? Zef 22:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoban Wikipedians[edit]

I've compiled a list at User:Mzajac/Manitobans, in case anyone has a use for it. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-07-26 19:31 Z

Morley Walker in the Winnipeg Free Press[edit]

Morley Walker wrote a column which appeared in last Saturday's Winnipeg Free Press, after an interview with 13-year-old Mitchell Duce, a Manitoban Wikipedia admin. The title is "Mastering the unruly mob: Winnipeg boy has hand in controlling what you see on volunteer-based Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia". —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 18:28 Z

Stonewall[edit]

Hi, I've done some updating of the Stonewall, Manitoba article and would appreciate it if someone could re-rate it and also give some advice on how to improve it. Thanks -- JD554 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Manitoba[edit]

The article, Geography of Manitoba, and particularly the section, Landscape past and present needs lots of work. There are accuracy and composition problems that should be addressed. I thought that a note here might be appropriate since this type of article will be a measurement of your projects success. This is a friendly "heads up" for whoever might take on the improvement of the article. Happy editing! --Stormbay 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Manitoba[edit]

The portal has been updated to include randomizing feature article, picture and biography. If any one knows of an article, or image of GA class or better to add to the portal that would be awesome! Should any other sections contain randomized rotating content as well for the WWW surfer seeing MBs finest on wikipedia? SriMesh | talk 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The news is delivered via robot, and all box sections rotate content, so the portal is always fresh. Please add new GA or feature articles, images, biographies, etc etc if you wish ( some rotating sections are still very small.). This portal does not contain the box sections of...DYK, quotations, help me - instructions about article or image addition to the portal, ask a question about Manitoba. Nor is there a topics section, as there is not any Topics of Manitoba template started. {IE Alberta / Saskatchewan Page - Vancouver topics ) Please advise if any of the other box sections should be added in rotation.
  • The Portal should showcase the best work of those who are involved with WP MB. SriMesh | talk 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads in Manitoba Cities[edit]

Another template for deletion by the same user arguing that templates inside templates are not good. See: the discussion--JForget 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Riel[edit]

Louis Riel has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Proposed deletions[edit]

  • 28 September 2007 - expires 3 October
Hell's Kitchen (Winnipeg) (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dauphin, Manitoba[edit]

Was (Is?) this fort, Fort Dauphin (Canada), in the same area as Dauphin, Manitoba. I am working on Peter Fidler (explorer) who is said to have died at Dauphin Lake House in 1822. See ABHistory article. Are these locations in Dauphin, Manitoba (rural municipality)? It would be interesting to connect these locations. --KenWalker | Talk 19:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As near as I can tell, there were three Fort Dauphins; the first a La Verendrye fort on Lake Winnipegosis, the second a French free traders fort on the north end of Lake Dauphin and a third on the south end of Lake Dauphin (could be Dauphin Lake House). Do not quote this because my sources are conflicting. Daupin, Manitoba took its name from one of these forts. The third would have been closest to Dauphin. If I find more, I will post it here with a source. --Stormbay 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg General Strike name change[edit]

Please see this debate and leave your feedback. User:Nightstallion is convinced that this and all general strikes should be lowercase and has changed all general strike article titles. Just like other significant conflicts, the Winnipeg General Strike should be treated as a proper noun and capitalized accordingly. bobanny 08:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early legislature[edit]

Hi, I need some help from Manitoba experts, does anyone know what building the Legislative Assembly met in before the Manitoba Legislature was built in 1920? I am ultimately trying to find out where the Temporary North-West Council met for legislative sessions before the Council moved to the Swan River Barracks in Fort Pelly in 1876. I believe it might have been wherever the Manitoba Legislature met but I can't find any sources at all and I'm frustrated. --Cloveious 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Manitoba[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of waterfalls of Canada[edit]

Please help to fulfill the dynamics of this list, List of waterfalls of Canada, and fill in any red link missing waterfall articles and their respective images. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank line after First Nations in Southern Manitoba template[edit]

What is going on with Template:First Nations in Southern Manitoba that it places a blank line after it? I've taken a peek at the template and don't see anything that would place an extra blank line. Would someone with more skill look into this and remove that blank line following the template? Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you whoever fixed that template. CJLippert (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Keewatin GAR request[edit]

Please check out the Council of Keewatin GAR request at the Canadian wikiproject notice board.... SriMesh | talk 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

List of universities in the Canadian Prairies[edit]

I have nominated List of universities in the Canadian Prairies for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba[edit]

I have nominated Manitoba for WP:peer review here. Please feel free to stop by and add your comments. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manitoba Memorial Lakes[edit]

I have nominated Category:Manitoba Memorial Lakes for a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 26#Category:Manitoba_Memorial_Lakes, where your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Manitoba articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's History Month[edit]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Manitoba will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Manitoba's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Transitway (Winnipeg)[edit]

I have just created an article for the NEW Southwest Transitway (Winnipeg). The entire subject of Winnipeg Transit seems such a poor sad cousin. Can anyone spare (a dime) some time? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for cleanup assistance at List of city nicknames in Canada#Manitoba[edit]

This section of this list article needs cleanup. In particular, references based on reliable sources (not user-generated media such as blogs, forums, tweets, etc.) for the numerous of nicknames are required, as well as weeding out editor-derived/questionable nicknames from the genuine nicknames of widespread usage. I've cleaned up the Alberta section, and am looking to the members of the applicable provincial/territorial WikiProjects to help out with the other sections including this one. Thanks, Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – expansion of the list with additional nicknames with references based on reliable sources welcome of course! Hwy43 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages.Moxy (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Police Service and Law, government, and crime in Winnipeg[edit]

I've added project banners to both Winnipeg Police Service and Law, government, and crime in Winnipeg. WPS has a lot of information but needs a cleanup/format/cite work, and Law, government, and crime in Winnipeg needs a lot of work, period. (PS: I'm not sure where to post this, if this talk page is not appropriate please let me know) --Ccyyrree (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local histories on Manitoba[edit]

There are lots of local histories books on the newly launched Manitobia site. Would it be appropriate to put that as a suggested resource somewhere on the Project Manitoba page? Manitobia Local Histories --Ccyyrree (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I have already been perusing them. Why not, right. Krazytea(talk) 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

URLs changed at www.gov.mb.ca[edit]

I noticed the following URL changes at the Manitoba government site:

which affect manitoba MLA biographical information. --Big_iron (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also

--Big_iron (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Hansard pages also seem to have been reorganized. For example,

--Big_iron (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AND

--Big_iron (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical information also appears as

--Big_iron (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets in Manitoba[edit]

Are hamlets an official sub-type of unincorporated community within Manitoba? If so, what are the minimum requirements to be designated a hamlet? In Alberta and Saskatchewan, unincorporated communities can only be recognized/designated as hamlets by the provincial government under certain situations. In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, hamlets are incorporated municipalities, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to the common understanding of the hamlet concept; being a small unincorporated community within a larger geographic unit. Similarly in Yukon, hamlets are local advisory area with an advisory councils.

Anyways, I am trying to determine if such an official designation exists in Manitoba, or if it is a term that is simply conferred to unincorporated communities within the Manitoba context. There is presently a Hamlets in Manitoba category with 178 articles assigned to it. If there is no official hamlet designation, I'd like to transfer all to the new parent Unincorporated communities in Manitoba category as unincorporated communities is an umbrella term that is generally regarded as inclusive of hamlets and other sub-types of unincorporated communities.

Thoughts from this provincial WikiProject community would be appreciated. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing nothing, I did some research. After registering at the Manitoba Land Initiative (MLI), I downloaded the "Geographical Names" GIS shapefile (SHP). Upon unzipping the download, I started Microsoft Excel and opened the extracted toponymic_layer_(utm).DBF file, which is the attribute table associated with the GIS shapefile. Within, I found the following features:
  • 473 places designated "Community", which is described as "an unincorporated populated place" (474 places actually due to Leaf Rapids incorrectly being assigned "Community" when it should be assigned "Town");
  • 4 places designated "Hamlet", which is also described as "an unincorporated populated place";
  • 554 places designated "Locality", which is described as "a named place or area, with or without a scattered population";
  • 57 places designated "Northern Community", which is described as "a populated place under the jurisdiction of the Northern Affairs Act"; and
  • 12 places designated "Settlement:, which is described as "a legally-designated land subdivision, usually with a scattered population. Metis settlements are included in this category."
Based on this, I will be recategorizing Manitoba unincorporated community articles based on their provincial designations within this table, which will result in the amount of hamlets in Category:Hamlets in Manitoba being reduced from 170 to 4. Hwy43 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, here is a list of the places by unincorporated community type downloaded from MLI. Hwy43 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

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]

1999 Alberta Report article on Winnepeg First Nations street gangs[edit]

I found a 1999 article from the Alberta Report on Winnepeg First Nations street gangs:

I don't know what other articles about this subject exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Manitoba articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live![edit]

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]

Manitoba Flag Variations[edit]

There appears to be some differences between the Manitoba flag in use today, and the version listed on the Canadian Heraldic Authority website. @Echando una mano: created versions based on the Heraldic one (the Bison is coloured differently) and replaced them all on Manitoba sites, but I don't think this should be done without consensus.

Personally, while the Canadian Heraldic Authority should be authoritative, that version of the flag is not the one that flies at the Legislature, City Hall, or listed on most federal and provincial websites. Perhaps it could be added as a variation to one of the articles, like Flag of Manitoba, but I don't think it's appropriate to replace what is being used de-facto. --  R45  talk! 14:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@R45:: l did the changes because there is only a flag model supported by the Canadian Heraldic Authority and I thought that it's better to help with a little more quality, but if you prefer a worse and non-official version of the flag, for me it's good. Regards. --Echando una mano (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Echando una mano: you don't need to take it as a personal attack, it's not. And it's also not about what I want. Changing the official flag used on all the Manitoba articles is a major change that should be discussed first, that's why I bring it here. I think there might be merit to including the Canadian Heraldic Authority version somewhere (especially since they are supposed to be the authority of flags and emblems). However we cannot ignore that the version of flag they list is not what is in use officially, so to refer as the current flag as "non-official" isn't quite accurate. The Manitoba Legislature does not fly that version of the flag, nor is it used on the Province's official website as well as several official Federal websites. It might be useful if we can find reliable sources that perhaps discuss variations in the flag, if any such sources exist, but we need to be careful not to get into original research over this. --  R45  talk! 16:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Fontaine[edit]

I have started an article regarding her murder, and would like others to review and contribute to it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relief maps[edit]

There has been a recent push by at least one user to convert all the pushpin maps to relief maps. I am not sure how I feel about this to be honest but I really do believe we should lean away from the alternative map and stick to the original. The relief map has its place, but in the infoboxes it becomes particularly busy and noisy. Most noticeably in a city infobox which is already filled with montages, seals, flags, etc. I think best to keep it simple but thought I would listen to others here first. Krazytea(talk) 05:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered the same thing. You may want to post notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities and WP:CANTALK to capture the input of a wider audience as these changes have been occurring across the country. Hwy43 (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will do that and see if we come to any consensus. Thanks! Krazytea(talk) 16:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example? That kind of change is pretty major, and should have discussion and consensus, in my opinion. PKT(alk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Examples, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Regina, Saskatchewan, Brandon, Manitoba, Calgary, Edmonton. Krazytea(talk) 17:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey WikiProject Manitoba, I'm a new editor, planning to be around for awhile and be able to make a contribution. Let me start here by weighing in on this relief map question.
First, @PKT: as an example of each -> pushpin:Beausejour, Manitoba, relief:Emerson, Manitoba. @Krazytea:, this is the distinction you are describing, correct? So, a few thoughts:
  • Consistency among pages with a Manitoba map in the infobox seems to me to be of significant, if not primary importance. Looking at the two svg file pages shows that currently <50 pages link to the relief map version, while >500 link to the non-relief version. The effort involved in converting them all to the relief map would only be worth it if there was a major benefit to be gained. I'm not convinced there is one.
  • While the relief map does provide more information in one sense (topography), I'm not sure how many readers are interested in that information. And it provides less information in another sense in that it lacks the inset map providing Manitoba's location in Canada. My guess would be that this sense is of greater interest to readers. Adding the inset to the relief map would solve this problem, but it would also make an already visually busy image (as Krazytea points out) even busier.
  • Readers interested in the topography of Manitoba will most likely go directly to Manitoba, so the relief map should definitely be available in the appropriate Manitoba#Geography section (it is), and in the Geography of Manitoba article (it currently isn't, the relief map currently there is of lower quality IMHO).
  • One thing I find curious about both maps is the inclusion of the Census Division boundaries with no indication of what they are. It took me awhile to even figure it out. Why Census Divisions and not Rural Municipalities, or regions? I realize this is a fork of the current discussion.
(Okay, so it looks as though all of the Canadian provincial maps were created by a German or Dutch user back in 2009, and I'm guessing Census Divisions were something consistenly applied across the country. If I'm walking down an old, old path here, please forgive me)
I'm favouring the pushpin over the relief map, is what this all amounts to. Interested to hear what others think. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relief maps have their place, but I think in the infobox simple is best, and I would recommend going back to the normal map. It is important to be consistent between cities though. Mattximus (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we need for community articles is context maps. I have found that the pre-existing maps that have been subject to replacement achieve this with a balanced blend of political and physical map attributes without overwhelming on the physical side (similar to Nerdgoonrant's comment, I'm more partial to RM boundaries for Manitoba than census divisions). While the relief maps are attractive, they overwhelm a tad by including elevation relief in addition to other pre-existing physical geography features such as lakes and rivers. I'm leaning to going back to the previous maps. Also, to be fair, we should ping Jonathanbuffett to comment on this conversation as one of the editors replacing the maps with relief versions. Not sure if there are others doing the same. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The simple pushpin map should be the standard. This is not just for consistency with other Manitoba places, but also for consistency with other provinces and countries, in other words, consistency with the entire WP. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the relief style map better but consistency is important and the other one is already widely implemented so I would be open to having either in place. Air.light (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind on this. I agree with the OP here and think that the relief style map is too busy for the infobox. I prefer the original/default style of map. Air.light (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also prefer including land relief in the map – much better than showing census divisions (what's the point?), or even municipalities which are at least more informative but also probably more distracting since there's over 100 of them. The choice to emphasize natural features over political divisions à la Canadian Geographic is also more in the spirit of the 21st century than solid-colour blotches which are rooted in a tradition of European colonialism – remember how maps used to have all the British colonies in pink? However, there are legitimate concerns with the use of this particular relief map (lacks an inset, still uses CD boundaries, maybe we could tone down the colours and shading so it's less busy, etc.) and we shouldn't make large-scale changes until we get a solid consensus for a map. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Citizens Coalition[edit]

Hi, the article Winnipeg Citizens Coalition has been tagged notability since 2008. I wonder if a member of this project can have a look and determine whether the article should be improved or nominated for deletion/PROD. All the sources listed in the article are local, and I cannot find anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is right on the GNG borderline, I think. Nothing links to it, there are no other references to it that could be linked, the second Kives article isn't really a citation, because it doesn't mention the WCC by name, one of the links is dead and apparently unfindable. I don't think many people locally even remember what it was - ie. it had no lasting impact. And I'm speaking as someone who was at the founding meeting! Actually, having said all that, it isn't really on the borderline. I'd say it's not notable and could be RfD'd. nerdgoonrant (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2200 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1300 articles in 3 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts[edit]

Just wanted to remind the participants here about the Article alerts section over at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manitoba#Article alerts. For those interested in finding out more about Article alerts, please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Alerts in The Signpost. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Merger discussion of articles affected by municipal amalgamations[edit]

Consensus was to maintain the status quo.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to open up general discussion regarding the status of pages of former municipalities in Manitoba, due to the recent amalgamations. Should the pages of RM of Albert, RM of Arthur and RM of Edward be merged into Municipality of Two Borders, for example. I think that former towns/villages should maintain their status, but all others should be merged into their new municipal entities, but what do you think? FUNgus guy (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this here. There is at least two distinct scenarios here to discuss and a possible third, so I'm going to suggest we subsectionize this discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fungus Guy, you indicated we could close the first discussion below. It sounds like from the below and on my talk page you are in favour of maintaining the status quo on the second as well. If so, shall we close that discussion as well and remove all the merge tags from the affected articles? Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43, yes of course. FUNgus guy (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former urban municipalities[edit]

  • I think we are in agreement on all former urban municipalities (i.e., the former towns and villages). They should retain their own articles. They are now unincorporated communities under the jurisdiction of the new rural municipalities (RMs) formed out of the amalgamations. Their scenarios are now no different than the other unincorporated communities administered by RMs throughout the province with their own articles. These other unincorporated communities have their own articles because they are notable despite not being incorporated communities. Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say we keep them all, especially the ones that have status as Local Services Boards. Although maybe we should talk about where a town (Gilbert Plains) and an RM of the same name (RM of Gilbert Plains) merge into a municipality of the same name (Gilbert Plains Municipality). Same with Ethelbert/Ethelbert/Ethelbert, Grandview/Grandview/Grandview, Hamiota/Hamiota/Hamiota, McCreary/McCreary/McCreary and Rossburn/Rossburn/Rossburn. FUNgus guy (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would not support merging articles of former urban municipalities with their new amalgamated municipalities on the basis of sharing the same given name. These former urban municipalities are now unincorporated communities. There is longstanding consensus that unincorporated communities can have their own articles if notable, whether they have the same given name as the larger governing rural municipality or not. There are numerous precedents in Alberta (i.e., Lac La Biche, Alberta and Lac La Biche County; Minburn, Alberta and the County of Minburn No. 27; Thorhild, Alberta and Thorhild County) and presumably Saskatchewan where there are separate articles for the rural municipalities and the unincorporated communities sharing the same given name. There is no exception to the established consensus to merge in situations where given names are shared. Hwy43 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize my December 12 comments, I support keeping articles on all former towns and former villages, which means no exceptions for former towns/villages that share the same given names of their successor amalgamated municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we can close this discussion. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support keeping articles on all former towns and villages. These communities are separate and distinct, even if administratively these have now been merged into larger geographical areas. Even large cities have separate pages for their neighbourhoods and communities so I see no reason to merge these in now. Further, the new provincial government views the rural areas of the province differently and this may all be moot in a couple years. Krazytea(talk) 19:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former rural municipalities[edit]

  • I'm going to do a little research before commenting on the former RMs. In the meantime, note there are at least two different subscenarios here of which we should be cognizant — (1) where only one RM was involved in the amalgamation, and (2) where two or more RMs were involved in the amalgamation. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Column 1: Grey, Mossey River and Sifton did not change names, so they should stay as they are. RMs that became "municipalities" should be merged into their new "municipality" page (they're called "municipalities" but are RMs in disguise).

Column 2: There may be reason to keep some of these, but I don't see it. I say merge. The formerly-urban parts will most likely be their own pages, so it makes sense to merge the rural parts to the new amalgamation.

Column 3: Easy. Merge 'em all, in my opinion.

There is precedence for merging RMs into their new entities: Municipality of Shoal Lake was amalgamated back in 2011. The RM is a redirect to said page, while the former town, Shoal Lake, Manitoba, is maintained as a separate page. FUNgus guy (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops. Did most of my research and never finished up and returned. I'll commit to do so hopefully by Wednesday as my next two days at work are congested. As a teaser, my position will be the opposite on most if not all. Feel free to harass me on Thursday if you don't hear back from me by then. Hwy43 (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have changed the column headings above for accuracy. Every single merger was an amalgamation done by an amalgamation regulation under the authority of "The Municipal Amalgamations Act". Per these regulations, all original municipalities were "amalgamated" into new municipalities, and it was their original councils that were "dissolved". Also, I don't know if the second column is named properly in the first place as not all partner municipalities that amalgamated are listed in each entry. Hwy43 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All former municipalities are inherently notable as they are (or easily can be) "subject to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V" per CANSTYLE. Further, incorporated municipalities, whether current or former, "can always be referenced at least to Statistics Canada census data, and accordingly these should always have independent articles". Meanwhile, NOTPAPER states "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Thus, we are not prevented from keeping and maintaining separate articles for two things that merged in real life to create a new inherently notable thing worthy of its own new article.

The bottom line here is none of these former rural municipalities are the same municipalities in existence today. They are all different no matter what same, similar or hybrid official name format that is carried forward to their new amalgamated municipality. Their former municipal governments were dissolved in their entireties and replaced with new municipal government structures. The RM of Sifton that existed prior to 2015 is not the same RM of Sifton that exists today. Technically, the original is worthy of its own article entitled Rural Municipality of Sifton (1883–2014) and the amalgamated new municipality could rest at Rural Municipality of Sifton, which is similar to Old Toronto/Toronto and Lakeland County/Lac La Biche County. Transcending into another topic of articles, see Whitecourt Wolverines (2008–12) and Whitecourt Wolverines – exact same official name but different teams.

As for Shoal Lake, there is nothing preventing creation of Rural Municipality of Shoal Lake (1881–2010) to add to Rural Municipality of Shoal Lake, which could moved now to Rural Municipality of Shoal Lake (2011–14) since it also no longer exists. I hope someone boldly does, just as I hope that articles for the three municipalities that amalgamated to form the Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344 – Cory No. 344, Warman No. 374 and Park No. 375 – are created one day, and same for the hundreds of dissolved former municipal districts in Alberta.

Beyond this position, I recognize we could do a better job at the original and new articles in distinguishing between which are the former and current municipalities, and would be pleased to collaborate on developing a solution and implementing that solution. Hwy43 (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: When I made the proposals, I saw a bunch of stub-quality articles that I thought would be better served in a merged page. Now, I see your point that we should amalgamate the pages do as you propose. Having StatsCan data does legitimize their notability enough for their own page, as bare-bones as they are. When/if I get to it, I will implement your suggestions, e.g., Rural Municipality of Sifton (1883–2014).
I am slowly making my way westward in my municipal tinkerings, I will look at the Alberta amalgamation mess in due time. Happy editing! FUNgus guy (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you clarify what is meant by "we should amalgamate the pages"? It appears contradictory to your oppose position.

In Saskatchewan, I will create separate articles for Corman Park's three founding original RMs as I think there is sufficient info available at our fingertips to make them stand alone.

Documenting the history of Alberta's former MDs will be a tough one. The amalgamations occurred over 70 years ago and some will be tough to reference. However, the key historical dates for most could be completed through reviewing a combination of the Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA) municipal district (MD) municipal profiles (see each MD's "Location and History Profile"), the AMA Municipal Boundary Document Search and Our Future Our Past's Alberta Law Collection (hint: browse or search the Alberta Gazette publications from 1905-1990). Meanwhile, I have a complete historical StatCan data collection for all Alberta municipalities at by fingertips. I can add this information if someone was bold enough to create the articles in the first place. If so, note the article naming conventions for MDs in Alberta are "Municipal District of Given Name No. XYZ". Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

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[edit]

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 WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Manitoba community lists proposed for merger[edit]

FYI, a proposal has emerged at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba about merging List of cities in Manitoba, List of towns in Manitoba, List of villages in Manitoba, and List of rural municipalities in Manitoba into List of municipalities in Manitoba. You are invited to provide your comments on that discussion here. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages[edit]

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

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

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]

Proposed merger of Grand Beach (Manitoba) into Grand Beach Provincial Park[edit]

I believe this should be an uncontroversial merger, but am prepared to discover that is not the case. The discussion is here. Would welcome some Manitoban input. nerdgoonrant (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to MERGE, since they seem about the same subject. Jimj wpg (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Edit-a-thon[edit]

Hello everyone. I know this project has not been terribly active, but please be advised that on November 28, 2018, a Winnipeg Edit-a-thon hosted at Millennium Library (Winnipeg), the main Winnipeg Public Library. Mkdw talk 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't go to that library branch anymore, until they fix the security issues. Jimj wpg (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Manitoba/Archive_1&oldid=1188399431"