User talk:RFBailey/Halifax2

This page was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Map

I can redo the map graphic, but I am not sure what too? Maybe a pretty version of the Halifax Urban Area article? The one that you have for City of Halifax is not correct, if we are trying to show the whole picture as defined in the definitions section (compare it to London, its funny, its exactly the same structure except the one paragraph in the middle!) WayeMason 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the location map should be the one with most prominence, but a revamped version of the Halifax Urban Area map would complement it well. --RFBailey 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions section

I think this is a bit overblown; the stuff about which services are provided by the HRM council should go in the HRM article, not this one. As I explained here, I envision this as a replacement for the City of Halifax article (and, maybe, Halifax Urban Area too), not for the HRM article (which should, however, be trimmed). --RFBailey 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd version

I've created a second version, User:RFBailey/Halifax2. This has been reorganised, with some things trimmed down. The material from the HRM article has been changed to say "Halifax" instead of "HRM" everywhere.

I think that the relevant stuff from "definitions" (about the confusion over what "Halifax" is) should go in the "Local government" section. --RFBailey 03:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reason the London article has it in a separate section, and right at the top of the article, is because some people, especially single issue editors, will not read down that far! I think it should be right at teh top under the article, otherwise we are going to spend the rest of our lives reverting and arguing over the article... :) WayeMason 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WayeMason (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The latest version still doesn't have a "definitions" section: I've included a couple of sentences in the opening, and a more detailed explanation further down. (Call me an idealist, but we should try to write a decent article, without giving undue prominence to technicalities which are largely irrelevant to the general reader, and deal with the pedantic troublemakers later.....) --RFBailey 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what I see right now (and I leave on a business trip for 5 days so I cannot fix it) is the Geography section is all "city of halifax." if this is really going to be an all Halifax article then that must change. Because there are 3-4 Halifaxes that we are mentioning, as per the former definitions section, we need to have the geographies of all 3-4 areas included and explained, explain how far each media type reaches, etc. I actually still think we need a "City of Halifax" article that is separate but totally historical 1749-1996, and this should be much more of a balanced, "these are the options/context" article... WayeMason 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The geography section certainly isn't anywhere near finished. The problem I seem to run into when writing many sections is the temptation to start explaining the recent municipal history, which is what I'm trying to avoid.....

I think the geography section should be expanded though, and look something like this. First, explain where it is (in NS, on the Atlantic Coast, etc.). Then have separate subsections for the former city, the urban area (describing which of the officially-designated "Communities" are contained in each), and its surroundings (i.e. the HRM?). Finally, have the "Climate" subsection, and possibly other over-arching geographical topics.

Rather than a separate "City of Halifax" article, I think we should have a "History of Halifax" article instead--that way, it should stay being a article about historical things. Also, the History section of this article is currently rather long, so it would make more sense if that was split off like that. (In general, if the "History" section of article X gets too large, it should be split off into History of X.)

Further suggestions are welcome! --RFBailey 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the revisions to the Geography section--it seemed to have gone to be mostly about the HRM rather than Halifax itself. I'll have another go..... --RFBailey 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another rewrite, deliberately avoiding the use of the term "urban core" (see below). Given that even HRM council can't make up its mind as to what this means, I'm now of the opinion that it should not be used at all costs! --RFBailey 01:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haligonians

As far as I understand it, the term "Haligonian" means "person from Halifax", and thus the use of the term "Haligonian" varies depending on the use of the term "Halifax". As the opening of the article is being deliberately ambiguous as to exactly what "Halifax" is, I don't think it is necessary to say more than "Residents of Halifax are referred to as 'Haligonians'". --RFBailey 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban core

What exactly is the the "urban core"? Or does it vary? According to the HRM's transportation department, it covers quite a large area, which seems a lot larger than the area indicated in this map by the HRM's planning department. (Maybe it's classic non-example of "joined-up thinking" in municipal government?) --RFBailey 00:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "exact". Definitions depend on which department is defining. This is the heart of the problem. Urban area is, however, defined on wikipedia. As an aside, "metropolitan area" is used in most parts of the world, and on wikipedia, differently than the way the Province of Nova Scotia defines it.WayeMason 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I stand by my opinion that it's best to banish the term "urban core" from the article completely. --RFBailey 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]