Can review this later. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To be eligible for city or town status, certain minimum estimated population and total property assessment value criteria must be met can you be specific as to what these are?
- These are specified in the respective sections above the table (under cities and towns). I'm not sure it would be a good idea to repeat them in the lead as they are not really important to the summary of the table and different depending on municipality type. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the recent FLC for NL municipalities, we were asked to be mindful of not repeating things too closely together. During that review, that comment reminded me that lead sections are supposed to be summaries of articles where details are more appropriate within the body. As Mattximus has advised, the thresholds are presented two and three paragraphs later (for cities and towns respectively). Not a hill to die on, but if we do add to the lead we risk inducing a concern about repetition similar to that voiced in the last FLC review. Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's ok. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The province's lone resort municipality that was established by order in council in 1990 continues as such would be helpful to know which this was.
- Oh the resort municipality is called resort municipality. I could link it so that it says The province's lone resort municipality that was established..." But it feels a bit easter-egg like. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- "Resort Municipality" is just a short form of the lone resort municipality's official legal name. I have wikilinked it based on its official legal name and revised wording. Done Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- continues as such in the Municipal Government Act but no new resort municipalities may be created pursuant to what?
- I'm a bit confused with this comment, it's pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, which is in the sentence. Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Addressed by way of altering wording in tandem with addressing previous and next comments per these three edits. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- continues as such as of when?
- The incorporation in 1990, which is in the previous sentence? Sorry also confused with this comment. Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically its status as a resort municipality, granted originally in 1990, continued from the point in December 2017 when the MGA came into force. These three edits should address this and the previous to comments. If so, consider this fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall I would feel better about supporting if more context was added to the first paragraph about Prince Edward Island, for instance when it was colonized by Europeans, colonized by natives or vikings, first charted or recognized by the Canadian government, naming taxonomy, etc.
- Although the Miꞌkmaq and their ancestors have been there for several millennia, they did not establish any of the municipalities we have on this list. The vikings never visited and any old colonies of the French and English also are not reflected on this list, which begins with the incorporation of Charlottetown in 1855. I believe any additional history before that found in the table is really beyond the scope of a list of current municipalities of PEI. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that this request is outside the scope of the article. None of the 10 previous FLC reviews have triggered the need for such and implementing in this one would make it out of alignment with the 11 other FLs. That said, I understand the spirit and intent of the request, so I have added History of Prince Edward Island as an entry in the See also section. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Distribution of Prince Edward Island's 72 municipalities by municipal status type perhaps add "as of 2017" with Template:As of
- Will have to consult Hwy43 as it is his map and he knows the caption standards and dates. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Added as of template like so. I’ll put updating the map to 2020 on my to do list should the necessary open data be available. Hwy43 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting with the municipal elections in 2018, both cities elect a mayor and a minimum of eight councillors. is that pursuant to a law? How often do they get voted into office, how often are elections?
- Added "every four years". Technically it is every four years on the first Monday in November, but I think that is a bit much. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pursuant to the MGA. Added mention to the MGA in all four instances. Temporarily removed the every four years piece until a reference is provided confirming such (I don’t dispute it at all, just need a source). In place of the first instance I added when the next election is based on a source I accessed recently. I’ll be back tomorrow. Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now fully addressed – we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses two more bullets below. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps abbreviate Municipal Government Act to its abbreviation so you won't have to repeat it to the readers over and over.
- I'm hesitant to do this as it might constitute WP:OR, since it is never once abbreviated in the 128 pages of the Act itself. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that's fair. Although a Google search for "Municipal Government Act" 2016 "(MGA)" shows ~76k results for MGA. Also Edmonton uses it predominately here. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not hesitant at all. See acronym in action. I have added. Consider this addressed. Hwy43 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am assuming if the population dips below the threshold for creation of a city, municipality, etc it's OK to keep that form of government? Is there any leeway in the MGA about changing? Can the municipality vote etc?
- Yes the rules are for establishment only. The government can change, but they then must meet the same requirements, so I don't think that's needed as it would be repetition. I did add one line to resort municipality as it has a "maximum" population of 2000 before it is upgraded to a municipality. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the Fisheries minister change a municipality on a whim because the population declined? That would be worth a mention. Otherwise OK. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- MGA states "Where the Minister is satisfied that a municipality no longer meets the criteria for its class as (1) specified in subsection 13(1), the Minister may recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that the class of the municipality be changed to a class that is appropriate." This applies to cities and towns only. I have since added this. No explicit opportunity for the municipality to vote on the minister's recommendation. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting with the municipal elections in 2018, again, pursuant to anything? how often?
- Added "every four years" to the other 3 sections. Was that your recommendation? And pursuant to the Municipal government act, which is mentioned. Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now fully addressed – as mentioned above, we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses one bullet above and one more below. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- under the previous Municipalities Act when was that one passed?
- Added 1988, do you think we should also add a reference linking to this act? Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be helpful for context if a reader wanted to read it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Done and actually 1983. The 1988 version of the Municipalities Act was a consolidation of the Act five years later. The 1988 version reference remains, embedded within the associated note. Hwy43 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting with the municipal elections in 2018 same
-
- Now fully addressed – as mentioned above, we tie it back to the MGA and mention elections occur every four years with the next one scheduled for November 2022. This change is repeated in all four mentions, so this effort also addresses two more bullets above. Hwy43 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the "hide" function is really necessary on the table.
- I agree, I checked the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and did not see this requirement. It is also found on all other lists. I will check with others to see the reason this is here in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by removing collapsible parameter. Since the list is the focus of the article, no need to collapse the list unless there are multiple lists in an article. Hwy43 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely not a requirement, but would suggest archiving the sources before they inevitably die. Otherwise looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a bot that does this? It's an excellent idea. Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. All 23 refs now have archive urls added. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review Therapyisgood! I've addressed all your concerns. Some were easy fixes, but others require your response to my comments. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Therapyisgood, I echo Mattximus' appreciation. Thank you! All but two comments have yet to be formally responded to or addressed. I will return in the evening to address the population decline comment (this will take some effort as such new content would have to be sourced and it is difficult to source something that the MGA might not explicitly say). Once addressed, I can tackle the proactive archiving (final bullet). In the meantime, please advise if all other comments have been addressed or sufficiently responded to, if you have the time. I'm particularly interested in if you are satisfied with our responses to your first and fifth bulleted comments. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hwy43: Everything looks good aside from the population. Though you do have one "Municipal Government Act" left in the "Rural municipalities" section. I would like some clarification on if that was on purpose. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Most definitely not on purpose. Heavy eyelids last night had the blinders obscuring that instance. Hwy43 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Therapyisgood: the comments about population decline implications and archiving of the sources are now addressed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|