![]() | List of municipalities in Manitoba is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 28, 2016. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If there is a minimum population and density necessary to incorporate, why are there so many listed that do not meet those criteria? -- Lasunncty ( talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I notice that the table of contents for this page is on the right, as it is for list of municipalities in Alberta, list of municipalities in Ontario, and list of municipalities in Saskatchewan, but not for list of municipalities in British Columbia.
Having the table of contents on the right looks weird to me, and I suppose the Manual of Style allows for it, but probably 90-95% of articles with a table of contents have it on the left. Is there any compelling reason to have it on the right? The articles on municipalities in British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba are currently featured lists, and the one for Saskatchewan is currently a featured list candidate. Whether the table of contents is on the left or on the right, shouldn't it be the same for all articles of this type? AmericanLemming ( talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This article lists Manitoba as containing 94% of Canada's population, which cannot be correct if the province's population is currently ~1,282,000 compared to the total population of Canada (~35,160,000). I currently can't edit this personally - but as a featured article, it should be verified.
Concern over population claims within the article - municipalities containing 94% of the province's population. Re-checked everything and realized that I attributed population incorrectly. Concern retracted. 129.128.86.204 ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
List of cities in Manitoba, List of towns in Manitoba, List of rural municipalities in Manitoba, and List of villages in Manitoba have no unique information warranting separate articles. I will redirect them soon unless there is an objection. There is no reason for such redundancy. Reywas92 Talk 07:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTPAPER, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It is digital. There is no limit to number of pages. These reasonably sized articles have an important role in maintaining Wikipedia's accessibility. List of municipalities in Manitoba is quite large and makes accessibility to consume the sought after info more difficult in different mediums. See a similar RfD from 2013 that was a speedy keep here.
While these articles appear redundant, their histories are greater than those of the main municipalities list. They were, and mostly still are, stubs quickly summarizing each status type followed by a list that was elevated into the main article (and improved upon to achieve featured list status). Rather than merging, they deserve attention to add more comprehensive detail under their now-child roles. Look at the equivalent List of cities in Alberta, List of towns in Alberta, List of villages in Alberta, and List of municipal districts in Alberta articles. They expand upon the municipal status information summarized at List of municipalities in Alberta. This is what these now-child articles should aspire to. List of towns in Manitoba has an initial building block already with additional "unique" info included about communities that formerly had town status (i.e. a list of former towns).
Merging these lists by municipal status type breaks the Canadian status type topics such as {{Canada topic|List of communities cities in}}
, {{Canada topic|List of towns in}}
, {{Canada topic|List of villages in}}
. Manitoba will lose its entries in favour of redirects where sifting is required and there is inability to break the list into only entries of the single municipal status sought.
Overall, merging is a bad idea, and absolutely no harm is done by leaving them as is, even if someone doesn't immediately step up to expand and top them up.
As a courtesy to the other article creators, contributors, and affected WikiProjects, I will notify them of this discussion to cast a wider net for engagement, which didn't happen earlier this year when an RfD was proposed for New Brunswick's child town, village and rural communities lists. The lack of notification was questioned here after the discussion on the little advertised RfD was closed. Had affected parties been engaged, the outcome there may have been different.
Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 07:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
On this Vital Statistics page search for: BIRTHS, CITY="RM Carlton" exactly will produce 123 results. Why is "RM Carlton" not mentioned on this page? Where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbax ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)