Canada: New Brunswick Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.

See Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Harmonizing_province_templates. Circeus 18:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to create a box of the communities of NB that you can open and close as opposed to the only-open one that previous was there... if you can help, that would be greatly appreciated.DDD DDD 10:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. In many cases, the template is larger than the article. Kirjtc2 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Looking closely at the challenge with the template's other administrative divisions section (counties), and considering this division is a incomplete at best collection of the province's potential subdivisions.... so if it's implicitly for collection of geography and local government divisions specifically perhaps that should be made explicit for it's wide application. So you may not include the Horizon health, but you might include the Health Boards. Same with School Boards and District Education Councils.

local governance isn't strictly administrative and so if this implicit meaning despite the grab bag in "other administrative divisions" suggest there should be column headings describing Local Government Type and Name. Thoughts, Reactions? --

Counties are former administrative divisions of the Canadian Province of New Brunswick, although they remain a territorial division. It would not seem that they are candidates for inclusion in the template. Some may wish to include them in a template for former adeministrative divisions in New Brunswick however my interest is to correct this template which I will proceed to do now. PonapsqisHous (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand some of that. What's the point of distinguishing former from current administrative divisions? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because a former administrative division is not the subject of administrative divisions of new brunswick. Do you wish to say otherwise @G. Timothy Walton? PonapsqisHous (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the point. A separate category for three types, two of which can be argued still in use for district boundaries for some government departments, seems pointless. All the other former administrative divisions—local improvement districts, commissions, school districts, one township—aren't notable enough to warrant articles. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would argue the point that a former administrative division belongs in a template otherwise pertaining to current divisions relating to local government? At the exclusion of DECs and Health boards? Do I understand that correctly? PonapsqisHous (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue whether there's more than one notable administrative body that is definitely no longer in use. Neither district education councils nor health boards are notable enough to warrant articles, making them moot in this discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added LSDs to the template, since there is a list article of them. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're not aware DECs and helath boards are not former orgs. Not notable enough by who's valuation? I'm not interested in the additional template. Your additions of LSDs confuses this template. If Counties continued to serve a role in local politics and administration like they do in Nova Scotia, they would belong here. Do counties and LSDs not belong in the history of local governemnt in NB? PonapsqisHous (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you think there needs to be an additional template instead of altering this one slightly.

I added LSDs because there is actually an article about them; two, in fact, which should probably be merged. DECs and health boards are not notable in the Wikipedia sense of not warranting an article. If there were articles about them, then they would belong in this template; there aren't, so they're not germane to this discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't focus on a new template. I said perhaps some may want that. Focus instead on what is germane to the discussion if you will.

Why do you think LSD article(s) belong here beside First Nations, beyond that there are entries? PonapsqisHous (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why LSDs? Because they have an article and fit the definition of administrative divisions while they existed. As such, they belong under Other administrative divisions in the template as it is now.

I think a strong case can be made for giving Indian reserves their own line. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. It would seem you wish to avoid the matter at hand. PonapsqisHous (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the matter as you see it, then. I really can't understand what you're objecting to or want to add. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian reserves are Federally administered I believe yet might still belong in "other'. Along with school dist, Health regions, and protected areas, census areas might join the list of divisions. A row for Historical divisions might include Counties, County municipalities, LSDs, etc. PonapsqisHous (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Census divisions are synonymous with counties, at least through the 2021 Census; county municipalities were exactly the same as the counties. Protected areas have a page, modern school districts is already in the template, and health regions don't have a page that I can find, but could be added without a wikilink. You can add historical but don't be surprised if a certain editor rides in and uses it as an excuse to deny the current existence of counties and parishes. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "the same" in terms of meets and bounds? or function or both.

What do you mean I shouldn't be surprised...? Is someone denying their existence? PonapsqisHous (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

County municipalities had the same boundaries as the counties, which already had functioning governments before incorporating.

Yes, one editor tried to remove counties from the template after the 2023 local governance reform and has a history of trying to remove what they don't understand. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "functioning governments" being the quarter sessions? They are historical as are the county municipalities are they not? What is being divided today if we think about more than meets and bounds?

Ofcourse the counties and parishes are important as former divisions, as are LSDs I understand. PonapsqisHous (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you're using metes and bounds here.

Counties and parishes are an interesting case, no longer governance units but still existing in law and still forming convenient boundaries for some non-governance functions in departments that need to divide the province. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

boundaries

vs

authority PonapsqisHous (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the counties' boundaries changed when they incorporated? Whether they gained a government they didn't have before? Regardless, it would be redundant to distinguish geographic and municipal counties since the overlap is almost total. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you asking whether the counties' boundaries changed when they incorporated?"

No.

"Whether they gained a government they didn't have before?"

No.

"Regardless, it would be redundant to distinguish geographic and municipal counties since the overlap is almost total."

I don't understand what you're saying.

It's tricky. Perhaps a matter of perspective. Administrative divisions are numerous. Have a look at the geonb data catalogue.

This template is focusing on local government it would appear. Am I wrong? PonapsqisHous (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a reasonable inference, given what's listed, but it's not limited to them. There are only so many ways to subdivide the province and most aren't notable in Wikipedia terms, like Natural Resources or Highways districts.

There's no difference between counties and county municipalities—the counties were erected, later they were incorporated, later still the municipal governments were dissolved; everything about the them belongs in their individual county's history section. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no difference between counties and county municipalities..."

Again, I think the emphasis on the lines or boundaries, not function, get is the way. Administrative function.. despite any dysfunction. PonapsqisHous (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that line of thinking. I give up. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking what does it matter if the historical and municipal counties (now historical) share the same boundaries?

So who gets to choose what are the notable divisions? Hopefully nobody comes along and removes counties. I agree counties are notable, just not next to the administrative divisions currently evolving.

To explain my point about the boundaries, and if I understand you correcty, it's that CSDs are notable along side counties even tho they share the same boundaries. Perhaps I don't understand what is being contended by thme being the same.

I wonder, when you say geographic, do you mean exclusive of cultural things? I don't exclude people/communities in my definition. I see that geography programs like the one I took discuss a lot more about communities then territorial limits. PonapsqisHous (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and it's application here? PonapsqisHous (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@G. Timothy WaltonI see where you “added parishes, changed Historical counties → counties, since they still exist”. please provide qualifications for how they still exist. that is, you must differentiate what they were from what they are. they were administrative/political jurisdictions and their divisions. they are territorial divisions. You must discuss this and your arguments for their inclusion in administrative divisions. your insistence on their inclusion based on the territorial division requires that edits be made to accommodate. PonapsqisHous (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PonapsqisHous I'm through arguing about what the meaning of is is. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted you prefer not to seek consensus. PonapsqisHous (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If two things have a Venn diagram that's a single circle, and one person keeps arguing that they're different, no consensus is possible. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a possessive thing, in which case I understand the reluctance to discuss what is meant when one says, "the county still exists". The territory that is described by active legislation does what? Now people may possesses it as they see fit for the lack of administration in keeping with adverse possession doctrine. PonapsqisHous (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused by the concept of a noun having more than one possible connotation. Or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to argue the point that former administrative divisions belong alongside the current administrative divisions. That is all there is to be said. PonapsqisHous (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something that still exists in law still exists, period. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]