Jump to content

Talk:List of communities in the Northwest Territories

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

Move: List of communities in Northwest Territories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities in the Northwest Territories → List of communities in Northwest Territories – The proposed move (and others) is consistent with titles for analogous Canadian subdivisional articles. While used in speech and in-text, inclusion of the definite article, the, is not prescribed by statute and is indirectly discouraged by Wp guidelines (for titles) and elsewhere. According to the Oxford guide to Canadian English usage (ISBN 0-19-541619-8) (p. 342):

Residents prefer "Northwest Territories" to "'the' Northwest Territories". The preferred usage parallels usage for the names of provinces; that is, one doesn't say "the Alberta".

E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]

I notice that the article Northwest Territories uses the form "the Northwest Territories" throughout - IMHO this discussion ought to talk place there, as presumably we should be consistent throughout Wikipedia. (Also, note that we do have articles like List of cities in the Netherlands and so on, for places that are consistently referred to with "the".) — sjorford (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful, but commentary about a "misguided Toronto editor" isn't – I can just as well obviate your nordic references that way. Let's extract the full citation for context:
Spelling
5.2 As the Review is a Canadian publication, its editors prefer that authors follow Canadian spelling conventions as represented by the Oxford Canadian English Dictionary or any major Canadian dictionary. The editors will, however, accept the use most common spelling conventions used in other English-speaking countries. All spelling should be internally consistent.
5.2.1 Please Note: The Review prefers subarctic/Subarctic to sub-arctic/sub-Arctic.
The Yukon and the Northwest Territories should be referred to with the definite article where appropriate: the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.
It seems ironic that the Northern Review would invoke acceptance of the Oxford Canadian Oxford Dictionary as a preference for spelling – there are at least two other major Canadian dictionaries – while contradicting an ancillary style guide (Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage) by the same source and (Toronto) 'editors'. After all, it is as much editorial preference as the above is. Moreover, read passage 5.2 again and you'll note the syntax is off.
I guess the point is whether it's appropriate to include the definite articles in NWT titles. Is it in-text? Perhaps, perhaps not – see here for a melange. Based on everything presented and consistent with other Canadian articles, I still feel it is inappropriate in titles. And, throughout, I'd like to point out that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed moves would be incorrect in any way. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the "misguided" thing, it started out as "clueless", then changed to "ignorant" and I finally toned it down to "misguided". :-) And I did make a mistake: the editors are not from Toronto, but from BC and Kingston. But the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage is not infallible and other usage guides claim differently. I would be curious to see what the The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing (ISBN 1-55002-276-8) says. As far as I know, there has been no debate in the NWT about the use of the article, unlike the Yukon (I was wrong above in assuming that there had been in earlkier comments). They have had debates about the name, but it was a result of the split with Nunavut, with "Bob" coming in second. Traditional usage in Canadian and all other varieties of English is to use the article; it just sounds right, like the Netherlands, the Ukraine or the Congo (or the Argentine to the Brits). Given that the Northwest Territories is the most common usage, I see no reason for changing it. Also, I want to thank you for bringing it up here so we could have this discussion. You demonstrated good judgment and, although we disagree on this particular point, I believe you are an asset to Wikipedia. Luigizanasi 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TY. I checked The Canadian Style (TCS) before proposing these moves: it's somewhat non-descript on this point other than listing Northwest Territories / Territoires du Nord-Ouest (without the or les) in the list of names of pan-Canadian significance (p. 269). To that end, no guide is infallible, including the Northern Review, et al.
We agree to disagree on some points. While usage of the indefinite article with NWT might be common (admitted throughout), is it proper in article titles here? Similarly, "The Netherlands" is official in English (no argument here), yet "the Ukraine" is increasingly deprecated. I challenge its utility for NWT: I find it just as well to utter "Northwest Territories" without the, but in context, and something similar has likely predicated attempts to distinguish "the Yukon" (the general region or river) with "Yukon" or "Yukon Territory" (the political subdivision; also indicated in TCS). And given verifiable indications to support that and for consistency, the proposed moves wouldn't rock the world either. Now, if only NWT would rename itself to a more distinct term called Denendeh (rejected, I understand), we wouldn't be having this discussion. :)
As well, I'm now on a wikibreak for what'll be a couple weeks (work-related, with occasional drop-ins), but thanks for your praise and consideration! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just demonstrated why we needn't retain "the" in these titles: if it were part of the article/entity name and capitalised – like in The Gambia – style and propriety might demand that related articles reiterate that (e.g., Subdivisions of The Gambia, though this varies). Since it's not for NWT, "the" is arguably extraneous (a grey area, if you will) and promotes inconsistency.
As noted above, this is an attempt to bring NWT articles in-line with other analogous Canadian subdivisions whose articles are not generally referred to or entitled using the definite article (e.g., List of communities in Ontario, List of communities in Yukon). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you also going to propose moving List of cities in the Netherlands to List of cities in Netherlands? older ≠ wiser 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ... though that should be considered. Importantly: this comparison is not necessarily apt per se: note that the long-form name of that territory (translated into English) contains "the" amidship, while NWT does not. However, further consideration of this herein would entail making unnecessary assumptions beyond the scope of this poll. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. It seems an entirely relevent precedent. Since local and common usage does not seem to clearly suport your argument, you're left with a desire for consistency as the primary basis. And here there is a clearly analagous situation in which the article exists without the "the", while it is commonly referenced with a lowercase "the" in other article titles and in-line. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is not clearly analogous: I've cited one reputable publication and other points that differ from your assessment of local/common usage and is a partial basis for my proposal, which is also consistent with renderings for similar articles about other Canadian provinces and territories. Little that has been presented since has changed that, but this is not a make-or-break issue for me. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it's the Government of the Northwest Territories. As in the Yukon, there is a debate about the "the". Of course, if we had followed my advice in previous renaming discussions and used province/territorial names as adjectives (e.g "List of Northwest Territories communities]] instead of slavishly following Wikipedia conventions set up for other countries, we would not have this problem. :-) Luigizanasi 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge the government website and other idiosyncrasies above. As also noted (Yukon notwithstanding), the proposed moves would bring the NWT articles in-line with other Cdn. provincial/territorial articles of the same ilk. And though I wasn't involved in earlier discussions, in retrospect, your advice seems somewhat prescient. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Administrative regions in the Northwest Territories

[edit]

Where I can get map of Administrative regions in the Northwest Territories?--Kaiyr (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories is basically a duplicate of this article but with 9 less places. It has the 24 municipalities and this has all 33 communities. Any material that is in the municipalities would fit in here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry CBW, didn't see this discussion until after I removed the tags as it was slightly further down my watchlist and I zeroed in on the two merge tag edit summaries before looking above and below in my watchlist. I should have come here first. Careless on my part.
    I also oppose per above and the bastardized edit summaries I put together on my tablet. See the speedy keep outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities in British Columbia where it was recognized the scope of the two equivalent articles was sufficiently different (incorporated municipalities versus all communities whether incorporated or not). Hwy43 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can re-add the tags if you want, or feel free to boldly re-add them. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @CambridgeBayWeather: a definition will come. Yellowknife, Fort Smith and Ulukhaktok are not incorporated municipalities? This surprises me. Particularly for the first two. If so, these are the things that need to be articulated. As you are the resident expert of northern Canada, we certainly could use your help in bringing the lists of municipalities in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon to the same standard as their provincial neighbours to the south. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_communities_in_the_Northwest_Territories&oldid=1201432933"