Talk:Chatham-Kent

Heart Disease

I removed the line about Chatham-Kent being the Canadian leader for heart disease. I did some research, and although Chatham-Kent has a terribly high instance of heart disease, its not quite the leader.

These are by figures released from the Heart and Stroke foundation that points to Chatham-Kent being a hot spot for coronary artery disease... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stats Canada Numbers http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-221-XIE/2004002/tables/html/14282_01.htm

Heart and Stroke Foundation Study http://209.5.25.171/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=547&CategoryID=

If you can quote stats to support this comment, feel free to add it back.

Defkkon 22:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hate to burst your bubble(and make poor StatsCan look foolish), but HERE is the truth on heart disease throughout the region: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=012ae196-5d74-4b3b-9173-3e42d0c78859 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fault of bush (talk • contribs) .

Interesting sidenote, Heart Disease rate in Chatham is mainly due to the aging population, and not to the health of the population. Not sure if this is article worthy though. (I heard an interview with a medical professional, not sure if you can cite "Heard it on the radio") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj (talk • contribs) 09:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I noticed this edit which changed the Catholic population of Chatham-Kent from 36% to 46%, and this edit by the same IP, which changed "No religious affiliation" from 12.2% to 2.2%, so I reviewed the StatsCan data. Here are the percentages I get out of a total population of 105,485:

• Protestant: 50,980 = 48.3%
• Catholic: 38,125 = 36.1%
• Other Christian: 2,835 = 2.7%
• Other religions: 780 = 0.7%
• No religious affiliation: 12,775 = 12.1%

I've updated the article with those figures. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WRONG Jim. StatsCan(as usual) has their numbers skewed. My local library(which uses CITY data-not gov't manipulated numbers) has the figures I posted, so there! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fault of bush (talk • contribs) .

Fair use rationale for Image:Chathamkentcrest.png

Image:Chathamkentcrest.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's in a name

It seems a little odd that there is no mention of where the town's name came from. Obviously this is wild stab in the dark but might it have some link to Chatham, Kent, a naval dockyard town on a tributary of the River Thames? Frankly I'd be very surprised if that was an accident. --LiamE 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree and I think that this would be correct, however I can't find anything saying this... http://www.chathamkentdirect.info/about_chatham_kent shows some history on Chatham which includes this: "The former city of Chatham began as a naval dockyard in the 1790`s, as it straddles the Thames River." Vtrickzv 04:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation and Interpretation in the Article

In my opinion this article seems to contain a fair bit of speculation based on personal interpretations by editors of primary sources, such as census statistics and government reports, as well as anecdotal explanations which appear to be based on the individual observations of a given editor. In my opinion, whole sections of this article are badly in need of rewriting in order to escape some of the more obvious biases going on here. Deconstructhis 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Move here and you'll see for yourself... This city is hazardous to your health.. In more ways than one!

• Whether or not someone actually lives in a community that's the topic of an article has nothing to do with properly referencing the statements that appear in an article about that community. You have chosen to replace the following in the Chatham-Kent article :

"Chatham-Kent also has an extremely high density of restaurants and donut shops; their frequent usage, as well as the sedentary culture of the municipality, form another oft-hypothesized cause for the terrible state of local health."Chatham-Kent is bad because because they have nothing to do there is nothing to do there is some park but they are all the same i live in Chatham-Kent and probably the most fun things are the bowling and the pools but the pools are terrible because the ground either cuts up your feet or they are 3 feet deep.

I count a number of separate assertions in that statement, none of which have any referencing attached to them whatsoever and in fact appear to be based on nothing more than the personal observations of an individual. That part of the article has had a request for a proper citation attached to it for almost three months now, without anyone substantiating what it says. Wikipedia policy stipulates that unsupported assertions like these can be removed immediately, allowing three months for someone to properly reference claims is more than generous in my opinion. If you wish the section to remain in the article please provide a proper citation that demonstrates what's being asserted. Also, terms like "oft-hypothesized" are considered weasel words in Wikipedia articles and are not permitted. These editing issues are not going to just go away, responsible editors of this article are going to continue to do exactly what I'm doing here. If you agree with me that the goal is a properly researched article about Chatham-Kent, rather than a cluster of unsupported personal opinions, I hope you will attempt to see my point. I would appreciate support from other editors who agree with me. Like any community Chatham-Kent has its problems, but it deserves better than allowing its article to simply degrade into a bunch of unsupported claims. Deconstructhis 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But you don't live here so how can you know? Look, this city has a population of 43,000. We've got 10 Tim Horton's, Three McDonald's, Two Wendy's, Two KFC's, and umpteen other burger/subs/fast food joints, and there's another one coming with the opening of Boston Pizza this fall. Everywhere you look in this city it's just restaurants, donut shops and overweight/obese people. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm merely pointing out what I know to be a fact from experience. You don't know what this place is like until you've lived here. Just ask the myriads of people who used to live in Chatham--and left for greener pastures... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• It dosen't matter what *I* think OR what *you* think. It dosen't even matter where I live or where you live, you're missing the whole point of what I was trying to say. Wikipedia can't be based on unreferenced personal opinions, even if you were the local medical officer of health in Chatham-Kent and you posted personal opinions based on your own observations, it has no place in Wikipedia. The only material that can legitimately be used here is previously published materials from reliable secondary sources that can be referenced by others if they wish to check its reliability. Period. Nothing else belongs on here. I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh, but it gets pretty discouraging sometimes trying to edit these articles and lots of people don't even seem to get exactly what this or any other encyclopedia actually *is*, something they might understand more if they read the policies. This isn't a collection of personal opinions, even of those who happen to have personal knowledge of a given subject, unless previously published sources are provided here, the information is unverifiable and consequently it's *useless* in an encyclopedia. Deconstructhis 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deconstructhis, I do agree with you and think that this should be removed from the article unless someone is willing to find a source for the information. To the replier @ 72.39.173.71, these things may be true, but you do still need sources.. What you know, from experience, is exactly what is not wanted in Wikipedia articles. (WP:OR) Vtrickzv 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. You want sources, so I added some. Hopefully this silliness can stop now. Although Wikipedia is a great place, it's hardly reliable, but I digress. Opinions differ, and I accept that. Cheers nonetheless.

I just had a quick glance, but some things stand out as being more in line with what one would expect from a travel brochure rather than an encyclopaedia, such as:

The long, white sandy beaches, the fabulous fishing, convenient water access, hiking trails and conservation areas make Erieau an ideal vacation getaway and a fantastic place to live.

Kid Bugs (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Spin

Since I last looked, rather a lot of negatively spun material has been added, mostly by people within the community, and without citations. Why is the glass half empty in Chatham? If you want businesses to locate here and give you jobs, stop talking the community down, and where there is a genuine issue, kindly post a citation to validate the information.

I'm going to edit the article in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Feel free to repost material with citations to support it, but save opinion pieces for the letters page of the Chatham Daily News or letters to the Mayor or council.

69.159.230.251 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an open secret why business won't locate here. It's called ABC: Anywhere But Chatham... High taxes, too much red tape, an akward downtown, and terrible infrastructure makes bringing any business here a gigantic burden... Anyone with even half a brain knows that, and this is EXACTLY why Chatham-Kent has gone down the tubes. It's not pessimism at all, it's called realism. Reality. Something that people don't like to deal with because it's too unpleasant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As an employer, I beg to disagree. The one thing we really lack as a location is a fast, frequent rail service to nearby major cities. Three hours to Toronto makes a same-day business trip a bit taxing, though possible. Road and Internet infrastructure is actually pretty good - we have Highway 401 and a 10Gigabit node (Shaw cable, just east of downtown) for those whose business requires lots of bandwidth. From a cost-of-doing-business POV we are very competitive, although I won't deny that the Canadian Dollar's current oil-fueled rocket-ride is eroding this. The "big fixes" in terms of business attraction and retention are a building the sports centre and getting the Capitol Theatre finally open, because while some people argue that those are a waste of money, they are the kind of things that employers and managers look for when they decide where *they* want to live.

69.159.230.251 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I used to work up at the mall for a store(which has since closed), and I know all the inside "dirt" as to why nobody wants to bring any new business, industry, or stores here. I can't get into the specific details(that's an entirely different topic), but I can tell you that the entire mall has been a money loser for several years now. Ivanhoe Cambridge, the "title holder", has placed it up for sale time and time again. Nobody wants it, and I don't blame them. If Sears ever decides to pull out of there, they might as shut the entire place down and bulldoze it, because the land is worth more than the mall itself. Everything is going Northside anyway. Downtown Chatham has been a cesspool ever since the recession of the 90's, and it never fully recovered. And the Capitol Theatre? Give me a break. They might as well give up on that too. It's been what? Over ten years now, and after all the time and money that was pissed away on that thing, we still aren't any closer to it being finished, or having a final completion date. As far as Chatham as a city goes, I have never seen so many unsavoury, shady people in my life. Not everyone is like that, I agree, but yes it would seem as though Chatham does qualify as the welfare capitol of Ontario. Drugs, alcoholism, unwed mothers, crackheads, dropouts, second and third generation "welfare families", a plethora of health problems, and well you get the picture. Is it any wonder why the younger crowd is leaving in droves? I can't say that I blame them. The grass IS greener on the other side. Chatham's prime was over a long time ago. We're becoming a retirement community more than anything. It's London and points East that you want to be...

I removed some of the more obvious unsourced statements, including:

According to the Province's Ministry of Community and Social Services, Chatham-Kent has a high percentage of people receiving welfare and disability benefits. Some believe this is mainly due to the general poor health of the community, and the lack of well-paying, steady jobs for those individuals who are able to work.

• "Some believe" - who? The Mayor? The Minister of Community and Social Services? The guy down the street? These are generally considered weasel words.
• "High percentage" - compared to what? What's average? Is it higher? Significantly higher?
• "According to the..." - needs to be better sourced, with a link if available.

Also, I checked the August 05 Reader's Digest but couldn't find any reference to Chatham. Please provide a page number before re-adding the reference. Blotto adrift 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Made a number of changes to the article, including a couple of new categories (also moved around some content on the talk page so it's in chronological order). Does anyone have any objections if the notable persons list is done in alpha order? There's one name with no birthdate and not everyone of note associated with C-K was actually born there. Almost all of the content in the miscellaneous section has either been moved or deleted. Will see what else I can do. Blotto adrift 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous locals placed in alpha order. Blotto adrift (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material

It was nice to see someone "being bold" and finally cleaning up all the unsourced material in this article. It's good to remember that according to Wikipedia policy technically *any* unsourced material can be removed by any editor on sight. I'm really hoping that the latest revisions can form a core for the article as a whole. It's obviously not right that any negative things about the community be censored out, but in my opinion, it's also not correct to allow large numbers of completely unreferenced points to just sit there and position the community in a negative light simply through innuendo without any supporting documentation through actual citations. If you believe that something is important enough to be in the article in the first place, then surely it can't take months to find an actual reference to back it up. Deconstructhis 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Message to anon editor - regardless of your opinion on the edits, you need to adhere to WP:Civil. Also, it would look better if you didn't just automatically revert simple things that are standard practice - alphabetical lists, eliminating miscellaneous categories, placing well-known resident listings at the end of the article and deleting mentions of a newspaper that has been out of business for a year. On top of that, the reference to heart disease is still in the article, with the citations you provided. And I used to live in the area, not that that matters. Blotto adrift (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• 72.39.173.71 If there's a specific objection to content behind what you're doing here, I think the onus is on you to spell it out so that it can be addressed. I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you're attempting to achieve in choosing to continue to revert the material from its current version. Without justifying what you're doing it's getting increasingly difficult for other editors to determine what your objections in this situation actually are. Thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More recent edits

I reverted the following passage:

In the last 10 years there has been increasing urban sprawl within some of the larger communities in Chatham-Kent (Chatham and Blenheim in particular), with the development of large, big-box corporate development. The development at the north end of Communication Road in Blenheim, and a large portion of St. Clair Street in Chatham are examples of this phenomenon. Although supplying some jobs to Chatham-Kent, this development has put pressure on the existing (and potential) smaller, independent shops and businesses which also costs jobs to residents.

Numbers from Statistics Canada’s 2001 Census demonstrate that the average number of people without a complete high school education is higher in Chatham-Kent than the province of Ontario. As well, the average earnings of full-time, full-year workers and families are significantly lower in Chatham-Kent than in Ontario as a whole. With and unbalanced industry based heavily in manufacturing, construction, and agriculture, many believe the phenomena of crime, drugs, and health problems are connected to the educational, cultural and industrial constrains of the municipality.

Most of this needs to be sourced. It is true that StatsCan data does indicate that the education levels are lower (it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, although a link citation should be added). Likely true for the income info as well. However, the extrapolation of this into an explanation for assorted social problems should be referenced. Blotto adrift 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the "extrapolation" that's the problem. It's one thing to cite stats from StatsCan data, it's when the personal "interpretation" of that data begins that it becomes problematic in the context of Wikipedia, even if personally I happen to agree with what's being said. If the editor can find a reliable previously published source for what they're submitting, fine, otherwise as far as Wiki policy goes, it's their own opinion and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. My question is: how many communities can you name whose problems couldn't be attributed to issues associated with poverty and lack of education if you want to look at it that way? Why is Chatham-Kent being singled out in this regard? You could say the same thing about London or Toronto. Deconstructhis 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chatham-Kent Socialist Current Blog Link

I'm curious about something concerning the person who posted the link. Would you be in support of someone including a link to, let's say, a blog called the 'Chatham-Kent Neo-Conservative Tribune'? How about treating a blog with a title like that as suitable material for citation purposes in supporting someone's position here on Wikipedia? Deconstructhis (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of that.

The fact that Wikipedia has a policy against allowing blogs to be posted is classist, as not everyone has the resources to purchase a domain and design a website. Those free domains are often the only resources for independent media to use. It is fine for Quebecor to own so much print media in Chatham-Kent, they are a coporation with ample resources. But for the independent media, whether conservative or socialist, it is an affront to democracy not to allow them (in whatever form they take, whether blog or conventional domain) to be visible on one of the most visited information websites. The trouble with news sources today is that they often have a clear ideological or partisan bias, but are unwilling to advertise it. It's very clandestine and suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.104.177 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Related to the above....I have some concerns with recent comments added regarding media ownership. I don't necessarily disagree with the general sentiments expressed or with the facts, but I don't think this is really the place to express them. First off, the newspapers listed aren't the only media available in C-K, newspaper or otherwise. Second, we have a situation where one city paper and a bunch of small town newspapers found themselves within the boundaries of the same municipality due to amalgamation - the concentration of ownership wouldn't be so pronounced if these papers were listed under the separate communities they serve. Third, and most importantly, the comments made on media concentration aren't unique to C-K and they are mostly unreferenced with POV (other Wikipedia articles are linked, but not referenced - references are for outside sources - changes have been made). The comments made belong with references in the wiki articles on media concentration and/or media in general. Blotto adrift (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This entry only deals with "print media," as the heading suggest. Of course there are other media in C-K, and they are listed in other sections. The separate communites are listed in the article (and they have their own Wikipedia entries). Since this is an entry for Chatham-Kent as a whole, it is important to highlight the concentrated, corporate media ownerhsip. Media concentration is not unique to Chatham-Kent, but it is a fact. The links help solidify the adverse affects of this phenomenon.

Reputable third-party sources referring to the specific situation in C-K would be required, otherwise it's POV and/or original research. Blotto adrift (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote the section. The individual ownership references were replaced by a single sentence at the bottom and the comments about media concentration were removed. Blotto adrift (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada/Ontario project rating

I have moved this article's importance rating to "Mid" to be consistent with most other Ontario cities. PKT (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chatham-Kent, Ontario → Chatham-Kent

I apologize for moving this article without discussion. I think the hyphen is an obvious enough difference to distinguish from the comma in Chatham, Kent, but perhaps consensus holds otherwise, in which case the move should be reversed. –Pomte 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. The Canadian naming convention does suggest that consensus be obtained before the move, but we all sometimes learn of these things after the fact. As for the move, I support it. Chatham-Kent is a unique name, and I don't think there is any need to disambiguate it so as to distinguish it from the disambiguation used for the title of Chatham, Kent -- to fallback on disambiguation so as to avoid confusion with another disambiguated term is to truly descend into the disambiguation circle of hell, in my opinion. The use of a DAB statement at the top of both articles would be more than sufficient in the unlikely event of any confusion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• I also support the move here. I just find it odd that for once in Canadian geography we didn't name it a carbon copy of the English one (comma vs dash). I support the use of the double DAB statements on each page (Chatham, Kent already has one). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but we did carbon-copy the English on this one, actually. Chatham used to be an independent city within Kent County, perfectly replicating the one in England — a municipal merger during the Mike Harris years is the only reason there's a hyphen in it now. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chatham is still a city. Many things proving it. MASTERBING21 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• As the person who originally alerted Pomte to the fact that a consensus should be attained first, I'd just like to state for the record that I'm neutral about the move — if consensus is that dablines are sufficient, then I'm fine with that. But in a case like this it is best to clarify first how people feel about it. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, i.e. move back -- the disambiguator "Ontario" is necessary to distinguish it from Chatham, Kent in England. However, I am pleased to see that this problem is dealt with in a capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• See new discussion below. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Identity Problem?

I find it interesting that there is no individual wikipedia article for Chatham. There is only one for "Chatham-Kent". These are two seperate things in my opinion. Chatham was/is a city. Chatham-Kent is a Municipality that has a number of small distinct towns inside of it. It seems like there is a focus on the history, economy, education, and other sub-divisions of "Chatham Proper". If this article is going to be on "Chatham-Kent" I propose that future writers attempt to include stories from the smaller communities. It is just a humble suggestion. I would be interested to hear what other people think about this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.98.184 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I second this one, however, I think technicalities have us here. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but think all of Chatham-Kent (including Blenheim, Wallaceburg, Tilbury, etc) are included as one big city (as clarified in the first line of the article "city-status"). This makes it odd, because Wallaceburg, and Tilbury et al. have their own pages, whilst Chatham itself is left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chatham can have its own separate article anytime somebody takes the time to write up a properly written, formatted and referenced one. To date, nobody ever has. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a stub now; people still do refer to Chatham as a place regularly. Particularlystatic (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And what happened in Chatham between 1792 and 1998? I'm sure there's plenty to talk about. See how much has been provided for Dresden and Thamesville. But don't ask me--I was a Torontonian when I lived in Ontario. --Oldontarian (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Media attention

FYI, this article was recently mentioned in the media: 'Looney bin' label deleted; Wikipedia edits entry about C-K. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I put in a RPP earlier today Here. The request was denied because the article hadn't been attacked. Just keep it in mind if there are a lot of attacks following the news report. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Chatham-Kent → Chatham-Kent, Ontario — Too similar to Chatham, Kent. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_1#Chatham-Kent_categories - Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. "Chatham-Kent" is not the same as "Chatham" which is disambiguated from other Chathams by adding ",Kent". Article titles need to be disambiguated only if they would be otherwise identical, not just similar. It's not all that likely that someone typing in or linking to "Chatham-Kent" would expect to land on the Chatham in Kent, but in any event the appropriate way to handle any possible reader confusion due to similarity of names is by use of hatnotes, which are already on each article (WP:PRECISION#Minor spelling variations). If anything, Chatham, Kent might be moved to simply Chatham, if it's the primary use of that name. Station1 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• I am leaning towards Support most users oppose renaming the categories, to avoid confusion. And not to move from Chatham, Kent to Chatham. Steam5 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. (And not to move Chatham, Kent to Chatham, but leave Chatham as a disamb page for the many Chathams around the world.) Occuli (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There is no reason for the categories to determine the spelling of the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Most of the articles in Category:Census divisions of Ontario are in fact disamed in this way, even when their names are unique. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Then Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#Places should be adapted to say this (and should be moved out to be a naming convention). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Only because they haven't all been moved yet, not because there's any requirement for them to stay that way. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  This proposal is entirely in accord with that page. Note it is "can", not "must". Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Comment: Pmanderson, this is not being proposed because the categories are all called "C-K, O". If this page is at the right name, then the categories would be moved to suit. It's being proposed after discussion at CFD indicated that the current page name is unsuitable. The discussion may have originated in a discussion about categories, but that's not to say that the proposal is simply to make the page agree with the categories and for no other reason. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to stay neutral on this one, since it was my comments on the category-move discussion that led to this in the first place. But I will offer the input that I was never really too keen on the page move in the first place, because I never really thought that a comma in the British one vs. a hyphen here was sufficient as a disambiguator — but at the same time, I remain unconvinced by the CFR argument that categories pose different disambiguation issues than article titles do. There's never any need for a category and its head article to be named differently from each other: if the category is genuinely ambiguous enough that it can't be renamed to match the article title, that's a suggestion that the article title shouldn't have been moved in the first place, not proof that matching category names to article titles is in any way a flawed practice that requires exceptions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with that, but you will not get agreement to move Birmingham say (as there are dozens of Brummies who will object with vehemence, and similar numbers of Macunians who will support anything which Brummies oppose) whereas one can have a civilised discussion about category names. Occuli (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) The only reason to move the categories is that they are in fine print, and may be confused (although unless some article manages to belong to both cats, the likelihood of confusion is small). This reasoning may or may not be sound; but it does not apply to article names, with their large bold lettering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support You don't know what you don't know. I wasn't going to get involed in this but if you are unaware that there are two different places, it might be difficult to distinguish between Chatham-Kent and Chatham, Kent, and then there's Chatham—Kent which hasn't been brought up yet. Now we have two different kinds of dash to deal with! Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - On the article Chatham—Kent that is just an old Ontario provincial riding located in the former city of Chatham, Ontario from 1967 to 1999 I believe. So as of right now the new provincial riding name is Chatham-Kent—Essex and the new municipality in Ontario is Chatham-Kent, Ontario. Steam5 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Occuli and Johnbod. As Occuli said leave "Chatham" as a disamb page and keep the the article Chatham, Kent to avoid confusion. Steam5 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to add Ontario diambiguator. The difference in name between Chatham-Kent and Chatham, Kent would be too subtle for many casual readers. I'd also support the addition of a disambiguator for the em-dash form, if anyone wanted to bring that up officially. Keep Chatham as a dab page and Chatham, Kent at Chatham, Kent, though. I will note that this proposal has already gained more than twice as many comments as the previous move proposal, which only garnered three responses (and one of them was neutral). Though consensus is never an easy thing to judge on WP, I doubt that three comments in favour overall constitutes a major groundswell of support. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support despite the dab-hatnote, the present name is likely to be confued with the town in Kent, England. The suffix "Ontario" is thus highly desirable. Chatham—Kent refers to an electoral district. This should be renamed to soemthing like Chatham-Kent (electoral district). I am not clear what the WP Canadian practice on this is, the UK equivalent is "Foo (UK Parliamentary Constituency)". "Chatham" should certainly remain as a disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The em-dashes in electoral district names weren't chosen by us just as a way to disambiguate electoral district titles from city titles; they're actually part of the proper, legal, official name of the thing. You can read electoral district (Canada) if you need clarification, but the correct title for the electoral district does absolutely, unequivocally require an em-dash, not a hyphen. If you get hung up on the "distinct geographic names" part of the explanation, keep in mind that Chatham and Kent were two distinct geographic names at the time; when they were merged into the single entity of Chatham-Kent, the electoral district became Chatham-Kent—Essex. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Even so, Chatham—Kent surely also needs disaming - many of us are notoriously unable to distinguish between em-dashes and hyphens. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you appeared to be specifically suggesting that the electoral district's article should be moved to a title with a hyphen in it. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That was Pk, who I suspect may have been proving my point there! Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I already made my final comments to the Chatham-Kent, Ontario categories at the CfD. On the CfD I said "I would like to withdraw the nominated categories for renaming". And maybe the title Chatham-Kent, Ontario will be renamed soon from the main article to be matched with the existing categories. Since I made the withdraw from the CfD. Could these categories resulted as a "no consensus" at the CfD? Steam5 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be closed first. But I think we do have a consensus emerging: change the title here, & then close the Cfd as Keep, as they will then match the title here. No need to do anything further I think - let the closers handle it. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support and fix Chatham—Kent to something that can be easily distinguished regardless. Given there is no "—" on most keyboards most people interchange "-" and "—", so I have no idea how people distinguish between Chatham-Kent and Chatham—Kent. (I wish they would abolish WP:DASH anyway.) Aubergine (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The first part is easy it is by using redirects. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Nb discussion from 2007 a couple of sections up, with one recent comment supporting the move now proposed (ok, by Peterk, now repeated in this section). Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

edit request - The Colored School

Intense (aka non-wiki-based) research on Martin Delany ultimately leads one to Chatham, Ontario, where he was allegedly in exile at "the colored school". Will someone please expand this topic? --mikomango (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved JaGa^talk 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Chatham–Kent, Ontario → Chatham–Kent — ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Relisted. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is utterly rediculous. WP:CANSTYLE supports moving this back to Chatham–Kent, and absolutely no guideline or policy supports the current scheme. Similarity to another name is irrelevant, as Chatham-Kent redirects to this article; disambiguation is for article that are disambiguous, not articles with similar titles. The article itself explains where the place is, and that is not infact Chatham, Kent (which would never ever ever ever ever be written as Chatham–Kent). I was bold and made this move but it was reverted because of the 1-2/3 year old discussion above.

I can't even begin to explain the complete and total logical fallacy that the above discussion represents (making the title for this article more ambiguous because another place in the all-important primary-topic-hogging Britain is similarly named is ludicrous). It hurts my head too much. Use a hatnote (there already is one on Chatham, Kent) if you think readers are that bloody stupid; there is absolutely no reason that Chatham–Kent (which again, redirects to here) and Chatham, Kent can't both exist. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - A hatnote can always be used to avoid any confusion with the British town. Dough4872 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Dough4872, but shouldn't it be at "Chatham-Kent", with a hyphen? That's what the community itself seems to use. I really don't want a massive en-dash debate, but thought I'd raise the issue. Dohn joe (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  The hyphen makes more sense for navigational purposes. The proper name, however, would be with the dash; the city was created by the merger of Chatham and Kent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I've never understood how disambiguation helps one whit here. If a confused reader ends up at the wrong article, the hatnote will direct them to the right one. Since Chatham–Kent already (rightfully) redirects here, disambiguation doesn't help at all. It's disambiguation for the sake of disambiguation, and the applicable naming convention at WP:CANSTYLE does not require disambiguation in this instance. To assume that readers would be so confused by Chatham–Kent and Chatham, Kent, such that more than a hatnote is required and that we need to abandon our naming conventions, is to assume that our readers are stupid. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Erie Beach is not Fort Erie

Erie Beach is not Fort Erie, but it redirects there.

And has since 2008.

Also, am I the only one who has never heard of Raglan? Kid Bugs (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I change the redirect to Chatham-Kent. You could have done that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there is an Erie Beach in Fort Erie; just because you're more familiar with the one in Chatham-Kent doesn't mean it's the only one. Raglan, according to the MapArt Ontario Road Atlas, is just outside Shrewsbury — spitting distance, interestingly, from the Erie Beach in C-K. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

St. Clair St. image caption

How precise do we want to be on the image caption for St. Clair St? The caption indicates that it's Hwy 40, but where that image is actually taken, it has not become Hwy 40 at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagikDragon (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Farm labour allegations?

Why is this line in here: In the past there have been allegations of low pay and poor living and working conditions for these agricultural labourers.[13] 'El Contrato', a film by The National Film Board of Canada, addresses these issues in depth. The citation goes to an article on Leamington, which, last time I looked, was in Essex, not Chatham-Kent. The NFB film appears to center on Leamington too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagikDragon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chatham-Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515230646/http://www.hylandseeds.com/products.php to http://hylandseeds.com/products.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chatham-Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314154615/http://www.pathoy.onmpp.ca:80/E85GasolineNowAvailableinChatham-Kent.htm to http://www.pathoy.onmpp.ca/E85GasolineNowAvailableinChatham-Kent.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok.--Zefr (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Population

Just a reminder to everybody not to conflate the population of the municipality of Chatham-Kent with the population of the census division of Chatham-Kent. They are not the same thing; the census division consists of Chatham-Kent and the separate First Nations reserve at Moraviantown. The correct population figure for the municipality in the 2016 census is 101,647, not 102,042 — the 102,042 is the census division. I've added a clarification to the article about the difference between the municipality and the census division, including the population figure for the census division — but the population of the census division is not to be conflated with the population of the municipality, because they do not represent the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)