Talk:Melville Island (Nova Scotia)

Gratuitous feedback

• ..resold it to James Kavanagh, the head of a prosperous family fishery. hmm, I'd be thinking Kavanagh either owns a fishery or is the head of a family. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Article is heavy on history but light on geography (but I guess you know that). Not a bar to DYK anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's currently built on two history-heavy sources - looking to expand shortly. Thanks for the review, and the tweaks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like it's progressing nicely towards GAN anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Would it be possible to artfully incorporate a link to this page from Halifax Regional Municipality. It seems like this well written article deserves to be linked from the page of the city where it is found. Mattximus (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Currencies

Would it make sense to also give conversions in present-day Canadian dollars in addition or instead of present-day pounds sterling? I'm suggesting that because the article deals with a Nova Scotian locality. Also, do the sources mention what pounds were used? I'm assuming it would be pounds sterling, although it could have been the Nova Scotian pound (pegged to the sterling but replaced by the Nova Scotian dollar and then Canadian dollars). Maxim_(talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only one specified was pound sterling; others don't say. As to conversions, I'm not sure, because it would make a difference which you did first - the Canadian dollar was worth a different amount in pounds in, say, 1900, than it is now, so would we be trying to convert the original number then account for inflation, or the other way around? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of converting today's pounds sterling to today's Canadian dollars. You didn't have Canadian dollars before 1858 (from 1841, however, there were Canadian pounds). But, Nova Scotia didn't use Canadian currency until Confederation. The idea of converting the pounds sterling from the 19th century to today gives a sense of the purchasing power, so the conversion of today's pounds to today's dollars would give a better idea of purchasing power for Canada. To sum up, I'm thinking of (19th century £ --> present-day £ --> present-day CAD$) Maxim_(talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why "Island"?

The article title begs the question - why is it known by the name Island? I scanned the article, couldn't find an explanation. --Chriswaterguy talk 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost asks the same question:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-23/Featured content

I believe that I have the answer.

"John Rae (1846-7), acting on a suggestion made by Franklin in 1828 and 1836, and under a commission from the Hudson Bay Company, traced on foot the whole coast between Fury and Hecla Strait on the summit of Melville Peninsula, and the base of Boothia Peninsula, thus joining Parry's north-western with Ross's easternmost limits. He passed the winter at the base of Melville Peninsula, which was a low isthmus, thenceforth called Rae Isthmus, forty miles across and seven-eighths lake, like that which formed the base of Boothia Peninsula; and in both cases there were two lines of lake across the isthmus. "

Source: http://www.archive.org/stream/canadaptiiigeogr00rogerich/canadaptiiigeogr00rogerich_djvu.txt

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the description in that source, though, I think they're referring to Melville Island (Northwest Territories and Nunavut). There are a number of well-known peninsulas called islands - compare Granville Island or Coney Island. It's possible that, as in both of those cases, this was once a "real" island, or it could be that some mapmaker didn't bother to explore fully. I don't know why, and none of the sources I've looked at explain it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I was just in the process of adding an infobox to this article, when it was removed with the edit summary "infobox adds nothing here. All of its information is contained within the first few lines of the article". The purpose of an infobox is to summarise in a standardised way the salient key features of its subject, from elsewhere on the page, even the lede, and to emit them as metadata. The infobox should be restored; and expanded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The salient features are already summarized in the first few sentences, and I really doubt there's a standardized infobox that would fit well with this article - it's rather quirky. What metadata did you want to include here that is not already emitted by the {{coord}} template? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The removed infobox was {{Infobox settlement}}, which is intended - and is perfectly fit - for this purpose. That would include the surface area, population (if in the article; I hadn't got that far), the former name, and the type of 'settlement'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't a settlement. It is currently a yacht club, and was previously a prison (military and POW), hospital, recruitment centre, receiving depot, storage area...none of which are neatly encompassed by "settlement". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox settlement "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the documentation, but it still doesn't fit - this isn't a subdivision of anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It;s a subdivision of Halifax Regional District, as the opening paragraph makes clear. Would you feel better if it were called "Infobox Foo? That's just a label. It's what appears on the page that matters, and that infobox is suitable for this article. Furthermore, the article has a section called "Early settlement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't: a subdivision is a political or otherwise official determination, whereas this is a geographic feature that happens to be located within the area of the Halifax Regional Municipality. We should perhaps pick a better name for that section, as no source I've seen has suggested anyone lived there before it was used for prisoners. I wouldn't feel better if an infobox designed for "settlements" was used in this article, no matter what it's called, quite simply because this isn't a settlement, and most of the parameters of that infobox cannot correctly be applied here. A customized infobox would be less inappropriate on that count, but given your emphasis on "summaris[ing] in a standardised way" as a key feature of an infobox, a this-article-only mutant infobox type would be undesirable. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The page you link to includes the definition "Subdivision (land), a term for an urban or suburban area". The article's second sentence is: "It is part of the Halifax Regional Municipality", in which "part" is synonymous with "subdivision". As to being setted, the article says "The first documented settlement of Melville Island was by Robert Cowie and John Aubony [...] in 1752". Which parameter of Infobox settlement, which I have used or propose to use for this article, do you feel are not appropriate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That definition refers to a housing subdivision, which this certainly is not. I know what the article says - I wrote it, and I assure you, my explanation is closer to the intention than yours. Again, if you have suggestions for clarifications needed in the article's wording, I'd be glad to hear them. As to parameters, even looking at the suggestions you put forward earlier in this section, "population" and "type" would be problematic here - and those are fairly fundamental to your suggested infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That wording in that definition makes no mention of "housing". Indeed, the article the definition links to begins "Subdivision is the act of dividing land into pieces that are easier to sell or otherwise develop". As this article makes clear, Melville Island was sold as a single piece. The subdivision article goes on to say "If it is used for housing...", making clear that they may also not be used for housing. that article's second paragraph opens "Subdivisions may also be for the purpose of commercial or industrial development". Again, this article makes sear that Melville Island has seen commercial development. I'm afraid I therefore attach no weight to your bogus assurance. Please explain why |population= and |type= (both of which are not "fairly fundamental", but entirely optional,; and assuming the latter has a value of "peninsular", per the article's opening, "Melville Island is a small peninsula") would not meet with your approval; and say whether you would accept the infobox without one or both of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Peninsular" is not a type of settlement or subdivision, there is no population figure that would take into account the site's various usages (other than "various", which is so vague as to be unhelpful), and no, at this point with the information given and options presented, I would not. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, so your objection is regardless of those two parameters. Which other fields in the infobox, that I have proposed using, are objectionable to you, and why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the infobox you proposed is not compatible with the topic of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that it? I've already refuted that bogus claim, quite thoroughly, and your editing the word "settlement" out of the subheading and text doesn't change anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully that change will prevent others from being confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears only to exemplify your confusion. Since you apparently have no substantive objection to the infobox, I suggest we restore it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all: as was pointed out by your commentary above, "early settlement" was inaccurate, because the site was not technically "settled". Now that we've clarified that this site is not a settlement, the settlement infobox doesn't belong. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We've clarified no such thing; my reasoning is laid out at length, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As is mine. I appreciate that the use of infoboxes is something you feel strongly about, but not all articles fit into the "standardized" model, nor are they required to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you've just posted a series of assertions, each of which I've refuted with evidence. And true, not every article "fits into the standardized model"; however this one does. But thank you for revealing what seems to be your real objection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support an infobox on this place; arguments made on Stoli, Fleming, Sellers all apply here, too. Nikkimaria, your arguments are unconvincing; you simply don't like them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what happens what happens wrt infoboxes on the articles you mention, so perhaps you could summarize the arguments you feel are relevant from those pages. As I'm sure you're aware, the decision on whether to include an infobox or not is currently made on a page-by-page basis, as they are neither required nor prohibited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You can haz paste:

"... the function of an infobox; it serves as a précis of the article. The vast majority of visitors to any article do not read the article. People are looking for a fact and the obvious ones are what belong in the box. This is also why articles have a TOC; so people can skip right to "Works", for example. I know, you want them to all read the page. But that's not realistic. People browse the web, they skim, and when something catches their interest, then they might buckle down and read teh brilliant prose."

It is not appropriate for this war to be fought article by article, which is disruptive. Infoboxes appear on the vast majority of well developed articles and are a de facto standard. Those seeking their removal should attempt to get a site wide consensus on the issue before disrupting individual or classes of articles.

Infoboxes enjoy site wide support as demonstrated by their millions. The onus is always on those who would deviated from site norms.

Guidelines are descriptive so when they are at odds with ambient practise they're simply out-of-date guidelines. There are millions of infoboxes and easily hundreds added to articles each day. Too many participants seek to retard progress :/

Infoboxes are part of the site's design. They are to serve readers who are looking for a précis, who are surfing. Seeking to exclude the infobox is akin to wanting some other part of the MediaWiki interface gone, such as the wiki-globe. It would be better to view the infobox as a sibling to the column of stuff to the left of the article.

Have a look at Andy's signature:

• <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>) ... </span>

Those classes are about generating microformats; metadata. That's what infoboxes do (besides, of course, offering a précis of the topic). Those who argue for infoboxes do so for solid reasons. Most of the arguments against infoboxes are mere subjective personal preferences, and are about wanting to drive eyeballs to teh brilliant prose.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support the use of infobox at this page. Ingoboxes are a nice,easy and short way to get info on a subject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Caution: I note that it's looking like a 3:1 issue in favor of having an info box at the moment. I also note that if there isn't a bright-line WP:3RR violation in article history (I didn't check the timestamps), it most certainly is getting into the WP:EW area. Please be careful folks. If all else fails - consider a proper WP:RFC. — ChedZILLA 18:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote-counting really doesn't help, 'zilla! >.< That just makes this more divisive. (And if you check the page-history, User:Maxim was the first editor to revert Andy's infobox, so 3:2 ... but hopefully irrelevant) —Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If you don't want to consider the numbers, perhaps you might actually review the points made (or not made, in Maxim's case) in the discussion? And yes, there was a clear breach of 3RR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Break for hedgehogs

I'm usually in favor of infoboxes, wherever they could potentially be useful (to readers, and to researchers via unique metadata). It's often possible to find a compromise solution, based on the nuanced needs and problems in each individual article. But it involves more work than just dumping a giant empty template on an article, especially in the middle of the day that the article is on the MainPage, and then filling out field by field as much as you can whilst reading through. (Although, Andy was reverted within minutes, so didn't have a chance to demonstrate just how much info he envisioned being in the final product. I'm not sure if he intended the minimal-version that appeared later, or a more completely-filled-out-version like that in Halifax Peninsula. More on that, below.)

Here, the choice between With and Without is not clear-cut. For a reader, the coord is already available in the topright corner, and the Country/Province/Municipality info in the first 2 sentences; therefore it can almost make equal sense to go without infobox, and enlarge the size of lead image (from 1.3 to 1.35) even further. That whole "draw the reader in" angle, and also the "don't distract the reader with barely-relevant details" angle (we could add timezone, and population=0, and currently-controlling-political-party/mayor, and postcode and and... thankdoG there isn't a [Template:Infobox marina] (yet) to completely confuse things... gah! No wonder some people are hostile towards over-infoboxing...) ...

Regarding metadata, what does infoboxsettlement actually/exactly output currently, in this case? If we use the infobox, will it add those 3 fields (Country/Province/Municipality) to http://dbpedia.org/page/Melville_Island_(Nova_Scotia) ? --- If I do a comparison with Abydos, Egypt and http://dbpedia.org/page/Abydos,_Egypt then I'm guessing an infobox would add "dbpedia-owl:country", "dbpedia-owl:isPartOf", "dbpprop:subdivisionName", and "dbpprop:subdivisionType" fields into dbpedia's entry for Melville Island.

One worry, is would it also turn the subheading from the current "An Entity of Type : _Feature" into what Abydos has, "An Entity of Type : populated place", because that would probably be a mistake (depending on how rigorous the definitions are, ideally and realistically). What are the implications of "rdf:type = gml:_Feature" and can/should it be improved in any way? —Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You overlook the infoboxes microformat. Please refrain from strawman points such as yours about the mayor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You sometimes give really non-useful replies...

I asked some relevant questions in there, but you ignored them completely. I'm trying to help you discuss things rationally, instead of just wikilawyering. I'm giving you openings to discuss practical and in-use examples, but instead you're treating it like an argument. Can we try again?

What infoboxes microformat details am i overlooking (I thought I'd examined them in my paragraphs above)? I see the info in Template:Infobox_settlement#Microformat, but if I check View->Source at Abydos, Egypt then the only identifiable "class=..." info is in the coordinates info (eg 'class="geo-dec"'). The subdivisiontype1 is only outputting:

<tr class="mergedrow">
<th>Governorate</th>
<td><a href="/wiki/Sohag_Governorate" title="Sohag Governorate">Sohag Governorate</a></td>

Which I guess is being scraped and interpreted somehow? Or maybe the backend is relying on its separate knowledge of http://dbpedia.org/page/Sohag_Governorate to combine the sets of metadata, hence providing the details at Abydos' page?

And directly: How many fields do you believe ought to be filled out, in the infobox on this article? Just the 4 fields in this diff, or quite a few more? —Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your interesting presumption that I need your help to discuss things rationally is mistaken. You discussed nothing to do with microformats and your examination of Abydos, Egypt has overlooked all of its microformat classes (geo-dec isn't one); you can find a list of potential classes, on the infobox's documentation. Your question about infobox parameters for this article has already been discussed, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "diplomatically". It's painful watching all these dozens of talkpage battlegrounds. You give minimal answers to people who don't have familiarity with the background; that comes across as dismissive and rude. I guess I'm not making myself understood either, so I'll just back off. —Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The behaviour that you describe is typical of Andy Mabbett when he's thwarted in his attempts to force info-boxes on pages where the editors don't want them.  Giano  13:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your interesting presumption that I need your help to discuss things diplomatically is also mistaken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection

The wrong version of the article has been successfully protected.

I've just fully protected this page for three days because of the edit war that went on yesterday and today. Please discuss proposed changes here instead of edit warring (see WP:BRD), you may consider dispute resolution steps, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melville Island (Nova Scotia). 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/20151024104415/http://www.library.dal.ca/archives/trela/letters/558mont2feb67.htm to http://www.library.dal.ca/archives/trela/letters/558mont2feb67.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729091357/http://www.rcm.ns.ca/rcm_record_catalogue.html to http://www.rcm.ns.ca/rcm_record_catalogue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melville Island (Nova Scotia). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.halifax.ca/harboursol/documents/ExecutiveSummaryFinalSummaryReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122230824/http://halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/documents/NWArm_Report_CW_v1.0-Compressed.pdf to http://www.halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/documents/NWArm_Report_CW_v1.0-Compressed.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122230824/http://halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/documents/NWArm_Report_CW_v1.0-Compressed.pdf to http://www.halifax.ca/RealPropertyPlanning/documents/NWArm_Report_CW_v1.0-Compressed.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Melville Island (Nova Scotia). 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/20110626044242/http://www.armdaleyachtclub.ns.ca/pdf/AYC_Marinas_and_Grounds.pdf to http://armdaleyachtclub.ns.ca/pdf/AYC_Marinas_and_Grounds.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822221441/http://www.armdaleyachtclub.ns.ca/pdf/bur_4_9_RH_web.pdf to http://www.armdaleyachtclub.ns.ca/pdf/bur_4_9_RH_web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608220540/http://www.armdaleyachtclub.ns.ca/history.htm to http://www.armdaleyachtclub.ns.ca/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)