Talk:Valley Waters

Awkward NB Village

In the turnaround days that are the Higg's conservative Government, the merged/emerged local gov't landscape didn't help with the awkwardness we've developed around regional local jurisdictions in the last fifty years.

Case in point, Village of Valley Waters. Fundy Albert is also calling themselves "Village of Fundy Albert" The capital "v" Village is the municipal entity type or model, rather then a centre of settlement activity and community. That is, they have the legislation afforded to Villages (not Towns, Cities, Regional Municipalities, Rural Communities, etc.)

They were each capital "v" Villages, Norton, Sussex Corner, Peticodiac, Salisbury, Alma, Riverside-Albert, Hillsborough, before Jan. 2023, when they were municipal jurisdictions on their own.

Now they are small "v" villages, just as Hopewell cape was a village and is a village in the Village of Fundy Albert.

So, an awkwardness arises in that the type of municipality is tacked on to the legal name. So in the case of Fundy Albert, they have put in the name the word "Village", which is pretty awkward in the sense of the word's meaning when you consider the dispersed nature of the communities contained in the jurisdiction.

It is not necessary to put "village of" in the name just because it is incorporated as a "Village". It would help a lot if the naming were to respond to the reality of the entity. That is, we are now some kind of a region. What kind of region?

It is not correct to say that the former Villages are unincorporated since they reside in the new, larger regional corporate entity, i.e. Hillsborough, New Brunswick. in this case, the community incorporated under the municipalities act (or local governance act, or is it the department of Environment and local government and local government reform acts and regulations lol, what evs).... goes into the bigger municipal container.

I'm going ahead and editing this article for clarity (and sanity). Spooninpot (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Using unincorporated community for an area inside a municipal body is counter to wiki guidelines. I'd suggest community or neighbourhood, depending on how urbanised an area is. Having two types of village distinguished by case is confusing.

"[A} local government jurisdiction" or "local government region" are both misleading terms. Village has a specific legal meaning in this province, one that is easily worked around by using any of many synonyms of the word for anything other than a municipality. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, hey. you caught on. When you, @G. Timothy Walton, don't understand, you have to relinquish your proprietary outlook on the material. I'm not concerned with what you have discovered, just that there be clarity, and perhaps some attention paid, the confusion around the enabling legislation definition and the broader more common understanding of a Village..

I disagree with your centralism (perhaps a product of the NB phenomenon) that would jetison the meaning of "village" so that the province's legislation might trump the rest of the world. Should we be so entitled?

Next, there will be discarded the rural community that is not a Rural Community (under the province's legislation).

Simple, concervation subdivision, can get it's own NB entry under the title "Sustainable Community Design"

It shouldn't be such a fight to keep meaning intact but look, even contributors to wiki are part of the assault.

A simple village vs. Village (under the local government legislation), or incorporated village, are going to work fine.

How come you don't understand, @G ?

That although for some reason Hopewell Cape didn't incorporate, it remained a village simply by virtue of being a village by the traditional definition, and, that using the municipality type of "Village" to describe the new entity must come first for you, even tho it is problematic and incorrect.

We don't have to be given permission to be called a village. We can ofcourse be foremost proud of our communities, and the jurisdictional entities second. You don't just create community out of the blue, it is built. Perhaps what is revealing is a sort of personal loyalty. Spooninpot (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

*yawn* "I don't want to be flexible in my use of English, so I'm going to expect everyone to guess which connotation I'm applying with each use." Did I miss anything with that summation? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes Spooninpot (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Then ditch the hyperbole and strawmen and present something coherent. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

you, sir @G, would by any evaluation appear to be clinical in your disposition. Spooninpot (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's an idea on how to be useful instead of editorialising on or vandalising pages – put the province's legal description of city, town, village, etc. in the List of municipalities page and wikilink to it as appropriate instead of throwing a tantrum over numerous pages. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in working towards contributions that can be characterized as hindering an article's accessibility with the fine grains and confining parameters... i.e. that list you mention

IMO working towards consensus here is hindered by tainted waters in consequence of your way or the highway.

We will slight each other and use our reinforcements, or?

I am looking for the acknowledgment from you that it is NOT necessary for legal status to be included in the settlement type field of an entry if it is about the place and not the legal entity. Sure it CAN be, and it can erode a "village" to a "unincorporated former incorporated (name of municipality type here)"

There is no need to set the stage for future trip-ups. Spooninpot (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Spooninpot: if you don’t like what the Government of NB has done and think its implementation of the reforms has created one hot mess of awkwardness, then express your concerns to the provincial government rather than battlegrounding against legislated facts being regurgitated on this encyclopedia. Over 20 years ago, the same happened in Ontario and illogical statuses and the like were the result. Case in point, the City of Kawartha Lakes. Also the County of Brant being continued under city status. Hwy43 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, @Hwy43.

I see you've discussed below @[[User:G. Timothy Walton|G's campaign to rid the word "village" from entries about villages (and not the matter of this talk entry). "..given the centuries of lack of local governance.." *yes, eye's rolling*

Many of these former incorpoated Villages were residents of regional local government entities prior to their incorporation about the year 1966. This is a part of the local heritage perhaps you are aware of.

They will continue to be called villages because it is not legislation explicitly that enables use of the term.

Unless an article is explicitly about the jurisdictional/legal aspect of the place discussed in an entry, it is unacceptable to replace "village" with "community". Again, the existence of corporate entities called villages does not disqualify the word from its use where it applies.

There is plenty of work ahead for editors, especially those wishing to focus on the administrative units. When a community that is a village before and after it's initial incorporation under that name, perhaps also for others that were a product of a merger for incorporation at that time, it is not strictly about the incorporated community. That is because village is distinct from incorporated village.

@G. Timothy Walton would seem to have wished to address the dissolution aspect of the municipalities. That can be done while still using village by removing the attachment to the legislative definition of the word. Spooninpot (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have edited every municipality article in Canada outside of Quebec and nearly a thousand if not a couple thousand unincorporated community articles in Canada over my 13+ years on here. The consensus usage of the |settlement_type= in infoboxes is for municipal status (if the community is incorporated) or a different unincorporated designation (if the community is not incorporated in its own right). The consensus is then to reflect the same in the lead paragraph.

If a community was once an urban municipality (e.g., village, town, city) but is no longer, we do not convey it as still being one in the infobox or the lead. Due to the consensus usage across municipality articles, our readers expect that, if a community is incorporated as a village, town, or city, then the infobox and lead will accurately reflect such. If we make willy-nilly exceptions for former urban municipalities that are no longer municipalities in their own right, whether due to amalgamation, annexation, or dissolution, we do not incorrectly perpetuate that the community is still a village, town, or city in the infobox or lead.

Thus, it is absolutely acceptable, approriate, and expected to replace "village" with "X" in this case, in which X is the most appropriate unincorporated designation.

Can various people still colloquially refer to a previously incorporated community as if it were still a village, town, or city? Yes. But at the end of the day, such is inaccurate and not factual for an encyclopedia.

Fort McMurray hasn't been a city since 1995. Residents, media, politicians, etc. still refer to it as a city in speech and writing, but it is officially a hamlet that is further recognized as an urban service area.[1][2]

Beyond this, I have seen you fail to assume good faith, issue personal attacks, and be incivil towards GTW while also engaging in disruptive editing and edit warring on this topic. You are seemingly new here and need to learn the ropes quickly or you will soon be blocked from editing by an admin. I suggest you review these links with respect to editing behaviour, reflect on the consensus I articulated above, stop your current edit warring, and consider adopting a more civil, collaborative approach moving forward. Hwy43 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you for your advice again. While I bring to the table an intimate knowledge of the material, my experience is limited here.

To user @Hwy43 advantage, I have offered the target for your warring to house community within corporate status, refusing to discuss the matter (of geography and jurisdiction).

Because It seems the investment in the municipal aspect of community is about to severe the geographic landscape hereabouts.

You don't live in a village anymore is what you're saying to village people. The village houses more public and private corporate entities. It houses the persons under the law and the persons who are citizens.

It may be that the articles remain snapped to the governance grid and that new, unofficial, entries might contend for existence. you could discuss the question in a roundabout way by telling me that's not the case. Spooninpot (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you've done so many edits (why not Quebec?)..

one does not build consensus this way, but it confronts as a manual or best practices.

I don't believe the template hinges on municipal status for it's use. And if so, why might that always need to be the case? Am I wrong? Build consensus here.

Like with you're contemporary, the "official only" approach is at issue.

I think you're making presumptions the reader understood things the way you see them, so that exceptions might be a perception for officials. It will be a hard policing job especially if you want to take it beyond the template. Rural/unincorporated, urban/incorporated are fallacies you/we need to discuss. Spooninpot (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@G. Timothy Walton: “Using unincorporated community for an area inside a municipal body is counter to wiki guidelines” is incorrect as I am not familiar with any such guidelines. Maybe it is an unfamiliar concept in NB, which is understandable given the centuries of lack of municipal governance in NB’s rural areas. There are unincorporated communities within municipalities covering rural areas elsewhere across Canada. Use of “neighbourhood” is not acceptable as it is a type of community, usually nested within a larger contiguous urban community. We would need a reliable source to verify its designation as such by the administering municipality. Simply use “community” as it is the umbrella term at the top that is inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities. Hwy43 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hwy43: I think I ran across some WP: entry a month or so ago that restricted the term unincorporated to areas outside municipal governments; right now all I can find is the Unincorporated area article. Neighbourhood seemed appropriate at some point for places that became parts of cities but... yeah, it's almost never appropriate. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I recall the same discussion and believe I chimed in that unincorporated communities can be within larger incorporated rural municipalities (e.g. Emerald Park) in addition to unincorporated/unorganized areas (e.g., Uranium City). I doubt I could find it myself now either.

With respect to my concerns expressed towards Spooninpot about their editing behaviour, I have seen you similarly sink to some of the same behaviour. Now is a great time to rise back up to your usual MO. Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And Spooninpot, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the former villages as being unincorporated communities as they are no longer distinct incorporated communities in and of themselves. Instead, they are now administered by a different municipality with a much more vast geography. There are thousands of unincorporated communities within larger municipalities across Canada. There are 403 communities in Alberta alone that carry the unincorporated community designation of hamlet.

To this end, I am going to edit each dissolved municipality’s article to read as “Unincorporated community (former X)” in the infoboxes in which X is village or town. Hwy43 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not, user Hwy43, if you value consensus. Until it is established that all contributions to community entries pre and post-template belong only to the legal forms of the community. that undertaking will make the situation worse.

Since you are likely going to act unilaterally or in concert with user, will you also be addressing corporate seals? electors? Representatives? Census figures? Etc.?

Perhaps what would be best is for a general disclaimer as new entities are finished, and the villages do not need to be turned into unincorporated communities or "former villages" according to the legislation.

But again, you guys are the officials. Spooninpot (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Improvements will included

Description of territorial limits of the region/district as per ELG data sets Local Governments and LSDs. We are having a better look at just what the area is.

Clarification of Village "it is a village no matter how illogical it appears". that is not to say that we cannot be exact in conveying the ways in which it is a village and the ways in which it is not. The assertion is that a local government body must be called by the local government type awarded to it without any further qualification. But there is no need to enforce or emphasize type of the municipal government, at the betrayal of the nature of the jurisdiction.

Rock musician Ian Sherwood no longer lives in Norton. nor does he live in the Valley Waters municipality. He lives in Apohaqui, NB which is in the Butternut Valley municipality.

Settlement infobox settlement type may be found to need to adhere to strict usage, but where is the consensus about exclusion of descriptors in the lead?

Improvements are required to many articles created in bulk template fashion for the province's new local governments because of the templates use of the type of municipality that misleads the unknowing reader. "village" incorporation has made a departure from a coincidence with it's normal use (though the template links to the article village, not Village under the Local Governance act of New Brunswick) and meaning into the territory of district as in Rural District. Valley Watters resulted from the expansion and renaming of the Norton, NB village municipality. It was caused to annex a greater portion of the district of Norton, a portion of Upham, the bulk of Springfield and Wickham (Queens Co.) LSDs. PonapsqisHous (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)