Template talk:Subdivisions of Ontario

Brant and Brantford are separate single-tiers but form one census division, so I used a hyphen between them instead of a pipe, to indicate this. Guelph is no different from all the rest of the separated muni's, so I removed Guelph and gave the separated's an italicized link to their list (as none of them form census divisions in their own right). Radagast 19:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

The older discussion from MediaWiki talk:Ontario, which I deleted, can be found here. --Ixfd64 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Harmonizing_province_templates. Circeus 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hunter Island

Let's get some consensus and settle whether to include Historical areas: Hunter Island. It does not belong here because this is a template for the political subdivisions of Ontario. In fact, if we were to list historical subdivisions, then it should list former counties and such, but not this island. There is no indication whatsoever that it ever was an recognized political subdivision. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a template for "Subdivisions of Ontario", not for "Political Subdivisions of Ontario" only. I agree that it serves mostly to outline political subdivisions, but not exclusively. Historical subdivisions are important and relevant too... I will revert... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• While the title is generic "Subdivisions of Ontario", it clearly means political as is more than evident from its content. Hunter Island has nothing in common with the other entities in this list. What is so important about it that it needs inclusion here over other historical subdivisions such as former counties? There is nothing in the article signifying any historic importance other than a boundary dispute. So, even if we include non-political subdivisions in this template, there still is no reason to include Hunter Island. It just never was or is a recognized subdivision of Ontario. Why you are pushing so hard to have this included? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Island is an important destination for Canadian and US recreationalists. The term is in common use & is not obsolete. These people would like to know some context for the area. Inclusion in the template facilitates that (as it will for other "historical areas" ... and not just "former counties"). Why you are pushing so hard to not have this (& other historical areas) included? 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Hunter Island an important destination for Canadian and US recreationalists??? There are probably more than a 100 more important recreation destinations in Ontario, and these are not on this template either - because this template is not for recreation destinations.
  2) If people need context for Hunter Island, place relevant descriptions and links in the article. Like stated before, Hunter Island has nothing in common with the other entities in this list. So it provides no context whatsoever. In fact, by adding it, it is equated with other geopolitical subdivision, making it misleading context.
  3) I don't mind inclusion of historic geopolitical subdivisions. But Hunter Island is neither of historic importance, nor a recognized subdivision of any kind.
  -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Greater Sudbury and Muskoka

In provincial law, the City of Greater Sudbury and the District Municipality of Muskoka are within the Territorial District of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Muskoka, respectively. See Schedule 2 of O. Reg. 180/03.

I believe the creation of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury did not create a hole in the Territorial District of Sudbury. I believe the Territorial District of Muskoka was never dissolved when the District Municipality of Muskoka was created. See Territorial Division Act, RSO 1950, c 388. See Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497.

This means the area municipalities of Sudbury Region geographically overlapped both the Regional Municipality of Sudbury and the Territorial District of Sudbury. Three layers could not "fit" into the two layer system of census divisions and subdivisions. Therefore, the census division, Sudbury with type District, excludes the geographic area of the former Regional Municipality of Sudbury - now the City of Greater Sudbury. There is currently a separate census division for the City of Greater Sudbury.

There is a similar case with Muskoka. The District Municipality of Muskoka is coextensive with the Territorial District of Muskoka. The census division, Muskoka, has the type District municipality but not District. There is a census subdivision for each lower-tier municipality of the upper-tier municipality of Muskoka.

Should Greater Sudbury be removed from this template? Like North Bay or Sault Ste. Marie, it is a single-tier municipality within a territorial district.

On this template, should Muskoka be listed both as a district and regional municipality? Both links could be to the same article. The linked article could note that the upper-tier municipality of Muskoka overlaps a similarly named territorial district.

It looks like there is some confusion between territorial districts and DSSAB districts. The districts for the ten DSSAB's are defined in O. Reg. 278/98. The article for Kenora District says it has a district seat. Both the articles for the District of Algoma and the District of Kenora give websites of a DSSAB. In my opinion, territorial districts do not have district seats, and DSSAB websites are not websites of territorial districts. Notice there are actually two DSSAB districts in the territorial district of Algoma. I have posted on the talk pages of the articles for both of Algoma District and Kenora District. Talk for Algoma --- Talk for Kenora

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:9164:EAFC:96A6:314B (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Territorial Division Act, RSO 1980, c 497, states the Territorial District of Muskoka consists of the District Municipality of Muskoka, and the District Municipality of Muskoka forms the Provisional Judicial District of Muskoka. As per this act, the Territorial District of Sudbury consists of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, several towns, geographic townships and any territory that remains within described boundaries. As per the act, the Territorial District of Sudbury forms the Provisional Judicial District of Sudbury.

In the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, SO 1972, c 104, subsection 6 (3) states the Regional Municipality of Sudbury forms part of the Provisional Judicial District of Sudbury, implying that the rest of the Territorial District of Sudbury forms the rest of the Provisional Judicial District of Sudbury.

In the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, RSO 1970, c 131, subsection 5 (3) states that the District Municipality is a provisional judicial district.

None of these acts say that the Regional Municipality of Sudbury does not form part of the Territorial District of Sudbury. None of these acts say that the District Municipality of Sudbury does not form part of the Territorial District of Muskoka.

I have an old Ontario Official Road Map that clearly does not draw a green county/district boundary around Sudbury Region, but does have it outlined in yellow like cities and other regional municipalities. My newer old official road maps give the misinformation that Sudbury District is shaped like a ring, and Sudbury Region is in another separated "outside". Maybe with the rise of computers, Sudbury Region got separated in two-layer datasets. The recent official road maps of Ontario don't have Greater Sudbury separated from Sudbury District.

Should Greater Sudbury be removed from this template? Like North Bay or Sault Ste. Marie, it is a single-tier municipality within a territorial district.

On this template, should Muskoka be listed both as a district and regional municipality? Both links could be to the same article. The linked article could note that the upper-tier municipality of Muskoka overlaps a similarly named territorial district.

--2607:FEA8:7A1F:F41F:9164:EAFC:96A6:314B (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)