Talk:Sackville, New Brunswick

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

Untitled[edit]

This statement in [August 11, 2006] doesn't seem correct: Mount Allison University launched "Project Rebuild" shortly after the fire, hoping to fundraise enough money to give the town of Sackville a head start in reconstuction and cleanup. Was the purpose to "give a head start" or to aid in cleanup in general? --Mbcudmore 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

didn't sackville just receive a cultural capital award or something?? check the CBC news, I think it was on there...

Glen


What about the worlds largest salt marshes? Second longest covered bridge? Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.190.254 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the following articles, all of which are stubs, be merged into be merged into Sackville,_New_Brunswick. Upper Point de Bute, Midgic, British Settlement, Halls Hill, Jolicure, Upper Sackville, Middle Sackville, Point de Bute, Mount Whatley and Sackville Parish. I think that the content (of which there is next to none) in these articles can easily be explained in the context of Sackville, and the Sackville article is of a reasonable size that the merging of these articles will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Cornellier (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that the government has combined these locations? IE: Through amalgamation? if not I propose that we do not combine these articles.Hogie75 16:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The question is really why should these articles exist? They are not notable enough to have had any content added to them since 2009 when they were created by the blocked sock puppet Cherry1000. An exception might be Westcock,_New_Brunswick and Midgic,_New_Brunswick which was been variously vandalised and subject to revert wars. None of the places mentioned is considered by the government of New Brunswick to be a town, village, or even rural community[1]. --Cornellier (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that part on whether or not these articles should exist. I guess if you want to delete them because they are not notable then go for it. as for the merging part, it just makes things confusing I am finding as I make the Route pages. I am finding that some places are merged and some people don't know and finding duplicated information. In my suggestion, if you feel you have to delete them that is the better option than merging them.08:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK so how about this:
--Cornellier (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I guess. As for Midgic and Westcock. They haven't been Vandelized in years according to the history pages of each. I honestly don't see the problem with leaving things as they are unless they are causing some confusion or problems but you are right, there is very little information on each of these pages of relevance. Honestly if I have my say, I would leave the pages as they are. Just my personal opinion.Hogie75 09:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
OK I'm not going to bother with this, since no but me seems to support the idea.--Cornellier (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section cleanup[edit]

The history section is sorely lacking in references. It is also overly long, given the size of the article itself. I'm not saying Sackville doesn't have a lot of history to document, just that that history content is rather dominating the article. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the History of Sackville. I propose to refresh it with some referenced content. Also reduce the scope a little to exclude some of the contextual information that is not specific to Sackville and is very well documented in other articles. Also it seems to me that there are some important aspects of the history missing, e.g. how it became incorporated, or the hay economy. I think the structure should be something like:

  • The Mi'kmaq (prehistory). Given what I just said above, maybe this section is too long.
  • Early settlers 1708-1840 (European colonisation: Acadians, British repopulation)
  • Industrialisation 1840-1945 (shipbuilding, railway, foundries, hay)
  • Modern Sackville (expansion of the university, service-based economy, tourism) --Cornellier (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sackville, New Brunswick. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote usage[edit]

A hatnote has been added with a link to Sackville Parish, New Brunswick. According to WP:HAT the purpose of a hatnote "is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." Very few people are looking for the page about this historical parish, as seen in its page view stats. Per WP policy "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." There is not a reasonable possibility of this, so the link to the parish should be removed. --Cornellier (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parish is surrounding the town in question and has a name that is very nearly identical.
Legally, the parish includes the town. The parish is mentioned in the infobox and, inaccurately, in the body. Given that the local service district of the parish of Sackville is colloquially shortened to just Sackville, it is reasonable to expect that people unfamiliar with the subject may come to the wrong page and not realise it. It is more efficient to hatnote the parish article in the dozens of such cases in the province than it is to edit each municipality or community's page.
Given that the chance of confusion between town and parish than between town and most other provinces or countries, it is more reasonable to retain the link in the page's hatnote. It would be logical to add Sackville, Nova Scotia to the hatnote if it were a single community but that page is a disambiguation page for three communities with the word Sackville in their name. It's difficult to imagine any other page with the name Sackville being more likely to cause confusion with the town in New Brunswick than the parish in New Brunswick. Applying WP:UNDUE is not appropriate in this case.
It was my impression that such hatnotes were used to address likely cases of confusion, not to point out popular pages unlikely to be confused with the one on which the hatnote appears. In my opinion, it's ridiculous to remove the page most likely to have been sought by a user not intimately familiar with the subject.
The hatnote should stay. --G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAT states: "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." This is not the case here. --Cornellier (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very words you quote actually support the reasoning I gave above re: Sackville LSD being a probably source of confusion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not my "very words", it's WP policy at WP:HAT. Second, why are you now talking about the LSD? Sackville Parish, New Brunswick isn't about the LSD, it's about the historical parish. You appear to be willfully ignoring Wikipedia policy. --Cornellier (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there is no such thing as a(n) "historical parish", there are only civil parishes that still exist in law. See List of parishes in New Brunswick for a correct explanation of their status and how some other uses of the term parish cause confusion.
Okay, follow this chain:
  • "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind" —WP:HAT
  • People may end up here because they didn't know that the civil parish and the town are two separate entitities.
  • People may have been looking for information on the LSD which they saw referred to somewhere else and again, not know that the town and the LSD are two separate entitities; LSD information does or will appear in the Sackville Parish article.
  • reasonable (grabbing the first citation on The Free Dictionary, so American Heritage Dictionary) = "Being within the bounds of common sense".
  • Not everybody likely to look for a Sackville in New Brunswick is from New Brunswick.
  • Not everybody from New Brunswick who looks for Sackville is certain to know the difference between town and parish or town and LSD.
So unless there is some hidden criterion being applied here, mentioning the Sackville Parish article in the hatnote does respect WP:HAT.
Mentioning both Parish and LSD in the hatnote would have been better but I didn't think of it while I was slogging through hundreds of articles using the same name for a civil parish and a municipality or community within its boundaries. What a waste of time this is having to argue that x = x. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above assumes readers want to read about the parish, which is false. It's had 50-odd hits in the past month. Sackville has had 25 times that many hits. The article had 50 revisions over 10 years. The parishes are simply not notable. So, sadly, there is not " a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article" with the parish "in mind". --Cornellier (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's had 50-odd hits in the past month." Sounds like traffic to me, even allowing for my editing visits.
There is nothing in WP:HAT that mentions a required traffic level to qualify as "[...] a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." This traffic-based criterion you keep citing is not mentioned there.
Your argument is not supported by the content of the source you keep citing. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for the hatnote is predicated on the notion that significant number of readers are looking for Sackville Parish, New Brunswick. But it's doubtful the article would even pass WP:NOT if created today. If you are asserting that readers wish to confirm that the boundary of the parish runs west by the magnet of eighteen hundred and sixty seven from the southeast angle of lot number one, granted to Otho Reed, at the mouth of Gaspereau Creek;[a] west by Dorchester Parish and Chignecto Bay; south and east by Cumberland Basin and the Aulac River, from its mouth to the upper line of the Sackville grant; thence by a line running north by the magnet of the year seventeen hundred and sixty-five to a point on the said line one hundred and two chains southerly from where the road through Midgic leaves the said line at Edwin Dixon’s gate; thence running north fifty-seven degrees and thirty minutes east by the magnet of eighteen hundred and eighty to the channel of Big Jolicure Lake; thence along the said channel and main brook up stream to the prolongation southwestwardly of the southeast line of David Wheaton’s mill lot; thence along the said prolongation and line to the east angle of said Wheaton’s mill lot..., that is indefensible. This is a straight up copy-paste of historical trivia from the NB archives. Virtually the only useful information in the article is census information. Since you seem to be willing to ignore WP policy on this, and seem to be sincerely convinced the parish article as it is adds value to Wikipedia, I'm not sure what else can be said in the the framework of this talk page. --Cornellier (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that if I go look at WP:NOT it won't support your conclusion, either.
If you've nothing constructive to add, please stop being destructive. There are people in this world who find the New Brunswick parishes interesting and people who don't yet know about them who will. Neither is served by your attempts to pretend they no longer exist, nor by trying to hide their existence from those who aren't yet familiar with the subject. Checking the history of the parish article I find an unsuccessful earlier attempt to merge it with the town. What is the motivation for this fixation?
Obviously others do find this subject noteworthy as the page was created more than a decade ago, six years after the town article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply once again fails to address the remarks in the preceding comment. Seems to be a pattern, and until it changes, I shall abstain from further comment here. --Cornellier (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sackville,_New_Brunswick&oldid=1199972264"