Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 10 September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Category:War adventure films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. JForget 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:War adventure films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can find no reliable sources for a genre called "war adventure," and the description provided on this page is too vague to be useful. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, if there are War Adventure, there should be also War Action and War Thrillers. Chigurgh (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
Also, the book The British Cinema has entire section in the book dedicated to the genre: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination has been proven wrong by Andrzejbanas with many sources. This is a respected subgenre so why wouldn't their be a category for those films. Perhaps a changing in the documentation could use some work, but that is not a point for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination, per the sources provided by Andrzejbanas. The description on the cat. page needs improvement, though, in keeping with the references. Is there enough information to justify an article for the subgenre? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft specs templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aircraft specs templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One template (and its sandbox which shouldn't be categorized anyway) doesn't warrant its own category. Until recently, this category contained categories now in Category:Aircraft spec cleanup as subcategories, but I moved them, because they don't contain templates. Svick (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are two other, older aircraft specification templates - Template:Aircraft specifications and Template:Aerospecs - a category may be useful if it covers all three.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - now some genius has FULL protected them without any discussion or apparent consenus, they cannot be moved.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be added to the documentation subpages, so the full protection doesn't matter. Svick (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a few more aircraft specs templates to be added to this category as Nigel mentions, Template:Pistonspecs and Template:Jetspecs are two that are commonly used. It was obviously intended for project organisation in the same way that I created Category:Lists of aircraft engines recently. I would ask that deletion is deferred until the creator can respond here and work on it (he is only partially active on WP at the moment I believe), failing that I will round up all the aircraft project specs templates and add them to this category. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Frankfurt am Main[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Frankfurt am Main to Category:People from Frankfurt
Nominator's rationale: To match the correct title of the main article after the move discussion on the talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Seats of Government[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Maryland to Category:City halls in Maryland
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Minnesota to Category:City halls in Minnesota
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Pennsylvania to Category:City halls in Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Puerto Rico to Category:City halls in Puerto Rico
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in Texas to Category:City halls in Texas
Propose renaming Category:City and town halls in the United States to Category:Seats of government in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. With the rename of the parent Category:City and town halls, it is time to start cleaning up the remains of this blended category structure by renaming categories that only contain one type of building. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Maryland have any town halls? (Even if such articles have not been written yet!) If we are likely to have town hall articles for Maryland in future it seems desirable to keep city and town halls together. TheGrappler (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they belong in Category:Town halls in Maryland, likewise you can also have Category:Village halls in Maryland or Category:Borough halls in Maryland. With in the US, we don't just have cities and towns. So separate categories are preferred. In addition, city and town categories don't have good parents since if you added it to a city, that would not be correct since the contents also contained towns. Better to split. So far in going through the subcategories here, they all only contain city halls. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any benefit to splitting those all up into separate categories? I can see that separate categories are, at least, well-defined. But they do all seem to be, fundamentally, the same type of building, even if they differ somewhat in scale? TheGrappler (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no article on City and town but we do have seat of government and Seat of local government. Also the parent category for this tree was renamed to Category:Seats of local government so that all of the various types of building could be included. If you would like, it is possible to have Category:Seats of local government in Maryland to include all of these, but I don't think that is the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the reply, It's not just a U.S. thing - several of the European countries have "seats of local government" categories and they do seem fairly sensible. Perhaps we should try to see things from a reader's point of view - what do you think a user would prefer? Are they likely to be browsing seats of local government of Maryland as a whole, in which case they'd probably prefer a unified category, or to browse seats of local government by type? It seems to me, that if I wanted to look at the category for e.g. town halls of Maryland, it's most likely because I had an interest in the municipal buildings as a whole, and splitting out the city halls doesn't benefit me - it just adds another tab to my browser. If I did really care about city hall vs town hall, that would be evident from the article names in the category anyway. (If there were 200+ articles in the category then splitting them out by type becomes more attractive for browsing purposes, of course, but we're not anywhere near that point yet!) But of course I am only one reader so this is not a very scientific poll! If you can name me a benefit that a typical browsing reader might experience from splitting, then I'm very open to persuasion - I just can't see one yet myself :-) TheGrappler (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Be aware that the name does not always tell you what it is. Many past and present government seats are in courthouses! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's interesting. It reduces my preference for the unified solution somewhat. Are there particular reasons why someone would want town and city halls distinguished into completely different categories? That's the aspect I'm struggling with at the moment. TheGrappler (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Probably the easiest answer is so that they can roll up into the Category:Towns. They are the seat of government for towns and not cities or villages or boroughs. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh of course, I should have spotted that. Suggestion: rename these categories to Category:Seats of local government in Maryland etc as it makes sense to have state-wide compilations (ultimately as subcats of "Seats of local government") and spin off city/town/whatever hall subcategories as needed? Or alternatively, rename all these to "City" etc and create "Seats of local government" categories for them to fit into. Whichever's easiest. Does that sound reasonable to you? TheGrappler (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Probably easiest to let these renames go since they are actually correct and then if anyone desires they can add Category:Seats of local government in Maryland if we get articles on any town halls. The other argument is to have the identical name at the state level. Let's leave this option open and see where other opinions are. I think we have laid out a lot of the issues and options. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thank you for a very reasonable and thought-provoking discussion, much appreciated :-) TheGrappler (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Thank you. Now we need to wait and see if anyone agrees with us. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Seats of local government in (X). It seems silly to separate town halls from city halls from village halls in the same region. These all have a defining feature: they are the center of government for a municipal area. That's what we should focus upon.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seats of local government sounds like it also includes county government. Wouldn't :Category:Municipal governments in (X) not be a better name? Seats of Local government sounds awfully close to the current category for state governments which is: Category:Local government in the United States by state. In Mass. We have 3 levels of "local government": 1) state ("commonwealth") level government, 2) then county government (still in Western Mass), and then 3) cities towns and villages (municipalities). Wouldn't boroughs fall under municipalities as well? CaribDigita (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the general proposal, but, after taking a quick glance, it looks about half of the articles in the existing categories are about former city halls that are on historic registers, so they would probably need something along the lines of Category:Former seats of local government in foo as a subcategory of Category:Seats of local government in foo. Altairisfar 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 08:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Buildings and structures by former use[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former church buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as churches
Propose renaming Category:Former fire stations to Category:Buildings formerly used as fire stations
Propose renaming Category:Former houses in the United States to Category:Buildings in the United States formerly used as houses
Propose renaming Category:Former library buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as libraries
Propose renaming Category:Former post office buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as post offices
Propose renaming Category:Former school buildings to Category:Buildings formerly used as schools
Propose renaming Category:Former railway bridges in the United States to Category:Bridges in the United States formerly used for rail traffic
Propose renaming Category:Former road bridges in the United States to Category:Bridges in the United States formerly used for road traffic

Since 2005, Wikipedia has used former buildings and structures to refer to edifices that no longer exist. Over the last couple years, we've also started categorizing them by former use, and many of the categories have taken the former of Former foo buildings. Rename to clarify that the buildings and structures in these categories may still exist. - Eureka Lott 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this if this is what consensus wants; however I think the problem was in the naming of the "former buildings" cat to begin with. "Demolished buildings" would have been better and far less ambiguous; "Non-extant buildings" the absolutely clearest but the word is not immediately understood by everyone.

And as per some other discussions, how about "Repurposed buildings" for buildings whose use has been changed? Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former buildings is broader than demolished buildings, as it encompasses buildings that were lost in a variety of ways, including intentional demolition. Non-extant buildings is somewhat ambiguous, because it could include Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures.
Most buildings that burn down or collapse have to have their remnants demolished anyway. "Destroyed buildings"? I suppose "non-extant" could include never-realized buildings, but the dictionary meaning of extant, "still in existence", seems to imply the frequently understood meaning of something that once existed when negated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repurposed buildings is probably a more elegant solution than my initial proposal, although it would entail adding Category:Buildings and structures by former use to this nomination. - Eureka Lott 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep buildings as is. Correct me if I'm wrong - to me "former church buildings" mean "originally built as churches but then...". Or, perhaps, built for some other purpose, but then permanently converted for religious use "and then...". Renaming to "formerly used as churches" apparently expands the scope to (for example) commercial properties once rented by some driveby preachers. But being rented by a preacher, usually, is not significant for a commercial building - tenants come and go, the buildings themselves aren't "religious". Same reasoning applies to fire stations and libraries, less so to schools: these functions usually require purpose-built buildings. East of Borschov 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's sort out the confusion about "former", "repurposed", "demolished", "non-extant" etc. before honing the order of words. Right now "former" category is for extant buildings, not intersecting with "demolished". East of Borschov 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and merge Category:Buildings and structures by former use into Category:Former buildings and structures. This parallel structure is confusing and unneeded. If the question is "is it still a church?", the answer should be found in Category:Former church buildings.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the proposed "repurposed" renaming - to me that looks totally clear and would therefore eliminate a lot of confusion and miscategorization. I can't think of a clearer renaming that isn't wordier. TheGrappler (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until sorted. A former railway bridge may be "former" because it was demolished or collapsed. I support the principle of a repurposed category(ies), but a straight rename will not do, unless the closing admin is willing to do the weeding. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-terrorism policy of the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anti-terrorism policy of the United States to Category:Counter-terrorism policy of the United States
Nominator's rationale: This would be more in line with the article counter-terrorism and the other categories in Category:Counter-terrorism by country, which take the format "Category:Counter-terrorism in [country]." This could also be changed to "Category:Counter-terrorism in the United States," but that might be problematic since American counter-terrorist actions don't only take place within the US. Prezbo (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ontario communities with large francophone populations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ontario communities with large francophone populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective wording; define: large. Gilliam (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that the word "large" is too subjective, I want to take note of the following:
    • 1) There is a corresponding category on French Wiki with a nearly identical name (Catégorie:Ville de l'Ontario avec une importante population francophone).
    • 2) More importantly, we have a number of similar categories that use a slightly different formulation, such as Category:United States communities with African American majority populations, and sister categories for Asian American, Hispanic, and Native American majority populations.
    • 3) You didn't bother to inform the category's creator, who just might have something worthwhile to say on the subject. It's amazingly easy to do... just use {{cfd-notify}}. Cgingold (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've just notified the cat's creator myself. Cgingold (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is also the worldwide Category:Chinatowns. 'Significant' might do: significant enough to be mentioned in any short description of the place (ie defining). (Or 'majority': 50% is perhaps the only % apart from 0% and 100% which is not arbitrary.) I think there should be a category for this under some name. Occuli (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Listify and delete - "large" is too subjective and arbitrary. A list with demographic information and percentages is the superior way to present this information. These are different from areas with a particular ethnic-majority population. They may be similar to Chinatowns but there doesn't appear to be an equivalent term for a francophone enclave. If there are majority-francophone communities then great, categorize on that basis, same with any Chinatown-equivalents, but not just "large populations". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 17:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've always thought this category was badly-named and kind of subjective. That said, there should be a category for those areas that are specifically designated as French language service areas under Ontario's 1986 French Language Services Act (since that's an objective and straightforward definition). I should note, however, that that set doesn't exactly correspond to this selective grouping, so it's not something we can do with mechanical tools. Just delete this, no listifying necessary; I'll look after creating the replacement category separately. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • cf Category:United States communities with African American majority populations and the others listed on that page, though in that case "majority" rather than "large" or "significant" is the operand. I think this category is important in its intent, but needs a better title/definition; outright deletion is just deletionism. And as for the Chinatowns category, it's got a big problem - places are in it, and added to the various Chinatown pages (which overlap and are kind of redundant and repetitive) that are really just "areas with a Chinese commercial presence" and not Chinatowns in the usual sense of the word; there's pretty much an original-research intent to many of those pages, and that category, trying to create or promote the use of Chinatown as a word to mean "somewhere Chinese people are living" whether it's an enclave or not; it, and the even more subjective Koreatown and List of Koreatown pages, have so much junk-info in them that they should be "List of areas where there are lots of Chinese/Korean businesses". An example of mis-use of the Chinatown category was the inclusion Liberdade in Sao Paulo, which is a "Japantown" (one of the world's largest)...I was there; I saw four Chinese restaurants on a side street, tha'ts not a Chinatown. Ditto in Athens (which like Dublin turned down an "official" Chinatown, as did Rome), there were two Chinese restaurants on a certain street, and somebody wanted to call that a Chinatown; in the case of Koreatown, there have been repeated attempts to insert a non-existent Koreatown at Denman and Davie, simply because there's some Korean restaurants there, in amongst the plethora of Montreal fried chicken, vietnamese, French, Chinese, MacDonald's, Greek etc. So Category:Chinatowns and, if there is one Category:Koreatowns, are being mis-used and ill-defined to start with....in the case of BC, also, there were towns that were dominantly Chinese for decades, historically, with no separate Chinese neighbourhood, e.g. Antler Creek, and Richfield, in the Cariboo goldfields, and lots of others; they were "towns with majority Chinese populations [historically]" but calling them Chinatown doesn't fit what that word normally means; in modern usage, it's being applied to "sinified" suburbs of San Francisco e.g. San Mateo I think, as if the whole place were a Chinatown, as if it were an enclave, I suppose Agincourt, Ontario falls in that too; similarly in Vancouver, relative to how things are defined for other cities, most major commercial streets in the East End, being dominantly Chinese in business flavour, and of course much of the city has a large Chinese population, falls into the loosey-goosey definition of Chinatown being applied elsewhere; but Chinatown in Vancouver ONLY refers to Chinatown proper, and technically even Golden Village (No. 3 Road in Richmond) does as well; except that it's explicitly NOT called a Chinatown to avoid confusion with Pender/Keefer/Main.....what I'm saying is that pointing to a loosey-goosey category as a paradigm to consider this one isn't very useful at all....I'd say this one's relevant, and there's probably a case to be made for a parallel one for Manitoba, New Brunswick, PEI and Nova Scotia (even Alberta, actually). Maillardville in British Columbia has a noticeable French population and celebrates its French identity; but I don't think it's a majority French population (and doesn't have strict boundaries as it's part of the City of Coquitlam...). So a parent category of "significant" French populations seems called for, however "significant" is to be defined.Skookum1 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Calling something "deletionism" is unnecessarily provocative. If some or all of these articles are appropriately categorized under some other criterion (like the one Bearcat cites) then they can be categorized there regardless of what happens to this category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 17:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am the creator of the category. While I understand that terms like "large", "significant" or "important" are not well defined, I believe that this particular listing is of some value. I only included communities in which francophones made up at least 10% of the population. I based my selection criteria loosely on the communities listed in the French Language Services Act. I am open to renaming this category for that act and adding/removing whichever articles necessary to comply with it. --MTLskyline (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that "significant" was used in the category's Quebec counterpart, Category:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations. Whatever we do here (if anything) should be applied consistently to the Quebec example, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, to follow up on Bearcat's comment, I believe we do have officially bilingual municipalities here in Quebec where a certain level of English service is permitted, and that could form the basis for a new category for anglo Quebec communities, if it's decided that the Ontario category needs to be recreated along the lines of the French Language Services Act classification. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Bearcat is in fact the creator of the Quebec category. I'd be interested to see if he has the same reservations about the naming of the Quebec cat as the Ontario one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I only "created" it in the sense of correcting somebody else's creation for spelling. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "significant" because of historical Anglo communities in some of those Quebec locales, which have every so often fallen off the list of officially bilingual, IIRC about the selection of the category name. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a legitimate category, provided that some one can come up with an objectively justifiable limit for what constitutes "large". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the category deserves to exist, albeit maybe with a better term than "large". The French equivalent category's "importante" I believe most effectively translates as "significant" (rather than "important") though maybe "notable" might be the standard "wiki-ism". Obviously the corresponding provincial categories for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and perhaps Newfoundland & Labrador will have more than a few entries, if they exist or might be created; there's also Prairie towns/regions that could be worth having categories for....primarily the Peace River Country and the St Boniface/Red River Valley areas in AB and MB. In BC there's really only Maillardville, which is "significantly" French but I doubt very much has a francophone-majority population (despite a French school and also various services/businesses); and a case could be made for Whistler, which has a very large French component (in the '80s I'd peg it in the 30-40% range, in fact, so much so that a lot of construction sites and restaurant/hotel kitchens regularly operated in French); there used to be a French CBC repeater station in Terrace, and in the Okanagan there's a large community, mostly migrant labour so not often census-counted I think. Historically there may have been frontier towns (and of course HBC posts at one time) that had French majorities, such as my pet homebase, Lillooet, about which during the gold rush one diarist commented "it is extraordinary how many French Canadians there are here", though no numbers were ever provided for that statement. Historical communities of that kind aside, there'd only be one listing for BC, despite arguments that could be made for the "relatively large" (but otherwise statistically insignificant relative to other ethnicities) in Victoria and Vancouver and, I think, Kelowna. But certainly there's a reason for provincial categories in the Prairies and Atlantic Canada. And I also noted driving through Northern Ontario that a lot of FN communities/reserves were francophone, though I'm not familiar with them to know which, i.e. it might not just be municipalities that should be in this category....Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_11&oldid=1074806558"