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)