Talk:Langley, British Columbia (city)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages not moved. No consensus for move at this time. Miniapolis 13:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Langley, British Columbia (city) → Langley City
• Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) → Langley Township

– Because Langley City and Langley Township are geographically adjacent, they are quite often referred to as such; a simple Google Books or Google Scholar search demonstrates the usage. The article titles as they currently stand are both unsightly and confusing; it is difficult for an uninitiated person to determine whether it is Langley or British Columbia to which the parenthetical disambiguator refers. Furthermore, our policy on how to decide on an article title states that conciseness should be sought after; "Langley City" is much more concise than "Langley, British Columbia (city)". Neelix (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't Langley, British Columbia be reformatted into an article on the metropolitan area comprising both Langley's then? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment if it isn't moved, then both should exist as redirects. And Langley city as Langley township does. As well as Langley (city) and Langley (township) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What of City of Langley and Township of Langley ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the idea to merge the pages. I think that the page content should be carefully merged. I have made some large contributions to the Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) page, and while working on it it seemed silly to have to avoid mentioning the City of Langley as it is basically one of the neighbourhoods, but with it's own separate governance. I think the Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) page should be used as a base with the City information added to it as a neighbourhood. People never distinguish between the township and city in daily conversation. This proposed renaming does nothing to rectify that. James.bc (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the problem with that is that people talk about North Van in one breath too, referring to either city or municipality......and people refer to Saanich and Colwood and Langford and Oak Bay as being "Victoria" also......each municipality gets its own article around here; if agglomerations were the format for articles, then West Kelowna's article should include Tspentikum 11 or whatever the big IR is within it that has all the non-native residents, and Lillooet's article should be merged with the three Indian bands/reserves who it's at the centre of, and so on.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not too familiar with the interactions of City and District Municipalities of other places you mentioned, however I think it's important to emphasize that that Langley has a shared urban-core area which makes the separation indistinguishable to people unfamiliar to the area. Langley City is quite small and doesn't cover the entire city core, making it more like a neighbourhood, compared to North Vancouver where the city area almost completely covers the urban centre. I just think the separate articles does not benefit the presentation of the information in this case, however your point is still valid and does present problems in the context of other city articles in the region. James.bc (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm from the Fraser Valley; "Langley" can mean anywhere between the Surrey and Abbotsford boundaries south of the river; if we're talking about the City of Langley, "is it in Langley City" is the way it gets put; but nobody says "is it in the Township?" or "is it in Langley Township"....the generic phrase "is it in the City" would mean Vancouver, or points west of Surrey anyway, unless you were specifically talking about municipal affairs, e.g. where your property is. BTW similar dabs existing North Vancouver (city) and North Vancouver (district municipality); And NB as with Delta being "the Corporation of Delta" and the term "Township of Langley", these have the same status as district municipalities but.....well, aren't. I think there's another Township in BC, too, can't recall. Using "City of Langley" would necessarily imply other incorporated cities should be titled the same way (starting with the City of North Vancouver)....myself I thought things were OK just the way they are; more productive than nomenclature-chess I'd say improving the articles would be a better waste of time.Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • British Columbia's other township is Spallumcheen. TBrandley 04:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It might be that Spallumcheen, British Columbia (township) may be appropriate, likewise Langley, British Columbia (township); In listings of municipalities the type of municipality can matter e.g. Sun Peaks and Jumbo Glacier are "mountain resort municipalites", Whistler is a "resort municipality", Northern Rockies is a "regional municipality". I'm not sure of the origins of the Township designation, but Spallumcheen is a very old incorporation like Langley; there may have been others on the Island that were townships whose status or nomenclature has changed; now governed by the same Act, there may be a technical difference...."Langley (township)" is more accurate, than "Langley (district municipality)" is what I'm saying.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, use official names per MOS:CA#Places. 117Avenue (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"City of Langley" is the official name: [1] Neelix (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment but "Corporation of Delta" and "District of Lillooet" are official names too, as is "City of Vancouver" etc......."City of Langley" would be an anomaly unless all other munis with disambig issues were dealt with the same way......Skookum1 (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think other similar articles should be dealt with the same way; "District of x" or "City of x" is a much cleaner manner of disambiguation than what we're currently using. Neelix (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per general naming convention at MOS:CA#Places. TBrandley 02:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted in my comment there is a parallel case for North Vancouver....my only exception here is a technicality, that Langley, British Columbia (township) is preferable to "district municipality" but the equivalent Delta, British Columbia (corporation) would be misleading....leave 'em as they are.Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Langley, British Columbia (city) → Langley, British Columbia
• North Vancouver (city) → North Vancouver, British Columbia

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These two cities can be considered to be primary ahead of the eponymous Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) and North Vancouver, British Columbia (district municipality). The cities' articles also get roughly double the pageviews of their respective district municipality article. MOS:CANPLACE does not recommend disambiguation using "(city)", and, as far as I can tell, these are the only two Canadian articles that use it. Note that these moves would also affect Category:Langley, British Columbia (city) and Category:North Vancouver (city). 162 etc. (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: the second proposal has been changed, because North Vancouver, British Columbia (city) is a redirect, and redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. This can be changed again by the requester if not optimal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: based on past requested moves involving WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that I can vaguely recall, pageview stats were not deemed an appropriate rationale on their own to justify such moves. We were to rely on evidence outside of WP. Also, the disambiguation of communities by “municipality type” in parentheses is in use when necessary in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Examples from a quick review include Fairview, Alberta (hamlet), Madoc, Ontario (township), Bedford, Quebec (town), and Disraeli, Quebec (city). These are in addition to the four mentioned above. There are numerous others, especially in Quebec. Hwy43 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, but there can still be a primary topic. Fairview, Alberta (the town) is already the primary topic. Disraeli, Quebec already redirects to Disraeli, Quebec (city); the unnecessary disambiguation should probably be trimmed.

Madoc, Ontario and Bedford, Quebec should probably be nominated in their own RM, per the same rationale as this one. 162 etc. (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For Fairview, Alberta (the town), that is the case because it is absolutely unambiguous that the town is the primary topic. For North Van and Langley there is plenty more grey fuzziness. Hwy43 (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – double the page views is not enough to cement primary topic status. MOS:CANPLACE doesn't say anything about avoiding "(city)" in this context... it only advises against its use when naming neighbourhoods. The existing disambiguation is the most simple and elegant. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - no effort has been made to prove primary topic. Page views aren't sufficient justification. These are just a few of the handful of articles where the MOS:CANPLACE-compliant disambiguation requires a second disambiguation that is done correctly, to borrow Joeyconnick's words, in this context. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.