Talk:Lloydminster West, Alberta

From Geohashing
(Redirected from Talk:Lloydminster)

Graticule name

Shouldn't this be named Lloydminster, Province? --joannac 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's one city in two provinces. "Lloydminster, Alberta and Saskatchewan" seems a bit unwieldy (but accurate). How about "Lloydminster, Canada"? --starbird 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I had some trouble trying to decide what I should name this one. It feels so lonely being simply Lloydminster, and being Albertan, I'm tempted to stick it in Alberta, but I have the feeling that would cause an uproar. If anyone decides that it should be otherwise, I would be happy to change it. Meghan 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you call the west grat Lloydminster, Alberta, and the right one Lloydminster, Saskatchewan (and that is such a tricky word to spell!). --joannac 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've thought about this kind of thing in general. There is a precedent with a similar graticule Quad Cities, USA. When I saw that one, I sorely wanted to take the state that had the most area in the graticule and just make it "in" that state, but it wasn't my graticule and I resisted the temptation. In my opinion, "pick one" is the best strategy (go by the province with the most area or population in the graticule); and "Lloydminster, Canada" is better than "Lloydminster, Alberta and Saskatchewan". I can't see an uproar breaking out over Lloydminster, personally. It's not like you're naming graticules on the West Bank. And then include a redirect from the province you didn't pick, so that people can link to it by their choice. -Robyn 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And I wrote that during an edit conflict, and before actually looking at the graticule. Joanna's suggestion is perfect. I left what I wrote above only as documentation of my thoughts on the general case. -Robyn 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
"Quad Cities, Illinois" seems a little odd to me. "Davenport, Iowa", on the other hand, would make a perfectly fine name for that graticule. --starbird 15:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Each of the Graticules are individually named in the All Graticules list, as Lloydminster W, Alberta and Lloydminster E, Saskatchewan. I followed after the Calgary graticules when I named and redirected graticules. The debate here is simply what to call the page where the pages are redirected to.
I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs on wikis. I'm still new here. I'll leave the decision in your guys' more than capable hands. --Meghan 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I was thinking that every point in the city fell in both provinces. On reading the Wikipedia article more closely, I now think I was wrong. So the base graticule names (Lloydminster W, Alberta and Lloydminster E, Saskatchewan) make perfect sense. The Alberta side of the city has 2/3 of the population, so I propose moving the Lloydminster page to "Lloydminster, Alberta" and creating a redirect from "Lloydminster, Saskatchewan". --starbird 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'd leave off the W and the E. And it doesn't have to have a single "split cities" page. I would have avoided it by naming it after Vermillion. :-) -Robyn 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I could have named it Vermillion, but I think Lloydminster is a much more appropriate name. Bigger city, more recognizeable. Heck, I've driven through Vermillion a dozen times and I still don't always remember exactly where it is. EVERYONE know where Lloydminster is.
Anyways, I've moved the page, and I think I fixed the double redirects. I'd feel better if someone double checked everything to make sure it's ok. Thanks everyone! --Meghan 17:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. When future Lloydminster geohashers don't like something, they can change it themselves. They'll probably be grateful to you for going to all the work to make a split graticule page. Usually people making pages for inactive graticules just make one generic page per graticule. -Robyn 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed the challenge. I figure the fastest way to learn how to do anything is to dive right in. --Meghan 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)