Talk:Saint David Parish, New Brunswick

Value of boundary description

G. Timothy Walton reverted Moneytrees removal of this "boundary description". Here are a few lines from it:

• by the west lines of the grant to Henry Goldsmith and others
• southeast and southerly by a line commencing at the most northern angle of a four hundred and eighty-eight acre lot granted to Daniel Hill
• southeasterly to the northeast angle of lot number thirty, granted to W. Ross
• to the northeast angle of lot number eight, granted to James Garcelon
• to the southeast angle of lot number four, granted to James Christie

Would the reverter please justify how the above is worthy of inclusion? --Cornellier (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no other description of the boundaries. Please either write a better summary or leave this description alone.

Better yet, write a summary of the boundaries and turn the delineation into a section with a show/hide toggle so that those interested in following the boundaries can compare them to the cadastral grant maps and those uninterested can simply skip it. As it is, all they've got is a low-resolution map from a series where I've had to add error advisories on at least six images.

Anyway, this article is all placeholder while I finish prepping a couple of summary documents to work off when rewriting the series. It was taking far too long to check and compare the source documents each time I edited a parish and some artifacts were creeping in.

I'm not getting into an edit war over this; improve it, with additional accurate information, or leave it be. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That there's "no other description of the boundaries" is not justification for keeping meaningless clutter. "By the west lines of the grant to Henry Goldsmith and others" etc. has no place here since it's not a "description of the boundaries" that is of use to Wikipedia readers. --Cornellier (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Not useless to those who consult the cadastral maps.

Then write a summary, already. My time is limited and the task can't be automated. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to User:G. Timothy Walton's echo chamber. All of the parish articles are of interest only to genealogists (maybe?), and should be turned into LSD articles. --Cornellier (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cornellier: I don't know what's got the bee in your bonnet tonight. This may qualify as vandalism. I'll give you until tomorrow to cool off. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was using topos in the NB backcountry this week and was reminded that these parish articles are not only redundant, but actually create confusion since they imply that parishes have greater relevance than they do. As for your threat of reporting me for vandalism, I suggest you first read WP:VANDAL for guidance. --Cornellier (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Whatever" to the first part. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed

Re: boundaries not appearing in Regulation 84-168, it's implicit that any parish LSD that doesn't note areas not included like municipalities and other LSDs includes the entire parish. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)