Jump to content

Talk:Edmonton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Transportation

Sorry folks, Edmonton was not the first town in Western Canada to implement electric streetcar service. Winnipeg commenced its service in 1891, 17 years earlier than Edmonton, and if I'm not mistaken both Vancouver and Victoria were earlier as well. First town in Alberta, perhaps. --142.161.176.147 17:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed:
  • Victoria: 1890 (3rd in Canada)
  • Winnipeg: January 1891
  • Vancouver: 1892:*Edmonton: 1909 (October)
  • Calgary: 1909 (July)
  • Regina: 1911
  • Letbridge: 1912
  • Saskatoon: 1914
- Tyson2k 22:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction - Streetcar service commenced in Winnipeg on 27 January 1891, not 1892 as indicated above. --142.161.188.127 22:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Military

Does anyone else think the recently added listing of all of Edmonton's Cadet groups should be edited down to a few sentences at most? I'd do so myself, but that would practically mean reverting to my last edit, which I'd prefer not to do unilaterally. Silly Dan 16:33, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

  • I see no need to edit the list down. It's a short article, and this info isn't really getting in the way. I say keep it. Denni☯ 18:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
    • It just doesn't seem to be something worth including to that level of detail in a general encyclopedia article about the city, any more than, say, a list of bookstores would be. It's valuable information to Edmontonians, but would the general reader be interested? Silly Dan 19:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
      • It this what Wikipedia is, just another encylopedia, or one that provides more detail or information beyound what can be found in a regualr encylopedia?
      • A list of bookstores would take up considerably more space than this list. And I would not object to a list of specialty bookstores either. People always have the option of not reading something if it's there. They have no option if it's not. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
    • I support shortening the list. Sure it's a short article, and somehow including them makes it longer... so it's filler. Why not include some more relevant information instead because there's still a lot missing. Does Edmonton not have culture? Theatre? Entertainment? (The "restaurants and nightlife" section is really short). What about tourist attractions? Is Edmonton tropical? Or is it a desert? Perhaps a climate section would be nice. I think these things are far more relevant to an article of this size than a list of all the cadet groups in the city. I say shorten it. I hope people agree because I think this article is REALLY lacking compared to other city artcles.
      • Yes, there is perhaps a lot of other items that need to be added, but I suspect the "cadet" that put up the list is not out of the home participating in Edmonton's nightlife, the culture or theater, etc. Yes, ther is culture, theatre, entertainment, etc., but I am not involved in that area or an expert. This project has to depend upon those that participate and their interests. There is also more military than what is listed. Sandy and Cecile just gave the unversity a gift of orriental art for some 37 mil, making it one of the largest collections, and the UofA is Canada's second largest university, and that needs expanding. We need an article on Fort Edmonton Park as well. Etc,etc,etc. All speed is not necessary progress.Glenlarson 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1932 Hunger March

I checked out this page after I heard a song on Internet radio about the hunger march of 1932. Might be a nice thing to add to the history section. --Lee Hunter 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

West Edmonton Mall

Just curious as to why west ed is "north america's" largest mall. Guinness rates it as the worlds largest shopping center. Reading it as north america seems to cheapen it a little. If it's good enough for guinness it should be good enough to wikipedia, right? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=49967 --KellenS 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, a larger mall has recently opened in China. Guiness is either out of date or has not verified their info lately. --Arch26 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is more than one mall in China which is larger. Saudi Arabia has also constructed a larger mall. Denni ☯ 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Site examples showing that there are larger malls. This claim has been made many times before, but until the space is filled with shops and attractions it cannot be considered the largest shopping mall. It is only a giant warehouse with a few stores in it. As the westedmontonmall website still considers its self the worlds largest, guiness book still considers it I say it should still say worlds largest.

Here are a couple of links to read: [1], [2]. -- timc | Talk 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, I turned one corner of the mall to discover two people playing badminton. The stores in that section of the mall had not opened yet, and the couple was taking advantage of the open space." Again Like I said, Until the mall is full of stores (probably %90 or more) it will not be considered. There are many buildings that are larger then West Edmonton Mall. But Unless they are full, and of mostly stores then it will not be considered. Check Guinness book of world records. They investigate, and have updated since these supposed malls have been built. If we are going to just go by random homemade websites believe me west edmonton mall will win http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzlargemalls.htm

This whole issue can be resolved quite simply by providing citations. If Guiness says it's the world's largest mall but other sources dispute that, then say:

"The Guiness Book of World Records lists West Edmonton Mall as the world's largest mall,<ref>{{cite book| title=Guiness Book of Records| year=etc}}</ref> but MegaChinaMall disputes this.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.mcmall.cn/noitisnt.htm| title=etc}}</ref>"

Then there's no need to argue minutiae and come to a singular decision of our own. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be deciding such things anyway. Bryan 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Population Density

I think the comment about population density is misleading, considering that the Edmonton city limits includes sizeable tracts of farm land surrounding an urban core. For instance, from the northernmost extent of development at 167th avenue, the city limits extend for another six miles, out to 257th avenue. This is not comparable to a city like Chicago wherein all land is urbanized. Has anyone calculated the population density for the urban area rather than the city limits?

Kesahun 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not unique. Here is a brief list of other cities in Canada that face a similar situation: Calgary, Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Halifax, Kingston, London, Ottawa, Montreal, etc, etc. In fact, of major cities, only Toronto and Vancouver have no rural area within the city itself (and I'm not even positive that that is still the case for Toronto, since it merged most of its suburbs). Anyway, Vancouver is surrounded by water on 3 sides, and the City of Burnaby on the east. Toronto is surrounded by other cities and Lake Ontario. Even Montreal, which is confined to an island has rural areas within the city proper. I understand that Edmonton may have more rural area than SOME of the these cities, but the phenomenon is really not unique enough to note the clause that you are proposing. Edmonton is simply not a dense city. This has more to do with the urban circumstances that surround prairie cities in general ("unlimited" land for example), than it does with some perceived demographic "quirk". (And let's not forget that the Chicago is located in one of the most densely populated regions of the US, is surrounded by other cities and a lake, and has a metro poulation of 8,000,000... this is hardly a noteworthy comparison in this case). --Arch26 07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has legitimately calculated the density of the built-up area. This is not a common practice and would yield highly variable and temporal results. --Arch26 07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Edmonton is neither statistically nor subjectively particularly dense. What I'm saying is that one should not draw too many conclusions from population density statistics. The area of Ottawa is 2200 km2, compared to 683 km2 for Edmonton. (The reason being that the "City of Ottawa" is an amalgamation of distinct communities seperated by undeveloped land.) In the case of the City of Edmonton, 44% of the land is zoned as Agricultural or Reserve Zones. The vast majority of that is in a belt surrounding the actual city. See Edmonton Land Use and Inventory Information for more info.

The other reason its misleading, is that the City of Chicago is the most highly developed square at the centre of Chicagoland. Chicagoland has vast suburbs that are incredibly spread out, but that doesn't enter into the calculations. My point is just that population density isn't really a meaningful statistic, so long as the boundaries of cities are arbitrary. Your comments about prairie cities implies Edmonton has a problem with sprawl. True, no-one in Edmonton feels compelled to build high-rises, land is cheap. Still, 85% of the metropolitan area population lives in a continuous built-up area, save for 1 mile of empty space between Edmonton and St. Albert or Sherwood Park. Compare this with the outer fringes of the Chicago area. Not quite city, not quite country. Kesahun 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I fully understand the dynamics of CMA vs. city proper relationships. My argument was simply that many cities (not metropolitan areas) have ZONED farmland winthin their most immediate defined boundaries (that being the city limit). Calgary, Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Halifax, Kingston, London, and, Montreal ALL share that quality with the city Edmonton. In no case was I referring the the amount of undeveloped land in the GVRD, or the Calgary Region, or Greater Montreal... etc. --Arch26 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ex-water levels

Should it be mentioned that Edmonton used to have very high water levels? (When Edmonton was a city, not just a piece of land)

I meant the latter, as I'm pretty sure the water levels were once high enough to flood certain neighborhoods in and around Edmonton. Sorry if I confused you on the matter.

  • The only residential area of Edmonton ever to be in danger of high water levels is Riverdale. The last time that area flooded was about twenty years ago, so it's not exactly a common occurence. The much more regular problem is in low-lying areas of the city, portions of Mill Woods, for instance, where a heavy downpour results in flooded basements and backed-up sewers. Denni ☯ 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, thanks, for I thought it was once Edmonton-wide. Thanks for the info.

Neighbourhoods + CMA

This issue regarding the lack of a CMA page as well as a list of neighbourhoods article has already been long since addressed - I created both such articles - The Edmonton Capital Region and List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton. Hence, the original text here is now cut out. If there are any outstanding related issues, please let me or Rendar know. NorthernFire 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Moist continental climate - Dfb?

This is not the wording used in the Köppen climate classification, the terminology there is Continental climate with warm summers (Dfb), I believe. Orcaborealis 15:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • That's been changed in the article now to "continental climate with mild/warm summers and cold winters". This is more accurate, since even climates in the Dfb zone in the Köppen climate classification scheme can be somewhat dry. Edmonton is an example of this, although the precipitation is hardly that uniform throughout the year - sometimes closer to Dwb (cont. climate with driest monthly winter precip 1/10th of that summer monthly maximum or less) than a classic Dfb like Halifax or Moncton where the year round precip is much more uniform. NorthernFire 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Calgary or Edmonton first?

I created a redirect from Edmonton-Calgary Corridor to Calgary-Edmonton Corridor so if we so choose, we can use the Edmonton-first terminology. I hope that will prevent an edit war over the link. What do people think? Kevlar67 05:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the Edmonton-Calgary Corridor as Statisitcs Canada has OFFCIALLY named this region the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. A redirect is good in case people make mistakes, but it would completely inaccurate to refer to it as the former on purpose. --Arch26 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
What's official is one thing... but if we believe people in Edmonton would say it with thier own city's name first, then it would be more correct. I'm not saying that is true, but if it was, than that's what the article should say. Kevlar67 07:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And since it is wrong to do so, I will be the first one to correct a contribution whereby it was referred to as "Edmonton-Calgary Corridor". For the sake of accuracy, consistency, and objectivity. I applaud the redirect page though, because it will avoid a dead link in situations where the name "Edmonton-Calgary Corridor" is used incorrectly. I think we are in agreement. --Arch26 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I don't think articles in Wikipedia should have "trivia" sections. They are only a repository for information that is either unimportant or information that should be placed eleswhere. Most of the information contained in the section that I removed could have been more elegantly dispersed elsewhere within this article or within sub-articles. Some info already exists in the article anyway. In addition, some of the figures such as the claim that WEM is largest in the world are just blatantly wrong. If the user feels that any of this information was important enough to leave in the article, then they should simply organize it better. --Arch26 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that most of the information in trivia sections would be better off integrated into the main body of an article, I see nothing inherently wrong with a "Trivia" section existing. It serves as a good area for new information to be placed when the article currently doesn't have a good place to integrate it into, or by editors who don't have the skill or time to do the integrating themselves. If you delete trivia that should be integrated into the article, then please make sure you actually integrate it when you do so. That said, the most recent "Boston Pizza" trivia is IMO sufficiently trivial to not be worth integrating here; it's already mentioned at Boston Pizza where it's more relevant. Bryan 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only called a "trivia" section because it contains information that's too trivial to include in the body of article (I know that the above user has already stated they agree with this, but I thought I'd re-emphasize because it's important). If it is so important then point me to a high quality article (that is, a "good" or "featured" city article) with a trivia section. Trivial information not only clutters this encyclopedia with facts and "tidbits" that are uninportant to most readers, but it has a negative impact on the overall flow and quality of the article. City articles are also very broad, so minutia that is often considered trivia on the city page may fit well in a more specific article. For example, the Boston Pizza fact is better placed in Boston Pizza's own article where it is already (as stated above), where it does not clutter the much broader based article on Edmonton. From the standpoint of an international reader (perhaps, most readers), a factoid on a CITY page about a western Canadian restaurant chain serving mediocre food is not really notable. If an editor is having trouble finding a place for a piece of information, then it is better addressed on the discussion page where other users can review the content and help find a place for it. There are certain pieces of trivia which may genuinely be informative. I would argue that, if that is the case, then even a novice editor should have little trouble finding a place for it in another section of the main article. --Arch26 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any "featured" articles offhand with a trivia section, but that's kind of my point - a trivia section is a spot where "unfinished" material tends to show up, so an article with an extensive trivia section is probably in a rough state. When you see such a section, by all means try to integrate stuff from it elsewhere into the body of the article (or related articles) and perhaps delete the particularly useless stuff. But don't automatically assume it's all worthless and simply wipe the whole section on the sole basis of its header being the word "Trivia." Sometimes there's good stuff in there that doesn't have an obvious permanent home elsewhere in the article yet, and a trivia section provides those tidbits with a reasonable temporary home while that's resolved. Bryan 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There is often stuff there that deserves more than to be relegated to a trvia section. I just don't think that an article needs or should have a need for a place to dump unfinished or "mysterious" material regardless of how relevant it is. This is an encyclopedia. The information presented should always be relevant and comlete. As far as I'm concerned, "unfinished" material should only be dealt with in one of two ways: (1) On the discussion page, or (2) in the main article or section body provided that the appropriate template tag is applied (there is a tag that is available that is a disclaimer of unfinished articles or sections). I think that if the trivia section's sole purpose is to be a place for unknown or incomplete information, then you had might as well just call the section something like "incomplete" or "work in progress" or "mysterious" instead of "trivia". Now, is that very encyclopedic? --Arch26 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the Trivia section (again), and moved the information it had to more appropriate sections. I couldn't find a place for four facts, though:
  1. The Boston Pizza origin fact is already on Boston Pizza, so I didn't think it was needed here.
  2. The fact that the Oilers and the Eskimos have each won their league championships repeats information already in the Sports section.
  3. I'm not sure what the description of the CTV, CBC, and Global stations as "superstations" meant, so I couldn't work out where to put it in the Media section.
  4. The fact that portions of Canada AM were aired from Edmonton during the 2006 election is too trivial to bother with, I think. Other Canadian news broadcasts have had Edmonton-based segments, and there's no point in listing all of them. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be rewritten

A lot of what is written here is very subjective.

This kind of feedback is totally useless. Blanket statements like the above are just plain unhelpful. If you have an issue, then point out some specific examples... or fix them yourself. Why, specifically should the article be completely re-written? This kind of feedback does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of this encyclopedia and is quite simply far more aggravating than it is helpful. Thanks. Oh, and sign your comments PLEASE. --Arch26 07:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Population

Edmonton's population is not mentioned, only the greater metropolitan area is. Does anyone have an updated figure they can add?

The City's population (2005) as well as metro population is mentioned in the main data box already Rendar 16:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Edmonton, Alberta → Edmonton – Edmonton already redirects to Edmonton, Alberta. All other uses are much less common. It is also a capital city, and we mine as well try to remain consistant and move all articles about cities in Canada that don't need disambaguation. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Comment It generally is consistent now. Keep it that way, no "mine as well try" (is that Canadian for "might as well"?) about it. Proposed moves such as this one will only destroy the existing consistency. Gene Nygaard 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Existing consistency? Most large Canadian cities do not have disambiguated names. In any event, the proposal is consistent with the Canadian naming convention. Skeezix1000 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Lloydminster does not have Alberta. --Usgnus 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. The practical reason is to achieve consistency among all large Canadian cities, such as Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, etc. Not clear what "problems" will result.Skeezix1000 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does everyone always site "inconsistancy" or "this will create problems"? We've moved several Canadain cities and less-notable towns (take Flin Flon for example), and Wikipedia is still here as far as I can tell. Nothing is crashing, there isn't any panic going on, and the only ones who think that it will create problems are the ones who oppose here (mostly Qyd.) -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This is what happens (i.e. a mess) when a (formal or informal) Wikiproject gets its conventions contrary to (written or unwritten) broader Wikipedia conventions. (I'm also referring to an issue when an anti-diacritic group from WP:HOCKEY sought for renaming articles (stripping diacritics) of foreign Hockey players, with mixed success (which resulted in a similar mess)). While I kind of regret entering into the voting (I might strike my vote altogether rather than changing it to "neutral"), I must say that I opine the convention "Cityname, Statename" for U.S. (and to an extent, Canadian) cities is contrary to WP:NC, specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules, resulting in awkward stuff like New Orleans, Louisiana (which other New Orleans is as famous?) and, perhaps worse still, having badly-defined exceptions ("world-class cities"). AFAIK, a similar initiative for renaming Seattle, Washington into Seattle and the failure of the move resulted in a WP:POINTitis by the frustrated proposer. While I do blame him for incivility, don't you think that something is rotten?

So, Edmonton is clearly the single most famous Edmonton in the world, and that's how the article should be named if we play by the book; if you (rightfully) raise the issue about inconsistency with other articles, then change the stupid rule which contravenes other rules. Otherwise, the incidents will happen and the inconsistencies will arise. Duja 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I just had to rv this page after User:Arch26 deleted several votes and comments (check the history). -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 04:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry guys. This was an accident. --Arch26 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that just about every non-American city gets their own article with just the city name? I fail to see the reason why large US citys like San Francisco and Pittsburgh are listed with the stated while UK towns with populations of less than 10K or a city like Flin Flon(with a population of about 6K) don't have to be listed with their province. That just always puzzled me. TJ Spyke 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) for the current debate on this issue. --Polaron | Talk 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Whoa! Article length

Guys! The new additions are great but I think Edmonton now wins the award for being the LONGEST Canadian city article in Wikipedia (just a hunch). I recommend a sub-article for both the Transportation section and History section AT LEAST. --Arch26 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a few sub-articles today that we can start working on. I'd say leave history for now but Transportation could be easily shorterned and linked to a main article 24.70.95.203 06:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Edmonton doesn't win the award for the longest article of any Canadian city. This distinction would go to Montreal, which is 72 kilobytes long, while Edmonton's is 60 kilobytes long. NorthernFire 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah yeah. It was only a guesstimation :) Montreal... I should've known... Thanks. --Arch26 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

History: proposed split and merge

Please, go look at History of Alberta. It is currently pathetic. It needs help. This article's history is quite long. I propose narrowing the scope of the history section here and transferring some of the material (for example, about early exploration, oil boom, etc.) to History of Alberta. I also suggest we take as much as possible from the History sections of Calgary, Lethbridge et all as well. If you are interested in helping please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta! Thanks. Kevlar67 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Should there be a religion section? Please vote and discuss.--Jorfer 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to vote in this, just do it ... be bold ... Abtract 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a bad ideea. Religious statistics are covered in the Demographics section, and importat churches can be showcased as landmarks. I don't see the point in havin a sepatate section. It just clutters the article. --Qyd 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea, but in its current state it covers one centre of worship for one of the religions found in Edmonton. The mosque itself is almost certainly worth its own article, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "23 pentecostal churches" bit as I feel it's really not the goal of an encyclopedic article to list the numbers of churches in a city. If this is to be included than one should also add the number of Catholic, Lutheran, CRC, Evangelical Free, etc, etc, etc churches and that's only Christianity. How many mosques? Temples? etc, etc. Rendar 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent history: Lassard rd sinkhole

sinkhole, add to Recent history ?--Brown Shoes22 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Images of Edmonton

This page needs better photographs of Edmonton. I've replaced a few that made Edmonton look terrible. --Spanwar, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Murder

It seems that Edmonton now has the greatest proportion of murders of any major city in Canada, at least for the 2005 year. Do you think it would be interesting to add a section on murders and other crime statistics for the city? --Yamla 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, any such information would need to be properly cited. --Yamla 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose that the murder rate section be removed. It is a one year statistical anomaly and is not a long-term trend. I shall edit it out right now and if anyone objects please discuss here. Furthermore, such a topic doesn't really fit with "demographics" anyways. If necessary it can be restored. Rendar 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Murder sections, I think, deserves mention. A variety of Canadian newpapers can be cited as sources. - Kevin
the only reason it is even up for discussion as warranting a mention is because the overall murder rate in Canada is so low, and the way the numbers are tracked is flawed anyway. Edmonton and Winnipeg are often in the top five, sometimes trading each other for the #1 spot, but I agree with Rendar, it is a statistical anomaly not worthy of its own separate section in the article. Garth of the Forest 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Version 0.5, Economy section

I just reviewed this for Version 0.5, and approved it for inclusion on the CD. However, I am concerned that the articles doesn't have a specific section on its economy, unlike most city articles I have reviewed. I realise that mention is made (more than once) of the diverse economy and the oil, but this is important enough to the life of a city to have its own section. The last paragraph of the intro could form the foundation of this section. For some examples see

Once you get a decent section written, please can someone change the "B" tag in the template to "A" because otherwise the article seems good. Thanks! Walkerma 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So noted. I will tackle this on the weekend if I have time. Let's work on getting this article to A status! :) Rendar 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have Economic Development Edmonton data from 2004 that is straight from the source. It was part of a package published by them in 2005 called "Greater Edmonton by the Numbers". This should give the skeleton and we'll shine it up collaboratively. 209.89.3.74 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I just did an edit and rework of the economy section that was added. Everyone please give it a look over and make sure it stays encyclopedic as opposed to an EEDC brochure :) Rendar 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just made a quick change to the Economy section removing Dell as one of the major employers in the seeing as most of the staff have been laid off and the site will be fully closed in May. ~~ Razor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.155.110 (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost the largest in North America?

I made the change in the claim to reflect data from many other cities. For example(s), Edmonton is barely larger than Chicago (684 km2 vs. 606 km2), it is smaller than New York (1214.4 total, 785.5 land), about half the size of Los Angeles (1290.6), less than half the size of Houston (1558), and less than a third the size of Jacksonville, FL (2264.5). When compared to cities that are even smaller in population, Edmonton is less than one twelfth of the area of Juneau, AK (8430 total, 7036 land) and less than 6% of the size of Sitka, AK (12461.8 total, 7444 land). So, it is clearly not the largest or close to the largest in North America. There are 24 cities in the United States that are larger by land area alone and at least 28 that are larger in total area, some of which are larger by a factor of 18 (Sitka, AK).

Even within Alberta itself, Calgary is larger, at 789.9 km2. Within Canada, it appears that there are 38 cities and towns that are larger. Although some of these are just "towns", most are either cities, "villes", or regional municipalities. Also, in my mind, even if all 38 were just "towns", it would seem misleading to call Edmonton one of the largest cities on the continent if many "just town(s)" were larger (and much larger at that). I hope the new wording still reflects the fact that Edmonton is a relatively large city, by area, but that it no longer makes a claim to be one of the largest on the continent. Ufwuct 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

I don't like the large lists in "Festivals" and "Culture", but these small faults still do not detract from this Good Article. Morgan695 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody should move them into their own article along the lines of Festivals in Calgary and List of attractions and landmarks in Calgary. --Arch26 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Well, I posted elsewhere that the three congregations in Wikipedia:List of Churches in Edmonton were recently part of mass deletion attempt that was recently "trainwrecked". Hovever, someone in Prague has decided that First Presbyterian's stub is a nn entry and be instantly deleted. Is our Czech friend correct, or should the First Pres leaders invite Jan Hejda, Ladislav Smid, Petr Sykora and Ales Hemsky over for Christmas Dinner (Edmonton Oilers from the Czech Republic)? Bacl-presby 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent History

I think the section on Recent history should be a bit more balanced. It has an uncited paragraph about the diversification of the economy and the recovery of the downtown core, but fails to mention other significant changes occuring because of the economic growth. I think it's significant that Edmonton now has the highest murder rate in the country for major canadian cities. Thoughts? Zekechills 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One year does not a trend make. I think one should wait on at least another year of stats to put this in an encylopedia article. Rendar 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Population density comment needs to go

I've decided that the the comment "Edmonton has one of the lowest population densities in North America, about 1.5% that of New York City." (originally read "about 67 times less than the population density of New York City.") needs to be deleted for good. It's just become too trite. In other words, too boring and hackneyed from use, not to mention it screaming urban sprawl. True, Edmonton is certainly not a saint in this regard, but we don't need that comment anymore. I also can tell you that there's people out there throwing this kind of comment around to criticize Edmonton, even in written articles, both online and the news media.

Try a Google search on Edmonton having the lowest population densities in North America and the comparison to New York City's population density. You'll be surprised how often this info will show up in the search results. Besides, there's probably a lot of other similar-sized US cities that have even lower population densities. NorthernFire 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since it is true and important, there is no reason it should not be included in the article. The article needs to conform to WP:NPOV and an Albertan (see user page) subtracting unflattering information about a city in his province and refering to Edmonton as "we" screams bias to me. The fact that many secondary sources backup this claim is even more reason to include it. The idea that boring and overused information should be excluded from Wikipedia is ridiculous and I have never heard it suggested. While it is being discussed, I will revert it.--Jorfer 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous or no, I don't have to agree with this. But I'll let your reversion stands anyways, since I don't want to be pulled into an editing/reverting war. NorthernFire 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
One other thing is that the 1.5% figure sounds inaccurate. (FYI, 1.5% is the same as 67 times lower), I don't know how they got that figure. If you calculate Edmnoton's density of 974.0/km2 against New York's density of 10,316/km2 (stated in New York City's Wiki article), this works out to Edmonton's density being 9.4% that of NYC's. If I'm wrong on this inaccuracy, please feel free to discuss or revert it. NorthernFire 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

New Heading: Politics ?

I think we need a new heading on the page about the politics of Edmonton. It could deal with city council, the politics of the Edm capital region, the regional health authority, the public, seperate, and french public shcool boards, the city's relation to provincial politics, and the city in federal politics, with a link to Canadian federal election results in Edmonton and environs. Thoughts? Kevlar67 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This could easily be a separate article entirely. Rendar 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New article of list of attractions and landmarks in Edmonton created

I'd like to let you all know that I've deleted the list of attractions and landmarks in Edmonton in the City Life section and created a separate new Wikipedia article 'List of attractions and landmarks in Edmonton'. I didn't just move the list to the new article - the list is broken according to which sections of the city they lie in. Also by doing this, the entire Edmonton article is kept a bit shorter. (you will have probably noticed that whole article for the city is already getting a little long. Prior to the changes I've made in this regard, the entire city article was 63 kilobytes long). If there's any thoughts or if you'd like to make changes or add to the new article, please feel free. NorthernFire 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Another new article created for Edmonton media outlets

I've created yet another new article, List of Edmonton media outlets, since that may help to keep the city's article from becoming too long. Of course, other major Canadian cities have had the same thing done for their media sections, so I don't see anything wrong with doing the same for Edmonton. The original contents in the Media section have been basically transferred to the new article and the Media section replaced with a shortened version. If you have any thoughts, or want to add or make changes in this regard, please feel free to do so. NorthernFire 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New article Transportation in Edmonton created

I've just created a new article titled, Transportation in Edmonton, partly because I feel the whole city article was still getting a bit long (it was originally 62 kb long prior to the changes made). Like the last other new articles I've done here, I transferred the original text (with some changes) to the new article and replaced it with a shortened summarized version in the city article. Details of the LRT expansion originally in the city article have been transferred to the existing article Edmonton Light Rail Transit, as I feel it's more appropriate that they go there. Please feel free to state your thoughts and/or make any constructive changes to the new article. NorthernFire 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I added some things about CN in the main article since we are a major hub for their North American system Rendar 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Crime and Homelessness

I was trawling around the StatsCan site yesterday after reading of the latest carnage in Edmonton over the Easter long weekend. A couple of interesting things came up: (1) We are not the "murder capital" of Canada - scoring only second place in the stats with Winnipeg taking the title. However, there is a high basal homicide rate that is at least notable and can be realiably sourced. (2) Homelessness - very high per capita rate, with a damning proportion of residents of the Downtown core being homeless. Interesting stuff, and perhaps the homelessness rate being the more significant statistic of the two, this being more obvious to visitors to the city center (most homicide victims are well known to their killers). Food for though? Elk Islander 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unclear facts re:Downtown

The downtown core, which has seen increasing redevelopment since the 1997 Capital City Downtown Plan was introduced, is home to the Central Business District (CBD) as well as over 4,000 residents. Downtown proper consists of the Commercial Core, Arts District, Rice Howard Way Pedestrian Mall, MacKay Avenue, Jasper-West, Warehouse District and Government Precinct. I added the "citation needed" to this because it confuses the hell out of me. If the definition of "downtown core" from the second half it used, then I don't see how the population in the first half can be so low. And when and where was this population recorded, 1997? Just think of the big new apartment block like Grand Central Manor on 109st and 103ave. They probably contain several thousand people on their own! Doesn't make sense. Kevlar67 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation would be the plan of 1997 itself. Back then there were indeed only around 4k people living in all over those areas. We've come a very long way since then! New numbers can definitely be added to reflect the new population which is probably closer to around 15k Rendar 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

City status when?

We know Edmonton got town status in 1904. When did it get city status? Kevlar67 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct. Edmonton was incorporated as a town in 1892 and became a city in 1904. http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_1652777_0_0_18/History+of+Edmonton.htm http://www.edmonton.ca/infraplan/demographic/Edmonton%20Population%20Historical.pdf (See bottom of the PDF file) NorthernFire 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames and slogans

Why cant we have these? When your telling about a city, you've got to tell what the city is known for otherwise.

You can have them. As mentioned in the edit summary the main slogans are already listed in the article in other locations and have citations proving they are correct. The others were not cited and cause too many edit wars, while not really adding anything to the article.--Djsasso 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New Pic for Edmonton

Can somone please add a new pic for Edmonton? Here are some good ones. http://imahttp://e-journey.net/upload/en/thumb/c/cb/SkylineDusk.jpg/450px-SkylineDusk.jpg http://images.world66.com/wi/nt/er/winter_in_edmonton_galleryfull http://www.nbccedmonton.org/images/edmontonNight2.jpg

Wikipedia does not endorse leaching images off other websites. Instead, images are uploaded by contributors specifically for use in articles. --67.142.130.15 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. We do not permit copyright violations. See WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FU.--Yamla 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fort Edmonton - largest?

In the lead, it is stated that Fort Edmonton is Canada's largest historic park. Is there any reference for this claim? --67.142.130.15 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am blind, but I don't see this claim in the lead section. --Kmsiever 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's under the markup: "It is home to [[West Edmonton Mall|North America's largest mall]] and [[Fort Edmonton|Canada's largest historic park]].".--67.142.130.15 16:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
is edmonton the bigiset world ?

Couple of minor discrepancies

It says that the highest recorded temperature is 34.5 Celsius, but then it says that on July 22, 2006 it reached around 35 Celsius. Also it says that 50.1% of people are female and 49.2% is male. Well that leaves 0.7% of people as neither male or female. So what are these people then??? Canuck85 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To the temperature thing - part of the problem is Environment Canada's page has a section that lists extremes and what not only to the year 2000. Another section only has up to January 2005. I've updated the statistics bit from Stats Can —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendar (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Culture section

Just happened upon this article and I have to say that it's very well-structured. I was bold and removed the following glaring POV lead-in to the 'culture' section: "Edmonton has always been a city proud of its cultural accomplishments. As the city has grown, so has the cultural scene. Today, Edmonton is a proud home to many features which add to its cosmopolitan flair." Surprised to find such a blanket tourism-brochure statement in an article of this quality. Also, the culture section is a bit awkward and probably should be de-listified -- maybe move more information into the sub-article?

Just some random objective thoughts. Again, though, really super article, I can tell it's gotten lots of love. Cheers pinotgris 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there an article to explain what the "Cultural Capital" thing is? I haven't been able to find one. People in Edmonton seemed to be confused about what it meant all year long, and now it looks like that confusion might have linked onto its Wikipedia page... Somewildthingsgo (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

In fixing up the GA tag for WP:UCGA I noticed this article looks well written and fine, but the references need to be converted to approach citation formats (see WP:CITET). Certainly not enough to suggest delisting this as a GA, but definitely a recommendation to make this article possibly go to an FA. --Masem 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

 Done
  • The Notable People section should be replaced by prose on the more notable residents. Each person needs a citation, and a link should be provided to List of notable Edmontonians.
 Done
  • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
 Done
  • The article has too many one-line paragraphs.
 Done
  • These statements need citations:
    • "The first inhabitants gathered in the area which is now Edmonton around 3,000 BC and perhaps as early as 10,000 BC, when an ice-free corridor opened up as the last ice age ended and timber, water and wildlife became available in the region."
 Done
    • "In 1754, Anthony Henday, an explorer working for the Hudson's Bay Company, may have been the first European to enter the Edmonton area."
 Done
    • "By 1795, Fort Edmonton was established as a major trading post for the Hudson's Bay Company."
 Done
    • "Edmonton became the capital of Alberta a year later on September 1, 1905."
 Done
    • "The first licensed airfield in Canada, Blatchford Field (now Edmonton City Centre Airport), was started in 1929."
 Done
    • "The first major oil discovery in Alberta was made on February 13, 1947 near the town of Leduc to the south of Edmonton."
 Done
    • "the collapse of world oil prices in 1986 and massive government cutbacks kept the city from making a full economic recovery until the late 1990s."
 Done
    • "In 1981, West Edmonton Mall, which was at the time the world's largest mall, opened."
 Done
    • "On July 31, 1987, a devastating tornado, ranked as an F4 on the Fujita scale, hit the city and killed twenty-seven people."
 Done
    • "The downtown core and parts of the inner city, after years of extremely high office vacancy rates and neglect, have recovered to a great degree."
 Done
    • "Edmonton is located near the geographical centre of the province at an elevation of 668 metres (2,192 ft)."
 Done
    • "The river valley is 22 times larger than New York City's Central Park."
 Done
    • "to give a total of 111 square kilometres (27,400 acres) of parkland. "
 Done
    • "The downtown core, which has seen increasing redevelopment since the 1997 Capital City Downtown Plan was introduced, is home to the Central Business District (CBD) as well as over 4,000 residents"
 Done
    • "Extremes do occur such as the 114 mm of rainfall that fell on July 31, 1953."
 Done
    • "A massive cluster of thunderstorms occurred on July 11, 2004, with large hail and over 100 mm of rain reported within the space of an hour in many places."
 Done
    • "At the summer solstice, Edmonton receives seventeen hours and six minutes of daylight, with twilight extending well beyond that. Edmonton receives 2,289 hours of sunshine per year"
 Done
    • "Edmonton is known for its exceptional environmental stewardship, strong life-science sector, and burgeoning high-tech industry economy."
 Done
    • "Currently the City of Edmonton is working on the South LRT Extension which will see trains travelling to Century Park located at 23rd Avenue and 111 Street by the end of 2009"
 Done
    • "Edmonton's waste management services' modern composting facility has the capacity to recycle 65 percent of the city's residential waste. The co-composter is 38,690 square metres (416,455 sq ft) in size, equivalent to eight football fields. It is designed to process 200,000 tonnes of residential solid waste per year and 22,500 dry tonnes of biosolids, turning them into 80,000 tonnes of compost annually. The facility is the largest of its type in the world."
 Done
    • "In the next few years, the city anticipates it will divert more than 80% of the city's household waste from entering the landfills."
 Done
    • "in 2002, EPCOR installed the world's largest ultraviolet (UV) water treatment or Ultraviolet disinfection system"
 Done
    • "It seats 1,916 patrons and houses the $3 million Davis Concert Organ, the largest concert organ in Canada."
 Done
    • "The Edmonton International Fringe Festival, which takes place in mid-August, is the largest Fringe Theatre Festival in North America"
 Done
    • "the Under 20 Fifa World Cup which is the third largest sporting event in the world"
 Done
    • "Recent Reports also indicate a large number of Edmontonians have joined the online Network Facebook with over 120,000 members which is rapidly growing."
 Done

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 21:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I just noticed the suggested pronunciation in this article. It has Edmonton pronounced: ɛd.mɪn.tɪn. If I am interpreting the key correctly this is basically: "edmintin" with the "in" sound. I suppose some people may pronounce it that way but I believe ɛd.mɛn.tɛn ("edmehntehn" with "eh" sound) or better yet ɛd.mɔːn.tɔːn ("edmonton" "on" sound) are more common and correct. Of course some may mix it up a bit with ɛd.mɛn.tɔːn and I have seen ɛd.mən.tən suggested. In any event, I think ɛd.mɪn.tɪn may be one of the least correct and I certainly don't use it. Any thoughts or perhaps corrections to my interpretation of the IPA key?WCVanHorne 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides noticing we tend to swallow the "d", I'd say that ɛd.mɪn.tɪn is a fairly accurate pronunciation. Somewildthingsgo (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Edmontonians

I suggest that in the interest of managing the article length for this main article about Edmonton that we remove this list in its entirety from the Edmonton article and simply provide a link to List of notable Edmontonians from somewhere within this main article about Edmonton. Thoughts? Garth of the Forest 05:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, as this is very popular amongst other municipality pages in wikipedia, as long as we, despite common tradtion, ensure that there is not preview heading in the main Edmonton page, as the new page would be a list formatt. Thaat would a common yet pointless error. Otherwise, I think we are Okay to continue that feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilord17 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Informal / biased tone

statements like "There is also an explosion of warehouses and high tech industry jobs!" under Recent History and "West Edmonton Mall Shopping!" under the image of west edmonton mall strike me as being informal and biased in favour of the city. i don't know what to do about that because i am a mere guest but i feel these should be edited to something less enthusiastic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.205.98 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm enthusiastic, thats why I tend to not edit Wikipedia much, it's not welcomed. 207.34.90.175 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

City Life

I think City Life needs to be summarized and shortened.207.34.90.175 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts 207.34.90.175 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

I noticed too many dark/ cluttered images, perhaps some should be removed/clean up the page a bit? --thanks, im new to this ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.138.107 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The images that are here can stay what you can add your own images and help improve the article that way but please do not do major edits to the article without discussion first. Thank you Kyle1278 (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To-do list for Edmonton

I have done the first thing on the list Citations 1 through 20 revised and relinked to correct information. Kyle1278 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nickname vs Title

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickname#Nicknames_of_geographical_places "Most of the "city nicknames" are not nicknames; they are titles. For example, Kansas City is titled (or dubbed) 'Heart of America' and 'City of Fountains'; it is nicknamed KC. People will use KC frequently in everyday speech as a substitute for Kansas City; it is the popular nickname for the city. By contrast, the term 'City of Fountains' is uncommonly used as a title (not a nickname)."

This contradicts with the titles listed under nicknames in the Edmonton articles. I have attempted to put real nicknames and remove titles from the Edmonton page. However, some people take this too personally and get upset about changes made that they don't agree with. What is the best way to make these changes?
Nicknames and titles are meant to go in that section there is not a major difference between the two the names are not ment to be removed because it adds to the article and is meant to identify the article.Kyle1278 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There is actually a large difference. A nickname is a name you would use in place of a name, like "Speedy Creek" for Swift Current. You wouldn't use a title of a city in place of the name.
both titles and nicknames are meant to go within that area of the article edmonton has many nicknames and titles we list them there one section in a aticle can be used for more than just one thing. Kyle1278 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Either way, there are way too many nicknames and titles. I can't find any other place with that many listed. Just because the city takes the URL festivalcity.ca does that make it a nickname? Even Stratford, ON doesn't seem to have "Festival City" listed.
The reason Edmonton has the nickname Festival city is because it has some of the most and world class festivals in the world. It had been called festival city for years now it is not because of the link.Kyle1278 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edmonton's Airport: Futuristic Paradigm For City Planners

"The Edmonton International Airport (YEG) temperature readings have frequently dropped below this extreme since record taking began in 1880."

"The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two Americans who are generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903. " (Wright Brothers, Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.231.26 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Its just says how long records in Edmonton have been kept its never said the airport was there then.--Cheers Kyle1278 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


How did this get even worse? The sentence now states "Temperature readings are also taken at the Edmonton International Airport (YEG), starting in 1880" (!) ... please, whoever wrote this, fix it fix it fix it fix it. 69.129.196.12 (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Minor quip

Congrats to all for getting this to GA and going for FA. As part of the work to make it an FA I've done some minor rewording which I hope is of some help and would like to point out bits and pieces which might need fixing. This statement, in the Climate section might need looking at; personally I find it unclear as to what it exactly means.

'Edmonton is the most northerly major city in North America with a metro population of over one million.'

Does that mean that with a population of over one million, Edmonton is the most northerly major city in North America (as in, the one million population makes it a major city) or that is the major city with the largest population that is most northerly? Can anyone see where I am coming from here? I don't know whether it's me being very nit-picky or whether it's a matter of any actual concern. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I would guess it's meant to be equivalent to the phrase "making it the northernmost North American city with a metropolitan population over one million" in the introductory section. Working out what constitutes a "major city" is somewhat subjective, so I'd be inclined to remove "major" from that sentence. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

climate graph?

I was thinking of switching the climate graph for Edmonton to the easier to read version that Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Tokyo use, instead of the traditional "bigger and harder to read" graph that Montreal or San Antonio use.

If no one objects within 3 days of this post than it will be switched? -May, 13th, 2009 - User:Jd.101

skyline better fit for edmonton?

Personally I think the skyline is a very important part of the page and would like to change the skyline back to the old one as it just looks and feels better ( File:DWEdmonton1.jpg) than the current skyline picture (Edmonton Skyline Panorama.jpg).

The other 2 that are skyline pictures don't seem to be appropriate skyline pictures (Edm panorama2.jpg + File:Sunset-East-Downtown-Skyline-Edmonton-Alberta-Canada-01.jpg) therefore I vote to change the skyline picture to the classic DWEdmonton1.jpg picture.

may 13, 2009 User:jd.101

Plus the current skyline pic is a very bad photoshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.5.115 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The current skyline photo is not a Photoshop and the picture details prove that.--Kyle1278 03:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the left side of the picture. It looks horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.189.110 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Climate quote fixed

I changed this sentence: "The coldest temperature recorded at the Edmonton International Airport (YEG) was -49.4 °C (-56.9 °F), recorded on January 19 and 21, 1886". I am guessing based on the reference cited that the original author meant to ascribe this temperature to Edmonton itself? As the airport was not constructed until 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.199.4 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have edited out the part about the airport. I have also removed the Cite tags from the things you have put them on if you look at the website its is quite easy to tell when the records were kept and what has been recorded in Edmonton.Kyle1278 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the new temperature record going to be added? 78.146.37.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
The record is not very notable due to the fact it is not the coldest that has ever been recored and it happened at the International Airport out side of the city. The city its self only got down to -36. Kyle1278 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Chart

The record temperature for August has been changed to 34.5C as this is the record listed on the Environment Canada website. The old figure of 38.3C is from a book which is not verified by the official weather office. For all we know, the author of the book looked at a thermometer in her window. The climate chart shows the source as Environment Canada and those are the only figures that should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.32 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The environment Canada website is not the only source you can use the book also has sources which state the temperature is taken from the environment Canada website. The temperature was not recorded at the city center. Kyle1278 22:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The chart clearly shows the data is for Edmonton City Centre Airport. That is the only information which should be included. It would be like changing a record low temperature because someone's backyard thermometer was different than the official one. Only one source must be used. I have also just noticed that the figures in the written text do not match the chart. Should this not all match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.32 (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
They are two different things. One is the highest verified temperature and the other is a standardized chart. They are both useful and both pass WP:RS. The book source should thus be left.--Jorfer (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not when the chart links to and shows Environment Canada and Edmonton City Centre as the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.32 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not used the chart and source it solely to EC and then use the book as a reference for the temperature in the body? If it's done like that then it can be explained why the two are different.
If the Environment Canada website's historical weather is used, it would question the accuracy of the 38.3C figure. On that day, the government, which supposedly used the most accurate technology available, recorded 34.5 at the City Centre, 35.3 at the International, 34.0 at Municipal (how this is different than City Centre I don't know), 35.0 at Stony Plain and 35.0 at Woodbend. This is 3.3C different than the book. I would question the books accuracy, and therefore the inclusion of 38.3 even in the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.32 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I am all for discussing this to find a resolution i just ask one thing, please leave it as it is until there is a consensus on the talk page. Its just normal Wikipedia proceeder. Cheers Kyle1278 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the coldest temperature of -49.4 is listed in the text and not in the chart, so why the difference with the 38.3 high temperature. Especially when the coldest temperature is found on the Environment Canada website (though not at city centre), something the 38.3 is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.32 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal that we leave the record high and low in the text above and change the climate chart to the current Environment Canada website. What do you think? Kyle1278 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Works for me 70.74.166.32 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Lets not start this again 70.74.166.32 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever else the article says elsewhere, all of the data in the temperature table has to come from one consistent source. Speaking as an administrator, I'm fully prepared to forcibly strip the temperature table out of the article altogether if this doesn't get sorted out soon. Bearcat (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No need for that Bearcat the climate chart will stay the same way it is now i agree with CambridgeBayWeather's comment.Kyle1278 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember where I posted it but the table should be sourced to EC and in the body of the article it should mention that a higher temperature was recorded and possibly note that it's not the official EC temperature. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Retail

I haven't been bold and made this change myself because I'm new to this specific article and don't know if a consensus has been reached on this issue. But surely the "Retail" section belongs under "Economy", not "Culture"? Barnabypage (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree ill move it under economy thank for the suggestion. Cheers Kyle1278 20:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Skyline Photo Change

-The Current skyline photo is clear, but pretty old and the colour doesn't look that new. It would be nice if there is a updated skyline of Edmonton at daytime. Hope someone can consider about this Thanks.

Fellowedmonton (talk)

I agree with you completely the only problem with the other picture you had put up was it is a night shot day shots are usually better for the article. Kyle1278 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

-Here's a nice bet for the photo change.

Shot of downtown Edmonton towers from south bank of river.-10 May 2009(2009-05-10) Darren Kirby

This is an okay substitute but I think the bottom of the photo should be slightly cropped out because it doesn't look really, um, nice. What do you think? Fellowedmonton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

That would be a nice change and it is a nice picture ill see what i can do and try to crop out the bottom part. Cheers Kyle1278 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

-Changed the photo to the new skyline, as anything is better than the old one. --Rfaulder (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC) -Thanks. At least the skyline is updated from the previous one. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

I have edited and uploaded the edited version. Kyle1278 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Geographic Centre of Alberta

The opening sentence of the Geography section of this article states that "Edmonton is located near the geographic centre of the province." I see this comes from the referenced link at the end of the sentence. With the geographic centre of Alberta being located in Woodlands County near Highway 33 between Swan Hills and Fort Assiniboine, Downtown Edmonton is approximately 145 km southeast of this location. Considering this new information, is 145 km "near" enough to leave this sentence as is, or should we edit this sentence to include this greater detail? Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Druze Community Centre statement contradicts Wikipedia's main article on the Druze

In the Religion section of the Edmonton article, the Druze Community Centre is described as a Lebanese community development, implying that the Druze are an exclusively Lebanese religion, yet the article on the Druze states it is a religion "found primarily in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan". Under its early history subsection the main article also specifies that the religion was founded by a Persian: "the faith was founded by Hamza ibn ‘Alī ibn Ahmad, a Persian Ismaili mystic and scholar."

Should geographical modifiers be removed from the Edmonton description of the Druze?

Baumgaertner (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate "hours of daylight" are grossly in error

Compare hours of daylight in January and in June. They should be symetrical and are not.

My concern is that this information is mechanically collected and added to the CLIMATE section of each city's entry. There may be an error in the collection/posting engine.

I looked at climate-charts.com for reasonable reference data. You might consider copying their presentation format. It is superb.

Tom Mason 68.115.32.77 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

During the winter months here in Edmonton at its lowest we have 6 hours of day light because of our northern latitude same goes for the summer months at its peak there are almost 17 hours of daylight a day. We use the Environment Canada website for all the Canadian cities because it is more accurate then outside sources. Look at Wikipedia:RS. Thanks Kyle1278 22:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
None the data is collected automatically it's all done by an editor from the EC site. Which means that errors may get put in and I have found errors in the source data. This is an obvious example of an error in the maximum temperature for January.
I'm not sure that I understand you. Why should January and June be symmetrical? Ah, just thought you put "Compare hours of daylight in January and in June." However, there is a difference between daylight and what the infobox is showing, which is bright sunshine. So we have three different things, daylight (the time from sunrise to sunset), visible sunshine (when you can see the sun but it's too low in the sky, may be seen through clouds but can't burn the card on the Campbell-Stokes recorder or frost has formed in the ball) and bright sunshine (when the sun is high enough to burn the card and is not blocked by clouds).
Using this (enter Edmonton in the box for city name) shows that in January there is 252.61 hours of daylight and in June 508.65 hours. However, using climate normals there are, on average over a 30 year period, 95 hours of bright sunshine for January and 279.7 for June.
I looked at the climate.charts.com site for Edmonton it's using total hours of daylight rather than bright sunshine. And for daylight I think the graph is an excellent way to visually present the information. I noticed that the temperatures used don't match the EC ones though. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoelstra dad?

Erik Spoelstra's father considers Edmonton his second home. Surely we should put in a notable person section to further into this habtosh. Mark Hackman (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think being the parent of a moderately notable person confers notability. However, this article already links to List of people from Edmonton, so you could try making the case there. Barnabypage (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

If someone could make a image like the one on the Winnipeg, Toronto and others that are in the infoboxes it would be greatly appreciated. I don't have much skill with creating images or editing them or I would do it my self. Remember to use photos that are allowed we don't need a problem like the Calgary image ;) Thank you. Kyle1278 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Could give it a try. Although who ever does it would be imposing their POV of what represents Edmonton. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
We could try to build consensus here as to what would best represent Edmonton. Potential candidates to choose from would be the skyline, provincial legislature, city hall, river valley, Muttart Conservatory, Telus World of Science, WEM, Gallagher Park during EFMF, Commonwealth Stadium, etc. There are certainly other candidates as well. Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
How is this one? I started before waiting for other comments. I quickly browsed through the Edmonton categories on the commons, and narrowed it down seven, unfortunately mine didn't make the cut. 117Avenue (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with legislature, city hall, and Muttart Conservatory, there wasn't any great pictures of the WEM, I went with Gretzky to represent sports since the Commonwealth Stadium is low res, and there wasn't any great pictures to represent education. 117Avenue (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the three that you have stated each are very important landmarks to Edmonton. Overall I think the picture is well done and represents a lot of the city. Ill take a look through commons as well and suggest any images I find. I think that we could use this picture, and if any other images come up that are better suited we can always change it if needed. Kyle1278 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks good. I'd put the skyline image at the top as it should be the main focus, but besides that it looks great. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at some of the examples, the skyline is at the top. 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It does look good. Further to moving the skyline to the top, consider then moving the Muttart photo to the bottom (or between the second and third rows). Also consider trying the statue between the two other photos in the third row. I think these changes would maximize visual weight from top to bottom overall, and left to right for the third row. Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How does it look now? 117Avenue (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Even better – big thumbs up! Hwy43 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Very nice. Good job on the image. Kyle1278 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well done. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames

Must there be a deluge of references for one nickname when not one of the other eight have a single reference? Seems a tad overkill (no pun intended) and could appear as glorification of one over the others due to a current local issue. The reference from 2001, which first brought "Deadmonton" mainstream, should be sufficient. The other references could be used in a "Crime" section that has yet to be created (Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary have such already). In researching others, the nicknames for Toronto and Vancouver are wikilinked within their infoboxes to Name of Toronto and Nicknames of Vancouver. An article on the origin of Edmonton's name and 9+ nicknames with references should be a satisfactory alternative to referencing all nine nicknames in the infobox. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the above, I found List of city nicknames in Canada, where some of the others are referenced. Hwy43 (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I too would like to see this section of the infobox footnote free, but all previous attempts to add Deadmonton to the list have been undone by Kyle1278, saying it is unreferenced. I am being bold, and would like to call out Kyle1278, to hear his opinions on the matter, now that it is in the media again. 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In the spirit of being bold, I'm going to remove two of the four for now. Note that the two remaining are also the two at List of city nicknames in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the nickname should stay with the two current sources or be referenced in a crime section about the city. The other sources could be used in the crime section I am sure there is more than enough to source it quite well. ;) It has definitely been used in the media much more recently due to the homicide rate. To be honest I never believed the reference from 2001 was notable for the nickname to be in the infobox. This was the reason I would revert the edits. I may not be as active on Wikipedia as I used to be but just leave a quick message on my Talk I try to check it at least once a day, I could respond much faster. Cheers Kyle1278 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This article could use a crime section. 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I added a nickname for City of Champions that I have heard, that being River City. I grew up in Festival City and know a fair deal about Edmonton. I will try to post a refrence when I can. (Yay! my first edit!) OH and yes the euphemism "Deadmonton" was used in the movie Hard Core Logo from the "Road Kill Trilogy".(talk) 10:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Leduc No. 1 oil well picture

Why is the lead picture in this article one of an oil well which wasn't even in Edmonton? The significance of Leduc No. 1 isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. IF we want to use the picture at least move it to a spot in the article where oil and gas are discussed, and explain the significance of Leduc No. 1. As it is it makes about as much sense as leading off an article on Leduc with a picture of West Edmonton Mall. Meters (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with the picture is that the caption says that a replica of the original rig is on display in Gateway Park in Edmonton. The Wikipedia page Leduc No. 1 says that the original rig is at Gateway Park. At one time Leduc (or Devon?) wanted to get the original rig back, but as far as I know it si still in Gateway Park. Meters (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
removed image Meters (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Location of an inline citation

I’ve been requested to discuss the appropriate location for the placement of an inline citation. With this edit, I moved an inline citation from before a period to after a period. This was done per WP:CITEFOOT, which states “citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas”. MOS:REFPUNC echoes the same.

The subject sentence, which lists three examples of post-secondary institutions in Edmonton, is as follows:

Other Edmonton post-secondary institutions include the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT), with 76,400 students enrolled in more than 200 technical, vocational, and apprenticeship programs;[182] NorQuest College, [183] with 9,000 students, specializing in short courses in skills and academic upgrading; and Yellowhead Tribal College, [184] a First Nations college.

Reference 184 links to the Yellowhead Tribal College main page. The main page confirms that the college is in Edmonton. It also confirms the college is a First Nations college. As the ref supports “Yellowhead Tribal College, a First Nations college” in its entirety, locating the ref after these six words is appropriate and maintains WP:INTEGRITY (text-source integrity). As this is also at the end of the sentence, the ref follows the period per WP:CITEFOOT.

Due to the structure of the sentence, a list sentence with three examples separated by semi-colons, it is clear that this ref applies to the “Yellowhead Tribal College, a First Nations college” given there are refs within each of the other two clauses.

The flaws in the sentence lie with the two other refs for the two other examples.

Reference 182 for the first example confirms NAIT: is in Edmonton; has 200 programs; has 76,400 students (by summing the four numbers listed at the ref); and offers apprenticeship programs. The minor flaw here is the ref is silent on “technical” and “vocational”.

Reference 183 for the second example is particularly flawed. Although it confirms NorQuest is in Edmonton and has 9,000 students, it is located before the "with 9,000 students" clause, and it does not confirm NorQuest specializes in “courses in skills and academic upgrading” that are "short".

As a result, I am copyediting this sentence (per WP:CITEFOOT and WP:INTEGRITY, and to reflect what the references actually confirm) to read as follows:

Other Edmonton post-secondary institutions include the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) with 76,400 students enrolled in more than 200 programs;[182] NorQuest College with 9,000 students in college and employment preparation programs;[183] and Yellowhead Tribal College, a First Nations college.[184]

Per WP:INTEGRITY, this makes it fairly easy to check that the citations support the information in the rearranged sentence. Also per WP:INTEGRITY, an alternative to this could be placing all three refs at the end of the sentence, but this rearrangement is more difficult to check if the citations support the information. Hwy43 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the way you have placed the references. It looks good typographically, and the context makes it clear what portions of the sentence each reference pertains too. I cannot think of a good reason to place a reference before a period, comma or semicolon. Indefatigable (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what WP:CITEFOOT says. It says "normally placed", not "must be placed" and I made a conscious decision that this seemed to be a situation where the normal placement could be confusing. I like the reworked sentence, since your changes make it clearer that each clause has its own individual reference. Having said that, when someone requests a Talk page discussion on an edit, isn't there actually supposed to be a discussion? You simply wrote out your reasoning and immediately made the change again, with no chance for discussion, compromise, or consensus. Rather than follow established procedure to reach an amicable agreement (on a minor point) you likely violated 3RR. Meters (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It does say "normally places" and then advises to see REFPUNC for exceptions. I was bold given the rationale provided in support of the ref location, and a developed solution to resolve the twice-mentioned edit summary concern about clarity.[3][4]

This initial edit was not a revert.[5] This was a revert.[6] This was a revert, but much more so a concerted effort to resolve our mutual concerns – the location of the ref and ref/content clarity within the sentence.[7] Two reverts each (yours ~13 hours apart, mine ~24 hours apart). Neither of us have likely violated 3RR. Hwy43 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Military

The section on the military in Edmonton referred to Canadian Land Force Command. The name has since changed to the Canadian Army. I made the change to Canadian Army but someone reversed the change. I have again inserted the correct name. The section also indicated that all aviation units moved to CFB Cold Lake in 1996 when CFB Edmonton became an army base. Only fixed-wing aircraft moved to CFB Cold Lake. Helicopters remain at CFB Edmonton. As such, the section has been modified to reflect this.

Antarctic Institute

I removed the following from Post-Secondary: Edmonton is also home to the Antarctic Institute of Canada.[1] I don't know where this belongs in the article. It's real, but it is definitely not an educational institution. The web page is moribund (last updated in 2006, I believe), and the phone number is the director's home phone. It seems to be a one man operation except for during the summer when some students are hired. Meters (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames take 2

I see we have this problem again - we should only be listing well recognized nicknames. Names like "E-Town" can apply to may cities - just because some journalist used it doers not mean its a proper nickname. No need for grade 7 nicknames!Moxy (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Over at Vancouver, we spun the nicknames field off into its own article (Nicknames of Vancouver), where references could be demanded. It solved the problem of people constantly adding weird ones to the main article infobox, and the nickname article see less frivolous editing than the nickname field in the infobox used to. The Interior (Talk) 19:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
We have List of city nicknames in Canada were all the non-academic names can be placed. Is there enough info for a separate article?Moxy (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

There is also Nicknames of Toronto (redirects to Name of Toronto). I like the idea of a Nicknames of Edmonton article if we can elaborate on all of those already listed in the infobox (and referenced at List of city nicknames in Canada).

If we trim the list within the infobox as a result, I suggest we only go with the official city nickname. Otherwise we should keep as is, which is to include only those that can be verified by reliable sources.

If the former, names like Redmonton can be reintroduced in the Government section, Deadmonton could be introduced in a future Crime section, Festival City in the Festivals subsection, etc., etc., etc. Hwy43 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just noticed those refs in the big nicknames article, looks like we're most of the way there in terms of an article. It's arguable whether an article is necessary (the Van one is really a glorified list), but it does allow you to go into more detail about the origins of the names. Nicknames are pretty interesting, they reveal what a city thinks of itself, what it wants other people to think of it, and what the rest of the country thinks of it. As for linking, we could do as you suggest, or just a "see article" link a la Van. The Interior (Talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Didn't see the "see article" link at Van. Looking at that, another option for the parameter could be "City of Champions (official)<br>See article for unofficials" Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is such a thing as an official nick name. A nickname is something that comes out of thin air, it just happens, it isn't a planned creation. The official slogan is "Industry, Integrity, Progress". 117Avenue (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, Edmonton's official "X" then ("City of Champions"), where "X" = something synonymous with "nickname". A few years ago City Council debated to drop its official "X" in favour of something else and decided to continue with it. This is what I am referring to. (Perhaps "X" is official slogan, whereas "Industry, Integrity, Progress" is the official motto?) Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Motto is definitely the correct term for “I., I., P.”, at least in the context of the heraldic achievement (coat of arms). I also agree about slogan for “C.o.C.” (and whatever may have replaced it); it might be called a “tagline” in the ad-biz. However, a nickname, like an epithet, is bestowed rather than adopted, so to speak, usually by outsiders.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
C.o.C. is the city's official slogan adopted in 1988 after Decore used it in 1987 to describe the community's response to the tornado, but was bestowed by the media prior to that.[8][9] Template:Infobox settlement is silent on the term "slogan" and a search of its talk archives yields only this where there was no reply.

There is no doubt that I.I.P is a motto. In fact, it is already placed in the motto infobox parameter. Funny thing though, although I don't doubt it is the city's official motto, I can't find confirmation of such on the city's website. You think the city would publish something on its official motto. Hwy43 (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dunno, have to start doing some looking. The Vancouver one was fun to research, most of the sources are from local newspapers. The Holy Grail here is an article that discusses all the nicknames in one shebang. Some probably are unreference-able. But we're working with a similar number of names in Van, so an article is possible. Next time I'm at school I'll do a search in that cool Canadian newspaper database I can't remember the name of right now. The Interior (Talk) 20:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New Pictures

There has been a new user adding a lot of pictures to the page recently I have been trying to keep it as clean as possible. What worries me is that two have been removed over copyright status and the images are placed in areas that distorts the article. Dastyle 88 (talk · contribs) is the one adding all the pictures, just a heads up. Kyle1278 04:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I echo the concern. Despite the original copyright status issue for the first aurora photo, it was re-added. Not sure if copyright status is still an issue for that one, or if there are forthcoming copyright status issues for the others. Looks like the photo belongs to the editor and was simply not properly marked as free at Commons. Hwy43 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, I just removed the second-added aurora photo. One aurura photo is enough. Hwy43 (talk) 05:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I also saw the message you left on the users talk page. Kyle1278 05:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Edmonton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lacks an economy section, otherwise pretty complete. Request posted.

Last edited at 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed items from "Arts and culture"

In the course of cleaning up the above section, I removed three items that either didn't really fit with the prose, or had notability concerns. Maybe we can find a home for them, or just leave some out.

  • Edmonton's poet laureate is Ann Marie Swell.[2]
  • If we had a literature section, this could go there. But I'm not aware of much Edmonton lit of note. It could go in Arts, but right now there doesn't seem to be a good place.
  • This would be nice to include, but where? Also needs better refs.

References

  1. ^ Antarctic Institute of Canada. "Antarctic Institute of Canada". Retrieved 2009-02-28.
  2. ^ "Poet Laureate". City of Edmonton. Retrieved March 10, 2012.
  3. ^ "Edmonton Rock Formation lizard". Enchanted Learning. Retrieved March 28, 2010.
  4. ^ "Edmontosaurus". Howstuffworks. Retrieved March 28, 2010.

Lowest recorded temperature

There are plenty of sources, like http://www.sott.net/article/198923-Temperature-of-46C-in-Edmonton-area-makes-it-coldest-in-Canada that document a lower recorded temperature in the Edmonton area than the −40.6 °C (−41.1 °F) on January 26, 1972. I understand that these (December 2009) measurements were taken at the EIA, which isn't in the City of Edmonton.

I can't find a source inside the city for the time frame of December 2009, but it seems unlikely that the temperature in the city proper did not drop below -40.6 when the EIA measurements registered less than that for several hours.

Certainly there must be historical temp records for 2009 within the city itself?

Shiggity (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • This is the data for December of 2009 [10] taken within the city.
  • Stony Plain just west of the city [11]

Kyle1278 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

List of extreme temperatures in Canada disagrees. TBrandley (what's up) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If you read the section it says "this was the only time since recordings began at the airport in 1953 that a temperature below −40 °C (−40 °F) has been recorded there." The −49.4 °C is also mentioned beneath that part. Kyle1278 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That sentence refers to the City Centre Airport station its self. Kyle1278 03:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the Edmonton International Airport, located in Leduc, also is not on the list in question. TBrandley (what's up) 03:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • [12] Hourly Data Report for December 13, 2009 for the Edmonton International Airport.
  • [13] Hourly Data Report for December 13, 2009 for the Edmonton City Centre Airport.

Can't pull the month since the changes they have done to the station. [14] Kyle1278 03:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

Right on, I didn't think the difference would be that huge (-32.2 @ 2 am @ City Centre Airport) but apparently it was Shiggity (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem I was surprised two when that happened. The two are only 30 km apart but have a temperature difference of 13.9 degrees. Kyle1278 04:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just read this and looked at the sentence in question, which reads "The lowest temperature ever recorded at City Centre Airport was −40.6 °C (−41.1 °F) on January 26, 1972[43] – this was the only time since recordings began at the airport in 1953 that a temperature below −40 °C (−40 °F) has been recorded there." The sentence is referenced to this, but the only thing referenced there is that on that particular date at 5 am, 6 am and 7 am the temperature was -40.6 C. What the reference does not tell me is if it is the coldest ever recorded at the airport, nor if recording began in 1953. In fact it does not even tell me if the coldest temperature on January 26, 1972 was -40.6. The temperatures were read on or near to the hour and just give a snapshot. Between the hours the temperature could have dipped below -40.6 but would not appear on the hourly weather report. The minimum for the day would have been recorded at the end of the climate day separate from the hourly observations.

If you scroll down a bit to the weather box, which is collapsed, and open it you can see that January, February and December all have recorded minimums lower than -40.6. The coldest is December at -48.3 C in 1938 and is sourced to this. A look at the metadata shows that the maximum and minimum temperatures for the station have been recorded from data dating back to 1937. I looked at Edmonton City Centre (Blatchford Field) Airport and the second paragraph, first sentence it confirms the 1937 opening of the weather station. That was unreferenced but I found one here. The sentence either needs to be removed or rewritten. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence it dose not add anything to the article, and as you said the reference given dose not support what is written. Kyle1278 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Major Concerns over edits

Hi All, Reviewing edit history I see major deletions on the 17 of may. Looking line by line, I see no justification for the reverts. In fact, I doubt the editors read the lines they were changing because it looks far better before than after. There is a great deal of historical information embedded in certain sections; I see that this was moved to the historical section, but then moved back into individual sections. Other relevant, sourced material was also removed en masse. The article right now looks pretty weak...not informative or dispassionate but rather folksy and written as if a senior citizen was reminiscing about the topics. I think an entire rewrite is necessary.--Markh15 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This article achieved good article (GA) status in March 2009. This status was reaffirmed less than 3 months ago. Given this, there is doubt that most others would agree with the above-stated opinion on the article’s current state.

Any mass changes with the intent to improve should be undertaken carefully as to not compromise this article’s GA status. The subject mass changes that were reverted involved a smattering of rearrangements and additions of new content. Yes, some of the new content was sourced. However, some of it was also unsourced.

If the original editor or the concerned editor above (perhaps one in the same) feels strongly, it is first suggested to rearrange the existing content only, without adding any additional content. Once done, then concentrate on adding new content, all of which must be sourced. Hwy43 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

In the demographics section, why isn't there any average ages listed? Can we get this information and post this, please? Thanks! Bllasae (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

See last sentence in second paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Geography section

I have,once again, reverted the change by user:YLSS removing the references to the countries which contain the cities that are at the same latitude as Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I did, however, also implement the change suggested by YLSS to phrase the sentence differently for better readability. I would also like to comment on my thought process so this is not interpreted as the start of any "edit war" (since this was the second time I reverted).

The initial reason given by YLSS for the change was "cities outside America are not followed by contries" (sic). This is patently untrue. We refer to Moscow, Russia to differentiate it from Moscow, Alabama, or Moscow, Scotland, or Moscow, Vermont or any of the other more than twenty possible places in the world one might be referring to as "Moscow". Yes, I know, 99% of the time we are referring to the Moscow, but in an article whose primary audience might conceivably be mostly other North Americans, such as school children writing essays or researching geography, I thought it wise for us to retain the references to which countries those other cities are located within. While a "European with a knowledge of English" may, from a very Eurocentric viewpoint, know by second nature what countries the European cities of Hamburg, Dublin, Manchester, and Magnitogorsk belong to, not everyone will. Or perhaps they may mistakenly think we refer to one of the other more than twenty places we might mean when we say "Hamburg". Or the more than fifteen places known as "Dublin". Or they may note that Magnitogorsk might more accurately be considered to be in Asia rather than Europe. ;) You catch my drift, no doubt.

When YLSS reverted my first change, the reason given was different. The reason seemed to be more for sentence flow. With this I can agree. I have added the recommended parentheses in place of the more cumbersome commas. Thank you, YLSS, for this suggestion. Garth of the Forest (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy that we escaped edit warring on such as issue! Yes, I'm usually quite frustrated by the American way of disambiguating things using commas, especially when there's no need for it, but of course I do not go around editing this, especially in articles expected to be written in American English. But in this particular case the sentence "It is at the same latitude as Hamburg, Germany, Dublin, Ireland, Manchester, England, and Magnitogorsk, Russia." was more readily interpreted to mean that Edmonton lies at the same latitude as Hamburg, at the same latitude as Germany, etc., and most stunningly, at the same latitude as Russia. So thanks for changing the formatting! I'm not against using brackets. YLSS (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayor

Just a reminder to everyone that a person who wins an election does not instantly become the incumbent occupant of that office the moment the results are announced on election night. Rather, there is a transition period of about a week or two, during which results are certified and preparations for the handover of power are undertaken — but, and this is important, the outgoing mayor still holds the office during that time. I'm not familiar enough with Edmonton's municipal politics to know exactly on what date Don Iveson will become the mayor, but as of today he has not been sworn in yet, and thus is not yet the actual mayor — as of right now, Stephen Mandel is still the actual mayor for at least another few days, and his name is not to be replaced with Iveson's in the infobox until Iveson is actually sworn into office. Bearcat (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The official election results are due on Friday, and AFAICT the new mayor & council will be sworn in during, or immediately before, the inaugural meeting on Tuesday, October 29.—Odysseus1479 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IBM Smarter Cities challenge

IBM granted 400,000 USD worth of expertise and advice to assist local experts in improving the lives of Edmontonians through the effective use of data and technology, listing the city as a 2011 Smart Cities Challenge winner.[15] -- from the Stephen Mandel article -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Highest recorded temperature

The article states that the highest recorded temperature inside of Edmonton was 38.3°C, and cites a book from 2007. However, I cannot find any corroboration of this claim; for example, Environment Canada lists that date as 34.5°C [16], which is the highest recorded for that day. Furthermore, downloading the entire historical data from Environment Canada for both Edmonton International and Edmonton Municipal, I see the highest recorded values as 34.9°C on 2002-06-26 for City Centre Airport and 35.6°C on 2008-08-18 at Edmonton International Airport. All of this calls into serious question the validity of this "Edmonton Book of Everything", yaknow? So I think I'm going to edit it to reflect the Environment Canada data instead. Please do chime in if you have good sources or further data. Phil Urich (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox highways

I suggest re-adding a section that was deleted yesterday. It is useful for anyone wanting to know which roads go to the City. Also, I am pretty sure that HWY 2 does not require a reference to know it is true. Gingeroscar (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an atlas. 117Avenue (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundancies

Was there an actual discussion at some point that agreed on the current parameters for the infobox in Alberta municipality articles, or was "consensus" intended only to mean a convention that nobody has questioned? If the latter, consider it questioned: the current state contravenes the provisions of MOS:INFOBOX, as well as common sense - it's not necessary nor helpful to have a redundancy like "Edmonton - City - City of Edmonton" at the top of the page. If the official name differs from the actual status, it might make sense, but here not so much. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two consensuses to choose from. First, WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes states that all articles on Canadian cities should use the name, official_name and settlement_type parameters in their infoboxes. So, the consensus is actually country-wide.

Second, consensus to utilize the name, official_name and settlement_type in this article was achieved through WP:EDITCONSENSUS back in early 2010 (in fact, it was actually done per CANSTYLE). Consistent implementation of this across all urban municipality articles in Alberta occurred shortly thereafter, becoming the established convention also through EDITCONSENSUS in compliance with CANSTYLE.

Use of all three parameters was discussed previously on my talk page in regard to Winnipeg. I was told “The use of the parameters on Alberta municipality articles need not dictate how they are used for Winnipeg”. Likewise the reverse about Winnipeg dictating Edmonton and Calgary (though given CANSTYLE, it looks like all three parameters should be invoked at the Winnipeg article). MOS:INFOBOX was also mentioned at that same time yet there was no reply to a request to elaborate on the specific principle being contravened.

What we have here is a long established consensus in Alberta municipality articles to use all three parameters that complies with the national consensus, and obviously an even longer established consensus to have such parameters available for usage at Template:Infobox settlement. I’m confident we won’t see the day where one or two of these parameters are removed from the template. Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Climatological data

Down here in the States, Edmonton has a reputation for being one of the coldest large cities in North America. Suggest a chart of climatological data be added — which will show among other things record winter lows in the -30 to -40 C range, including an all-time low of -48.3 C (-55 F). (Gentlemen, start your engines!) Sca (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The table is already in the climate section, although it's hidden by default. Meters (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

New Edmonton

What is the possibility of changing "Edmonton" to "New Edmonton". I am a bit confused because there is already an Edmonton in England and it would make it clearer for everyone.

Perhaps the people of "New Edmonton" can bring it up at the next city council meeting.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.0.167 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll get right on that. And while we're doing that we'll get rid of the rest of our duplicated names, starting with London, Paris and Berlin in Ontario. Oops, we already did Berlin. You can start with Boston, MA; Vancouver, Washington, and Raleigh, North Carolina. Meters (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Climate

Why does Edmonton continue to use the downtown City Centre Airport for climate data? The airport is now closed, but that is not the main point of my discussion. The problem here is that the Urban Heat Island Effect distorts Edmonton's climate data by about +3C for minimums and 1.5C for yearly mean, which is common for UHI. Compare with the Edmonton International Airport data in Leduc. Other cities such as Winnipeg and Calgary use their international airport climate data in their articles as their primary climate data. Yes, I understand that Edmonton's International Airport is further out of town than the other said cities but it paints a more true picture of the climactic conditions in the greater Edmonton area. Winnipeg has an automated weather station at The Forks downtown and it is listed in addition to the airport. I recommend both stations be listed with the International airport as the primary to allow for better comparisons of the climates of cities across the country. Montreal and Toronto are both guilty of this as well. Just something for everyone think about. Feel free to comment - Classenc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classenc (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time someone from Manitoba has explored this. Here are the facts.
  1. Is the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA) closed? Yes.
  2. Is the ECCA weather station still in operation? Yes.
  3. Is the ECCA weather station within Edmonton? Yes.
  4. Is the Edmonton International Airport (EIA) and its weather station within Edmonton? No.
  5. Is the EIA adjacent to Edmonton's urban development footprint? No. It is four miles to the north.
  6. Is the Winnipeg (The Forks) weather station within Winnipeg? Yes.
  7. Is the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport (WRIA) and its weather station within Winnipeg? Yes.
  8. Is the WRIA adjacent to Winnipeg's urban development footprint? Yes. It is nearly surrounded except for lands to the northwest.
  9. Is Winnipeg a colder city than Edmonton? Yes albeit marginally.
It is evident from the above facts that the international airport weather station location contexts of Edmonton and Winnipeg are much different. It is speculation that the ECCA weather station will ever close. Why would Environment Canada toss an opportunity to continue collecting weather data at this location to go with the long history of data already recorded?
I oppose replacing the current data with that from the EIA based on the above. Also given the above, I oppose adding the EIA data in addition to the ECCA data as it is well beyond Edmonton's current city limits. Hwy43 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I also oppose replacing the current data, the EIA is outside of the city limits. The climate data for cities should be from a station located with in the cities limits.Kyle1278 19:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Hwy43 and User:kyle1278 that we should continue to list the city centre data, but User:Classenc's proposal was actually to add the international airport data, not to replace the city centre data. Let's discuss the actual proposal of having both sets of data. Is there a good reason not to list both sets? Some city pages do list more than one set of climate data. Edmonton's data is clearly subject to the heat island effect, and I think it would be a good addition to the article to have a mention of the heat island effect and to be able to compare the city data to somewhere just outside the heat island (the International Airport or some other nearby station). I do not agree with having the city centre data be the secondary data. Another option would be to mention the heat island effect and its approximate magnitude (yes, with a RS) and to link to another article for a nearby location with climate data. Hmm... I see that Edmonton International Airport does not include its climate data. Leduc, Alberta does. Meters (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A quick note just to clarify, I have opposed both adding and replacing. I just didn't emphasize (i.e., bold) the former as I did the latter. I'm popping out for some New Year's activities. I'll provide additional comments this evening. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I noticed that when I reread your cmt after saving my edit. I'm not pushing to include both sets of data at all, and in fact the more I think about it, the more I agree that the International Airport not being in Edmonton proper is enough to keep the data out.
I think some mention of the heat island effect would be worthwhile, but that's a different issue and does not require the addition of a full set of weather data from outside the city. Meters (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The first and foremost reason that the EIA data should not be included is that it is well beyond the city limits. How many city pages list more than one set of climate data in which one or more are from weather stations beyond their city limits?
The urban heat island (UHI) effect is moot. Such an effect is not unique to Edmonton. Other major metro cities in Canada also have the same. Edmonton's UHI effect is no more notable or encyclopedic than the UHI effects generated in other Canadian cities. It just so happens that Edmonton's international airport is beyond Edmonton's UHI while the international airports of most or all other major Canadian cities are within their UHIs.
I haven't been able to find the previous similar discussion, but I recall it being an attempt to cherry-pick Edmonton's EIA climate data to advance an inference that Edmonton is actually colder than Winnipeg during the winter. The fact of the matter is both of Winnipeg's weather stations are within its city limits, and both are within Winnipeg's UHI. A comparison of the two cities' international airports cannot be done to determine the colder city because of their different contexts. A comparison of the two cities' weather stations within their city cores (ECCA and The Forks) is a reasoned and defencible comparison to determine which is city is colder as both are nearest to the centres of their respective UHIs. Hwy43 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I agree that the Edmonton International airport data should not be added, since the airport is not within Edmonton.
And as I also said, the heat island effect is a different topic, and does not require the addition of a full set of weather data from outside the city. So we're agreed that it is moot when considering the issue of whether to include the airport data. I don't care if other cities mention it since I have no vested interest in which Canadian city appears to have a colder climate, and I am not suggesting the HIE's inclusion so that it can be used to compare to other cities' climates. In fact, I would not object to removing the line The city has milder winters than either Regina or Winnipeg, both further south of Edmonton in latitude.
FYI there is at least one major Canadian city that has that its airport outside the builtup area that would be subject to the HIE. Halifax's airport is well out into the undeveloped countryside. It's more than 20 km from Dartmouth and even further from Halifax. It is within the Halifax Regional Municipality so its climate data is included in the Halifax article, together with city centre climate data.
Meters, yes we are in agreement. My intent was to elaborate for the benefit of the two others and future interested parties. I would also not object to removal of that statement. It is a tad subjective. i.e., what is mild? Using this source, which is derived from Environment Canada data, I think it would be more appropriate to state things like: Among the core cities of Canada's metropolitan areas, Edmonton ranks eighth in lowest average daily maximum temperature at 9.3°C, ninth in lowest average daily minimum temperature at -1.0°C and ninth in highest average number of days per year that the temperature stays below 0°C at 83 days. Similar statements could be added to other city articles that are within the source's tables. Hwy43 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer that. Unless we can cite a source that explicitly says that Edmonton's climate is milder that the other cities we should avoid a direct comparison. I(t comes across as a bit of an in-your-face taunt to the more southern cities. Meters (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons

User:Vaselineeeeeeee has added flag icons to the infobox of this article, and several others across Canada. I deleted the addition, and stated that consensus needs to be reached. Vaselineeeeeeee instead reverted my edit, and stated that other stuff exists. Please note that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states: "where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan)...the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not". There has also been extensive discussion about flag icons on Vaselineeeeeeee's talk page. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What extensive discussion about flag icons on my talk page? There has been no such thing. Anyway, why do you say "other stuff exists" like it is a bad thing? Because flag icons are inserted in the infobox on thousands of other articles is a very significant observation. For example, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Fredericton, Moncton, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Jersey City, Hoboken, New Jersey, New York City, and much, much more. I understand there are instances when flag icons should not be added, however, this is not the case for stating the country/province/state of a specific city. Thanks, with regards. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I just read the MOS and it stated: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." I think if you really want them you should bring it to their talk page and have a discussion? Mattximus (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There cannot be discrepancies between the various pages of major cities like stated above. I disagree with the statement that they are distracting. When looking at the country or province/state, the flag just enhances the significance of the term and gives the reader a better understanding of the specific city. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about them one way or another, I'm just quoting you the guidelines. If you are passionate, it's that talk page you should ask to change the recommendations. For now, I think we should stick with what's already been decided until the guidelines are changed. Mattximus (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says that for human geographic articles such as settlements flags may be used in infoboxes. I don't really care if we use them or not, but if consensus has been to not use them then they should stay out of this article until a different consensus is reached. Per WP:BRD I'm removing the flags again while this discussion continues. Meters (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus reached to not use them though. Also, having these types of discussions usually never results into anything unfortunately. The discussion will go on for a few days, people will give their opinions, then people will forget, and nothing usually changes... Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There may or may not have been a formal consensus to not use flagicons in Canadian geographic articles (I don't know) but clearly your attempt to add flagicons to this and other articles is contentious. Thus it needs to be discussed. You'll need to get consensus to change those articles. WP:BRD means it should be discussed after the first undo to the status quo. Edit warring and removing comments from your talk page are not the way to go. Meters (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but the same could go for your reverts on me too couldn't it? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. I undid you once. Meters (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you understanding that flag icons are a part of thousands of city articles? No one seems to understand this. It is almost a given on any article that the icons be added, more examples Fox Creek, Alberta, Sundre, Alberta etc. etc. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. They may be used, but they certainly don't have to be. In this article they have not been used. We're asking you to get consensus to add them. Meters (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXFLAG is clear and flags should not be used. Note that User:Vaselineeeeeeee has just returned from an editwarring block (for 1 week) after he kept on insterting league (serie A) on italian players with argument that it exists on some other pages. I told him about WP:WHATABOUTX and just because it exists on other pages does not make it right, but the message dont seem to have gone through. No flags!. We have to follow wikipedia guidelines. QED237 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
^ That is irrelevant. It is really troubling when my edits are getting reverted. I do not understand why people are reverting my edits and saying they nonconstructive etc. meanwhile I just listed about 10 pages and yet all the flags are still on those pages. I do not understand why you have some sort of fetish with my edits?? Since there are these rules people are mentioning about flags, why are people only taking them seriously on recently added pages, and not on the pages that have been there for some time now? "Just because other stuff doesn't make it write??" On what grounds? Rules are rules no? If there are flags on other pages, how can people turn a blind eye??? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edmonton has achieved good article status through the combined effort of many editors. This status is being protected by 225 "page watchers". Most are editors who have worked on the page and have added Edmonton to their Watchlist. This means that 225 editors are notified when edits are done to the page. If an new edit is not constructive it is immediately reverted. Other pages may have fewer than 30 "page watchers" and edits to these pages are less likely to be immediately reverted. Flag icons are usually left on these pages because they don't detract from the page content. However they are occasionally reverted.-- Kayoty (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So User:Kayoty, you would like to have the flag icons added back correct? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So would I. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flags are explicitly permitted on articles for cities and other such places. I'm not sure what Magnolia677 misunderstands, but Edmonton is not an example that fits the statement that "where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan)...the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not". Edmonton is **NOT** an article that "covers both human and physical geographic subjects". Once this misunderstanding is tossed out, there's no issue here with the flag icons. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, flag icons may be used in articles such as this one. I don't really care one way or the other. My only concern was in stopping the edit war on this article and seeing if we could get a consensus on whether to use flag icons or not in this article, if there was no previous consensus on this or Canadian city articles in general. Meters (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Highways and Waterways

Should I include highways and waterways is the Metropolitan area or just the city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now. My subsequent edit in March hopefully spoke for itself. The article is about the city, not the metro area; thus only the highways and waterways entering, within and adjacent to the city limits should be included. Highways and waterways within the metro area may be appropriate for inclusion within the infobox at Edmonton Capital Region however. Hwy43 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edmonton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Montage

Should the montage be changed/updated now that the Gretzky statue is no longer at Rexall Place? 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It is probably okay for now until it is rededicated at Rogers Place in the fall. Take a picture once rededicated and then update the montage? Hwy43 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Without any further discussion, I have. 117Avenue (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edmonton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Source

What's the source of this sentence: "The new fort's name was suggested by John Peter Pruden after Edmonton, London, the home town of both the HBC deputy governor Sir James Winter Lake, and Pruden."? I'd found in Pruden's article, but it writes only the author, title and the date. It would be good to mark the source in this article. Csuja (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia says “The fort was reputedly named for Edmonton, now part of London, England, the birthplace of a deputy governor of the HBC.” I agree it would be good to know the origin of said ‘reputation’; I don’t find this source very satisfactory, as the wording suggests the authors were unable to find a more definite attribution.—Odysseus1479 22:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: Thanks, I asked this, because I started to translate to Hungarian. Don't you think that we need to get out this? It's very unsure. Csuja (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Edmonton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Milder winters than Winnipeg or Regina

@CambridgeBayWeather: "The city has milder winters than either Regina[45] or Winnipeg,[46] both further south of Edmonton in latitude." is an okay statement in itself however I noted that it only references climate charts from Regina and Winnipeg and does not reference an Edmonton climate chart for comparison. When looking up a climate chart for Edmonton I noted that it does not actually look like Edmonton is milder. -Vanstrat (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't a reference then take it out. The original removal didn't mention that. It just mentioned boosterism. No problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a reference out there that compares major Canadian cities across a wide range of climate categories that confirms the content. I thought I used it in this article before. Maybe I used it in a regional article or one of the two other cities. Having been on Wikipedia for eight years now, there have been numerous editors over the years that simply don't like or don't want to accept that more northerly cities can have milder climates than more southerly cities at certain times of the year, thus sporadically doing things like this here or at Winnipeg. Reverting efforts to remove encyclopedic facts like this grows tiresome. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Found the the source in my sandbox, which specifically references "Environment Canada. Meteorological Service of Canada. Canadian Climate Normals. 1981-2010 Climate Normals & Averages." Hwy43 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
And here is the specific source to winter. Hwy43 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good! As long as the source is there. I agree that the reasoning behind the removal wasn't adequate, I just figured that as we were adding and removing it that I'd bring it up. - Vanstrat (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
All's good then. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edmonton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edmonton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmonton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to duplicate PROSE in a chart?

I'm not sure we need a chart that only list minority groups that duplicate exactly the content text in the article already. We already have the written text which is the preferred format for any article let alone a GA one WP:PROSE. I'm also concerned that it only deals with visible in minorities and not the majority of the population... let alone formatting errors that we could fix.--Moxy (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"According to the 2016 census, the population of Edmonton was 55.8 percent European in origin and 6.4 percent Aboriginal (including Métis), while visible minorities accounted for 37.8 percent of the population. As a portion of Edmonton's total population, 29.3% reported Asian ethnic origins (7.44% Chinese, 6.24% Filipino, 1.5% Vietnamese; 9.6% were South Asian, including 7.44% identified as East Indian), 2.34% reported Latin American origins, and 7.5% reported African and Caribbean origins.[1] 17.4% of the population identified themselves to be of "Canadian" ethnic origin.[1]"

Canada 2016 Census[2] Population % of total population (2016)
Visible minority group
 South Asian 86,550 9.5%
Chinese 57,715 6.3%
Black 54,285 5.9%
Filipino 53,980 5.9%
Latin American 16,980 1.9%
Arab 23,970 2.6%
Southeast Asian 16,305 1.8%
West Asian 6,390 0.7%
Korean 7,025 0.8%
Japanese 1,940 0.2%
Other visible minority 3,655 0.4%
Mixed visible minority 10,255 1.1%
Total visible minority population 339,035 37.1%
Aboriginal group First Nations 36,125 4%
Métis 24,295 2.7%
Inuit 940 0.1%
Total Aboriginal population 58,080 6.4%
European 509,695 55.8%
Total population 932,546 100%
  1. ^ a b "Census Profile, 2016 Census [Edmonton]". Archived from the original on June 17, 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ . Statistics Canada [https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4811061&Geo2=CD&Code2=4811&Data=Count&SearchText=edmonton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1 title=Census Profile, 2016 Census Edmonton, City %5bCensus subdivision%5d https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4811061&Geo2=CD&Code2=4811&Data=Count&SearchText=edmonton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1 title=Census Profile, 2016 Census Edmonton, City [Census subdivision]]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help); Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); line feed character in |url= at position 239 (help).
Well if this was about redundancy in the first place, why didn't you say? It is unfortunate that I didn't notice it was already in prose, but equally disappointing the patronizing use of UPPERCASE directed towards the longstanding editor that justifiably reverted your edit due to the ambiguous edit summary that lacked the reasonable explanation provided now. Seeing there was prose in the first place, I would not be opposed to cutting the table and pasting it at the child Demographics of Edmonton article. I'll boldly do so if not already in place there. Hwy43 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Whoa wait a minute. Upon a second quick glance, that paragraph is entirely about ethnic origins with the exception of Aboriginal and visible minority spliced into the second half of the first sentence. Upon removing the table, a paragraph will be added to detach from related but different ethnic origins and to better present visible minorities and Aboriginals. Hwy43 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmonton/Archive_1&oldid=1136689534"