Jump to content

Talk:Moncton/Archive 1

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


History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moncton_skyline.jpg#file

Though Robert Monckton was involved in the expulsion, is it realy necessary to have that mentioned in the first paragraph? It just seems to hurt the mood of the article. Maybe it should be moved to the history section.

why is the histoyry section starting when setllers came? i find that racist. therer is thoudans of years of human history in this region before eurpoen contact.Gavin the Chosen 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It may seem a bit out of place, but as a former resident of the area, I like that it (Reference to Monckton) is first as it shows the irony of the act as the Greater Moncton area is probably one of the best examples of a peaceful and cooperative French/English communities that I am aware of, if not in the world.
As far as to what degree the natives of NB are spoken of is purely due to not knowing the history of the area well enough to put in meaningful information. If someone has information pertaining to this, they are welcome to put it in.
Oh and BTW, I am born of a loyalist father and an acadian mother so I am a living example of the ability of two cultures to peacefully coexist.

This appears to be resolved... remove the discussion to this item?

Buildings

There are number of communication structures near Bayer's Lake in Clayton Park that are taller than the Aliant tower (which means the Aliant tower isn't the tallest structure in Atlantic Canada, as labelled).
I have too agree with the last comment about the structures in Halifax as oppose to the aliant communications tower in moncton. To start the comment above is true, I myself live in Halifax and would like to make the point clear that Moncton may not hold the record for tallest free standing structure, The radio communcation tower located in Fairview, Nova Scotia (A community outside of the city of Halifax) is much taller than the Aliant Tower (600 feet, 182 meters). but is supported by guidelines and is not in contention due to the fact that it is not "free-standing." But, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (Halifax's twin city) has an area known as Tuft's Cove. In Tuft's Cove there is a an electrical power plant and on this site are three smokestacks which might be taller than the aliant communcations tower in Moncton. Since there was no information on just how tall the three smokestacks were I decided to use other structures that I did know for example the Macdonald Bridge's support beams are 96 meters in height and when put next to the smokestacks it appears to be much smaller then it.
If someone could find any information on the height of these smokestacks that would be greatly appericated and if I am wrong about them being taller than the Alaint Communications tower, then I will change my comment. However, I have other things to say. To start the Aliant Communcations tower can't be classified in the height of stories due to the fact that it has no floors in it and is a solid structure. It is not classified as a building. Second of all the tallest building in Moncton is, if I am not mistaken Assumption Place, an office building standing at 20 stories (or 80 meters) in height. In Halifax there are four buildings that exceed 80 meters in height and they are
1. Fenwick tower (32 stories) 98 meters
2. Purdy's Wharf tower 2 (21 stories) 88 meters
3. 1801 Hollis Street (22 stories) 87 meters
4. Barrington Tower (20 stories) 84 meters
As you can see in the first building, Fenwick Tower, which is actually residence for Dalhousie University students is 32 stories in height, only 3 stories away from the Aliant Tower (which as I said before can not be classified in stories. My last point is that there are other buildings being passes by city council in Halifax to build an observation tower around 150 meters in height and along with this, a handful of other office buildings that exceed the assumpition place including a 25 story complex in the downtown area.
I have concrete evidence that the smokestacks at Tuft's Cove are each individually taller than the Aliant Tower. Each stack is 500 feet in height (or roughly 157 meters) and the Aliant Tower is only 127 meters. Someone erase the comment on the Aliant Tower stating that it is the tallest structure in Altantic Canada.
If the discussion of tallest structures in the Maritimes includes chimneys/smokestacks, such as the 3 located at Tuft's Cove, then Coleson Cove GS has 2 stacks measuring 183m/600 ft.Plasma east 00:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't look into that. I guess your right then Tuft's Cove isn't the largest structure, this Coleson Cove place is. Thanks for the information Plasma East

== [[Image:Picture of Moncton Skyline ==[1]]]Is there anyone who follows this page who might happen to have a half decent pic of Moncton's skyline for the top of the page? Sure the sign is nice... but every other town in the province has one too... mylesmalley 03:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Moncton doesn't have a very built up skyline it's just a communications tower and a slighty tall building. Moncton is a very, very small city and the sign is fine for a picture. also take a look at the building section. Only three buildings and one is only 8 stories tall. I think the reason that no one put up a picture of the "skyline" is because there isn't any skyline, a skyline is a group of buildings. You only have one and maybe 2 buildings if you consider the communications tower a building. so good luck with finding a picture.
Err.. right. Well, if you'd ever been to moncton you'd noctice that it does have a fairly nice skyline. And moncton, by maritime standards is a fairly large city, and is expected to easily pass Saint John as the provinces' largest city. The fact that there are only 3 buildings on the list is hardly a complete roster of the city. There are no fewer than 5 buildings over 10 stories, including the Aliant Tower, and Place Assumption.mylesmalley 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well i didn't mean it in a way that was insulting but apparently your taking it that way. Your right, compared to most other maritime cities it is fairly large (population wise but were not talking about population). A very small high-rise is considered to be a 12 story building or more and to further stress this point: Aliant Tower is not a building it is a free-standing structure. I don't see how you can give something that has no floors and is a communications tower a measurment in stories. I'm not saying it's not part of the skyline in fact, it is the most prominent feature, it's just that it isn't exactly what you would call a "building." Oh, and true i guess i was a bit narrow-minded about the complete roster of moncton's buildings and your right you have 4 buildings at 8-10 stories or more but only one of them is considered a high-rise (Assumption Place). Another point would be that I have been to Moncton and I saw the skyline. Your right for its location (Atlantic Canada) it is certaintly at least somewhat defined but i think that your also being a bit narrow-minded because if you have been to any other city like St. John's, Or Halifax and even St. John (personally I like their skyline better) you will see just how small of a city Moncton is "skyline-wise."
This discussion is ridiculous and doesn't add anything to improving Wikipedia's entry for Moncton. It only serves to illustrate how Halifax and every other small Atlantic Canadian city is peanuts when compared with any of the world cities. The "debate"/comparison about structures and skylines between Halifax and Moncton (or others in the region) merely illustrates how all of the respective municipalities are "big fish in a small pond"! Plasma east 01:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, yeah your right Plasma East I'll stop I mean, it's kinda like fighting for 56th place, it's just not worth it.(Theyab 18:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

Education

I think there needs to be some consensus on discussion of Mount Allison University in the education section. I have seen changes flying back and forth for weeks, and I think we need to settle it. It is not important to the article to indicate Mount Allison's rank relative to St. Francis Xavier. If we start doing that, then we will need to rank everything in the entire article relative to other things. Where would one stop? I think that all that's really important is that it's indicated that it is a top-rated institution. --Chriskay 15:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, your revision seems to be satisfactory and my only point was to not allow for the original sentence to be misleading, and to note other universities. Obviously I sparked the wrong reaction. We'll keep the edit you made and hopefully everyone else can agree on it. Anyways, thank you Theyab 15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me, although I'm not sure why you would think that it's misleading. It doesn't add to the article to simply point out that something else might be rated higher, in an arbitrary ranking, at that. --Chriskay 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, okay perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to put St. Francis Xavier on a pedestal, I only wanted to add another university name just to add another name to the article to expand and create links to other pages however, looking back, what I put down was in the wrong context and wasn't necessary as I now see that I only created further problems. Anyways, I'm sorry about that and I hope that we can finally move on from the subject. Theyab 18:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stones Concert

"The city lost over 600, 000 dollars to hold the concert. The cost was mainly in part to the "one-time" infrastructure costs. The concert is hoped to attract other acts however, city councillors hope to avoid further expenses for the city"

I can't see what is so bad about this comment. It adds more information about the concert and it's affect that it had on the city. Sure, it's a negative effect but you can't just erase it and ignore the fact that the city lost money. I'm sure that the concert had several positive effects like attracting other acts to the concert site and boosting the local tourism. I suggest that instead of just erasing this comment perhaps it would be better to add other facts about the concert (although I would keep this to a minimum as not to clutter the article). Anyways, I just wanted to say why this comment is relevant. Theyab 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Theyab: The main reason why I deleted the comment in the past is that the article for Moncton is already fairly long and the comment seemed somewhat extraneous in the context of the section in which it was placed (Greater Moncton attractions). The fact that the Rolling Stones concert at the Magnetic Hill Concert Site lost money is irrelevant to the fact that the concert site in fact exists and is indeed a major asset to the city, providing a venue for major events to come to the city. Regards; MonctonRad
Theyab: I'll give you a couple of weeks to think about how you might like to modify (or delete) your comments regarding the money losing Rolling Stones concert before I take any action myself. Regards; MonctonRad


MonctonRad, Hey, yeah I read the revision you made and I'm glad we could finally reach an agreement. My original intent was to add more information about the rolling stone's concert itself and not the concert site but the two seemed to go together ant it was pretty hard not to mention that most of the money lost was because of the one-time infrastructure. I wasn't tryi ng to bring down the city's reputation or anything but the fact you mention that other concert venues could come to Moncton is a little slanted because the city lost money and as most cities would the city counciller's are trying to save money, not risk money on megaconcerts every year. Anyways that's only my opinion and I'm still glad we could reach a compromise and I'll leave the comment for now. Theyab 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Host to 9/11 Strandees

Although perhaps not with the visibility of other Canadaian cities such as Gander, Moncton indeed played host to several thousand stranded airline passengers as a result of the 9/11 terror attacks (including my then-fiancee and me). I think this is worthy of mention; perhaps I will add an entry on this in the near future.

There is a comment regarding this in the entry for the Greater Moncton International Airport but I agree that this was a significant recent event and perhaps should be included in the main article regarding Moncton as well. I will give some thought about how best this can be done. Regards; MonctonRad

I am working on adding a "trivia" section for misc. historical data which does not fit into the general history of the city. This would fit into the mix quite well. Moncton has gone so far with this topic as to name a sidestreet to September 11th Blvd.

How relevant is Dieppe/Riverview to this page?

I ask because some are adding items to this page with regards to Champlain Place, Dieppe's city hall, etc. Are these items relevant to a page about Moncton? mctnguy 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no article on "The Greater Moncton Area" so perhaps it might be a good idea to create a section that talks about that, and leave all references to Riverview and Dieppe there. It is quite common from people outside the area to say "I'm going to Moncton" and mean they're going to Dieppe to goto Champalin mall. The population section needs a complete rewrite. I cleaned it up, but its also been 2 years since I've lived in Moncton so I can't write on the specifics on what is going on there as far as growth, development areas, etc. --Crossmr 20:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a good question. Although Moncton, Dieppe and Riverview are three distinct political entities, they function for all intents and purposes as a single community. As such, some information might pertain to the perception of the entire metropolitan area and probably does belong in the Moncton article, even though the content may be more closely tied to Riverview or Dieppe. I agree with Crossmr that most other people in the Maritimes think of Moncton when they talk about Champlain Place, not Dieppe. I think it is valid therefore to talk about Champlain Place in the Moncton article. I also agree that the recently added section, "population", was very poorly written and did not contribute substantively to the discussion on Moncton. In particular, I took offence to the reference to the new Dieppe City Hall, especially when it did not make it clear that this building was in Dieppe, not Moncton. That was inappropriate. I took the liberty of deleting this section. MonctonRad 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How is the population growth in Moncton right now? Are they actively developing a lot to accomodate it? If this is the case, it might be worth having a section on it, as it was considered one of the faster (maybe fastest) growing cities in the maritimes for a bit.--Crossmr 17:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Moncton is certainly growing at an upward rate and this is mentioned in the Language and Demographics section of the article. Why would we possibly need a section on population? The population growth of a city does not need an entire section, all it needs is a few sentences in the demographics section. If you continue to add unnessecary sections to the article you will eventually flood it with so much redundant information that it will be hard to see the useful information that the article is giving. Oh, and to answer Crossmr's question, Moncton is part of the second fastest growing center in the maritimes (this includes Riverview and Dieppe. Halifax is growing the fastest). I don't know much about the development Moncton is seeing because I do not live there and I can't find any information to verify moncton's growth. Theyab 19:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, thats why I didn't try to add any information to that section. I'm sure they've made lots of changes in the 2 years since I've lived there. I think as long as we keep up to date on any major developments they make as far as expansion and developing the city goes that should suffice. --Crossmr 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Separately, Riverview and Dieppe have grown more percentage and population wise then Moncton. So much in fact that it has been surmised that after the 2006 census data is released, Dieppe's Francophone population is expected to decline due to the amount of anglophone people who have moved into the new subdivisions which have sprung up in the past years. And yes, to many locals in Moncton Champlain Mall is for the most part considered in "Moncton" as opposed to Dieppe. But officially it is pretty well on the Dieppe side of the Moncton/Dieppe city land borders

Moncton as well as the Moncton are has a great population growth. from 1996 to 2001 +2.9% (+3.7% Moncton area) 2001-2006 +5% (+6.5% Moncton area) so the whole Moncton area is growing. All of this from StatCan: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=305__&Geo2=PR&Code2=13&Data=Count&SearchText=moncton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom= --Kebron 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interpretation. Someone else might not really consider that significant "growth" to really call a city "growing".--Crossmr 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image problems?

I'm thinking these images probably shouldn't be tagged as self-made. Maybe someone could upload some free replacements or something.

The Reservetravel website reads:

As a condition of your use of this website you warrant and represent to us that you will not use this website or information, images or data on the website, for any illegal purpose, or for any purpose that is prohibited by this agreement, and you agree not to: modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publish, display, license, create derivative works from or sell any product, services, information or software obtained from this website.

The Tripadvisor website reads:

Except as otherwise indicated, the Site, and all text, images, marks, logos and other content contained herein, including, without limitation, the TripAdvisor logo and all designs, text, graphics, pictures, information, data, software, sound files, other files, Content (as defined below) and the selection and arrangement thereof (collectively, the "Site Content") are the proprietary property of TripAdvisor or its licensors or users and are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. The Site and all Site Content is (C) 2005-06 TripAdvisor, LLC All Rights Reserved.

Ouuplas 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Codiac Transit

Does Codiac transit really need its own article? Should we do little more than work it into the Moncton/Riverview/Dieppe articles, mention they're serviced by it and then link to the website at the end of each? It doesn't contain any real information. --Crossmr 07:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Airline Destinations

I am not personally aware of a direct WestJet connection to Vancouver. I think that this reference must be in error. I will therefore delete this. If I am wrong then please correct me in this forum. It would be proper to consider a direct connection to Edmonton however as the WestJet flight to Toronto and Calgary also continues on to that city. I may therefore add this information in. 207.179.172.214 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WestJet does indeed fly to Calgary from Moncton direct. I know, because I have taken this flight. Granted it stops in Toronto on the way but it is the same airplane landing in Calgary that took off in Moncton. This would qualify it as a "direct, one stop destination". The same goes for the WectJet flight to Montreal; it is direct one-stop.

It changes flight numbers, therefore its no longer a Direct flight. Sorry pal. 156.34.183.6 05:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow this link (departures GMIA)http://www.gma.ca/english/flight/departure.asp. It clearly advertises that the WestJet flight to Toronto continues on to Calgary.142.167.55.246 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Gunningsville Bridge

I'm not sure about placing a section specific for the Gunningsville Bridge in the Moncton article but there is some interesting trivia here and I will leave this for now. Other comments anyone? MonctonRad 01:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Gunningsville Bridge info can be placed in its own article. Fredericton has articles for the Princess Margaret Bridge and Westmorland Street Bridge. Kirjtc2 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a reason to create an article. Regardless of what other articles exist, each article has to stand on its own merit. --Crossmr 01:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There's still enough information in the Gunningsville Bridge section to create an article (it's about as long and informative as the Princess Margaret Bridge article as it is), although it needs a copyedit - in fact, I'll do it right now. Kirjtc2 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Treitz Haus

I don't have a citiation for the information re: the age of the Treitz Haus but this was extensively discussed in the "Times & Transcript" a couple of years age with local historians and staff from the Universite de Moncton being quoted. No one knows the exact age of the building as this information has been lost in the mists of time but there are stylistic features of the building that help to date it to this period. Dendrochronology of the wood used in it's construction also dated from the late 1760's to the early 1770's. As such, the local experts were pretty convinced that the building dated to this era. The reason why this was so thoroughly investigated at the time was that the building had been in poor repair and had been slated for demolition. It had previously been thought to date from the 1820's and therefore would have been younger than the "Free Meeting House" which had previously been thought to be the oldest building. Dating of the Treitz Haus therefore was crucial to its preservation. I am confident in stating that the Treitz Haus is around 235 years old. MonctonRad 11:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay look up the proper way to cite a newspaper article add a nonlinked foot note and toss it at the bottom of the page. Anyone who cares to will at least know where that information came from. --Crossmr 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hard to do because I can't remeber the date of the newspaper article let alone the author, section and page number. This was in the paper a number of times and I am sure on this information however. MonctonRad 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone can get ahold of the Times Transcript and find out. I'm not saying you don't remember properly, just information like that should be sourced in some way. We can leave it up with citationneeded for awhile and give someone a chance to hunt it down. --Crossmr 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Westmorland County

The first paragraph lists Westmorland County as an "adjacent" area, but Moncton is in Westmorland County. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.124.17 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Revision

I just went through the article and revamped some sections, including a complete re-do of the history section, in which I replaced it with a table of important events, by doing this it signifigantly reduced the size of the article and I feel made it look a lot better. If someone has any better events and dates to add in please do so. I also added in a bunch of pics and stuff to improve the look of various sections. If anyone objects to the changes I hae made and will continue to make please write a message here to discuss :) Thanks!

-Stu_pendousmat


Thanks to MonctonRad and others for helping out with the revision! I think once I/we have finished the revision the article will need to be re-assesed by the "wikicanada" people, I would say the article is much better than "B-Class" by now :)

-Stu_pendousmat


Once again thanks to the people helping out with this article, today I made a few changes, I added in a few new pictures and revised the education section. If anyone has any objections to these changes please let me know, or if you wish to make any changes to what I did please go ahead (I understand my spelling/grammar is not always the best lol).

-Stu_pendousmat

I just started a new page related to Moncton "List of tallest buildings in Moncton" I have many pictures of these buildings at my home computer which I will add at a later date so dont worry about the pictures, however I am missing a lot of information, I would greatly appriciate anyone who would like to help :). I think it wold be best to wait untill the article is up to snuff untill we start linking it to other pages.

-Stu_pendousmat

hmmm interestring, after all that work we did someone things there are too many lists, not enough prose lol I made more lists because its easier to read and manage, I feel it makes the article look and feel better, but I guess this is a bad thing, so maybe we need more prose, sorry :S Stu pendousmat 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well due to the fact that lists are not looked highly upon I have started the process of making those lists thier own seperate pages and writing a small prose section for each on the main Moncton page. I also added in a few new pictures because somebody took it upon themself to reomve some pictures which were not being fairly used aparently lol :) oh well, anyways if anyone wishes to help in this process you are more than welcome, I know my grammar isnt always the best :p peace out!

Stu pendousmat 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination: Failed

I have reviewed this article based on the criteria for good articles as outlined in WP:WIAGA. Unfortunately, I have had to fail the article for failing to meet the following criteria:

  • Criteria 1: Has several organization problems that violate MOS in ways that seem below even good article levels, such as:
    • Embedded lists: See WP:EMBED, the entire history section is simply a timeline (list) which would be better served as prose. This needs a serious rewrite.
    • External links: See WP:EL, especially where it says "External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end." There are MANY external links within the main body of the article. Most of these seem to link to topics which could be their own wikipedia articles anyways, and some may be. These should be wikilinks, not external links. Convert these to wikilinks or plaintext as appropriate and move relevent external links to the External links section at the end of the article.
    • Lead section: Does NOT fully summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Several LARGE sections in the article receive NO treatment in the lead at all, including everything from the economy section forward. If it merits a sizable section in the article, it merits at least a paragraph in the lead.
  • Criteria 2: Several places lack references where it looks like they would be needed, for example:
    • Most of the Climate section is unreferenced. It appears that it MAY be referenced to the same reference as the chart, but there are NO references in the prose part of this section, making it hard to back up the facts cited here.
    • "Since the previous national census in 2001 the metropolitan area has grown by 6.5%. This rate of growth is within the top ten amongst major cities in Canada and Moncton currently has the fastest growth rate of any city east of Toronto. The census metropolitan area had a population of 126,424 as of the 2006 national census, which makes it the largest metropolitan area in the province of New Brunswick and the second largest in the Maritime Provinces after Halifax." paragraph is unreferenced, and it makes some superlative claims which are challangeable.
    • "A new four lane Gunningsville Bridge has just been opened, connecting downtown Riverview directly with downtown Moncton. On the Moncton side, the bridge will connect with an extension of Vaughan Harvey Boulevard as well as to Assumption Boulevard and will serve as a catalyst for growth in formerly industrial lands along the riverfront. An expansion to the Blue Cross Centre has already been completed and construction has started on a new Marriott Residence Inn and on a new Sobeys downtown on the Vaughan Harvey connector. On the Riverview side, the bridge will connect to a new ring road around the town and is expected to serve as a catalyst for development in east Riverview." needs a reference. Additionally, using terms like "just been opened" should be avoided. Use hard dates.
    • Arts and Culture and Tourism sections have spotty referencing. Some stuff is referenced well, others not so much. This needs work.
    • Transportation section is mostly unreferenced.
    • Military section is ENTIRELY unreferenced.

On the positive end, the article uses fairly decent prose, it uses appropriate images (though the map in the infobox is VERY hard to read, and not that it has any bearing on GA status, should probably be replaced with a more standard map), is stable and neutral. I highly recommend that the above fixes are made and the article be renominated at WP:GAC when the fixes are done. If you feel that this review was inappropriately handled, feel free to ask for remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, drop a note by my talk page anytime. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead section is unreferenced as well. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Lead section doesn't need explicit citations, as it should summarize facts that ARE referenced later in the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am moving a discussion from my talk page to here for consistency...

From Talk:Jayron32

Hello Jayron! Just wanted to say thanks for the review, very well done. some of the things you said I had a feeling you would (ie: History being a list) but others I didnt (ie: external links=bad) lol. So very good all around. Currently myself and another more skilled editor are going over the article and will attempt to do all the fixes you sugested. I just had a couple of questions.

  • 1. are the other "lists" in the article ok to stay or should they be removed (I recently went over most of them and made them "descriptive lists") ex: instead of something like:
    • Aliant Tower - a tower
    • Assomption building - a building


I made it more like:

    • The Aliant Tower is a tall structure in the downtown of moncton...
    • The assomption building is a building which was...


The only reason we have some lists is because if we make the lists into seperate articles nobody will read them (moncton isnt a city like New York where enough people are interested to actually click on a "main article" type deal.)

  • 2. When I add in more and more references the size of the article (in kbs, not actual text) is dramitally increased. We are trying to keep the article from being like 100kb+. is there a way to add refs in without increasing the size of the article so dramatically? Or do we have to remove some stuff to add in references?


Anyways, thanks again for all the help I greatly appriciate the advice :D

Have a good day!

Stu pendousmat 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply here are some more comments:

  1. The question of using lists is tricky. Lists are not verbotten; the question needs to be asked of each list as to whether or not the information contained therein is better served as a list OR as plain prose. In MOST cases, prose is easier to follow and more pleasant to read. For example, one expects a narrative in the History section; as it stands now it is simply a timeline, and a random one at that. Some "facts" included in the timeline are of spurious notability; it gives equal weight to both vital and trivial facts. That is the key problem with lists; if they are used in a situation where they list an open-ended topic, like a History section, it is easy to get them bogged down with trivial facts. If the section is rewritten as prose, you know, where you tell a story, then it becomes clear which parts are vital and which not so much, and becomes a much more engaging read. Embedded lists should be used where it is a small, finite set of items, like perhaps "Neighborhoods of Moncton", which will be a short list and probably not require further comment. However, making the History section a list opens it up to a long, rambling, random list that does not make for good read.
  2. Don't sweat the size, especially with regard to referencing. I see no section that is too long to read; prosifying the History section and cutting it down to the highlights will help cut that back. Really, don't worry too much about the kbs. The article should be broad but not trivial; in most places this one does a fine job of that. Thorough referencing is THE most important thing you can do for an article, do not let some random kb ceiling prevent you from fully referencing the article. Just add the references as needed.

I will watch this talk page, so if you have any future questions or comments, please feel free to continue this discussion here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for re-review

Hello Jayron. Im not sure if you are still watching this page or not but if you are I was wondering if you could perhaps review the article once more. We have made all the fixes you asked for.

  • The LEAD now summarizes the article much better.
  • The HISTORY section is now prose and referenced.
  • The CLIMATE and MILITARY sections are now referenced. As well as TRANSPORTATION and TOURISM. We also added in many other references in for good measure :)
  • The EXTERNAL LINKS are all removed from the main body of the article and replaced with wikilinks (we made a bunch of new articles to link to) or plain text.
  • The paragraphs you pointed out have been fixed.

I dont know if you can just review it...or if I have to put it through the works again. I just thought since you can see what has changed you would be the best candidate to re-review it :)

Thanks again!

Stu pendousmat 18:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

I've placed the review on hold as these need fixing:

  • It is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
  • "including the new Marriott hotel in the downtown core of the city, currently under construction." – this will eventually become outdated Done
  • "A school for the performing arts has recently been established by the Capitol Theatre." – this will eventually become outdated Done
  • "Metro Moncton is home to many beautiful urban parks." - avoid peacock terms such as "beautiful". There are also peacock terms in several other places in the article. Done
  • "The Atlantic Ballet Theatre is based in Moncton and has recently been garnering both national and international attention." - why has it been garnering attention? Again, avoid using "recently". Done
  • "At the same time, the infamous Petitcodiac River Causeway was constructed." - you'll have to give details of why this is infamous. If I don't know why it's infamous, it probably isn't. Done
  • I think Famous Monctonians should be renamed Notable Monctonians. I've never heard of Northrop Frye! Done
  • Metric measurements should be accompanied by the imperial equivalent in brackets Done
  • Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of sections. Done
  • The Cityscape, Famous Monctonians and Sister cities sections need more citations. Done
  • These need citations:
  • "The construction of this route cemented Moncton's place as the most important economic centre servicing northern New Brunswick, a relationship which continues to this day." Done
  • "All flights between Eastern North America and Europe pass through Moncton Centre airspace." Done

Let me know when these are fixed. Epbr123 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


First off, thank you very much for the review Epbr! I do appriciate the effort you put into it.

  • I just fixed a few of the problems you pointed out, and I will fix the rest soon.
  • As far as the image size goes wont that make the article look really wierd though? The sizes they are set at are a result of me checking what the page looked like in multiple resolutions (from 1024x768 to 1280x1024) and making the best compromise based on that. If I remove the sizes Im afraid it will look really bad...

besides that one issue I agree with the rest. If you have any more suggestions please let me know.

PS: Thanks for the copy edit you did!

Stu pendousmat 01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up on the last comment I made, I did some looking around and more than 1/2 the featured city articles on Wikipedia have thier image sizes set, so this cant be a requirement. I find the way we have it gives the article more character, and we put a lot of time in to making it look just so. The articles with no set size look too cookie cut out like I find. I will fix everything else you mentioned but I think the images can stay the way they are...no offence or anything :)

Stu pendousmat 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything seems fine now. Pass! Epbr123 09:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Trauma Center

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/08/02/nb-traumareport.html this article says that Saint John will be getting the trauma center, not Moncton, but the source cited about the trauma center in Moncton seems to say Moncton.. Lovok 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply
    • The trauma center talked about in the moncton article does not say it will be the main trauma center for the province. (because it has yet to be decided which hospital will be designated as such).

PS the CBC article is talking about a recomendation, the government still needs to decide. Stu pendousmat 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Climate Graph

I updated the climate graph, improvements include putting annual data on the same line as monthly data and improving the colours of the boxes in which the data appeared to match the numbers.

Creating this graph was a project of mine and I maintain it Here. If you have any questions or know of any graphs that I do not include on this page, please let me know so I can contribute to them.

Thanks,

vid 11:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC) vid 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Moncton International Airport

There were intermittent international flights out of YQM before 2002 -- they'd close a curtain around the baggage claim and have customs officers at the exit. I quite clearly remember my father mocking the airport for calling itself international, back in the early 90s, and YQM lists international flights in 98/99. So, despite the claim on the airport website, I'm pretty dubious of the claim it only started to call itself international in '02. I'm not sure where I'd dig up proof of this though. Bhudson 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Size

This article is 103kb large, for comparison Canada has 88kb. -FlubecaTalk 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would suggest trimming some of the fat off of the History section. Separate articles could include Sport and Recreation in Moncton, Transportation in Moncton, and Education in Moncton, as those sections are quite lengthy. Move the current portions to new articles, provide a summary for this article, but try not to exceed three or four paragraphs. You can take a look at the Thunder Bay, Ontario article to see how it has been split there. I would also suggest the renaming of "List of famous Monctonians" to "List of people from Moncton", as some of the people may not be 'famous', but still notable. I would suggest getting the article down to the 70 to 80 kb range. vid 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have started a bit of trimming down tonight, somehow this article keeps growing in size over time and has become simply too masive for my liking. This is a massive undertaking, if anyone wanted to help out please do so. Stu pendousmat (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything for you because I'm not from there, but I'll give you some tips.

  • Trim Geography and climate down, and create Geography and climate of Moncton. Move the climate chart there, and leave just a summary of climate and geography in the main article with the {{main|Geography and climate of Moncton}} tag under that sections header.
  • Cut out about 15 lines of text in the history section, if possible. Anything fivilous and not exactly noteworthy enough to be in a generalized article.
  • You might be able to split off Economy of Moncton. See other Canadian cities' "Economy of" pages for inspiration on that front.
  • Tourism of Moncton could probably be split off as well, its a bit excessive. Either that or generalise it a bit more.
  • Remove 2 to 5 images. Arrange them from best to worst and remove the 2 to 5 worst pictures on there. Any picture that isn't really associated with the section its in should probably be relocated or removed.

These are just suggestions on how to trim the fat off the article. You don't need to act on every single one. If you need any help just ask.

vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help vid, I made a seperate article for media stuff today and made a few reductions in several places. I think it will take a while to reduce this article down to a more managable size (hopefully around 80kb) but Im doing fairly well right now. When I started the article was at an all time high of 108kb, which is huge, the 623rd largest article on wikipedia actually hahaha: Special:Longpages. Now its down to 96kb, which should put it at around the 950th largest...hopefully soon it will be off the list (which goes up to 1000) haha :P Stu pendousmat (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

As you can see I have tagged many images as not being properly sourced. Images taken 1948 or earlier are PD in Canada (see {{PD-Canada}}), so we need proof of the dates these pictures were taken. The one replacement is a nice try, but some random guy's assurance that images are public domain without any proof isn't really good enough. I recommend looking through Archives Canada, which has 242 photos of Moncton, many of which are historical and in the public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Moncton main st c 1930.png
Actually, I take that back, only 14 of the images are actually online. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did find a site a long time ago that had lots of nice historical pics but I cant find it right now...so currently the only image in question is this image?Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait! I found it :) [7] all these images are pre 1948 so can I use em? Stu pendousmat (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

education section

What's the distinction between "universities" and "private colleges" you're drawing? It seems like both categories include schools that are private and public, and schools that have only undergraduates. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Universities are things like Harvard University and are in the business of educating; Private Collages are things like Everest College and are in the business of making money. Completely different league. Unless there is something notable about the private college, it shouldn't really be included in the main article. You can actually tell the difference by reading the articles, ie: university articles = good, private college articles = crap. :) vıdıoman 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Watch it vid, I pretty much wrote the Moncton Flight College article myself, and I think its quite good actually! haha :P
Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the flight college is a good article. (Well, start class, maybe could pass for B?) but if you compare it to a university article you can see a clear difference. :) vıdıoman 06:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I removed the links to for-profit, privately owned web sites in the external link section. As is practise elsewhere on Wikipedia, I recommend maintaining this practise. Blog sites generally don't have any place within an encyclopedia. If the company is based in Moncton then it should be included in the economy section. etc. Stoick (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moncton/Archive_1&oldid=1137018279"