Jump to content

Talk:Ottawa/Archives/2017

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


Ville d'Ottawa in Infobox

The French word 'Ville' can refer to both a city or a town. Would Cité d'Ottawa be a better choice? --RaviC (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We use the official French-language version of the name there, i.e. what the province calls the city. As far as I know, "ville" is universally used in Canada. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

etymology

The article needs an initial etymology section.

Ottawa is a corrupted version of the Algonquian adaawe but scholars (and there are more than just French an English) differ about this.

I have been astonished to notice the high level of ignorance of Canadians, as many have no idea that the name of their country comes from the Iroquois kanata or the name of its capital from Algonquian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.12.217 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already has a sourced statement in the lead section: The name "Ottawa" is derived from the Algonquin word adawe, meaning "to trade". In the future, if you would like to introduce some information to an article, accompany the fact with a citation from a reliable source. Thanks, "Pepper" @ 21:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality images

Any editor in good standing may begin a fresh discussion if they so choose
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have replaced two somewhat recently added images due to very poor quality and frankly depressing depictions of a great city. A user named Freshacconci insists on reverting this edit, with no reason given. I'm not sure if it's an attempt to pick on/bully an IP user, or they have some odd attachment to these photos, but they are of very poor quality and shouldn't be in a wikipedia article. The one of the parliament buildings for sure is extremely poor quality, and there are 100 better images of this building on wikipedia. The one of Tunney's Pasture quality is ok, but it is a very bland and boring image and adds nothing to the already picture saturated article. Thank you for your time. 174.93.10.174 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And regardless of image quality, what we do not need is yet another picture of the Parliament Buildings. Newwhist (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
A few recommendations:

  • First, please assume good faith. Freshacconci is, as much as you, interested in improving the article. Unsubstantiated accusations, such as the suggestion that he is picking on or bullying others, are not helpful. Freshacconci did, in fact, leave edit summaries, and frankly provided as much rationale as you did.
  • Second, you need consensus to change the images. You appropriately made a bold move to update the images, but where someone objects, the key is to take the issue to the take page as you have done here (please see WP:BRD). Stop reverting until there is consensus here.
  • What would be really helpful is if you posted thumbnail versions of the images here in this discussion that you believe to be "depressing", along with thumbnails of the ones you would propose as replacements from among the "100 better images". You are correct that there are many great images on Wikimedia Commons, and I am sure you will be able to find consensus on replacements.
  • Finally, thank you for raising this issue. Articles can often use an update when it comes to the images. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
User 174.93.10.174 should be blocked indefinitely as per User talk:UrbanNerd -- Moxy (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That would explain the accusations and the edit warring. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As a procedural note, I have blocked the IP for a week since obvious block evasion is obvious. UrbanNerd will no doubt be back with a new IP, but he's certainly building a case for a community ban. Resolute 05:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Please leave your baseless accusations to yourself Moxy. Completely off topic and typical. This conversation is about article images. 174.93.10.174 (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If we could get back on topic. If anyone has any suggestions/comments about the low quality image(s) your comments are appreciated. 174.93.10.174 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It would appear no one has any issues replacing these poor quality images as there has been no opposition voiced. 64.231.224.65 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
There absolutely has been opposition voiced. Freshacconci has objected to these changes, and I don't agree with them being implemented unilaterally. You've been asked to propose some images here on the talk page. And frankly, UrbanNerd, this discussion is probably not going to move too far forward with your involvement as long as you are evading your block. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't pursue this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
One stop calling me "urban nerd". Two, there has been no opposition voiced on this discussion. The user Freshacconci did not have a valid opposition, he just had a knee jerk reaction to an IP editing wikipedia. Unless anyone has opposition to changing these images and would like to voice it here, I think the edit is justified. In the interim the image of the parliament buildings nees to be removed. It has absolutely no place on wikipedia and is an embarrassment to this article. 64.231.224.65 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
UrbanNerd, there is opposition. I oppose the change. Freshacconci's rationale was as valid as yours. You need consensus. It's this type of behaviour that got you blocked in the first place. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree that Freshacconci's rationale is as valid as the IP's. None of the IP's arguments have been valid since the beginning of this. Bottom line is the IP just doesn't like it. So in fact, Freshacconci's rationale - the IP having insufficient rationale - is way more valid by a country mile. I oppose removal of the one picture. I also oppose swapping of the other picture until there are alternatives proposed and consensus is reached for the suitable alternative. Hwy43 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There's Hwy43 with his usual absolutely worthless/unintelligent comments. That didn't take long. The rationale is that the image is poor quality, grainy resolution, and is up for deletion. Now please go back to being utterly useless. 70.53.104.202 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
What's with this usual assertion, IP? This is the first time you and I have interacted. Are you someone else that I should know? Hwy43 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
And which got him blocked again. Resolute 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There was no really compelling reason to change the image (and remove the other one altogether) other than UrbanNerd, or whoever he is, doesn't like the images. I have no attachment to the images and I certainly didn't take the photos; it's been years since I've been to Ottawa. What I don't like is disruptive editing and block evasions. Not that those are reasons to retain the images, but I am having a difficult time understanding the reason for the change. Sure, change is good, but if there is no compelling rationale given, this is a huge waste of everyone's time. And for the record, I didn't revert the edits because it was made by an IP. It just appeared to be disruptive, which it turns out, it was. freshacconci talk to me 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree to the fact that we have no need to show the parliament buildings again...this can be removed or changed - perhaps a picture of the Kanata Research Park (image) would be better. As for the Tunney's Pasture image...it demonstrates the size of the federal government presents in the city very well. -- Moxy (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I have no problem with replacing either image and think it is a good idea to revisit images on articles such as these from time to time. Having grown up mostly in Kanata, though, I can't fathom why anyone would recommend a photo of Kanata (I'm joking) :). Mostly, I wanted to retain the images to the extent there was a conflict, which there does not appear to be, and then solely to the extent the change was being implemented by UrbanNerd while evading a block. If there is a better image(s), I am not fussed. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's just stop feeding the IP troll (UrbanNerd), let his IP addresses each be blocked in turn, ignore his comments and decide on the appropriate images without his input. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could temporarily semi-protect this article, so that we don't all spend each evening reverting UrbanNerd's disruptive edits - this has been going on for a week and UrbanNerd is still not clueing in. It is affecting the stability of the article. I am okay with whatever is decided in terms of semi-protection. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly no one has any interst in this matter except for blocking IP's from editing. 174.88.202.153 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly the consensus here is the file stays as no one but an IP sock editor supports its removal. Hwy43 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Move on please, UrbanNerd. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, not one person has asked for the image to stay. 69.158.38.74 (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Move on, UrbanNerd. No one is interested in your views on the discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement to map on francophone distribution

The approach to the map in the demographic section is basically OK with me but I find that the use of the 10 shades is overwhelming. Can the categories be reduced to 5 by collapsing the percentage ranges to represent 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, 40-50 and 50 and above? Would 5 different colours be better? Also, the legend should be larger to be more legible. Finally, the caption in the image should be removed; a standard caption below and external to the image would be more consistent with standard practice. I do not have the skills to create an improved map myself and so make these comments in good faith for consideration by those who do. Newwhist (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I can make an updated map, but I find more shades to be more useful. The point of the map is to show the distribution, not to give you precise numbers per se. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New Images Available

For consideration of involved editors.

Questions

  1. Moxy and anyone else interested: what are your thoughts on the current coverage of the article? Is it missing anything? Is anything overrepresented? Personally I'd like a bit more in the way of 20th/21st-century history, more on demographics, add in hospitals/utilities to Infrastructure, and possibly add in a Military section if needed; and condense cityscape, or otherwise reorganize it. Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'd like to see the article reorganized to align with WP:CCSG. There are some outstanding issues to be resolved at the 2011 GA review as well. Hwy43 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Got both of those, but was wondering mainly about the balance within that structure for the moment - CCSG says there should be a history section, for example, but doesn't explain whether that section should be five paragraphs or fifteen. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Info box map label

The label for Ottawa on the map showing the location of Ottawa in Canada is poorly aligned, overlapping with adjacent text. To be consistent with the map showing the location in Ontario, should the label be removed? I tried to see how this could be done but did not find a self-evident solution. Can someone correct the problem? Please and thank you. Newwhist (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dger (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

City vs. Single-tier municipality (city)

Let me start off by saying I am new to wikipedia. I may not know all the rules but I do know that if you make a change someone can revert your edit and you must come to the talk page to discuss it. I recently noticed that the Ottawa page had a very poor edit when "City" was turned to "Single-tier municipality (city)" in the info box, as was the city population added to the lead paragraph. These are both poor edits. The fact that the city is single tier can be discussed in the article and crowds and distorts the info box. Adding the population to the lead paragraph looks pretty unprofessional in my opinion. The editor that made these edits re-added them again without discussion and made threatening remarks on my talk page accusing me of sock puppetry with someone I've never even heard of. I am currently researching on how to report this editor for his actions. Upon further investigation I've noticed this editor has made these poor edits to numerous other cities pages without discussion citing WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes which does not in any way justify this. If someone with more editing experience could talk to this editor about their poor edits, have them remove the threatening messages from my talk page, and formally apologize that would be great. This edit needs to be removed from numerous pages. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes rationalizes usage of all three infobox parameters. The tier municipal status is a different issue altogether. I will open a discussion about this at the Ontario WikiProject later today as this has implications beyond this article. I'll return here to notify once it has been initiated. Hwy43 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario#City infoboxes: "tier" or "conventional" municipal statuses (or both)? Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that the above discussion was initiated by a sockpuppet of a banned editor, and that a consensus was achieved at the above noted discussion with the exception of a dissenting opinion from the sock/banned editor. Hwy43 (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Regarding this edit: the first sentence states that Ottawa is "the fourth city in the country", which I do not believe is an accurate statement. The edit also removes any mention of the relative size of the Ottawa-Gatineau metropolitan area, which is a significant characteristic related to the city of Ottawa and so is a reasonable piece of information to include in the lead section of the article. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

How can you believe that Ottawa is not the forth largest city in the country ? It's not a matter of you believing it or not. It's a fact. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Look closer at what was done and what Isaacl stated above. For a moment, the article said "fourth city", not "fourth largest city". Hwy43 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So why not simply fix the obvious typo instead of destroying the entire article lead ? 99.224.114.253 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It has been returned. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton all include equivalent info in their leads. Hwy43 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
99.224.114.253 is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:UrbanNerd, who is again trying to cause trouble at this article (see above discussions). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. I recommend not engaging with the troll and moving forward with whatever information editors other than 99.224.114.253 believe to be reasonable and accurate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Things to do before GA review

Please add to this ongoing list....GA time guys :-) --Moxy (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Overall copy edit.
  • Date formatting so all matches in the article
  • Find sources for a few stats (citation tags present)
  • Some sourcing needs an upgrade (tourist guides not a good idea)
  • Should mention Ottawa has one of the biggest farming areas within a city in Canada (huge beef and corn farming export that feeds lots more then just the city and valley).
Actually found a source saying its number one economically .. "Ottawa has the largest agricultural economy of any major city in Canada" source: Canadian Geographical Society -- Moxy (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
That is great that a reliable source has done the comparative research and reported on it. Works for me. We can use this to back up the claim, and the census of agriculture data itself to profile Ottawa's agriculture industry. Hwy43 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Either you are reading Moxy's mind or trying to speak on his behalf. I'm not sure either is appropriate.
What you may know however by looking at this article's history is I added the table quite some time ago. IIRC, he moved it to Demographics of Ottawa. He then moved it back to the main article some time later, before returning it again.
Given you and I know where each other stand, I've started this discussion at the Canadian community WikiProject. I encourage you to comment there, and I encourage Moxy to review the issue there and also comment.
I'm interested in hearing directly from Moxy to see how he feels about it after learning, among other things, that all but one GA or FA profiles population history in either table or chart form. Hwy43 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Influence of 1854 Bytown Prescott railway on Queen Victoria's advisor's decision to make Ottawa the capital in 1857?

It is not documentated anywhere but Queen Victoria's advisors in 1857 must have been aware that the Ottawa to Prescott railway had already been successfully functioning for three years carrying lumber and passengers from the Ottawa region directly to the the U.S. border on the St. Lawrence river at Prescott, Ontario. Thus Ottawa at that time was not really that isolated and had in fact a modern transportation rail route right to the doorstep of the United States. Did the Queen's advisors think this to be an advantage or a disadvange? We'll never know unless someone can unearth some original documentation? However they must have been knowledgable of this railway as it was a technical marvel of that age and of great interest. I can't mention this in the Wikipedia article because it is 'original research' sometimes referred to as b@llsh%t.  :( However I can't help but think this railway had an influence in the original decision making.

Actually John H. Taylor in his book OTTAWA An Illustrated History is of the opinion the Ottawa rail lines functional by 1855 had a influence on the 'Queen's decision'. That should make sense because water transport is seasonal whereas rail transport should in theory be mostly all season. You would think that would be important distinction for selecting a capitol in the mid 19th century where steam rail transportation was new and exciting and very much anticipated by everyone. --Beatles1959 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Good additions....I will add a source all can see just in case its a problem.[1] -- Moxy (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Northey; Knight (1991). Choosing Canada's Capital: Conflict Resolution In a Parliamentary System. Issue 168 of Carleton Library Series, ISSN 0576-7784 (Revised ed.). McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-88629-148-8.

History section improvements

Moved from Moxy's talk page.....

I have generally finished making my edits to the Ottawa Ontario History section for the passages that concerned me the most and I will now cast this site adrift to to see it evolve with other people's valuable contributions.

Here were my concerns with the Ottawa, Ontario History section when I first encountered it.

It seemed to be written in a parochial or Ottawa centric style that could only be properly understood by people who have lived their entire lives in Ottawa.

It concerned me that the Chateau Laurier was not referred to as a hotel and nowhere in the article did it mention a few months ago that Ottawa had been originally named Bytown after Colonel By. Every Ottawaian knows this by almost a birth right but a Des Moines, Iowa business person flying into to Ottawa for a business trip and reading the Ottawa Wikipedia site at the airport on his or her phone would have been in a muddle about this fact.

Imagine you were flying to Des Moines and read this rather threadbare sentence on your phone on the Des Moines Wikipedia site?

"Des Moines saw some trouble in its early days, first with the Shiners' War from 1835 to 1845[23] and the Stony Monday Riot in 1849".

Since I gleaned no relevant or interesting information about the Des Moines Shiner's War or Stoney Monday riot from that sentence I would have no interest to click the hyperlink and learn more about these seemingly dry uninteresting facts.

Do you see what I mean? Because Ottawa is a capital city, its Wikipedia site needs to be written so that someone from Denmark would find it interesting and informative and read it rapidly without being confused or disinterested. For example the first time I read the Ottawa site I just got bogged down and kept re-reading the sentences a bit mystified that the sentences weren't written in a fluent, coherent and informative fashion.

Here is another parochial example: "It was in use until 2000, when Ottawa City Hall occupied the former headquarters of the municipality". How would someone from Luxemburg know what was just referred to as a 'municipality'. Likewise Confederation Square was described a month ago as if anyone worldwide would instantly know what the author is referring to as in "Confederation Square was created in the late 1930s and Canada's National War Memorial was erected. A new Central Post Office was erected facing the memorial'. And of course the article a month ago never mentioned why the Post Office was moved beside the War memorial. Without any context, why even mention the Post Office? For that matter, without any context, why mention anything?

People generally love going to Wikipedia to get good information and this site seemed to be just doing a muddled tap dance with sentences that had clearly been slashed and edited over the years losing it seemed their original meaning, fluidity and facts.

I sense that you also have a feeling that technology and history coinciding together in a Wikipedia history section is like mixing oil and water and not entirely appropriate? However I'm a firm believer in Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's belief that history is not entirely guided by King's, Queen's or politicians but rather more from technology enlightenments. What I find interesting is that if Britain had known after the war of 1812 that railways would be a promising all season alternate to canals in the 1830's they would never have never bothered to build the Rideau Canal. Ironically canal building in the 1820's was a worldwide technological and historical phenomenah. Ottawa would never have been chosen as a capital city in the middle of nowhere in 1857 if it hadn't already had a modern railway running for three years. And of course all history was changed forever in 1450 by Guttenberg and his magical press not the European Kings and Queens of the period.

As I said what bothered me the most about the Ottawa history section was that it was written in a parochial style which was not appropriate or interesting for a worldwide audience if the Chateau Laurier for example was not even referred to as a hotel. I think there should be less emphasis on prepping this site as 'Good Article' Wikipedia candidate and more emphasis on making it a more informative and better read for a worldwide audience. Once that happens, a GA rating, which isn't very important anyway, will be that much closer on the horizon.

And I do agree with (User:Moxy) the History article could be trimmed down but this could be done by still making it fluent, informative, interesting and less parochial. Perhaps History sub-heading titles could organize themes more effectively and contribute to a nicer reading experience>"Email"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.138.130 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical population

Is there any reason the demographics section does not have a historical population table, as some other city pages do? They're nice for delivering quick info, but if there's a good reason why it's not there I won't add one. Cepiolot (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I originally added a historical population table to this article that reflected the city's historical boundaries to augment a table of historical populations based on the city's post-amalgamation boundaries. It was well received, but then both were transferred a short time later to Demographics of Ottawa by Moxy, I believe. A while later, I believe Moxy moved the tables back, but had second thoughts and removed them again. I support the tables being added back to this article. IIRC other major Canadian cities that are FAs or GAs have historical populations embedded within. Hwy43 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Cepiolot, I now remember this was brought up before three discussions up (see Things to do before GA review). That discussion generated this more fulsome discussion at the Canadian communities WikiProject. Hwy43 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hwy43, your point still stands that the majority of FA/GA on Canadian communities have the table, and there were more votes of support than oppose to include it. I don't see how its inclusion could harm the article at all, but I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has comments before I put it back. Cepiolot (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, there were three !votes support and two !votes opposed to making inclusion of such tables as a mandatory for GAs and FAs (a proposal above and beyond this), though one of the two in opposition was not opposed to the tables themselves. Rather, that editor was opposed to taking away editorial discretion by making them mandatory. I just want to make that point clear to others that may be interested in chiming in. Hwy43 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
it had to be removed for the GA process.... this is normal not to have... but as mentioned above they usesully get added back over time. the only problem I have is that the chart doesn't represent the different sizes of the city overtime... makes the chart a bit misleading. but that's it it's not a big deal to addbackMoxy (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ottawa. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Ottawa. 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) 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottawa/Archives/2017&oldid=1170848566"