Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Images

Why was the picture of downtown removed, it was taken from the City of Regina website so it seems like fair game... it's also much better than the picture now. -- HybridFusion 23:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a copyrighted image. Unless it can be proved to be in the public domain, it cannot be posted. Doing so is copyright infringement and is illegal in some jurisdictions. Because it is on the City of Regina website does not make it fair game. They likely paid several thousand dollars fro the picture and their right to ownership should be respected. --Kmsiever 16:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I'd bet it's not a copyrighted image.. but regardless the current image is horrible and should be replaced with something. Anything.

There is a wonderful image looking from the roof of "the Leg" onto downtown on Corrinne Boivin's real estate site , and it has a disclaimer saying its ok to use it anywhere. Could someone that knows how to input an image have a look at that one and upload it if its suitable? Friesguy 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a few images of Regina taken from a friends plane last July I will put them on my website today and you can let me know if anyone wants to use them. The URL is http://24.72.13.159/reginapics.htm . I will get that working later today. Friesguy 13:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a pic taken from Corrine Boivin englands website. There is a disclaimer on her website saying it was ok for anyone to use the images there. I hope everyone likes this photo as i feel it gives a bit better look at the city as its from the air. Also thanks to Masalai for cleaning up the attractions area since I had added the parts about exhibition park but hadnt gotten back to clean them up, it reads much better now with his help!Friesguy 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers

Why is the media/newspapers area edits being removed?

remove: The Border town news i beleive is no longer in business, but can not confirm even its existance to begin with.

add: The National Pist -published by The Pist News Corp. (Business#: 88011 2305)does exist and is distributed regularily and availble free at over 170 different locations in Regina. http://www.pist.ca Head-office: The Pist News Corp. 3-3822 Rae St. Regina, SK S4S-3A1 Tel:306-584-1335

Looking on the webpage I thought this is joke. Pavel Vozenilek 19:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps a current resident of Regina could confirm whether this paper is indeed as popular and widely distributed as its web page claims. The address listed is a residential apartment behind the Golden Mile shopping mall, not a business office. Until I'm satisfied that it's a legitimate paper, I'll continue to revert on the presumption that this is just a joke or a minor paper of no notability. Psychonaut 21:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The National Pist is well read paper with a distribution 10,000 and a readership estimated at over 80,000. If you require further information visit the pist web site www.pist.ca and call the bussiness office I would be happy to give you a copies of our back issues. Otherwise The next issue of the pist will be hitting the street within a week and a half and you can pick up a copy at any of these locations in Regina

-Cloudesley Hobbs President of The Pist News Corp.

Pist News Corp., 3-3822 Rae St., Regina, Sk S4S 3A1 Regina: (306) 501-1235 Fax: (306) 584-1335

The National Pist? What is that? Never heard, nor seen it around Regina. Ever. -JR

The National Pist does have fairly good readership, but you're not likely to come across a copy if you're out of the 18-25 age range, as it's readership is mostly confined to university students. There are copies all around campus at the UofR and I have frequently found them occupying top of the toilet space next to the Reader's Digests at many private homes. The writing syle is fairly solid and it has the sense of humor you would expect from a paper titled the way it is. If the Prarie Dog is listed on here, there's no good reason this one shouldn't be. PanicTest 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

More on Media

This is addressed to RedWolf: I'd simply like to point out that "Classic Rock" is no longer an accurate description of the format of CKCK-FM. Someone (Bearcat?) seems to feel that using the stations' nicknames or positioners is inappropriate (except for CBC stations, apparently). I feel it's entirely appropriate to describe the radio stations using the names by which they identify themselves on the air (99 percent of Reginans have no clue what "CIZL" is; those call letters have rarely, if ever, been used on the air in the 23 years of Z99's existence.)

In any event, "Jack FM" has become a format unto itself (in fact, it merits its own article.) But I'm all about consistency, and if it's determined that station nicknames/positioners are not to be used in city articles, than maybe a simple "Rock" is more appropriate. - Brithgob 03:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Having checked around, it seems the usage of station nicknames in such tables is perfectly consistent with other city pages, and I'm quite inclined at this point to restore them to this article. But I'll wait to hear what you have to say. - Brithgob 03:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have no objection to providing the station nickname in parentheses following its callsign, but given that station nicknames are very rarely unique, the callsign and not the nickname has to be what's wikied as the title of the station's own article. My edits had solely to do with the formatting of the list of stations; they are not to be construed as objecting to a parenthetical inclusion of the station's on-air brand name (although I would have to object if somebody tried to write an article at the titles "Z99" or "Jack FM Regina" -- the primary article titles have to be CIZL and CKCK-FM, as per Wikipedia policy, although it's fine to link to the format as well.) If I accidentally removed brand names in the process of reformatting the list, that wasn't my intention. I'm not clear why RedWolf reverted the recent change, when a two-second visit to the station's website confirms the change, but as I had nothing to do with that reversion this debate really has nothing to do with me. Bearcat 06:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and agree we're dealing with two separate issues. - Brithgob 15:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• I was unaware there was such a format as Jack FM until it was brought up here. I have no problem with undoing my revert. RedWolf 07:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that the local tv stattions were changed from their on-air numbers to their Access communications cable numbers. Possibly we should look at changing that back for all out of towners, and people who view from other than Access communications. Friesguy 04:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling howlers

I have silently fixed many -- really, this was terribly embarrassing to a loyal (but exiled) Reginan) -- but I can't get into the section "Community profile" to fix "missleading."

I agree. Can someone better versed in the editing protocols fix this illiteracy? Masalai 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the missleading thing a few days ago. It was driving me nuts too, Friesguy 14:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Legislative Building

I am not going to start a "changing war" about the Legislative Building in Regina. However, I would like to know where Masalai gets the information that the Legislative Building is "popularly referred to as the Parliament Building". I have lived in Regina for 20+ years, worked at the Legislative Building in the Visitor Services department, and I have never heard the building referred to as the Parliament Building. If you ask most people in Regina where the Parliament Building is, they will tell you Ottawa.

Oh all right, have it your own way. Perhaps it's only old timers. If you've only been in Regina since 1986 you're rather a baby Reginan though. Why do you think Parliament Place and Parliament Avenue are so-named? Masalai 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know; why are they so named? Neither one is adjacent to the Legislative Building, so how do you know they weren't named after the Parliament in Ottawa? I was also a resident of Regina for over 20 years (moved away in 1999), but don't recall the building ever being called the Parliament Building. As others have said, maybe it's more prevalent among older folk. —Psychonaut 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone I know in Regina calls it the Parliament Building. I remember this to be particularly the case when I lived there. Maybe it's since changed. I moved away in 1989. --Kmsiever 20:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think, Kmsiever? Shall we revert to my original observation? It's not all that important, of course. Masalai 07:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Legislative Building is probably most correct, but maybe we could say somethign about the fact that some people refer to it as the Parliament Building. --Kmsiever 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard it called the Parliament Building too and I have lived in Regina since 1953. Besides, people who don't sign their contributions shouldn't really be listened to, Masalai. Go ahead and revert. 58.104.210.198 08:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are we discussing whther its called the "parliament buildings" or not anyway? its not a proper name and what any of the locals might or might not call it is irrelevant anyway, dont we want to make this page appear correct? PS Ive lived in Regina most of my 50 years and only heard it called the parliament buidings a handful of times, Ive heard it called "the Leg (ledge) far more often Friesguy 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope I "sign this contribution" this time (good to see that you are willing to quickly throw out the contributions of "newbies"). I agree with Friesguy, it was my understanding that Wikipedia was about correctness. The proper name is the the Legislative Building. I do not know where Parliament Avenue and Place got their name, but I do know that the Legislative Building is located on Legislative Drive. ThePrairieDawg 04:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard this building refered to as the Parliament Building, and I've in Regina for over a decade. I have frequently heard it referenced as 'The Ledge' however. PanicTest 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Content

I was noticing that quite a few entries have a slightly negative "feel", at least to me. I dont mean to criticize anyone's work but it is the way I feel about the Regina page overall. When I read some other cities pages I dont get the same feeling, is there a way to get the page a more positive "feel" while still using Wikipedia's neutral guidlines? Friesguy 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Should be neutral, of course, neither positive nor negative. This isn't supposed to be a civic boosterism exercise. But which statements do you consider to be negative? I seem to be the principal author of much of the text that now stands and there is no firmer partisan of Regina than I am. But we make fools of both Regina and its enthusiasts if we appear to be under the impression that Regina is Paris. It has been an astonishingly successful effort at creating a pleasant small city in a prodigiously ill-favoured site; that's the fact of the matter. To suggest that the Regina plain is other than what it is just makes us look like hicks. And we ain't. (Are we?) Masalai 14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Regina is the major city in the south of the Canadian province" is good. Neutral and avoids the apparently tricky big/small issue (though there's nothing wrong with "small," surely, and I certainly hope nobody thinks that Regina is a major metropolis. Calgary is a medium sized city; Vancouver is getting towards big but no...). Masalai 14:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(And of course the actual population is then stated, so nobody is under any misapprehension as to what "major" means in South Saskatchewan terms. Allen Blakeney is the one who used to make the point, though, that Saskatchewan was the third province of Canada in population and GNP in 1929 (!); its population has remained more or less the same as it was then -- just under a million -- while other provinces have taken vast strides ahead of it. These are important facts for the reader of an article such as this to understand. Masalai 14:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

First, I want to say that I think overall, Masalai and those who have made the Regina site have done a good job. However, I do agree with Friesguy. There are a lot of editorial commentaries in the Regina article which reflect the city in a negative way. Examples of this are "it is rare for there to be an evening warm enough for bathing or al fresco dining", "To some extent the very considerable but also meaningless . . . since so large a proportion of the community refuses to identify in ethnic terms at all." and "perhaps the worst in the District of Assiniboia that might have been chosen for what was anticipated would be a major Canadian city." These editorials, among others could be removed and not change the story that is being told about Regina. ThePrairieDawg 19:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The editorial about the ethnicity hits home for me, because I identify myself as Canadian, not because I "refuse to identify in ethnic terms," but because I am of 6 different ethnic backgrounds and thus do not fit into any other box. ThePrairieDawg 19:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, your (Malasai) point about the population growth of Saskatchewan is true. However, it is not true of the city. The city has grown from a population of ~60,000 in the 60's to its current population, but from the article reads as though Regina has been at or near its current population since the 30's. I will make an attempt to help with that section at some point when I have more time do some research. ThePrairieDawg 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work Masalai,you have done a wonderful job with the page but some terms like the "small city" is just a relative term, Saskatoon and Kelowna dont call themselves small in their pages so why should we put our selves down. When there is an opportunity to make the world have a look at us the way we are now, not the way everyone remembers us from the 1940' and 1950's as a backwater hick town . As you say,Masalai, we have come a long way and I feel we have to look at ways of reflecting that in articles like this one. I also feel that between June and August there are numerous nights to dine al fresco (Look at all the outdoor patios the restaurants and bars have put up) I hope you dont take offense Masalai because none is intended, and if you would like help with this I will gladly lend a hand, but I have to warn you I am not a writer, in fact I am barely a typist.  :) Friesguy 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I take the point about "small city" (although that is after all what it is) and, you will note, have changed it to "the major city of southern Saskatchewan." However, if as you say we don't want to make Regina sound like a hick town, the best way of doing that is to ensure that we don't come across as hicks ourselves -- and we do that by not indicating that we think it's Paris. The most parochial thing that is ever said about Toronto, after all, is that it is "world class" -- something that no one would ever think of saying of the really important cities of the world. This isn't supposed to be a tourism promotion exercise, and the encyclopaedic premise requires objectivity. Masalai 21:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been conferring extensively with scholarly Regina residents, all of whom concur in the view that precisely the way to make Regina seem a pathetic little backwater is to let on that one doesn't know that there is a world beyond. Let's talk about Regina as though we are worldly people, shall we? It's NOT a big city; it is a very pleasant little town, with a fascinating history. Masalai 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Masalai, it seems we disagree on what is negative or positive and definitly what is neutral. I have read several city sites similar to Regina in size and quality of life and most seem to have taken a path that reinforces their communities details without getting into the subjective objects as "small" or Large, or things like rarely warm enough to dine out al fresco, as different people take these saying to mean different things. I have chatted with a newspaper columnist and he has thought it would be a good idea if he mentions it in his column if anyone has any input for this page to please let it be known, so we can build on it.Friesguy 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we have some pranksters around changing items on the page,making a real mess of a few things so if you see something on the page that looks out of place, please advise or correct (or both). thanks to whoever is responsible for updating the cultural area, it is starting to look good Friesguy 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I updated the cultural area yesterday to include Mosaic as well as a small idea of what other cultural stuff goes on. I would welcome anyone else to add a few things though if they feel it's relevant. As to the whole size debate, I think it's good to use the term 'major urban centre of southern Saskatchewan' or something like that, since relatively, it is. However, it must be stated that at 200,000 it is no large city. But really, neither is Montreal or Toronto in comparison to say, most 'medium sized' Chinese centers. It's all arbitrary really. 100 years from now people will laugh at how new York only had tens of millions. We should allow it to be stated that while it is the undisputed major centre of soutern Saskatchewan, it is also relatively small. RileyLewis 16:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look around for a nice picture for the cultural section, if that's ok with everyone. I actually dance with one of the groups I referenced (Tavria Ukrainian Folk Dance Ensemble), so I could use a picture of us on stage at mosaic or something. I don't want it to look like I'm pushing my group on here though. Let me know what anyone thinks. I guess the advantage is that it's our photo so there's no copyright. RileyLewis 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ive never heard of Donald Kendrick, but he is mentioned 4 times on Regina's page, while I am not disputing how much he may have influenced the musical community, I am not sure his name needs to be mentioned 4 times. Perhaps we may neeed to find some other notable people to "boost". Friesguy 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks PrairieDawg for making the History section a bit less foreboding and more readable, it no longer reads like we are at the bottom of a deep pit with no water or daylight. :) 24.72.1.2 14:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"With the exception of Sears and the Bay, large chain store commercial activity has withdrawn to shopping malls on the city's perimeter — the "box stores" on Victoria Avenue East (and more recently Pasqua St. North) are an especially egregious affront to Regina’s downtown."

The above quoted material could easily be classified as anything but objective. Regina's cultural and hip downtown area and the suburban big-box appeal of Victoria Avenue East are two completely different experiences in the eyes of this Regina resident. I like to see them seperate and don't agree (or feel, even remotely) that either is an "affront" to each other. I also feel that the comment denegrates the commercial efforts and the associated appeal of small downtown businesses and any office or retail expansion in the downtown area. On that note, I think that the "I want to be a philosophe" folks who are contributing and editing thie article need shift their focus from trying to impress the reader to providing objective, informative and accurate content.64.110.206.146 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Small" etc

Sorry, Fries. I am sure I came across as making a rather sharp retort to you; on re-reading the foregoing I am minded to think you would not have been unreasonably put out by the tenor of my remarks. Wasn't meant to be personal at all but I could have been more temperate in any case. It does sound as though I have agreement from Riley with respect to the issue of disinterested tone being preferable to civic boosterism. As may be clear, Regina has no firmer or more enthusiastic partisan than I am, but I don't think the city is well served by describing it in terms that indicate we don't know what we're talking about. Masalai 07:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing on bedroom communities goes somewhat overboard (though I wrote the first draft of the section -- I was thinking of places like Qu'Appelle). Moose Jaw is certainly not merely a bedroom community for Regina. I'm toning down this section. Masalai 07:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You will note that I have added a substantial section on the somewhat troubled state of Regina's current development. Comments are of course solicited. I am nowadays a visitor to Regina -- a rather homesick one, I admit, who loves Regina and wishes that Regina's decision-makers didn't make quite such stupid decisions -- but, as a native, an extremely interested one -- and my observation from one visit to the next are that the Central Business District is going WAY downhill and fast. This is not a subjective opinion, I don't think; it's obvious to anyone who saw Regina in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995 and 2005. Masalai 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Masalai no I didnt take offense to your remarks, everyones entitled to opinions, but, as you say we should try to keep opinions out of the page and I guess you and I have different colored glasses on. I have lived here for the last 50 years and have seen some real changes in the last few. there is an almost unprecedented building boom in downtown and things are starting to turn the corner in the matter of public opinion when they see that we really do have a great place to be. I do struggle with your comparison to Sasktaoon as I am not sure this is the place to start that old rivalry thing again and please, I hope you take the time to read their page and see how much "boosterism" is there just as a frame of reference. Thanks for your patience and work with this whole thing Friesguy 14:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fries on this one. The Regina core is picking up some steam. Buildings are going down very quickly now, making room for some big projects. One thing I know a bit about is how 1 or 2 buildings (old Leader building and the Legion hall) are going to be completely gutted and rebuilt to allow for a modern arts facility to be put in to provide studios space, performance stages, and artist residence in the core. As well, there is the new bus depot being placed downtown, and you can't deny the pull of the Casino in terms of businesses really wanting to place themselves on Broad St in that area. I mean heck, talk is even starting to come back about a permanent farmer's market on Sask Drive! Nonetheless, you are correct in that Regina's core is not doing as well as say, East Vic. But the east end will taper off soon enough I think, what with the at least 5-hour trip required to make it from the Ring Road to whatever new box store will be popping up next. Soon we'll be halfway to Winnipeg! (not a bad thing) In any case, Regina's rate of expansion in terms of new businesses and housing projects is fairly impressive. I know some major projects are being started this upcoming year south of the Airport to expand the Southwest (extend Parliament and Gordon?). Overall, the feeling in Regina is that the city is doing very well and is booming. While this may not be completely accurate, it's hard to deny that the feeling originates in some truth. As well, while I think that it's good to keep a neutral tone, you can't make everything completely balanced when in fact one side is right. Just because there are two viewpoints, that doesn't make both equally accurate or deserving of the same attention. It has to be pointed out that Regina was placed where it is for purely political reasons, but at the same time, that's all that needs to be said. It's no worse a location than most other prairie towns, and in fact is very 'pleasant', as is stated! RileyLewis 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In the "top ten ethnic groups" I have removed the comments about the Canadian population being so high because people didnt know what category to tell the Census pollster to put them. I have looked at quite a few other Canadian cities and most seem to have a similar proportion of people calling themselves Canadian without being of aboriginal ancestry, so, I have removed the comment. I hope this doesnt offend anyone and apologize if I stepped on someone's toes. Friesguy 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical and spelling howlers

Don't know who contributed this. Would he or she care to fix up the grammar and spelling before attempting to replace it? Yikes and yuck. "Recently however the city has taken upon itself to revitalize the core, and has taken extensive measures to lure projects into the city centre. Whether this momentum will hold remains to be seen. However, it can be said that the city is adressing the problems of the past few decades and embracing a new, livelier vision of it's downtown core." Masalai 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Multicultural Capital of Canada"

An interesting observation — "Regina has a highly involved and active multicultural community, which accounts for its title as the 2004 Multicultural Capital of Canada" — but which instrumentality bestowed this sobriquet? It would be nice to retain it, as it sounds terrific, but it can only stay if its source is stated. I don't think the italics can stay, though, in any event. You might want to check the current University of Regina stylesheet, which is essentially the Modern Languages Association of America stylesheet with local adjustments. Masalai 06:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who did the original statement but I did some research and on the Heritage website (http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ccc/ccc2004_e.cfm )Regina was picked as the Cultural Capital city for 2004 over Edmonton and a couple of other cities. I edited the statement a bit to reflect the change from multicultural to cultural capital. Friesguy 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

South Railway - Street vs. Avenue

I've replaced references to "South Railway Street" with "South Railway Avenue", though I'm not entirely sure which is correct. In Regina, "streets" run north-south (e.g. Albert St., Broad St., Winnipeg St., etc.), whereas "avenues" run east-west (e.g. Dewdney Ave., 9th Ave. N., Parliament Ave., Hill Ave., etc.). South Railway was typically referred to simply as "South Railway" (with no suffix), and it was parallel to Dewdney Avenue. I believe the author who wrote "South Railway Street" was either guessing, or referring to an incorrect source. I encourage anyone who has authoritative information on this topic to post it here. Wonderstruck 01:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive lived in Regina for about 40 years now and I can say with certainty that it was South Railway St., In fact, if you go east from the casino's parking lot and cross the casino's overpass over Broad st. to the Casinos covered parking you will find that the road in front is still named South Railway.

I also apologize to kmseiver about the "link bombing" I do web page design etc and thought links would be a handy thing to input, but, if thats not the correct way to get it done, again, I apologize..24.72.1.2 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Links are fine, but put them in the "External links" section. --Kmsiever 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just looked a a current city map and it is still listed as South Railway St., if you look just south of the tracks and just east of Broad. Friesguy 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Friesguy

I wish you would register your user name so we could communicate. I think that between the two of us we are getting this article up to a pretty high standard and it would be great if we could talk privately. Masalai 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by registering my name, but I did set up a friesguy page that you could put comments on, and we could exchange ideas there. Friesguy 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

William Shatner

William Shatner attending a Regina highschool (supposedly Balfour), so far, is only a legend. Will Chabun of the Leader Post has attempted to ask William Shatner if it was true via email, but no answer was given.

I agree with you and have done lots of web searching and have sent an email to Mr. Shatner's website asking for confirmation with no response. Also, I have checked with Balfour Collegiate staff about checking records there and it seems there is no record of him attending. So, I have deleted the entry. Friesguy 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Length and quality

I have just read over this article, and I have to say honestly that I think there are a lot of problems. It is FAR from being anywhere near as well written or as concise as other Canadian city articles. Look to the Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary articles for inspiration for example. Both the Toronto and Calgary articles have good article status (the only Canadian cities that do I think). First of all, this article is WAY too long. Last time I checked, Regina was a small city, but its article is in the ballpark of New York city's! Try some sub-articles maybe. There are also too many lists. I think many of these could be moved to their own articles with titles like "List of... in Regina". Otherwise they should be converted to prose (much more interesting to read). Most city pages that I have seen have removed the list of famous people from the article entirely. Why is there both an "origins" and a "history" section? I can't figure that one out... as they are currently written, they seem to both want to accomplish the same thing (although, the origins section mysteriously contains some information which belongs in "Demographics"). What is with the "Cultural life" section? Why are there so many sub-sections? Why can't it have broader sub-sections like "performing arts" or "museums". Right now, it is painful to read. Finally, the list of references is pathetic. Has all the information in the article been derived from climate data? There are also some NPOV issues to resolve I think. Anyway, I think this article needs a tonne of work and since I am no expert of the city, it is not my place to make big changes. Maybe a to-do list is in order... These are simply my observations which come from comparison with other (and in my opinion, much better) city articles for Canada. --68.147.163.161 07:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When one goes to edit this page, the following note is displayed: "This page is 40 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable". This is precisely why I created the history of Regina page. --Kmsiever 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

68.147.163.161-Perhaps you could register your name and set up a page so we can discuss it. I am definitely not a writer and make no pretenses about it. I seem to do research but don't know what to do with it once I get it. If there is anyone out there who has writing experience that would like to take a stab at reorganizing this please feel free to dig in. Friesguy 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree about the lists. But also with the proposal to hive off further discussion into separate, linked sub-articles. The history section being separated was a good move (although it needed a prodigious amount of editing), though others have continued adding tidbits to the main article. The issue with the quality of the prose is one that comes and goes; the article gets a thorough edit and then more material gets added here and there, not necessarily in the best place for it, not necessarily very well written (I don't mean you, Fries!). Sure, let's go for it. Masalai 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done a lot of editing down of the article, reducing unnecessary repetition, toning down the civic boosterism a tad. I reject the criticism that listing eminent Reginans is inappropriate. How else is a city known? The suggestion that there is a lack of documentary citation is entirely valid, though: too much of this article comes straight out of my own head (not that it's incorrect for that; only that it needs documentary citation) or from captions in the many pictorial histories that have been published over the years. Perhaps someone who doesn't have to travel intercontinentally to do so could pay a visit to the Regina Public Library, the University of Regina library or the legislative library to beef up the citation section. Fries, I really don't think you should be so modest -- you have added immeasurably to the article and congratulations, no criticism are due; only congratulations.Masalai 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of the culture section to its own page at Culture in Regina. it seemed like a good candidate for the move given its size and breadth. I think there may be a little more over here that could go over there (I added some of the links for example, but did not move them, from this page). The main Regina article is still pretty long and there may be something else that could be moved over. --Kmsiever 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is starting to look very good thanks to masalai, kmsiever and everyone that has contributed. I have to apologize for not having the time to lend a hand too much lately as I have pressing family health issues. Ps I have contacted Balfour collegiate about the unwanted additions in the Famous Reginians and students will have protocol discussed. Friesguy 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Further re: length

We're still getting the thing of: "This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

May I suggest that the following sections be hived off into separate sub-articles with, of course, overviews retained in the main article:

• Industry and resources
• Wascana Centre (actually this perhaps merits a substantive article of its own in any event)

Masalai 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Kmsiever 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Drastic edit by Kmsiever

Perhaps you might find it interesting to consult the Wikipedia articles on cities such as Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, all cities of some millions rather than hundreds of thousands. Previous drafts of the Regina article notably erred on the side of naïve civic boosterism ("impressive skyline" indeed!) but we should not go overboard in minimising the merits of this interesting city with its decidedly interesting past and continuingly lively present. The article (and the subsidiary articles) is now deficient in illustrative photos. I expect to be in Regina in July, or at least sometime this year, for a family corroborree and I can amply remedy this default without copyright issues. Let's not cut too aggressively, shall we? Masalai 11:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Masalai, I am not sure what you mean; I have not removed any photos from what I recall, other than moving some to subarticles. --Kmsiever 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I didn't mean that you had removed any useful photos; only that in editing down, you may have removed useful text. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But also that the article could now profitably be improved by the addition of a great deal of photographic illustration, as with the articles on several cities of considerably greater significance -- cf the articles on several Australian cities (though Australia does not have any cities comparable to Regina, Winnipeg or Saskatoon, Australia being an entirely urban country). I think that comparing the Regina article with articles on other Canadian cities of decidedly minor provenance is both unfair and irrelevant. Excellence should be the standard. What say ye? Masalai 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmsiever"

What say ye? Masalai 13:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I say that I am entirely confused. I thought you wanted a separate article for industry in Regina. If so, why move everything back to the main article and remove the link to the subarticle? --Kmsiever 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Got carried away. I think I have remedied the default. Masalai 23:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs More Casual Feel

While the efforts by all to contribute to this article are great thus far, the article itself is much too pretentious and wordy! A Wikipedia article needs to be factual and to the point. It is not a venue for any one writer to proclaim the "brilliance" of the city planning or to denegrate particular areas of the city based on personal opinion. That type of writing in this particular venue can easily be construed as uninviting. Not exactly a feeling you want to convey in a city's Wiki entry!

As has been suggested by others, look to other city articles for inspiration on how the writing for this particular article should be approached. I will continue to make appropriate edits and contributions to this article, as time permits.

I think that the length of the article goes beyond what's necessary. There are many points made throughout the article that could be consolidated or simply referenced and developed as their own Wiki entry. There are also points made that lack relevance and don't need to be there, at all.--Baaaan 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "pretentious" is a matter of opinion; you're not going to get any consensus on what is objectively un-"pretentious." (Whether "casual" is desirable at all in a forum that professes to be encyclopedic is another issue.) Or by "pretentious" do you just mean literate? Do check some other Wikipedia articles: there are many that are, by your lights, "pretentious"; those which are "casual" tend to attract the tag that they require a clean-up. Numerous editors have been contributing to the article; you should discuss large-scale edits of the kind you propose before unilaterally hoeing in and deleting other people's work, particular since you are a "new or unregistered user" and you have not provided for such discussion on a user page of your own. Masalai 05:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The pretentious nature of the writing in this instance is NOT a topic of subjective discussion! I've said it before as an unregistered user and I will say it again now; the Wikipedia is not a forum for you (or anyone else) to attempt to be impressive with an overly complicated or needlessly verbose writing style. I highly suggest you review the Wikipedia:About page, in which the Wikipedia is referred to as a reference website as opposed to any kind of philosophic journal. The current tone of this article is not satisfactory, however, I would like to pursue proper avenues to correct the tone. If you care to review the most recent changes made by myself, take note that the vast majority of changes are simple wording edits that make a major difference in taking this article from a snobby tone to a friendly one.--Baaaan 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignore sillies

I hope you will ignore this silly fellow, Kmsiever, Friesguy, RileyLewis, Masalai, ThePrairieDawg and all you others who have been contributing. This is a great little article about a great little town, and it is getting better all the time as sensible people make constructive additions to it. If he can't get his name registered so that we can talk to him about his objections to the work that others have done, I say f*** him (excuse my French). He says it should be more "casual"? What on earth?! It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, for heaven's sake! Sam Bne 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I noticed the list of references seems to be growing. Are these actual reference materials used in the creation of this article? If so, perhaps we shoudl start citing them in the article. If not, perhaps the section should be renamed to "Further reading" or something along those lines. --Kmsiever 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The references are those I have referred to in the rather substantial additions I have just made to the article. Either "further reading" or "references" would be equally appropropriate. Masalai 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to use "references", then we really should refer to them in the article. --Kmsiever 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I cannot figure out how to deal with the Wikipedia protocols on footnotes. But it is better to have a bibliography with deficient footnotes than no references at all, eh. If you would like to have a go, there is a very compendious bibliography at the Regina Public Library website, http://reginalibrary.ca/about.htmlMasalai 18:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes is a good resource for references/footnotes. Is there a specific rsource on the RPL about page that you want me to see? --Kmsiever 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks. It really is time I confronted the Wikipedia footnoting mechanism. There wasn't anything in particular on the RPL website that I was directing you to; it's just a very interesting site that you might enjoy browsing through. Masalai 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Kmsiever for having rescued and completed the footnoting exercise; I was going to return and complete the exercise but it is a terribly finicky business and I ran out of time when I discovered that my initial effort had only been half-successful. May I suggest that this section remain in the main article for a few days to see if others have any suggestions for amplifying it and perhaps that it then be hived off into a sub-article as with other sections that previously appeared in the main article. There is now a substantial archive of historical photos on the Regina Public Library website which would improve the section. I have written to the RPL asking what the copyright status of the photos is; given the limitation period in the Copyright Act and the antiquity of the photos they are of course in the public domain but it may be appropriate to get the Library's word on their provenance before dropping them into the article only to have them removed. Masalai 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Which section? "References" or "Government". If the former, it should stay since it is dynamically generated. If the latter, it needs more filling out first. --Kmsiever 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The latter (together with the whole of the discussion of historic buildings) and the internally generated references. And yes, as I say, leaving it in the main article will undoubtedly attract further additions, as evidenced by the steadily growing history section, which sooner or later could perhaps be edited down again with some more of its material being transferred across to the sub-article. Masalai 01:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Precipitation etc.

I wonder if the Regina article much needs the paragraph regarding precipitation given that the figures quoted in that paragraph apply more or less to several other prairie cities: "Precipitation is heaviest from June through August with June being the wettest month at 75 mm (3 in). Annual precipitation is 390 mm (15 in) with December, January and March having the most snowfall (80% of the total). The average daily temperature for the year is 2.8°C. The lowest temperature ever recorded was -50°C (-58°F) on January 1, 1885 while the highest recorded temperature was 43°C (109.4 F) on July 5, 1937."

Could we perhaps delete this material to make room for information which is especially germane to Regina and not shared with Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary? Masalai 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pending further discussion I have gone ahead and done this. The section on climate, precipitation etc is talking about all cities on the prairies and isn't especially germane to Regina. It can of course readily be restored if there is a consensus among the interested editors that it shouldn't have been deleted. The text is as follows:

===Climate and topography===

Regina has a dry climate with cold winters and moderate daytime temperatures during the summer — it is normal to have a handful of summer evenings warm enough for bathing in residential subdivision swimming pools or al fresco dining on the numerous outdoor patios and beer gardens. Even after the hottest summer days in July and August, Regina nights are normally cool.

Precipitation is heaviest from June through August with June being the wettest month at 75 mm (3 in). Annual precipitation is 390 mm (15 in) with December, January and March having the most snowfall (80% of the total). The average daily temperature for the year is 2.8°C. The lowest temperature ever recorded was -50°C (-58°F) on January 1, 1885 while the highest recorded temperature was 43°C (109.4 F) on July 5, 1937.

Masalai 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This was my interpretation of the specific weather data for Regina provided on the Environment Canada website. I did not look at the data for the other prairie cities listed. Just because it may be similar to those other cities, only people living in this general area would probably know that, not the millions of other people not living in the area. Wow, you waited a whole hour for further discussion to take place before deleting it. RedWolf 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it back if you like. But who is going to look for this information in an article on Regina, as opposed to the prairies, or Saskatchewan, or western Canada? Masalai 18:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My view on this for whatever its worth is that the climate defines us as much (or more) than the historical bldgs or what churches are in town and should be included on the page as its one of the first things people want to know on being transferred to a new city or when visiting. Friesguy 09:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Back in it goes. Actually I figure that the bit about historical buildings of note can go into a sub-article in due course, but perhaps for the time being it might attract more constructive comment if it remains in the main article. Masalai 11:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this an issue? —

"...and was a national scandal at the time"?

Have you not seen the cartoons in the contemporary national press? Masalai 14:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)