Talk:St. Thomas, Ontario

notable residents

Who is this Sam Beaudry chap anyway ? The only person I found googling for this name is an high-school student... StefanoC 08:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Sam needs some defenders soon or he goes. Three sections of red ink on one entry is tooooooo much. Carptrash 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Joel Parkins (aka Howlin' Hooch Parkins) is from St.Thomas... Lead singer and guitar genius of The Matadors (www.thematadors.net)

For Hockey players and players related to notble residents, should we add them based on if the were born in st thomas, or if they actually lived here? In that case for living here Hap Day of the toronto maple leafs should be added to the list. Another point to ponder is what makes a player notable?, why would we swamp the list with hockey players when other professions should be included? I think in that case a contribution to man-kind that is notable may come from say an engineer or a writer opposed to a player who hasnt even played an nhl game yet(or limited experience). Joe Thornton is notable so is David Shaw(though does he reside in st thomas?)

the last 3 lines of notable residents are spam and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.38 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

external links controversy

I strongly believe the link to the St. Thomas Times-Journal should be included. It is a link to the city's major newspaper, which publishes all the major news stories that involve St. Thomas, and even has an archive where much material for the article can be included. An IP claims that this is a spam link, yet I don't see how it violates WP:SPAM, and there is even mention of the paper right in the body of the article. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your instincts were correct. This editor is implying that if they can't promote their own website on Wikipedia, that means that a link to the only daily newspaper in the community, that's been in business for over a hundred years, is somehow in the same category as them. If they actually read the policy regarding spam links on Wikipedia, they'd discover that it's the promotional aspect of them placing the link/ad in the first place that's forbidden, rather than whether or not a given site is "commercial" or not. This point is often not grasped by spammers.[1] Deconstructhis 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to a website that I found would be helpful. Deconstructhis has pointed out to me that commercial links are not allowed. Using the Wikipedia guidelines I removed the St. Thomas Times-Journal link as spam. It is a commercial website and the page is plastered with banners. The Times-Journal is mentioned in the body of the article, and that is enough. 204.191.169.27 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Mayor

I think the term "plastered" is an inappropriate description. There are ads for charities: MADD, Big Brothers and Sisters of Canada, and the United Way of Canada. There are 2 more ads for a career site, and a local nursery. The link is fine under WP:EL and WP:SPAM. As for your link, it is advertising all over because it is classifieds, and it does not add to the article. -- Reaper X 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a resident of Ottawa i go to that site the st thomas times journal daily to read the news, the ads are there so they can offer the paper online.It is not spam. Just there so people like me get the news for free. A link to a site where ads are only present is spam or if the authors of such lil articles have no credible publications, this site does. Further 204.191.169.27 please use a wikipedia user name when you post comments on these pages i am sure you merely forgot but its very inconvienant to refer to you as a number, thank you Sayswho 04:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe what's "upsetting" this editor is the fact that an external link to a site consisting of ads has been removed from the article. Their comments above, regarding what they believe constitutes "spam" according to Wikipedia policy is indicative of why this "controversy" is continuing. Being a "commercial" website alone is not sufficent grounds for being considered spam in the encyclopedia. There are numerous links to completely "commercial" websites appearing throughout Wikipedia. Rather than go on and on about this, I'll simply cut and paste a quote from the link I provided in my first posting regarding common mistaken ideas that editors have about what is and isn't "spam" on Wikipedia:

"Common spammer strawmen

Spammers will offer arguments like the following. These are strawman arguments, for the reasons listed.

"But you have links to commercial sites in the list."

Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not about commercial sites at all. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not.

"But you have links to other sites that people have added for self-promotion."

Those need to go, too. The fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have your site.

"But you have a link to site Y, and my site is just like that."

We don't need to link to every site in existence that meets a certain criterion. Sometimes we just need one site representative of a category. (See also the comments about linking to web directories instead, so that Wikipedia does not become a web directory.)

"But these links have been here for a long time."

There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.

"My link is very unique."

It is more likely that the link they have added has no more information than the Wikipedia article itself.

"My site is non-commercial, so it's not spamming"

(Similarly 'nonprofit', 'charitable', opposes cruelty to puppies, etc)".

It doesn't matter--being noncommercial (etc.) doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true, and these sites are often trying to sell something even if the business is organized as a nonprofit."

I think if the editor involved here actually takes the time to read the rather extensive material on Wiki regarding spam they'll come to see the point I'm trying to make. Deconstructhis 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the time to read the extensive materials on external links and spam, I removed the st. thomas times-journal link from the external links because it falls under the wikipedia guidelines of spam. You removed external links from a site that i love because it falls under the guideline of spam, which I now see, and I would remove them or delete them myself if you did not already do so. The Times-Journal has historical value that I feel is worth being include in the article, but not under external links because it falls under the wikipedia spam guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayormcgeez (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A Request For A Poll In Order To Work Toward Consensus

Okay Mayormcgeez, obviously we have a basic disagreement in terms of rating the relative value to an article of an external link to a small scale 'want ad' type site based in another city and one to a communities only daily newspaper's site. Let's throw this out to the editors. Please give your yea or nay to the following: should the Times-Journal link remain in the external links section of this article, yes or no? There's no need to get into the reasoning behind your opinion at the moment, let's just see how other editors feel in general. Personally, I say include it. Deconstructhis 08:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why turn this into a popularity contest? Do you have a problem with using critical analysis to resolve this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.130.39 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should make it clear that the above comments are mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayormcgeez (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with utilizing "critical analysis" on this problem Mayormcgeez, at the moment I'm simply trying to determine whether there is any support at all for not including the Times-Journal link, other than yourself.Deconstructhis 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, include it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, 2 things.

1. Everybody sign your posts using four tidles (~~~~).
2. Remember, the first rule is to "ignore all rules". "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both."

-- Reaper X 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the st thomas times journal link is an excellent source for further reading into the community. I say yea include it Sayswho 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See below Jgale061 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What a waste of time

in regards to this so called external links controversey i think people here are missing the big picture. 2 weeks ago as it appears an ip added several links to classified websites they were removed as spam and promptly re-added by a similar ip. Often ive seen in the last year that when someone has been told that they are doing the wrong thing they appear to become an advocate of the policy in which they were wronging in before. Sometimes people take it too far and mis read the actual wikipedia sources on the policies and a full blown edit war occurs, which im sad to say appears as if its going to happen. Lets pause for a moment and play devils advocate if the st thomas times journal is an external link why cant my st thomas be?, as i recall theres tiny artyicles on the my st thomas site. the difference is that one is regularly published and the other is limited to buisness prinitings in the chamber of commerce. So what is the solution? if you edit it in(the times journal link), and not allow the other links my guess is (based on what ive seen on other sites) that it will allow this user to post those classified spam links under the same grounds. This is spam and has been dealt with on other city sites( calgray's page was hit with smillar buisness classified entries as spam util they were removed(ironically by one of the ips that added it here on st thomas)). I would suggest to remove the the times jounal hyper link and create a small sub sction for it refering it to its other wiki article St. Thomas Times-Journal where the user can access the site from there(or is that spam too?).

I also noticed poor taste by one of the users sending a block threat(when they are not a administrator), not being one myself i am still aware that people have a right to respect and curtosy, that was in no way classy, it discourages edits from observers and encourages more aggression from other users. Open dialogue is key. type your concern on user talk pages dont use an aggresive admin template for a minor edit. I am being direct in what i am saying here and allowing everyone to hear my views because this edit controversy is just a waste of time and is way too small to warrent lil 'edit wars'. with respect to you all Jgale061 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A further note is that the media section does contain the link to the times journal wikipedia pageJgale061 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific Reasoning

Alright, lets find out from Mayormcgeez, why under the current circumstances, he believes that the Times-Journal link should not be included in the external links section "because it falls under the wikipedia spam guidelines", as he states above. Mayormcgeez, please give us your reasoning behind that opinion.Deconstructhis (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My answer still has not changed, you can see my previous posts stating my reasons. Jgale061's post "what a waste of time" is a more elaborate explanation and if I had anything to add I would of added it under that sub-heading. At this point I'm going to publicly ask you to stop calling me a spammer, stop making half-true public assumptions about me (and my reasoning) and stop wasting time on this subject. If you have something new, then I would like to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayormcgeez (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[cut and pasted from my own talk page]

I have publicly asked you to stop the behavior towards me and I feel I should also ask you to stop in your talk page. You have publicly called me a spammer, quoted half-truths about my views, and continue to question me about the same issue over and over. I appreciate you helping to teach me about Wikipedia rules, but I feel uncomfortable with your behavior and I am asking you to stop. (Mayormcgeez (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm....I have to admit that you've confused me a little by your responses to this situation, both on the discussion page of the article itself St. Thomas, Ontario and now on my talk page. Our initial disagreement seems to me to have began when a link to a 'want ad' type site was removed from the external links section of the article by myself and a couple of other editors, which you then proceeded to replace. You then stated on the discussion page of the article, that after further consideration you had subsequently come to the conclusion that a link to that particular site, in fact *did* constitute "spam" and believed that it didn't belong in the external links section after all. Subsequent to that, you removed the external link to the only daily newspaper in St. Thomas (The Times Journal) site from the links section of the article and began to make the claim that *that* link constituted "spam" according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but so far you haven't told us why you believe that is the case. I was genuinely hoping that you might explain your reasoning behind that position, but it now appears that for some reason you are unwilling to do that. In my personal opinion, this is a 'no brainer', an external link to the only newspaper in a community of 35,000 that has a daily circulation approaching 7,000 and which takes a 'mainstream' editorial approach covering general news in the community, can only be viewed as a potential asset to the average reader of a Wikipedia article who is looking for fast access to current information regarding a city. Inclusion of this type of external link to a local media site is common practice on Wikipedia, something which I'm assuming you already know. Without further explanation as to why you feel that an external link in this situation is not appropriate, I believe that you are acting arbitrarily in excluding it. I'm prepared to wait a day or so once again to provide you with a further opportunity to explain your position, after that, I support replacing the link to the paper once again and I'm prepared to defend that position through regular 'third party' review processes here on Wiki. By way of compromise, would you support placing an external link to the Times Journal in some sort of 'subsection' for media?Deconstructhis (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To point it out, the only explanations we have had is that "it falls under the wikipedia guidelines of spam", and it is "plastered with banners". I already rebutted against your argument about it being "plastered with banners", saying that 'plastered' wasn't an accurate decription. Is this all the arguments you have to present? Or do you have more? Please make this clear. -- Reaper X 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not heard anything either in this article that idetnifies the st thomas times journal as spam. With your concent unless someone else does it before me, today ill revert back the link. I am very passionate about vandalism and disruptive edits and i believe that unless some clear reasons to why a site with its own wikipedia page as well as published document is constituting spam is published that their is no reason not to include the link, which clearly if you go on the site gives further reading into st thomas. let me know if you have any problems thank you Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this edit by Mayormcgeez without explanation has caused me to go to RFC with this one. I want to put this to bed, this is a petty edit war. Please leave your comments below, and take the discussion above into consideration. Thank you. -- Reaper X 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I did give a reason.(Mayormcgeez (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

I'll repeat this: to point it out, the only explanations we have had is that "it falls under the wikipedia guidelines of spam", and it is "plastered with banners". I already rebutted against your argument about it being "plastered with banners", saying that 'plastered' wasn't an accurate decription. Is this all the arguments you have to present? Or do you have more? Please make this clear. -- Reaper X 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't move my reply. I replied to you to let you know I have a reason for my edit, and that reason can be found in the link you provided. Why did you move it under the RFC? Did you want me to look bad? and why are you touching my edits? Your behavior has been pretty lame, you put words in my mouth, half quote true statements I made and now you're moving my posts. It's hard to deal with you when you lack etiquette. (Mayormcgeez (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

RFC: Should the T-J link be included?

My view of this paper is if a friend of mine passes away from st thomas i can view that link, if i want to know about poltics of st thomas its there., from the weather to anything to do with the city. This newspaper has been in existance for over 100 years as well. So logically i ask what is your view? and if it falls under spam what is it violating that makes it spam?Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is still going on and now the page is locked?......Okay seriously there was no need for that. If people would just talk about this reasonably this matter would be solved. Spam or not spam...? My original concern was that people would use an excuse to post a classified page external link based on the merit that it had an article or two. The times journal has its own wikipedia page., like ottawa4ever said its been around for years. it reports on the basis of community news half of the information on this site originates from archives from the times journal newspaper. Not living in st thomas anymore reading the online paper allows me to stay in touch with my home town., again a good point above mentioned above someone passes away you can check that on the times journal listing online...complete articles exist there. Without making this sound too much like an advertisement itself....can anyone including mayormcgeez or outside this discusion or new say that this paper is spam and say why.....? much respect to you all , Jgale061 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deconstructhis and Reaper X seem to have teamed up on me and keep publicly telling everyone what my stance is on the matter, and if you would go back and read, you would realize they've putting words into my mouth, quoted half-truths and continue to spread lies about me. Reaper X is manipulating this situation, the RFC link was "RFC: Should the T-J link be included?" then changed it to "RFC: Should a link to the St. Thomas Times Journal be included? Does it constitute as spam?". I've explained to Reaper X there are more reasons than that, and suggested he go back and read them. Reaper X also moved my edit "I did give a reason" below the RFC link (more bully tactics). Now it looks like my RFC reply is "I did give a reason", when the reality is I am replying to you Reaper X, telling you that I gave a reason for my edit.

You say I did not give a reason for my edit, I did.

You say my only explanation is "spam". You are wrong again.

You move my quotes around. Stop messing with my edits.

Stop ganging up on me, stop being disruptive and stop dragging out this issue.

I will explain one more time (for the RFC) why the Times-Journal link should NOT be included, and I will try to be as brief and clear as possible.

We have to look at the big picture. This is the Wikipedia article for St. Thomas, Ontario, not the Times-Journal. The stories found on the Times-Journal are not directly related to the subject matter found on the St. Thomas, Ontario article.

I count eleven commercial ads on the frontpage of the Times-Journal website and presently I count eight stories on the frontpage. Typically I've seen anywhere from four to eight stories and the ad banner format is always the same (11 ads). This amounts to anywhere from 73% to 53% advertisement. Such a heavy dose of advertisements is considered spam.

The Times-Journal is already mentioned in the Media sub-section of the St. Thomas Page. This sub-section is the proper place. Links to the Times-Journal article can be found here and that is enough.

The Times-Journal is owned by Bowes Publishers Limited/Sun Media Corporation/Quebecor Inc. This is a for-profit organization and linking to the Times-Journal directly benefits this company. It's possible a employee has added the link, and for this reason the link can be considered a conflict-of-interest.

No one good reason why the Times-Journal link should be promoted in the External Links sub-section.

With that said... here is a brief summary of why the Times-Journal link should NOT be included in the External Links sub-section:

1. Not directly related to the St. Thomas, Ontario Wikipedia article

2. Heavy advertisements (spam).

3. Times-Journal is already mentioned in the Media sub-section.

4. Conflict-of-interest.

5. Nobody has provided a reason why the Times-Journal should be promoted in the External Links sub-section.

There you have it, everything in one nice post.

Let's put this behind us and move forward on improving this article and the wikipedia community. (Mayormcgeez (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Hey guys Im going to describe the timesjournal site very clearly here in my rebuttle as to why it should be included; 1. It is directly related to st thomas there are more articles than 4 on this site. If you look youll see an archived system dating back of 4 years where daily news can be found complete in 4-generally 7 articles. there are well over a thousand articles relating to st thomas on this site. 2. these 'plastered' adds what are they? 1 is for MADD mothers against drunk driving, the other is for the city of st thomas, another is for big brother big sister community organization another is for the paper itself, the united way...charity site links and one for upcoming community events. There are 4 adds outside 1 per article(or less) which makes sense for a free on line paper. being involved in charity i know that the paper does not receive profits generally outside that. the advertisements are light if that. 3. just gives the paper more merit to be included as a link 4. Any site can be added and viewed as a conflict of interest microsoft links, mueseum links..etc perhaps a conflict of interest could be stated in opposition of this link from a employee of a rival paper in london? 5. my reason as to why the link should be included is stated above in my previous comments.

Im not touching the edits about things being moved around but it appears that a response from an individual other than mayormcgeez was lost.

No one is ganging up on anyone its just that people believe this link to be important and needed.

So thats my rebuttle, and theres 2 sides of the coin.Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made this edit to set-up the RFC, and then I made this edit to move the RFC template to the top of the discussion. Mayor, I don't know why you are making all these allegations. You made these edits and moved my comments out of the RFC section. But whatever, I'm not going to bitch about it. As for "manipulating the situation", the header of this section is "RFC: Should the T-J link be included?". The following is part of the template, and is what is displayed at the Request for Comment geography and history page for other editors who are not involved in this discussion: "RFC: Should a link to the St. Thomas Times Journal be included? Does it constitute as spam?". I have modified it, to "Should a link to the St. Thomas Times Journal be included?". I don't know why I put RFC at the beginning, and I removed the spam comment now that Mayor has made his reasons clearer.

I seriously don't know why you are being so hostile about this Mayor, it's totally uncalled for. All we wanted you to do is restate your reasons in detail, and that's what you have done above. Thank you.

In rebuttle to those reasons, there is an archive with thousands more articles. Search "St. Thomas" and 6952 results will come up. I think those articles could add significantly to this article, providing a reason to add it to the external links section. So in order:

1. It is not directly related to the St. Thomas, Ontario Wikipedia article, but it can significantly add to it.
2. I believe that the advertisements do not make a heavy presence. Please don't mistake the buttons on the left as ads. I counted 7 small ones along the right hand side, a banner at the top, and one small one at the left.
3. It is mentioned in the Media sub-section, so shouldn't it have an external link if it merits mention in such a small article?
4. Conflict-of-interest? Please elaborate again.
5. see #1.

There are my arguments. DO NOT take them as some kind of an attack. I just strongly believe we should link to the T-J. -- Reaper X 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to base my comments on my own reading of these guidelines: WP:LINKSPAM, WP:SPAM#LINK, WP:EL If I'm misreading these, I apologise and welcome helpful pointers from anyone, whether currently involved in this discussion or not.

My primary understanding of what constitutes external link "spamming" on Wikipedia and what I try to base my editorial decisions on, is that if it's a link to a site that *only* consists of advertising, then it's disallowed automatically, whether it's "nonprofit" or not. It's also my understanding that linking to a page that contains some advertising is permitted, that being a "commercial" site is not in itself an automatic disqualifier, although the site must add "value" to the article itself. Personally, I interpret "value" to mean whether or not a site that's being linked to contains "current" and "relevant" information regarding the topic of the article that is not available from any other source, or as the guidelines describe them, a "unique resource" regarding the subject. I contend (and as ReaperX states above) the TJ site is just such a resource, the database of archived local stories is updated every day and goes back several years. In my opinion the presence of a limited number of local, almost all community service group ads, that do appear on the page aren't even relevant in this context and that even if they are given some weight in the discussion, the value of the site as a current source of information regarding the community completely outweighs the downside. Within reason, I think that decisions about whether to include a link or not should be done on a case by case basis and that including an external link to to a local media site may not even be desirable in every circumstance, but due to the relative lack of media outlets in this community (especially online) I'd argue that in this case the potential benefits warrant its inclusion. I'd like to mention that personally, I am not now, nor have I ever been an employee of this newspaper and currently reside about an hours drive away from the community we're discussing. Speaking of "conflict of interest", I noticed last night that the link to the Times Journal article embedded in this article itself was broken, so I repaired it. While doing so, I took note that it appears that the link had been in a state of disrepair for the better part of a year. If some of us are out here acting only as 'shills' for that newspaper, we're not doing a very good job. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the articles found on the T-J have nothing to do with the City of St. Thomas. Yes they would report election results, yes they will report on school closings/openings, park opening/closings, city expansion and other information that would benefit the St. Thomas Wikipedia page, yes the T-J has historical value, and yes the T-J deserves to be represented on the City of St. Thomas Wikipedia page because of these reasons. Guess what? It is represented. You can find it in it's rightful place in the Media Sub-Section. Rules are put in place for a reason, your personal feeling do not usurp the rules.

Ottawa4ever:

1. It is directly related to st thomas there are more articles than 4 on this site. If you look youll see an archived system dating back of 4 years where daily news can be found complete in 4-generally 7 articles. there are well over a thousand articles relating to st thomas on this site.

How is a picture of 'spegetti santa' at all related to the city of st. thomas, or perhaps the article on firemen and police shaving their heads for charity?

So what is your case for including 'spaghetti santa' in the wikipedia article for the City of St. Thomas? Afterall it's directly related according to you. Perhaps they should be added to notable citizens?

2. these 'plastered' adds what are they? 1 is for MADD mothers against drunk driving, the other is for the city of st thomas, another is for big brother big sister community organization another is for the paper itself, the united way...charity site links and one for upcoming community events. There are 4 adds outside 1 per article(or less) which makes sense for a free on line paper. being involved in charity i know that the paper does not receive profits generally outside that. the advertisements are light if that.

1. top banner ad for career ad, 2. left side banner ad for cybersaver, 3. right side banner ad for classifieds extra, 4. right side banner ad for canadale, 5. right side banner ad for big brothers/sisters, 6. right side banner ad for career ad, 7. right side banner ad for united way, 8. right side banner ad for madd, 9. right side banner ad for elgin tourism, 10. right side banner ad for cybersaver, 11. bottom of body revolving ad.

At the time I write this the frontpage of the T-J has three arcticles and still eleven ads. 21% articles and 79% ads. I don't call 79% ads light.

3. just gives the paper more merit to be included as a link

The Times-Journal is included in the Media Sub-Section. It is merited in Media for a reason. Why should the T-J get extra merit but not other media companies, parks, notible residents, or schools? There is no need to promote it further in External Links.

4. Any site can be added and viewed as a conflict of interest microsoft links, mueseum links..etc perhaps a conflict of interest could be stated in opposition of this link from a employee of a rival paper in london?

You say that any site can be added and viewed as a conflict of interest, how is The City of St. Thomas a conflict of interest?

Reaper X:

In rebuttle to those reasons, there is an archive with thousands more articles. Search "St. Thomas" and 6952 results will come up. I think those articles could add significantly to this article, providing a reason to add it to the external links section. So in order: 1. It is not directly related to the St. Thomas, Ontario Wikipedia article, but it can significantly add to it.

Because "St. Thomas" is mentioned in a T-J article does not mean it is related to the City of St. Thomas. I will take the first five articles using the method you just decribed. You tell me why they are fit to be included on the City of St. Thomas Wikipedia page.

1. Angel Tree music means gifts for kids

2. RIDE-ing for safety

3. Stafford stymies Stars

4. Canada’s best women players inspire young Panthers

5. Christian women gather for Christmas

2. I believe that the advertisements do not make a heavy presence. Please don't mistake the buttons on the left as ads. I counted 7 small ones along the right hand side, a banner at the top, and one small one at the left.

How do you not find 79% not heavy, it is certainly the majority. Maybe 'heavy' is the wrong word, some people interprete heavy differently? If you want to be pety, just replace 'heavy' with 'majority'. Also, see my reply to ottawa4ever, I mention the 11 ads and locations.

3. It is mentioned in the Media sub-section, so shouldn't it have an external link if it merits mention in such a small article?

If the External Links section was used to link to everything mentioned on the page, then what is the point of mentioning the them in the article? This is a resource for information about the City of St. Thomas, Ontario, not a collection of links.

4. Conflict-of-interest? Please elaborate again.

I said:

The Times-Journal is owned by Bowes Publishers Limited/Sun Media Corporation/Quebecor Inc. This is a for-profit organization and linking to the Times-Journal directly benefits this company. It's possible a employee has added the link, and for this reason the link can be considered a conflict-of-interest.

Other people understand the point, and if it is true or not, it is a valid point.

(Mayormcgeez (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

I think everyone agrees that there is advertising on the page, however only one editor so far seems to think that it's "excessive" and that that fact outweighs the benefits in the context of this article. Unless I'm missing something, saying that just because an article says "St. Thomas" in it, doesn't mean it's "related to the City of St. Thomas", strikes me as kind of a (for want of a better word) 'peculiar' observation. The news articles are about the citizens and their current activities in their community, I'd like to suggest that this is not exactly an indirect connection to the "City of St. Thomas" Ontario. Although it's been around for 150 years, this is a small town publication, which even in its print version is known to be a little "skimpy" in its coverage of events further afield, if anything, what this paper does most thoroughly is cover St. Thomas and immediate area. Besides, who are we to decide that just because a small town is interested in something that means it's irrelevant? Not all of the topics may appear to be "earth shaking", although local crime and 'harder' local news do appear in the online version almost daily if you look back through the archives. I haven't seen anything that supports the idea that the link was placed by "an employee" of either that newspaper or the company that owns it, there's just as much reason to believe that it was placed by someone like one of the editors involved in this discussion, who simply see it as a useful resource. Frankly, the whole "planted" thing seems a little 'conspiratorial' to me. In all likelihood this will be my last posting on this topic, in terms of the current review. In the end, I hope the link is returned, because in the case of the St. Thomas article, I honestly believe that because it is, a general reader is offered a better encyclopedia article about the community in the overall and that's what this project is supposed to be about isn't it? Deconstructhis (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just cant understand how one lil link draws so much passion from one person. I say the link should stay. 2 months down the road a week down the road someone aside from who was involved in this discussion will put it back. in fact my memorey isnt so top notch ill probably do it one day. there are inmovable sides here and no matter what is said the position will warp the other ideas. I too am done talking about this. The link is a good idea, other people will put it in and theres a huge suport for it. If someone wants to spend time deleting it everyday and become an advocate of this one page well i think its sad. Wikipedia is meant to grow with knowledge contribute something. Jgale061 (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Is the inclusion of the link helpful to someone such as me who has never ever heard of St. Thomas, Ontario before. Yes.

Does the inclusion of the link breach any Wikipedia Policy? I don't know.

Aatomic1 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's entirely appropriate, of course, being the major newspaper in Saint Thomas. Per WP:EL, it's accessible, relevant to the content, and likely to remain functional in the long term. This page appears to be the focus of a lot of trolling and idiocy - what gives? <eleland/talkedits> 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. As the major media outlet in the city (indeed pretty much the only media outlet in the city), it should be included. Blotto adrift (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidered - on second thought, I've noticed that other cities with separate articles for their newspapers (Barrie, Sudbury) don't have links to their papers. For consistency's sake, perhaps the same should apply here. Blotto adrift (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, If you look at the st thomas times journal site recently youll see that it has undergone some changes, It looks more add intrusive than it did before Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents Criteria

After reading the wikipedia page of london ontario I read a number of people listed on this page (st thomas) as notable londeners. I removed them as they were clearly st thomas residents. However; I began to think a bit and this section could use a bit of house keeping. Primarily what is the criteria for this?., Are we putting people here that were born in St Thomas or just reside here?, Could they have resided here in the past? Or currently reside here? What actually is notable? Is a hockey player whose played one NHL game notable(how many games??) (Some people actually dont like hockey, believe it or not). For singers I remember aaron walpoles 3rd place finish but that was some time ago. There are many professions that I would say are more notable such as doctors or engineers who come from St Thomas with many publications and many lives saved. Londons page mentions notable londeners and includes deceased residents, should we?, if they're notable? So my open question is basically what is the criteria for this list? what do you think? Jgale061 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently a profesional blogger was added to this page. We could include it I looked at a davidcubed page and he sounds legit. the only problem i have is a professional blogger notable over a professional doctor or engineer as mentioned above. I could be wrong I may not know his background entirely. Maybe criteria is necessary to prevent removals like mine. London Ontario indeed has a set of guidlines though not entirely mandated. 'Anyone born or currently living in London', this makes Racheal McAdams and Joe thornton notable Londoners, which they clearly are st thomas is there home. Could we at least start with a simple criteria that they have valid wiki page stubs, that way if they are indeed not notable for enclycolpedic addtion there stubs will be deleted by third parties etc. Thanks for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, when entering names in the "Notable residents" section of an article, as others have pointed out, in the vast majority of cases unless the proposed people already have an existing article in the encyclopedia they should be excluded. Without this as a basic criteria, Wikipeida is far too easily used as a "promotional tool". A good rule of thumb is that if an individual subject person already has their own article and thus has been able to pass the general "notability" and "reliable source" policy requirements in the encyclopedia as a whole needed for any new article with a living person as its subject, they should be considered for inclusion in a "notable person" section for a community. Until they are capable of meeting those standards, it seems to me that their appropriateness in the list is somewhat dubious. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Name origin

The source that I added, indicates that the community was named in 1825 for Thomas Talbot by its oldest residents William Drake and Daniel Rapelje. The "St." was purportedly added as a sign of respect for Talbot, as the primary early land developer in the area. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just heard from some people it was named after the st and not thomas talbot, thanks a bunch for clearing it up Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Garney

I like the idea of adding him to the notable residents but would also think that Hap day should be included if we have deceased people...Maybe Notable residents is misleading and needs a better title if we include deceased residents. I guess a question should be posed as such; Should deceased residents be included and if so the title of the section should probably be changed to reflect that. And finally Would Hap day be okay to add, even though he only lived in st t? Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Millersburg

Ive heard from (an unreliable soure so to say) that St. Thomas incorporated a small village of Millersburg when it became a city. Does anyone have information on this event, thanksOttawa4ever (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on St. Thomas, Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211031041/http://www.downtownstthomas.com:80/web/pages/about-us/history.php to http://www.downtownstthomas.com/web/pages/about-us/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St. Thomas, Ontario. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615053347/http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_7016_1.html to http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_7016_1.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jumbo2St.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)