Talk:Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal

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

"Project Summary"

Wikipedia is not the place to publish this document. If it has been published somewhere else, feel free to reference that source and incorporate some of the information contained with in. Clerks. (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're all pro-GRAND Canal

This article only views the GRAND Canal proposal as a good thing, not mentioning the potential environmental and social destruction of such a grande scheme.

talk) 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, I don't think that the acronym GRAND needs to be in the title. "Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal" is more than enough.

talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Dear Mr. Super cyclist|FUNgus guy:
Mr. Kierans, who is 95 and still going strong, thanks you sincerely for your interest and enthusiastically welcomes a debate and study of his GRAND Canal. He has been around long enough to know that there is no such thing as just a "good thing" and acknowledges that, as with any large scale proposal, there are bound to be ancilliary impacts.
What is of utmost importance is that there be objective studies as soon as possible to determine what those impacts are. Those impacts must then be wieghed against the benefits of the GCNA. The problem seems to be that people are afraid to talk about the GCNA much less study it. Why people are afraid to even talk about a proposal that has, at least potentially, such tremendous benefits and would help to avoid such horrendous catastophes would be an interesting discussion in itself.
In any event, if you could provide Mr. Kierans (on this discussion page) with the specifics and the details of "the potential environmental and social destruction" that you refer to above he would be happy to discuss and debate them with you. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkierans (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my greatest concern with the article as it stands is the language. How is water flowing into the ocean "wasted"? Is that not the natural flow of things? And how does a water diversion turn into a "recycling project"?
Anadromous fish will not be able to spawn upriver. Communities such as Kashechewan will have to relocate (again). And exactly how does Mr. Kierans propose to send the freshwater from James Bay southward? That's a lot of Canadian Shield to lie pipeline through.
talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal — This project has been most commonly known as the GRAND Canal for fifty years. Having the word GRAND in the title make this article accessible to individuals searching for it on the internet using it's most commonly known name i.e. "GRAND Canal". The current Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal page has no content.It would be helpful if there was a re-direct from the new Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal page to the new Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal page Mkierans (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

As I stated above, this project has been commonly know as the GRAND Canal for more than fifty years. My problem is that when I search Google for "GRAND Canal" this Article does not appear: at least not in the first ten pages of the search results. A lot of other Grand Canals appear but not this one. You may justifiably feel that the title is too long and cumbersome but this is the title that the author of the project decided to give to it and I think this decision should be respected. Moreover, I don't think that it is a good idea for Wikipedia to be changing the names of projects just because they don't comply with the the editors penchant for brevity. I moved

Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal first. Mkierans (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oppose you don't need a fully spelled out acronym and the acronym itself in a page title.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a good chance that no matter what the article title is, Google won't rank the article any higher if their PageRank algorithm deems it unworthy. I would like to know if there's a way to modify their algorithm, though. --Bxj (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I suppose you are right. We don't need the acronym and words the acronyn represent in the title unless it matters whether or not anyone can find the article by searching under the projects most commonly used name. However, we believe that it does matter whether or not interested individuals access this article. Perhaps you could explain to me what harm is being done, aside from offending your sense of brevity, by this very simple renaming.Mkierans (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED: So is this article going to be moved/renamed to "Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal" so that people searching it under the name it has been referred to over the last fifty yeears can find it or not? If so, when? If not, can I appeal and how?Mkierans (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GCNArecyling solution1.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GCNArecyling solution1.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review

deletion guidelines
before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is
    fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try
    Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal&oldid=1207412898"