Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Montreal/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The

) 20:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at

WP:RM 76.66.198.171 (talk

) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This was resolved, and everything is back to where they were before the cut-and-paste-move / hist-merge / requested-move drama. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mount Royal was moved again, this time to

) 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the Air Canada headquarters are in Montreal? Would one mind taking a photo of it? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

7373 Côte-Vertu West ? That's the maintenance hangar, IIRC, is that really also the corporate HQ? 76.66.196.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Nevermind, looked at it in Google Maps, I'm thinking of a location further west... Note to anyone taking photos... the building indicated by the street address is on territory of the Trudeau International Airport and has frequent police patrols... I figure they might question why you're taking photos of an area close to a runway. 76.66.196.85 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a picture of Air Canada's HQ (at Trudeau Airport) on flickr: [1] .--MTLskyline (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Flickr Photo - I'll try to get this one (get permission to have it relicensed) It would also be great to get another photo from the front (if it is marked as AC's headquarters) - As for the police, I think it'll be alright if you calmly explain that you are getting the AC Headquarters building from the front to put on Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So far, no response from the owner of the photograph... WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The guy on Flickr responded and relicensed his photo. I thank him for it. I would still like another photo with the HQ placement as clearer and more prominent, but in any event the HQ photo we have now is very majestic. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a "bottom importance" level should be added, like some other Wikprojects have. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that there's a Cuisine of New York City, perhaps a Montreal companion is in order?

Cuisine of Montreal

70.29.208.69 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The article should at least mention the bagels and the smoked meat. I strongly urge you to create an account and create the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just when you thought it couldn't possibly be raised again, this issue is back! This time, the discussion is here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ughh.. It's like these things come in cycles. Why isn't Montreal/Quebec spelled with an "é", Montreal is not the second largest French-speaking city in the world!, and of course this subject. I really wish that people would take a quick glance through the archives to see if its already been discussed and resolved instead of digging up old issues. Oh well, I left my two cents for them to hear anyway.--MTLskyline (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much is left to do before I submit

. A reference attesting to the construction dates of the three bridges to Repentigny, and that of earlier structures if any, and perhaps choosing a better color scheme for the tables. I was told that the picture of Jacques Cartier Bridge, as artistically sound as it is, is unsuitable for encyclopedic purposes.

Any other comments? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then, the nomination is at

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}

- timed 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of bridges in Montreal

.

See

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1

.

One reviewer wrote, However, I would like the article to be reviewed by (...) as a French speaker, before fully supporting. Is there someone here who could help? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It got promoted! -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we add something like (more...) to the end of rows in Template:Montreal landmarks. The link would then point to a list article or a category, whichever is most useful. What do you think? -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am blind! I see now that some of the left-side titles are clickable... Some are missing though. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Added links for the missing ones except "Other structures" -- for Churches and Museums I had to create an article to redirect to the category since the link directly to the category didn't appear in the Navbox.

Langhorner (talk

) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're talking. ;-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some wikiprojects have clearly defined criteria for what constitutes a top-, high-, or medium-importance article within their scope. I have noticed that here, we don't. For the projects that do have specific criteria, a top-level article would be one about the project's central theme (in our case, that would be articles about Montreal per se).

So I propose a similar guideline for our project here: a top-level article would be the article

, for example, a featured article about pro wrestling, could be high-importance to WikiProject Professional Wrestling, but to us it is low importance.)

In the immediate, that would mean demoting Montreal Canadiens from top-importance to high-importance, given that the article is not about the city itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been active on this page but if I may just chime in, I would not agree with demoting the Habs (and I say this as one who is no longer a Habs fan!) This team is such a part of the city's self-image, history and international reputation that I think it should be "top." That said, I don't know how other equally legendary sports clubs are ranked on other city WP projects...

talk

) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Yankees has been rated Mid Importance by Wikiproject New York City. Liverpool F.C. has been rated Top Importance by Wikiproject Merseyside. So such ratings are not that consistent. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My rationale here is that while the Montreal Canadiens are indeed an important part of the Montreal psyche, so much that it would be unthinkable that the article not be part of this wikiproject, it is not a core concept such as History of Montreal. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was the mid 1970s, sure the Montreal Canadiens would be Top-level importance. But they have lost a considerable amount of their original meaning to the city (how many local players are on the team?), and today they are only of High importance, IMO. That said, it is a very close call. I'm okay with either Top or High.--MTLskyline (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with that. Rene Levesque Boul should not be high, it should be mid, since it is not that important to understanding the Montreal area's history, development, economy, society, culture, etc. Top would be any subject needed to understand the Montreal area's core concepts, which would be "Montreal", "History of Montreal", "Greater Montreal" etc. Using the template is not a good guide to classification, since we have badly developed articles for core concepts, and well developed articles for other subjects because of niche interests (the Montreal Impact for example). The template doesn't link to some less developed articles, but does link to other well developed articles. The Lachine Canal is much more important to the history and development of Montreal than the Dorchester Blvd. The template is rather unbalanced in many regards. And rigid "criteria" other projects use seem to be, well, bad. They rate "high" importance things that have very little importance (like a 2 month long term caretaker Premier), and low other things that are highly important (like the Lachine Canal, the industrial heartland of Canada for the 19th century... is rated low in Canada because it is a "canal"... seesh) Rigid importance ratings don't work because the criteria are too unbalanced with no thought on actual importance, just blind categorization. It leaves the impression that people don't know what's important at all. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add the optional "Bottom" level of importance that some wikiprojects use. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just a word that an American colleague just created a short stub for

) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Montreal. I just wanted to let you all know that a university handled by your WikiProject,

. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, FYI, I've nominated articles on two Montreal restaurants for deletion:

) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Montreal from Mount Royal4.jpg has been mainpaged as the Picture of the Day for 2009 Dec 27. It also happens to be a Featured Picture.

70.29.208.10 (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)