# Talk:Frank Slide

I would like to find a new reference picture.  This one is out of proportion, and it is impossible to tell how large the mountain is, how devastating and huge the slide.  I have seen Turtle Mountain and the slide that covered the town of Frank in person, and this picture does not do it justice in any way.  That there is a man standing in front of it skews the perception all the more.  I have pictures of my own, would it be acceptable to donate one of my own pictures to this article?   72.185.43.62 20:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great; you will have to register though in order to upload pictures to wikipedia. --Qyd 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
File:Frank Slide from NW flank of Turtle Mountain.JPG  Fourtildas (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add this image, perhaps under "Legacy":
(Moved to article)  Fourtildas (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good picture indeed.  How about using it in place of the existing panorama, which is really quite poor and is something I have wanted to replace for some time now? Resolute 04:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. Should mention size of debris field, 1.6 km beyond the river and up to 100 m higher (from topo maps). Also, the bulk of the debris is piled 30 m deep just north of the highway. Fourtildas (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Slide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have done the prose and the photos, and will check out the sources tomorrow. -- Dianna (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
add conversion for metric tonnes in the lead.
"Multiple factors led to the slide: Turtle Mountain's unstable formation left it in a consistent state of instability, leading area native tribes to call it "the mountain that moves".  Coal mining operations may have weakened the mountain's internal structure, as did a wet winter and cold snap on the night of the slide." The colon indicates that a list of causes will follow, but there's only one cause in this sentence. Either put a period instead of the colon, or combine everything into one sentence. Would "constant" be better than "consistent"?
"Initial reports on the disaster speculated that Frank had been "nearly wiped out" by the mountain's collapse and it was thought the rockslide was triggered by an earthquake, volcanic eruption or explosion within the mine." This should be two sentences, as it contains two fairly unrelated pieces of information.
"The town proper survived" This might read better as "the town centre survived"
IMO, that can imply that much of the town was destroyed, except the actual centre.  I tried rewording to "the majority of the town survived." Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"and was considered the largest until the Hope Slide in 1965" Was considered? Is there some doubt?
"It was thought by some residents" I would go with "Some residents thought". It's more lively and shorter.
"It was feared that the men within the mountain had been buried with no hope of survival" Again, passive voice. Who feared it? be more specific and direct.
"It was too dangerous to use the opening they created due to falling rocks from above, but encouraged by their success, the miners cut a new shaft that broke through under an outcropping of rock that protected them from falling debris." Awkward, probably too long. Can it be re-worded? How about starting with "The opening they created was too dangerous to use because rocks were falling from above."
"The miners found that the slide had devastated the row of cottages that served as homes for their families, killing people at random." It's not clear that the slide did the killing. Please re-word
"the train that was supposed to take them from Morrissey, British Columbia to Frank forgot to pick them up" trains don't forget things; people forget things. Can this be re-worded, or do you think it's ok?
Personally I think it is ok. "The train" in this case implies its conductor forgot. I'm willing to reword if you insist that is incorrect. Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will put in an alternate wording.
"Though rocks continued to fall around him, Choquette ran for 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) through a dust cloud that left him with little visibility to warn the oncoming locomotive of the danger." How about "Rocks continued to fall, creating dust that reduced visibility, but Choquette ran for 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) to warn the oncoming locomotive of the danger."
I'm not a fan of the two pauses introduced by the commas, but since you're wanting the falling rocks and dust cloud joined together, I've used an alternate rewording. Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have tried yet another wording. The section that doesn't work is "left him with little visibility to warn the oncoming locomotive".
"a layer of limestone was pushed over top of softer materials" Do anticlines get pushed? Not sure this is accurate.
Alas, I am not an expert in geology.  Please feel free to reword if you think another phrasing is more accurate. Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"Miners noticed the mountain had become increasingly unstable in the months preceding the slide; they felt small tremors and the superintendent reported a "general squeeze" in the mountain at depths between 1,100 metres (3,600 ft) and 1,500 metres (4,900 ft) where the coal broke from its seam and was said to practically mine itself." This sentence is too long; please re-word it or re-do the punctuation or break it in two.
"GSC geologists concluded that the weather conditions ... was the probable trigger." Make the tenses agree.
"It was said to have been the coldest night of the winter" Re-word this; get rid of the passive voice or be specific about who said it was the coldest night. For example, "Historian Tim Horton said it was the coldest night of the winter" or "The overnight temperature of -18c was the coldest that winter".
"It was suggested that a layer of air was trapped" re-word please
"It was thought by some that the entire town of Frank had been buried" re-word please
"Frank is now home to about 200 residents and about a dozen homes exist in the path geologists predict the next slide will occur." Not sure; how about "Frank is now home to about 200 residents, and about a dozen homes are within the predicted path of the next slide"
 "A museum and tourist stop" Should this be "tourist shop"? This is okay
"Its rock face covers deposits of limestone and coal." According to the Alberta Culture website, there are lower layers of softer rock (sandstone and shale) covered by a layer of older, more durable limestone. The strata are nearly vertical. This description might be more apt here, as it better describes why the rock face fell.
All prose concerns have now been addressed.
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I have placed the citations above the bibliography to comply with the usual format. A semicolon should not be used as a shortcut for bold; a semicolon indicates a definition list. This is important for people accessing the page with a screen reader.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 
No copyvio or overly close paraphrasing were found. All sources check out fine, and look reliable.
B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 
I would like to see a sentence or two added about bouldering activities in the debris field. Suggested source: Fink, Chris; Norman, Marcus; Tremaine, Daren. Bouldering in the Canadian Rockies. Surrey, BC: Rocky Mountain Books. ISBN 1-894765-38-9.  (Not a GA requirement - just a nice addition)
My ultimate goal is FA, and I will ensure I look into this book before that step. Thanks, Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Please change images (except for the panorama ) to the default size per Wikipedia:Images#How to place an image. (not a GA requirement, but some people have an image size set in their local preferences if they have vision problems, and you are overriding that).
Forgot to check the image settings when I started.  Fixed, and added alt text. Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
GA review on hold for one week pending resolution of prose concerns. -- Dianna (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
All should hopefully be addressed.  I've added notes above where necessary. Thanks for the review! Resolute 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have done a few more tweeks to the prose. An interesting article, well done. I am passing the article to GA; Good luck on your FA bid! -- Dianna (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you!  Your thorough review on prose will be extremely helpful in getting to the next step.  Thanks again, Resolute 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The town of Frank is in Alberta, not in Northwest Territories.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.232.66 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 

I can't believe that this is still a point of confusion.  In 1903, the time of the slide, there was no province of Alberta - which was only created in 1905.  The community of Frank was at the time within the District of Alberta, part of the NWT.  Only between 1905 and 1979 was Frank within the province of Alberta; after 1979 Frank ceased to exist as an autonomous entity and became part of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, Alberta.  Incidentally, Frank was never incorporated, so was technically never a town although it had all of the attribues of one - population, post office, train station. Ian mckenzie (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read the entire article, not just the first sentence, before running off making assumptions.  At the time of the slide, Frank was very much part of the Northwest Territories.  The lead, and the article body, both clearly state that present day Frank is part of the Crowsnest Pass municipality, in the province of Alberta. Resolute 13:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I agree entirely.  I was responding to the Talk post above, not the current article.Ian mckenzie (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So was I.  ;) Resolute 20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to revise the wording somehow to reflect that it lay within the former borders of the Northwest Territory? Leaving it as-is is just asking for revision wars. DarrenBaker (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That is exactly what the first sentence of the background section says.  The lead explains the event in proper historical context, and I am not fond of the idea of dumbing it down because people can't be bothered to read the article before "correcting" the lead sentence. Resolute 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, there has only been one revert since I created the edit notice.  Perhaps that has quite improved the situation. Resolute 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there a (Wikipedia?) convention for this, like "Frank, NWT, now part of CNP, Alberta"? If you want to get picky, it was the Middle Fork of The Old Man River, now known as the Crowsnest River, a tributary of the Oldman River. Keith McClary (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That statement already exists.  The problem is that people simply need to learn how to read.  It is clearly stated in the lead, and in the section that deals with the modern day, that Frank is now a part of Alberta. Resolute 15:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
.
That's a bit of an insult.  If large numbers of people keep making this mistake, there's a reason for it.  Maybe we can do more. You claim that it's "stated in the lead", but I look at the lead right now and I see nothing for a full long paragraph and a half.  There's also nothing in the infobox.  If there was an explanation right when people first encounter the source of confusion as opposed to expecting them to read the entire article (which those of us who have physically visited the site definitely will not bother to do), it might help a lot.  Also I'd expect that everyone naturally assumes that when someone talks about Frank, they'd use CURRENT location terminology, not historical terminology.  Perhaps the latter is natural and automatic for historians, who frequently deal with places and locations that no longer exist, but it's not for the rest of us, especially when we don't have all the provincial incorporation dates memorized.
.
I'm going to be bold and put it right in the opening sentence. Or maybe some kind of superscript or reference.  Is there a wikipedia page that explains the use of historical naming conventions for locations? That'd be good and could be used anywhere that user confusion is frequent.
CraigWyllie (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You may call it an insult, but it is the truth.  And god forbid we expect people to read a paragraph and a half before rushing to "correct" what isn't wrong. But whatever. That said, I converted your note to an end-note. Resolute 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Whilst carrying out research in connection with another project I located this page as it has pertinent information regarding the project I am working on. I had no trouble at all understanding that Franks was located within the Northwest Territories in 1903 and was transferred in 1907 to Alberta Province. The statement is well written in English and understandable. As others have pointed out people reading the item should READ what is written and not assume that they know what they read before entering into a discussion about what was or was not written. I am not a Canadian, have never - unfortunately been to Canada, English is not my mother tongue but I have no trouble in reading, writing or speaking it. If others make the same mistake it doesn't mean that they are right and the author is wrong but that many people do not know how to read. If a million people stand on the edge of a precipice and 999,999 jump to their death does it make the last one the idiot? No it means they showed some sense. Read what is written not what you want it to read. Comprende?The Geologist (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Could I point out that while I 100% grasp the concept of historical changes to boundaries over time, that I find it very weird to have the page say "Frank, Alberta" and then have Alberta link to the North West Territories. The NWT link in the side bar, is for a present one, not a historical article, as is the link in Alberta. I understand there is a note, but if I just copy the sentence, or don't read footnotes at exactly the place it appears (because if it is so important, it shouldn't be a footnote). Why can't this say "Frank, District of Alberta, NWT", or just say Alberta like the Fort Edmonton page says it is in Alberta, even though it the time period of it's existence entirely predates the province of alberta SJrX10 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Fort Edmonton example is different because it is focused on a current place.  This article is written about the incident that happened in 1903.  And part of the weirdness you noted comes from the fact that yet another person came along, ignored the notes, and "helpfully" introduced an anachronism. Resolute 23:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is absurd. Simply state that it was NWT at the time but now part of Alberta. Just having mention of NWT causes any reader who is familiar with Frank, Alberta, to believe this is incorrect. 96.56.130.106 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes to this section which unfortunately reflected commonly-held mythology about Frank.  First, there was never a place called 'New Frank'; it was always just part of Frank.  That portion of town north of the railway (the present community) was laid out on the originial 1901 survey and its first three buildings were constructed in 1901-1902, before the Slide.  In 1905 the mine placed the remaining lots up for sale and it soon filled with houses, long before the 1911 relocations.
Second, the northern part of town did not receive buildings from the part of Frank that was moved.  The mine-owned houses were moved only a few hundred metres west onto Colomer Avenue, joining other company-owned houses built around 1908.  (Most of the Colomer Avenue houses were subsequently removed to Blairmore in the 1920s after the closure of the Frank mine.)  Some commercial buildings were torn down, but many were moved to the newly-surveyed Sulphur Springs subdivision, located inbetween Frank and Blairmore.  Sulphur Springs was also supposed to receive all of the houses from the north part of Frank - the present community - which never moved despite being located within the 'danger area'.  Sulphur Springs was not a success, and the commercial buildings there disappeared within fifteen years.  The only building known to have been moved into the part of Frank north of the tracks was the Union Hotel (later renamed the Frank Hotel), located only a few metres outside of the 'danger zone'. 
This is a lot of detail that probably does not need to go into this article, hence the brevity of my correction.
Many factual mis-steps regarding the Frank Slide reside in older history books, though the authors no doubt did their best with the resources they had.  An abbreviated version of my paper on this subject appears in the March 2012 newsletter of the Crowsnest Heritage Initiative, available here: http://www.crowsnestheritage.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/March-2012.pdf .  I can email a copy of the original footnoted paper to anyone interested in references.Ian mckenzie (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I enjoyed the copy you emailed me previously.  And certainly, if newer research notes older publications are incorrect, the myths should be removed.  Thanks, Resolute 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Change location "Northwest Territories" to "Alberta"  The Frank Slide did not occur in NWT. LeeannL (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

LeeannL, please see the first note in the article. The province of Alberta was not created until 1905, which was two years after the disaster. Maxim(talk) 21:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The source for many of the facts links to Anderson 2005 which just brings the Frank Slide page up. This should be rectified. Pushelildaisies (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Pushelildaisies, the inline citations pointing to Anderson link to the full citation in the sources section, specifically:
Anderson, Frank W. (2005) [1968], Wilson, Diana (ed.), Triumph and Tragedy in the Crowsnest Pass, Surrey, British Columbia: Heritage House, ISBN 1-894384-16-4
Maxim(talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Maxim thank you for clarifying Pushelildaisies (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

location of the town was in Alberta not north west territories 66.222.152.195 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Asked and answered above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Frank slide is actually in Alberta Canada. Hope this helps. 96.45.10.22 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the relevant discussion for this here. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Change North West Territories to Alberta 2604:3D09:979:2000:B485:36A8:F270:283B (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See the footnote afterwards. Alberta was not created yet. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Frank is not in The Northwest Territories, it’s in southern Alberta near the US border. Only 1000 km difference, I know. And “North-West” is not hyphenated. Isn’t there some kind of grammar test before you get editor status? 2604:3D09:67A:6400:D10:9B50:25A0:9718 (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the explanation here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The province of Alberta did not yet exist in 1903—it was carved out of NWT in 1905. There is a footnote to note this. As for "North-West", when the 1870 Imperial Order-in-Council transferred Rupert’s Land and The North-Western Territory to Canada, the subsequent territory was referred to as the "North-West Territories", and the spelling was only amended in 1906 to drop all hyphenated forms, thus giving the modern spelling. See also [1]. Maxim(talk) 15:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The town of Frank is not in the Northwest Territories, it’s in Alberta. 207.148.176.60 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bring this whole NWT or Alberta thing up again but really I think that the decisions made here are quite stupid. Let me mention this, for the category "1903 in Northwest Territories" note that it is Northwest not North-West, it's referring to what is now the northwest territories not the former entity. Also there are categories such as "1903 in Alberta" all the way into the 1800s, even though "Alberta" didn't exist back then. Because it is for events that occurred in what is now Alberta. This is how categories work with former entities in the US (See Indian Territory etc.) so what's the difference here? I have no issue with the framing being "this took place in the Alberta District of the North-West Territories, present day Alberta" in the article itself, but this cannot be applied to Categories as well. Here's another example, the category: 1980s in Eritrea. Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in the 90s. So should articles in this category be in the category 1980s in Ethiopia? According to the precedent set by every other historical category on this website NO!
I am going to change this and if someone reverts it there will be an Edit War II. 
Why is the article 1900 Edmonton Municipal Election in the category "1900 in Alberta"? Why does the category "1900 in Alberta" exist? Qwexcxewq (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

First things first. Actively threatening to start an edit war, and referring to a longstanding consensus decision as "stupid" is highly disruptive behaviour that can get you blocked, Qwexcxewq; if I hadn't been fixing junk in this article for a long time, I'd be putting on my admin hat and giving you a formal warning on your talk page. Please do not think that it is okay to ever say that for any reason. You are welcome to disagree with the current consensus, and to civilly put forward your recommendations for change. Simply because someone made a mistake years ago is not an excuse to perpetuate that mistake. The category "1900 in Alberta" was created by a person who miscreated a bunch of similar categories, back in 2015; since it was so long ago, I don't think it would be productive to ask them why they made that error; when I have time, I will probably just fix it. It's a good example of why it is so important to fully understand the subject of the article before adding categories. The standard is pretty clear, when it comes to dated geographic categories: they should refer to the factual situation relevant to the geographic region as of that date. A case could be made for including Category:District of Alberta, as well as Category:1903 in the Northwest Territories (which should also probably be renamed to eliminate the "the"); if you want to (civilly, and without threats) make that argument, I think there is a good chance that supportive consensus could be reached. Perhaps you might want to try starting that conversation. Risker (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the unproffesional message I was off my rocker yesterday for unrelated issues and I'll try to be better in the future. I don't believe that the Alberta categories going past 1905 was a mistake, since I've seen this done in many other categories (1975 in Serbia, 1975 in Georgia (country)).
A good example that I think we could follow the example of for this is the Territory of Orleans, whose events are put in the category "1810s in the Territory of Orleans" which is in the category for "1810s in Louisiana" (which succeeded it). This could work if there was a category made for the district of Alberta, that would be put in the related category for Alberta the province as well as the Northwest Territories. Ex. "1903 in the District of Alberta" would be in "1903 in Alberta" and "1903 in the Northwest Territories", and the same could be done for the other districts, given that there are articles to put in said categories. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
It could also be done so that the article is in both "1903 in Alberta" and "1903 in the Northwest Territories" as done on the article Calgary Fire of 1886 Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'm traveling right now and will read it in more depth later today.  Risker checklist (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)