Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Newspapers

message: 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)
replies: text: I appreciate your response, and agree we're dealing with two separate issues. - Brithgob 15:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Media

message: 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)
thread_title: Spelling howlers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legislative Building 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Small" etc 

message: 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)
thread_title: Grammatical and spelling howlers

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Multicultural Capital of Canada" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Links are fine, but put them in the "External links" section. --Kmsiever 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Railway - Street vs. Avenue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Friesguy

message: 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)
thread_title:  William Shatner 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Length and quality

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --Kmsiever 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further re: length

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oops. Got carried away. I think I have remedied the default. Masalai 23:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic edit by Kmsiever

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs More Casual Feel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ignore sillies 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: References