Talk:Pembroke, Ontario

message: I've done some general clean up of the article, and also added the standard city "info box". I was forced to move the two images to the bottom of the page because they messed with the text alignment after I added the info box. The only way to fix that is to have enough information on the page that the text extends past the bottom of the info box. Hopefully in the future as I add more information the article will expand and the images can be integrated back into the main body of the article. --The Lone Bard 04:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any broadcast outlet that has a transmitter in Pembroke is to be listed here whether the station's operations are in Pembroke or not. This is standard Wikipedia format; any removal of it can and will be considered vandalism. Bearcat 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info. It just seems odd to list it as "Pembroke Media" when in reality the media is simply re-broadcast here, it's not really "Pembroke's" media. Seems a problem on Wikipedia's part. Sorry for my suggestion. --The Lone Bard 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll see if there's a way to clarify it a bit. But it is correct to list any and all media outlets that specifically broadcast to Pembroke, even if they're based in Toronto or Ottawa. Bearcat 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can believe that it is wikipedia's policy, but doesn't it seem weird though? Under media it also lists "Print", which only contains The Pembroke Observer. Yet I can get the Ottawa Citizen or the Toronto Star in Pembroke? This seems on par with TV and radio media? Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong and in reality we would need a printing press or a photocopier making copies of the papers here in Pembroke? Thanks again for the help. I'll see what else I can do to improve the page without touching media. --The Lone Bard 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the more appropriate metaphor would be if the Star or the Citizen had their own separate Pembroke editions. It's because the stations have transmitters in Pembroke that they qualify to be listed here. I understand that it may seem weird, but that's just because of how you're looking at it — we don't base these media lists on whether the station's programming originates locally or not, but on whether there's a CRTC-licensed transmitter in the community regardless of where the programming originates. But, for example, if you were getting The Bear directly from the Ottawa transmitter on 106.9, then we wouldn't list it here even though it's the same station that you're currently getting on a Pembroke-based 99.7 relay. (And actually, CHRO is still legally a Pembroke station even though almost everything about it is in Ottawa now; as far as the CRTC is concerned Pembroke is still the legal city of license. It's hard to fully explain if you don't understand the intricacies of broadcast regulation, but legally Channel 5 in Pembroke is still the real station and Channel 43 in Ottawa is the relay. The fact that the studio is in Ottawa now doesn't actually change that.) Bearcat 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Clean Up

message: How much of this is even relevant? As far as I know none of the listed TV channels are actually IN Pembroke, and the only radio station in Pembroke is Star 69. I'm considering deleting all mention of Pembroke "media" other than Star 69 and Pembroke Observer. --The Lone Bard 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any broadcast outlet that has a transmitter in Pembroke is to be listed here whether the station's operations are in Pembroke or not. This is standard Wikipedia format; any removal of it can and will be considered vandalism. Bearcat 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info. It just seems odd to list it as "Pembroke Media" when in reality the media is simply re-broadcast here, it's not really "Pembroke's" media. Seems a problem on Wikipedia's part. Sorry for my suggestion. --The Lone Bard 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll see if there's a way to clarify it a bit. But it is correct to list any and all media outlets that specifically broadcast to Pembroke, even if they're based in Toronto or Ottawa. Bearcat 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can believe that it is wikipedia's policy, but doesn't it seem weird though? Under media it also lists "Print", which only contains The Pembroke Observer. Yet I can get the Ottawa Citizen or the Toronto Star in Pembroke? This seems on par with TV and radio media? Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong and in reality we would need a printing press or a photocopier making copies of the papers here in Pembroke? Thanks again for the help. I'll see what else I can do to improve the page without touching media. --The Lone Bard 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the more appropriate metaphor would be if the Star or the Citizen had their own separate Pembroke editions. It's because the stations have transmitters in Pembroke that they qualify to be listed here. I understand that it may seem weird, but that's just because of how you're looking at it — we don't base these media lists on whether the station's programming originates locally or not, but on whether there's a CRTC-licensed transmitter in the community regardless of where the programming originates. But, for example, if you were getting The Bear directly from the Ottawa transmitter on 106.9, then we wouldn't list it here even though it's the same station that you're currently getting on a Pembroke-based 99.7 relay. (And actually, CHRO is still legally a Pembroke station even though almost everything about it is in Ottawa now; as far as the CRTC is concerned Pembroke is still the legal city of license. It's hard to fully explain if you don't understand the intricacies of broadcast regulation, but legally Channel 5 in Pembroke is still the real station and Channel 43 in Ottawa is the relay. The fact that the studio is in Ottawa now doesn't actually change that.) Bearcat 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pembroke media

message: I am from the pembroke area and I found the link to pembroke sucks usefull and interesting. It is as far as I know the only forum dedicated to pembroke and the pembroke area. I say: as far as policy is concerned, coming on here everyday to remove a link that walks the line between usefull and not usefull is imho a little excesive. I understand that the people who run pembroke sucks also don't seem to know when enough is enough (I myself have removed large adds for their site from the pembroke article) and they should get the hint (like.. you don't own this site, and technically your link shouldn't be here. So why do you think it is somehow your right to post it?)but really.... its a link... its not even in the main body of the article. This is not a gateway to some larger problem. Let it go. stop being a link nazi. and stop posting your link where its not welcome. This is not one of the articles where links are used to support points of view (like on, i don't know, white power sites) so whats the big deal? --Matt D 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pembroke sucks.com 

message: “This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Oak Ridges Moraine, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the links up for discussion, but I'd like to point out several things. First, there is a policy about external links that we try to follow; it's designed to prevent the addition of useless links, especially spam and vanity links. Second, vandalizing other articles to get your point across (see Special:Contributions/69.223.62.253) isn't going to help your cause one bit. Third, nobody owns an article, so telling someone else to stop editing it (unless they are vandalizing it) is unacceptable. Fourth, what do you mean "bringing in a higher admin to help"? I mentioned the vandalism on the Canadian notice board, but didn't recruit "higher admins" (there's no such thing; there are beaurocrats and stewards, though). Fifth, using other IPs or open proxies is irrelevant - we can block 'em all if need be, and such actions will only serve to alert us to those open proxies. Sixth, this is not my "pet project"; I edit articles to be encyclopedic, and have removed many spam links from many articles - this is no different, and I otherwise don't have an interest in this article. As you've said, I tend to "cull garbage out", so our perception of "garbage" seems to be different. Let's discuss the links in the separate section I've created. Mindmatrix 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from article page

message: Since a few people seem to believe my actions to remove three external links are wrong, I'd like to open a discussion about it. Please note that Wikipedia has a policy about external links. Your discussion about the inclusion of these links should be made with consideration to that policy.
The links in question are:
* PembrokeSucks.com 	 
* The Ottawa Valley 	 
* Pembroke Online
Do we keep any of these; if so, which ones, and why. This is not a vote; inclusion will be based on merit and consensus only. Mindmatrix 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're quite right to remove them. None of the websites provide any meaningful information on Pembroke. Two of the sites are merely forums, which WP:EL recommends not linking, and I feel the third contains objectionable amounts of advertising combined with minimal information (basically it's a linkfarm).  --NormanEinstein 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All three seem to clearly violate the linking policy, although it is quite common to see similar links for other locations of comparable size.  Our policies are supposed to be flexibile but I don't see the need in this case since the services provided can already be found via the city page and the aforementioned Daily Observer  which I would include.  --JGGardiner 17:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: "I'll put the links up for discussion"
About time.  Who said democracy is dead?
"Second, vandalizing other articles to get your point across (see Special:Contributions/69.223.62.253) isn't going to help your cause one bit."
Strange observation, this discussion wasn't tabled until it occured. 
:Wrong. This discussion wasn't started until I noticed the comment above by Matt D (User:Olsdude). the comments left on the article that I moved to this talk page were also much more worthwhile than the random deletion of articles (or sections); these deletions were clearly targetting me, since all of those articles were primarily edited by me. Mindmatrix 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a strong record of positive contributions to Wikipedia. In the few instances in which someone has complained, I have always opened up a discussion to debate the issue (as I have here). What exactly is your point with this comment? Mindmatrix 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I never recruited Banno, and further your perceptions that he's "higher up in the food chain" is incorrect. We are both administrators, and have equal priviliges on Wikipedia. Your opinion of users on Wikipedia doesn't much matter, nor does mine. Note that sometimes, users keep watch of Recent changes, and may edit things that strike them as anomalous. That's probably how Banno got involved. If you'd prefer to believe conspiracy theories, that's your business. Mindmatrix 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I said we'd block open proxies, not all IPs. I suppose my wording was a tad ambiguous, so I'll apologize for that. Mindmatrix 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. Aside: Could you please use wikipedia-style formatting on WP; it keeps things a little neater, and makes it far easier to edit and add comments. Also, sign your comments by putting four tildes at the end, like so ~~~~. This helps us determine who said what. Mindmatrix 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment and link discussion continued

message: Hmm, seems this discussion is dying a quick death.  You wanted a discussion Mindmatrix, so, let's have one.
"forums should generally not be linked to"
Rules are meant to be guidelines, and as such, open to interpretation and bending, contorting and even breaking.  If one were to apply fundamentalist rules to this page, you could take out pretty much every link there as first, the Observer does not provide news, only teasers and then goes against the rules requiring people to pay for the media.  Second, the ads to the radio stations are chock full of ads as they are a commercial enterprise.  See, the point I'm making is that this is not information used to delve into Iranian politics and history, it's an iformation page on a town.  Hence, any links that provide further information that can be used interactively by a visitor is a plus rather than a minus.  In this case, a 'forum' provides what the reader will want as they can ask what the nightlife is like or how the beaches are.  Unlike a forum on a political subject where the reader is simply link  to 'Iranian Politics Forum' and then basiclly left to find the information they require for research or whatever amidst thousands of pages of text.
To continue with the rules as you cut them short:  "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard."  
Is a forum called 'Pembroke Sucks' and 'Pembroke Online' not related to the town?  I think it is and unless you can provide something showing that they are of poor quality I would have to think they belong there. 
Later MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.227.194 (talk • contribs) 
:First, I'm not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, so don't expect a discussion to be resolved immediately. It's common for discussions on WP to spread out over days, or sometimes weeks. Second, I'm not sure why you're directing comments about the Observer at me - not once did I indicate support to include that link (nor did I say it should be excluded); and why the hell would I care about their radio ads, anyway? Third, links to commercial organizations are OK, so long as the links are purely informational in nature. (For the record, I don't think this link belongs either, though it's more appropriate than any of the other links you've suggested.)
:You are correct saying that rules can be bent in certain circumstances, but the onus is thus on you to prove that, in this case, the links belong. The policy was designed for one reason, to prevent spam, vanity and otherwise useless links. If you want an exception, prove that the exception is valid. The fora links that I've removed are essentially equivalent to a bunch of people in a bar chatting about minutiae - they're useless, especially to an encyclopedia. The websites are of low quality, and pembrokesucks.com has a big, bold link to "Store"; that's rather spammy, don't you think?
:Don't try to reverse the situation. The onus is clearly on you to prove that these links are the exception to the rule. Three users, including me, have already indicated that they believe the sites are not of sufficient quality to include in WP. All you've said is that we should include them, ignoring policy, because  they're tangentially related to the city in some way. You'll need to do better than that. Given that the current consensus is to remove them, I will do just that; they'll be re-added if and when consensus about this issue changes. (In which consensus means providing solid proof, not simply vote-counting.) Mindmatrix 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readded links 

message: I have all the time in the world to keep putting this link up. Save us all some time and just leave it.
: And we have all the time in the world to revert it. It does not belong here. Bearcat 02:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PembrokeSucks.com 

message: Perhaps some history on Pembroke's origins could be added?  The stuff there is very recent and consists mainly of a summary of the economic situation.  I'll see if I can find something.  Blotto adrift 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that myself. I'm open to a re-write of the "History" section which talks about the settlement and past events in Pembroke and maybe the current information under the "History" heading can be moved to a newer heading. --The Lone Bard 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, added some history and created a new economy heading.  I've added an economic summary, but some of the stuff below that strikes me as somewhat POVish and the bits about the local music scene don't strike me as particularly relevant in the context of the whole town.  Thoughts?  Blotto adrift 03:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far your edits look really good to me. The last paragraph that talks about "tourism" and the local bands seem to lend themselves to POV. You could create a new heading call tourism and include information about real tourism such as the city's murals.--The Lone Bard 20:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the comments.  Added a few sentences at the end of the economy section.  Pembroke has a few museums, but most of the attractions listed on the city website are elsewhere in the area (Ottawa River rafting, Algnquin Park, Bonnechere Caves, etc).  Blotto adrift 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could mention the Farmers Market and maybe the Haunted History Walking Tour. I'd do it myself but my English writing skills are sub par. --The Lone Bard 06:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Any community in Ontario with a population of 10,000 may choose to incorporate as a city. Most do, but some do not (eg - Markham). Mindmatrix 15:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldnt have thought Pembroke had 10,000+ residents back in 1971 but maybe you're right. --184.175.1.120 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

text: You'll have to find physical copies of this data. See Historical Census Data open data request at Government of Canada for data before 1916. But also see Censuses at Library and Archives Canada Canadian Census Collection at Ancestry.com, and Statistics Canada Census Publications at Internet Archive. You can also peruse How to Find Census Data by Census Tract at  Thompson Rivers University Library, which has some historical data for Kamloops, and may provide insight into how to obtain it for Pembroke.  Good luck. Mindmatrix 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Hi, and thank you very much. You said that I need to make an open data request to find data before 1916. Does this mean that from 1916 until today, data is still without an open data request?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.251.139 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Anyone know the history behind Pembroke becoming a city? I was always told it was too small to be considered a real city but that it was done as some sort of honorific gesture? --184.175.1.120 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any community in Ontario with a population of 10,000 may choose to incorporate as a city. Most do, but some do not (eg - Markham). Mindmatrix 15:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldnt have thought Pembroke had 10,000+ residents back in 1971 but maybe you're right. --184.175.1.120 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: City

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pembroke, 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20111002221532/http://www.downtownpembroke.com/pembrokemuseum to http://www.downtownpembroke.com/pembrokemuseum
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007045932/http://www.rdfcc.ca/ to http://www.rdfcc.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone,
I'm not a Wikipedia editor, but rather a student who is currently doing a project on the City of Pembroke. If any of you are curious, I'm an undergraduate student in Urban and Regional Planning (known simply as "Planning") at the University of Waterloo.
I am trying to find the source for the historical demographics of Pembroke dating earlier than 2006, and preferably all the way back to 1841 as shown on the table entitled "Historical Populations" (previously "Census Population"). I can neither find this source in the edit history section (where I managed to pin down the edit where this table was added), nor on Google.
Could anyone try to inquire with me on this discrepancy? I'm asking because, unfortunately, many if not all Canadian universities don't accept Wikipedia as a "reliable academic source" in itself, and prefer any information be traced back to the original source.
Many thanks, and I hope that everyone who has contributed edits to this Page is safe and healthy during the ongoing pandemic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.251.139 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 November 2020 UTC (UTC)
:You'll have to find physical copies of this data. See Historical Census Data open data request at Government of Canada for data before 1916. But also see Censuses at Library and Archives Canada Canadian Census Collection at Ancestry.com, and Statistics Canada Census Publications at Internet Archive. You can also peruse How to Find Census Data by Census Tract at  Thompson Rivers University Library, which has some historical data for Kamloops, and may provide insight into how to obtain it for Pembroke.  Good luck. Mindmatrix 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and thank you very much. You said that I need to make an open data request to find data before 1916. Does this mean that from 1916 until today, data is still without an open data request?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.251.139 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical Populations" Section 

message: Hi,
I've noticed that for many Canadian towns, including those with a francophone minority, the French version tends to be a stub and/or not contain nearly as much information as the English article (this statement is not intended as an attack on Wikipedia). The French article for Pembroke is better and definitely not a stub, but there's a good chunk of information that can be added into the French version from the English (an example is the extensive population table that starts at year 1841). As a fluent bilingual in French and English, I would like to know what the policies are with regards to the cross-referencing of different (linguistic) versions of the same article in order to fill in missing information. I'm asking this because I've seen articles that have a notification asking for multilingual editors to fill in the blanks (so to speak) in articles for whichever version that's considered a stub.
Thank you all, and great work editing these articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.251.139 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Languages