Talk:Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal

"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)

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. FUNgus guy (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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. FUNgus guy (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.  FUNgus guy (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal → 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)


 * Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal → Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal


 * oppose You've already moved the article to Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal, Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal2 (I'm not sure why). I've also created a redirect for you at GRAND Canal, and this article is already listed at Grand Canal. Your concerns are adequately met, and the proposed move will in fact create an undesirably long article title. --Bxj (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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 to Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal2 because when I tried to rename Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal using the method provided on the page I got a message that I could not do so because Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal already exits. I thought (mistakenly) that I could avoid this rejection of the renaming by renaming Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal first. Mkierans (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the issue is satisfied with GRAND Canal as a redirect. Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal or GRAND Canal are, by far, the most appropriate. A parenthesis insertion of GRAND in the long title is just cumbersome.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose you don't need a fully spelled out acronym and the acronym itself in a page title. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705042954/http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/niagara_plant_group/decew2.asp to http://www.opg.com/power/hydro/niagara_plant_group/decew2.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005/docs/dunbar.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005/proposal.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005/summary.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014842/http://www.zoominfo.com/search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=7131907 to http://www.zoominfo.com/search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=7131907

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) 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)