Talk:Ottawa/Archives/2011

When should "city" be "City"
Too many years ago, I learned that when referring to a specific city, city is capitalized, i.e. the "City of Ottawa" not the "city of Ottawa". Likewise when shortened to "the City", it should also be capitaized. Similarly for "province of X" vesus "Province of X". What is the correct current spelling protocol?Newwhist (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The typical capitalization format for official legal names of communities with a recognized municipal status, such as cities, towns, and villages, is City/Town/Village of X. Note that the official format could vary from province to province.
 * What I have observed is that municipalities often refer to themselves in published documents in the capitalized short form of the municipal status they have, such as The City/Town/Village/County passed its 2011 municipal budget yesterday. However, I have observed numerous WP editors not recognize the capitalized short form in their contributions and decapitalize the contributions of others who use the capitalized short form, presumably with good reason. Hwy43 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is similar to Hwy43's view. Use a capital when referring to the corporate entity (the City of Ottawa has raised dog license fees, the Province of Ontario enacted pit bull legislation, etc.), but don't use capitals when refering to the place (all my family members live in the city of Ottawa, the province of Ontario has some of the nicest inns in Canada, etc.).  I have no idea if that is correct, but that's how I do it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. However, instead of relying on past editing activities, an explicit stlye guide would be preferred. I will hunt around for something and report back.  Newwhist (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I personally would capitalize city and province in Skeezix1000's second set of examples, but have always felt this is a grey area. In these situations, I endeavour to drop the city/province of in favour of just the common name (all my family members live in Ottawa... Ontario has some of the nicest inns in Canada...). Looking forward to you reporting back on what you find. Hwy43 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Result 1: The Wikipedia Manual of Style provides advice on the subject here and here I am seeking additional external style guides.Newwhist (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha - for once I was correct, although the MOS words it much more clearly than I did. I actually have some style guides here at my desk, and it didn't occur to me until now to look at them:
 * The Globe and Mail Style Book (2003 ed) - "Upper-case for London's financial district. Otherwise, City is upper-case only in the formal names of municipalities, e.g. City of Calgary" (p.70)
 * The Canadian Press Stylebook(2004 ed) - "Lowercase province and state used in a geographic sense (Quebec province, New York state), but capitalize as part of a corporate name (Province of Quebec bonds, New York State vs. Smith)...Capitalize specific political and administrative divisions (...Greater Vancouver Regional District, Montreal Urban Community, Muskoka District, Niagara Region...), but Niagara region, Muskoka district when referring to the geographic area...Lowercase such words as city, county, province and state except when they are part of the incorporated name (in the city of Halifax, the City of Halifax's credit rating...)" (p. 211, 219, 220)
 * The Canadian Style (1997 ed) "Do not capitalize a generic term such as city, county, state or province when it precedes the proper noun or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense: ... She lives in the city of Regina...The City of Regina took him to court" (p.78) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how the MOS would deem "She lives in the city of Regina" as correct. The MOS is not explicit on this scenario. Please clarify your interpretation.
 * Based on your summary of The Canadian Style (1997 ed), it appears this guide is explicit about a corporate sense. I don't see anything in the MOS that indicates an external style guide would supercede it on WP though.
 * Further, I interpret the "... city of Regina" in your example as referring to the corporate entity. If that were the case, then would "She lives in Strathcona county" be correct? Hwy43 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I just want to say this is a friendly discussion. The issue is relatively trivial, and I would have thought is mainly just of personal interest.  This sort of low-key discussion makes us all better editors.  No need for any adversarial cross-examination.  You're right - I read the links too quickly, and they are fairly vague.  As for the examples, they are not my examples - those are straight out of the guides.  And my point in quoting the guides was not to make any statement about trumping MOS - I just thought it was interesting.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this discussion on a relatively trivial issue is of personal interest to me as well, and adversarial cross-examination was not intended. I composed my reply in haste and did not filter it for perceived tone. Simply, I was curious to see if you were seeing something that I was not seeing for my reference in future edits. Your inclusion of the information from the guides is very much appreciated. So much so that I have placed a hold on The Canadian Style (1997 ed) at my local library to review out of personal interest. Thanks for going above and beyond!  Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I clearly read into it a tone that was not intended.  I should have been more thick-skinned. There are a lot more examples in the Canadian Style, I only typed out one of them, so it will be interesting to see what you think. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Population and other demographic information
There has been much discussed previously on this page about the content of the population information presented and so I do not propose any changes related to content on the subject. What concerns me is that there is repetition of precisely the same information in at least two places in the article and again in the referenced article Demographics of Ottawa. This makes maintenance and updating a nightmare. IMHO the material in the Lead section and in the Demographic section should be consolidated and abbreviated and the link for additional details given for those inclined to want more. "A man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two is never quite sure." Newwhist (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviet espionage discovered
This section appears to be a non-sequitor having more to do with the governance of Canada and not the City per se. Is there a better place for this information?Newwhist (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Climate
The listed record of 42C is not correct. The max temp according to Environment Canada is 37.8C, on Aug 11 1944 and other dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEFrancis (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the comment about winters being very cold with a record low of -36. It's deceiving to quote the record low. Also, -30 temps are extremely rare in Ottawa over the last several years (climate change). -36 isn't even accurate anyway. Djironarm (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Old city limits
Does anyone know how many square kilometers the city was before it's merger, and does anyone have a map of the city limits before this time? --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Statistics Canada, its size was 110.15 km². StatCan has a map here. Hwy43 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this would be something interesting to add to the article, maybe in the geography section, to give people an idea of the size of the original city before the agglomeration. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But just be careful how your word it. Keep in mind that all of the old municipalities, everything from West Carleton to Cumberland, are the "original cities", not just the former city of Ottawa.  Technically, the new city is the exact same size as what it replaced.  The "old" City of Ottawa didn't grow in size in 2001 - it ceased to exist.  The "new" City of Ottawa is the successor of 13 municipalities, not a continuation of one.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Help?
Hello eh! I have taken the time to address many of the issued raised at Talk:Ottawa/GA1. Like refs for history, Government and politics etc. However am having problems with the "Climate section" references and expanding the "Economy section". If anyone can help this would be great. Looking for refs for weather and local economy. Moxy (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Replaced images
I have gone ahead and replaced back some of the pics. Not sure how pics from 1950/40 1920 and 2007 belong in the section that dates to the 1800s. We have images for this time so lets use them. We had this File:Murphy Gamble 1940.jpg beside us talking about logging - then this File:OttawaAerial9.JPG(1920) beside when we talk about building the canal  and this  File:Canadian parliament MAM.JPG pic from 2007 when we are talking about the building of parliament hill.Moxy (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The image from 1950 was in the history section because the painting image you've inserted is dull and worthless. The original is a good quality image and has been in the article for quite a while. It isn't in the "1950's area because it wouldn't fit and the history section wasn't broken into certain era's before your major overhaul. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your talking about a different article there was sections see here. I also dont see any 50s ers talk at all before. As for the  value of the painting I disagree  -  It's by JohnBy done in 1826 showing were he founded  the city, while  showing  that the land was covered in trees used for the early economy and development of the city. We talk about all this in this section. Are you sure an image showing a department from 1954 should go here? Then I added  a picture of the canal and Bytown in 1860 showing how there is building going on all over. Just after we say that after the completion of the canal the  "Region's population grew significantly". I think this is much better then a picture  from  1920 showing the parliament building in a section dealing with a time before they were built - its not even a picture of the original center block. We need to expand the 1900s and then we can add this. As per Image use policy " Images should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." Not one of the images that were there did any of this as do the new ones.Moxy (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all images will fit in these "sections" that have been made. Maybe the sparks street image isn't the best but the painting is honestly terrible. It's boring, it's tacky, and IMO worthless to the article. Being one of the first images readers see in the article, I think we can find a better image than that.UrbanNerd (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any ideas? Category:History of Ottawa.Moxy (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottawa as the capital not the NCR
SunKing2 made a recent edit with the notation "(An introductory text should have a mention that it's part of Canada's capital. Details of entities such as NCC and NCR should probably be deleted as material promoting interests. Also favor brevity and clarity over precision.)". I agree with the edit but wish to clarify something. It is my understanding that the NCR is not the capital of Canada per se, only the city of Ottawa is. More specifically, no part of the NCR outside of the city of Ottawa is "part of Canada's capital". In the legislation for the NCR, it states in Section 2 that ""National Capital Region" means the seat of the Government of Canada and its surrounding area, more particularly described in the schedule". I think that "the seat of the Governmnet of Canada" refers to the city of Ottawa and "its surrounding area" refers to the rest of the NCR as described in the Schedule (by the way, good luck following that!). Can someone verify this? I too like brevity and clarity but not at the sacrifice of the facts. Newwhist (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that was hard to follow - Ottawa the City  is  Canada's capital (its the "capital city"). Then we have the "capital region" as defined  by the NCC Act see here. So what we have is a federally "designated" region not an official "district" (so not a census division).  The NCC was created to overseen the design of buildings and land use (including roads) "only" on  federal lands in the 2  cites and the  many counties and municipalities in both Ontario and Quebec. I agree  this is also a  bit confusing as there are 3 ways to look at this areas.


 * As per statscan we have separate  "cities" and  "counties" like with Ottawa (city) and [Gatineau (ville)
 * Then statscan has the "Census metropolitan area" of Ottawa - Gatineau - that actually cover a wider area then the just the cities i.e Ottawa - Gatineau (Ontario part)
 * Then we have the National Capital region as defined by this act that covers the "federal" land holdings in Ottawa, Gatineau and the municipalities  of Prescott-Russell, Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry, Leeds-Grenville, Lanark, and Renfrew and the whole the Outaouais region. See map here


 * Hope this helped - PS we need to expand the lead its a bit short perhaps so history info like ..Founded in 1826 as Bytown and incorporated in 1855 as Ottawa, the city has developed into......' Moxy (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

removal of map
Not sure why the map is being deleted from this page - is there something wrong with it?Moxy (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's offensive. Who cares where french people live within the city. If it were "where jews live" or "where blacks live" I'm sure it would be removed instantly. It's not encyclopedic, it singles out an individual race/language, and it's absurd to have it in the article. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it offensive? Its a map showing were the french (minority)  population lives  in an "Offical"  biligual city. This is data from statscan that every city has - Best to read over WP:NOTCENSORED before deleting things you "Dont like". I dont see how population  data like at    Maps of American ancestries would be grossly  offensive.Moxy (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to stop preaching and go ahead and read WP:OWNERSHIP. You do not own this article. You completely rewrote a popular article, removed many relevant facts and added many questionable ones without much opposition. Now one of your additions has been reverted. a map showing a "minority" population has no place in this article. It belongs in the demographics article which it is already located. Singling out a specific race/language is not relevant in this article, and as i stated before if it were ""where jews live" or "where blacks live" it would be removed instantly. Your example of Maps of American ancestries is perfectly fine because it is in it's respective article. If there was a map in the New York Article with "Where Puerto Ricans" live it would offend people and it would be removed. The same goes for the Ottawa article. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All nonsense - please explain what is offensive to YOU. As for redoing the article - you think it was better before with no refs? Please  point out was was removed and what is now questionable in my reworking of the article.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Demographic maps aren't offensive. What utter nonsense. I'll revert. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll construct a "where jews live" and "where blacks live" maps and add them to the article. Shouldn't meet any opposition. Isn't that right ladies ? UrbanNerd (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analogy of "where Puerto Ricans" live in New York City is not in the least correlative to the display of a map showing the French-speaking populace in a bilingual city. The image placement does not at all violate MOS:IMAGES as it relates to the section it is placed in. 08OceanBeach S.D.  17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually NY is a multi-lingual city in which Puerto Ricans have a huge minority population. A map showing where Puerto Ricans or spanish speaking people live in NY is completely comparable. It would be acceptable in a demographics article, but would be promptly removed from the city article. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Demographic maps are of encyclopedic interest. If there was a map that showed where Jews lived in New York, that would be of interest. I don't get how that's racist at all. -- Earl Andrew - talk
 * If the article was about demographics of New York then a map of "where jews live" would be fine. To single out one race or language in an article about a city is ridiculous. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we remove all mention of race and language in this articles? Or is it just the picture you dont like in this one? Can you explain how  mentioning race or language is raciest?  You are aware that the city is bilingual and this is simply data being regurgitated? Population by Mother Tongue, Knowledge of Official Languages and Home Language, City of Ottawa, 1996-2006 and Population by Knowledge of Official Languages by Sub-Area, City of Ottawa, 2006 Moxy (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone's knowledge of Ottawa should be questioned it should be yours. Also, I never said anything about it being racist. I said it was insulting. Do you not see how ridiculous it is to show a map of where a certain race lives on a City's article ? Would Vancouver add "where Chinese people live" on their article. It's just ridiculous is all.
 * I'm at a loss to understand the above argument as to how the map is insulting. It is relevant and belongs in the article.Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When I add the "where jews live" and "where blacks live" maps I'm constructing to the article we'll see if people still have the same tune. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your logic is quite ridiculous. New York City is not officially bilingual and thus a map showing its Spanish-speaking populace is not warranted. Ottawa is indeed, and officially, a bilingual city. The map is completely warranted. I believe in every case Wikipedia policy, MOS:IMAGES, will trump your point of view. 08OceanBeach S.D.  05:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh so because it's officially bilingual it makes it ok. Vancouver has more Asian people than Ottawa has French people, but becuase it's not official it wouldn't be appropriate ? Odd how you can pick and choose which races can and can't be singled out. Also I think you should learn the difference between an image, and a map. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear at this point that no one agrees with your comparables, UrbanNerd (and I'm not sure how you being sarcastic about it helps). I think at this point it is fair to acknowledge that your concern is yours alone. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, depending on the context of the article where they would appear, I don't see a problem with "where jews live" and "where blacks live" maps (to use your terms). Ottawa has a major linguistic minority, and its existence has done much to shape the history of the city.  Again, I'm completely at a loss to understand why a demographic map of that minority is insulting.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the insults - still wating for an example!! - That said I think its just a misunderstanding of how Canada works (we are not Americans) - In Canada we belive  in Multiculturalism over Cultural assimilation as canadians are  proud of there heritage and laguages. Diversity is a good thing to Canadians and is part of our culture. Its actualy law in Canada Canadian Multiculturalism Act and Section Twenty-seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Moxy (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the city is officially bilingual it is completely relevant to have an image showing its French-speaking, not French, populace. Where jews live and where blacks live images are again not related to the issue since the image in question depicts not the ethnic origins of Ottawa's people, but the language they speak. Making such infantile comments does not advance your argument in the least. Obviously I know the difference between and image and a map. Would you not call it a map - i.e. visual representation of an area—a symbolic depiction highlighting relationships between elements of that space such as objects, regions, and themes - even though it is an image? Seeing as consensus leans toward keeping the image in the article, and image placement is supported by Wikipedia Policy MOS:IMAGES, the image has no reason to be omitted from the article. 08OceanBeach S.D.  15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the map back as noone sees the rational for deletion as stated above.Moxy (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-adding an idiotic out of date map. It adds so much to the article, like many of your other edits. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * UrbanNerd, perhaps you could review Civility. It becomes hard to take you and your views seriously when you seem incapable of dealing with other editors without resorting to sarcastic insults.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also puzzled about the personal attacks. Never had a problem with UrbanNerd before now. Not sure what he thinks i have done wrong. Here is the article before my edits. - If you can point out any problems with my additions or references pls do so. I believe my experience with many many GA and FA reviews has got me going in the right direction in gerneral.Moxy (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Section heading
So should we call the first section? - Well according to the norm that I see in our more developed  articles in Canada and other international cities  we use a description over just a meaningless date range  - as per Canada, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, History of Canada,  Banff National Park, London, Ontario,  Bath, Somerset, Seattle,, Melbourne. I agree with the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure that says "we should avoid using headings that arrange the history of a settlement according to century or decade". I am some what ok with the current header of "Before settlement"  but its not very precise header for the  section. Any ideas because the Aboriginals were somewhat settled in the area ?Moxy (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't understand the fascination some editors have with the need to label people. Why do people feel the need to divide people and label them into races, languages and cultures ? I see the factual side of it, but c'mon. Taking a look at the other big cities in Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Halifax) none of them have heading describing races. I don't even see the need for all the history subsections at all. In fact much of the history section should be trimmed back, as there are already links to the History of Ottawa and Timeline of Ottawa history articles which cover the entire history in depth. If the subheadings are kept, I like Hwy43's solution of "Before Settlement". UrbanNerd (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on reviewing the above, I have two alternative suggestions for name of the first subsection under the History section – "Early history" or "Before European settlement". I also feel the current title of the second subsection, "First European settlers of the region", is needlessly lengthy. I would suggest simply "European settlement". Hwy43 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the real solution is getting rid of the subsection headings all together and deleting a large portion of the history section which is just a regurgitation of info available at both History of Ottawa and Timeline of Ottawa history articles. The history section is WAY too long and goes on about Turkish embassy attacks, Soviet spy networks, sewer explosions, several railway ventures, Irish and french conflicts, riots, and on and on. If a reader wants to know info that in depth they can go to one of the two links provided. A massive scale back of the section is needed. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving forward - we could scale back the section a bit since the NEW article History of Ottawa was made just last month. But most good and FA article like those listed above have sub section because they have  proper coverage. (I am working towards a GA level The perfect article Acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject. ) I am not sure what we can remove as things like the  Irish and french conflicts have shaped the city as has its infrastructure change because of the rails. PS x2 - Think all that was wrong over at Talk:Ottawa/GA1 has been covered now.  I like "Before European settlement" as a section header.Moxy (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the new second subsection to "Bytown to present". I toyed with "Bytown to amalgamation", but deemed it short-sighted as undoubtedly content will be added to this section as time goes on. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All looks good to me thus far - I have moved the "Further information:" links to under the headers as this as been a "placement/readability/break in text" problem raised for a few GA articles I have been involved with in the past. (That said about the links - do we even need them anymore anyway?). And I added a bit back about the Shiners' War  and the Stony Monday Riot as I believe they should be linked - and they  put into context (links that explain/expand on)  the statement in the next paragraph that says "sometimes unruly logging town in the hinterland" and the lead that says "Initially an Irish and French Christian settlement".   I have asked User:SunKing2 if there is more we can trim or anything that we should  mention - as hes the Ottawa master.   Moxy (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this section a month ago noticing it was well written, though very long. Having been asked, I think some trimming is due in the History section here.  Short answer? About half of it.  The picking of the Capital is important and although it seems long, most of the information in it is probably necessary.  It might be an idea of reducing all mentions of rail and streetcars to maybe 2 or so sentences, and remove mentions of electricity.  Maybe we can put the two fires in the same paragraph.  Maybe also we can trim a few words out of the Greber plan although it's important.  And remove the sentence of the baby boom and modernization of transportation system because it's not atypical.  And of the stuff that's removed, please add it to the article on the History of Ottawa, as that article is missing some good stuff that's in here.  When removing material, I'd err on the side of removing too much (i.e. less is probably better than too much), because this material can be made available in the linked History of Ottawa article.  I don't really have a comment or opinion on section headings though.  Regarding adding anything to the History section?  Nope. nothing. (Although the other article History of Ottawa is missing lots of stuff).  Oh as long as I'm here, I can't remember if I got it from this article or elsewhere, but I'd avoid giving the audience the impression that the city or its early town incarnation was involved in the fur trade.  What was involved in the fur trade was the Ottawa River, not the town.  There wasn't much at all going on in Ottawa before 1807; it was almost avoided.  Other than its portages, Rideau river and portages, there is very little evidence of its use at all.  By and his surveyor wrote about how much it was just trees (and swamp).  There has been some archaeological evidence near Rockcliffe or New Edinburgh, and clearly documented use of the Chaudiere Falls area, and documented use of the Rideau River, but very little indication of any other use associated with the fur trade.  Also the aboriginal presence here seems a little overemphasized.  Nobody was living in Ottawa when land began to be sold starting in 1792.  What history tells us is that Champlain documented contact with Algomeniquins(sp?) while travelling the river, while at Rideau Falls, and utilizing local guides (who probably were from places closer to Montreal)  So the Ottawa Valley was occupied by people.  But not Ottawa, at least not during contact.  So the first two paragraphs can be made into 2 sentences stating that the early explorers and fur traders  encountered local people while using the Ottawa River.User:SunKing2
 * Very glad you liked the version from a month ago :-).  As per the norm I would say I have to agree with your assessment. Pls feel free to make the needed changes as you see fit (pls anyone jump in here). User:SunKing2 your  attention focused back on this "main" article would be greatly appreciated.  I  think  we (all of  us here now) can get this to GA level  easily.  We are at the point of trimming thats great.02:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok done. I removed a lot.  It seemed a shame (though seemingly consistent with the quantity of material required for a section of a city's article) because it was so well written, but I plan to move the removed parts and references to the History of Ottawa article.  I didn't intend to remove references and all the nifty pictures, but it was a big job (hopefully someone else can restore the pix, and we can work on restoring the citations).  I did however intend to remove sections because I read something in Wikipedia's writing about creating community pages favoring not making sections.  I'm not opposed to someone changing this, because really I don't know what's best, and didn't really see what would be best for a GA article.  My objective was mostly to make the length similar to that of other Canadian larger cities.  I read somewhere where the population was finally large enough (after years) to put Ottawa into the top 5 largest cities, I'll try to find it, since the recommendations talk about mentions of times of population growths.SunKing2 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the newly expanded history section and, zzzzzzzzzz. This needs to be scaled back again. It's great that two history nerds enjoy rambling on about barely relevant regurgitations from the history article, but this is too much. It's extremely boring and needs to be shortened. it was fine the way it was. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you insulting the editors here? Do you think it makes you sound intelligent or superior because its doing the opposite thus far. Moxy (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa there is no need to insult one another here. Comments such as "history nerds" and "makes you sound intelligent..." are uncalled for. UrbanNerd has done some fairly deft editing, and from the discussion above, several editors have agreed that this was needed. I do agree that the material removed should be in the "History of Ottawa" article and have begun to move it there. Let's keep the fundamental goal of collaborative editing in mind. And to that end, would each of you be willing to remove your last comments? Sunray (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am getting tired of hes behaviour here SO no I will not remove my comment. As seen above we have an editor that simply goes around insulting people and lying about them. I am fedup with hes behaviour and will no longer hold my tongue. Bullies of this sort have no place here on Wikipedia.Moxy (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow moxy do you need a tissue for those tears ? I was only poking fun at two fellow editors who I run into regularly. I didn't think the word "nerd" was so insulting. I am a self proclaimed geography nerd, and the word nerd is in my username !! Sorry if I insulted you fellas, I didn't think I was at all. sheeeesh ! UrbanNerd (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding UrbanNerd's comment, these kind of comments are not welcome in Wikipedia. Please refrain from posting such comments in the future.  There are ways of being helpful; Wikipedia has plenty of topics on ways you can be helpful, please consult those.SunKing2 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

GA level ?
Moving on - shall we talk about what is needed for a GA level. I think we may have to find better refs for the weather section. Any-other problems that can be seen off the bat guys?Moxy (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think the article meets GA criteria now. I was going through the 2011 GA nomination and most of the issues seem to have been fixed. Element2.  TALK 02:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Climate update
There has been good progress overall in the article at large in editing down excessive wording and removing irrelevent and less relevent material but I still cringe at the Climate section. IMHO it is not only much too long but it is mostly irrelevent to general readership. While I do not dispute its accuracy, following the pattern of other cities is insufficient excuse for overstating the topic. Also, can anyone explain why temperatures are also referred to in the Fahrenheit scale when this is an article about a place that uses the Celsius scale? All the conversions in brackets makes it difficult to read (even if you wanted to) and is an eyesore. We finally got rid of all the equivalent junk about demographics (mostly) and the same should be done with the climate material. Any comments? Newwhist (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think like the demographics, we should strive to convey some useful information; there are too many extremes in here (useful??-nope) and just too many numbers. I think that keeping the Fahrenheit may be useful considering so many non-canadians seem to have some (weird) use for this system.  I was hoping that by reducing the sheer amount of numbers, the unsightliness might be lessened. Here's the stuff I cut out of the climate section:


 * "There are often periods of high humidity during hot weather, especially close to the rivers.


 * with annual averages of 51, 14 and 1 days with wind chills below &minus;20 °C, &minus;30 °C and &minus;40 °C respectively.


 * with a range of temperatures from a record high of 37.8 °C, recorded August 11, 1944, to a record low of &minus;38.9 °C, recorded on December 29, 1933.


 * The biggest one-day rainfall occurred on September 9, 2004, when the remnants of Hurricane Frances dumped nearly 136 mm of rain in the city. The all-time monthly record is 243.4 mm (13.75 inches) set in July 2009.


 * Winter: Its biggest snowfall was recorded on March 3–4, 1947, with 73 cm of snow. The 2007–08 winter season snowfall (432.7 cm) came within 12 cm (5 inches) of the record snowfall set in 1970–1971 (444.1 cm / 174.8 inches).


 * The lowest recorded wind chill was &minus;47.8 °C on January 8, 1968. Freezing rain is also relatively common, even relative to other parts of the country. One such large storm caused power outages and affected the local economy, and became known as the 1998 Ice Storm.


 * Destructive summer weather events such as tornadoes, major flash floods, extreme heat waves, severe hail and remnant effects from hurricanes are rare, but all have occurred in the Ottawa area. Some of the most notable tornadoes in the region occurred in 1978 (F2), 1994 (F3), 1999 (F1), 2002 (F1), 2004 (F1) and west end Ottawa 2009 (F0). " SunKing2 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Good stuff. Is it possible to have this whole section toggle so that initially readers are presented with the section in Celsius but can hit a toggle switch and the same material is presented in Fahrenheit, either instead of or in addition to the Celsius version?  Newwhist (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Demonym
The demonyms used to be in the infobox (Ottawan and Ottavien/Ottaviennes) but they aren't there anymore. They should be put back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.197.208 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottawan is a group not a people  - "Ottavien" is a french family name - "Ottaviennes" is not a word.Moxy (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ottawan" could be a demonym as well, not just a musical duo, if confirmed by a reliable source, and "Ottavien/Ottavienne" could be the masculin/feminin French equivalent (given Ottawa's bilingual status) if confirmed by a reliable source. I'm not local, so I don't know for sure. "Edmontonian" originally was not a word, but is a word by virtue of being a demonym. I'd say if reliable sources can be found to confirm the demonyms, they can be re-added. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just found that the city's English website refers to "Ottawan" (although it pluralizes it through the incorrect use of an apostrophe), while its French website uses "Ottavien" and "Ottavienne". Hwy43 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well i look the fool :-) nice find - good job. I found nothing in my search as indicated by my reply. so what should be done?Moxy (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what to do. Hwy43 (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I cant seem to do it I add the code

and get Ottawan/Ottavien(ne)UNIQ58,805f478c7f90f-ref-00,000,026-QINUUNIQ58,805f478c7f90f-ref-00,000,029-QINU
 * population_blank1_title      = Demonym
 * population_blank1            = Ottawan/Ottavien(ne)