Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan/Archive 3

"Treelessness"
Let's resolve this once and for all. I encourage you to read the article as it is now written (edit: before my inclusion of "originally"), as carefully as possible with no preconceived notions. Without a modifying adverb such as "originally," it sounds as if the plain around Regina is CURRENTLY treeless. I have no doubt whatsoever that EVERY SINGLE TREE anywhere near Regina was "hand planted". However, the sentence, without a modifying adverb, I'll repeat again, makes it sound as if now, currently, in 2007, in present tense, the plain REMAINS treeless.

"Treeless" has a very specific meaning: the complete and total absence of trees.

Please try and read the sentence as it is now included with an open mind. As a new reader to the article, I am telling you that I found this sentence confusing and unclear. Rather than merely dismissing my edits and comments and writing personal attacks on my talk page (as an editor of this article did), perhaps it would be wiser and more productive to listen to a new user who is confused by the article and to improve the article knowing that the information therein is not 100% clear to all new users.

If there's another pure revert without a response to these comments, I will gladly take the matter to Wikipedia: Request for Comment.

Moncrief 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make my point as clear as possible, I'm generating a list:

1) I have no doubt whatsoever that, at the time of European exploration and original white settlement, the area around Regina was 100% entirely treeless. If we were writing an article about this part of Saskatchewan as it was pre-European/white settlement, "treeless" would be the right word to use. Nor do I need any kind of citation for the fact that Regina and environs were once treeless; that is, I agree, wholly self-evident.

2) I agree absolutely that all trees in and around Regina were planted by hand: that includes White City or any other place you want to name.

3) As the sentence is written in the present tense -- "The city is situated on a broad, flat and treeless, though fertile plain," the reader can only assume that "treeless" without a modifying adverb such as "originally" is a description of the plain around Regina as it exists today: February 26, 2007. No other logical conclusion can be made from a sentence in simple present tense. Without a modifying adverb, there isn't any reason to believe that someone reading a sentence in simple present tense would assume that the adjective "treeless" is meant to evoke what Saskatchewan was like one hundred or two hundred years ago rather than what it's like today.

4) The only edit to this sentence that I want to make is the addition of an adverb (I suggest "originally" but am open to other suggestions) to modify "treeless." Everything else, I agree, should stay the same. (Or,if you prefer, you could keep the adverb out but change the verb to past tense: e.g., "The city was built on a broad, flat, and treeless though fertile plain.")

5) It is easy enough to get caught up in the rush of an edit war at the expense of considering what's best for the clarity, factual truth, and precision of an article. If you delete "originally," please ask yourself truthfully if you're doing it to advance the quality of the article, or to avoid "losing" (which I put in quotes because it's not what is happening; this isn't a trivia contest or game).

If you do want me to take this to Requests for Comment, the next step, I can do so. Please know, though, that if you feel possessive and "territorial" about this article now, you probably don't want a bunch of new RfC editors swarming around the article once it's posted over there (with links to photos of trees in the areas around Regina).

Thanks for reading. Moncrief 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

to Moncrief: You make it sound like a veiled threat if the Regina editors dont like what changes you make to the page. We are trying to work together here and cooperation and comprise is needed on both sides on the discussion, but you make it sound like its your way or no way. Please, you and Masalai should discuss this and perhaps all of those who contribute regularly can help moderate a solution in this forum, not while making changes on the live page. Friesguy 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is now resolved. In case it isn't, I'm happy to discuss this here; that's why I made a post on the Talk page. I'm not threatening to go to RfC if the editors don't like the change I made (i.e., the addition of one word to ensure clarity of meaning). In fact, I was quite explicit that there are also potentially several other ways (other adverbs, putting the sentence in past tense) to have made the sentence clearer and more accurate, and that I was open to seeing those other options. This change isn't just me foisting my subjective POV on the article; let's be clear on that. Since the plain around Regina isn't currently treeless (objective truth), we all need to be sure the article doesn't imply that it is. Moreover, I'm not sure what you mean by "Regina editors." We are all Wikipedia editors, and no one has any more right to edit an article (assuming the edits are in good faith) than anyone else does.


 * I said I would take it to RfC if my edit continued to be reverted without consideration or explanation as it had been. That's a fair avenue of recourse I can take as an editor -- not a "threat."


 * At any rate, I believe the matter is now resolved, so you don't need to respond again unless you want to. Moncrief 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide
I think a pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article would be nice. The pronunciation for the city's name wasn't obvious to a non-Canadian like me until taught by an ex-Saskatchewanian.--24.5.184.255 03:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done!!--Slp1 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind Privacy!
I am certain that Mr. Rice would not want his name and employer posted on the Internet by you hacks. I realize the stupid government requires the publication of everyone's salary, including City employees, but 'Mumun' and you other nameless wankers ought to know better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.17.98.161 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

33% increase in North Central homicides
Stating that the murder rate in North Central has risen by 33% is a little too dramatic isn't it? the number of homicides in NC went up by a whopping two murders (from 6 in 2005 to 8 in 2006). I think using percent increases when the actual numbers are so low is very misleading. Does anyone agree this should be changed or removed?

Also, I don't see why such a large portion of the article needs to be dedicated to North Central. I agree that the area could use some cleaning up, but its not that important. Every city has its rough area--71.17.54.106 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of us agree with you. See the discussions above. --Kmsiever 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed the statistics in that section were for then entire city of Regina, not North Central. So I removed them.--71.17.54.106 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone find the actual scientific study that states North central has more IV drug users than Vancouver's lower east side? I don't like the idea of citing a magazine article that doesn't even cite its own sources--71.17.54.106 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article sources the Regina Health District. What's your agenda, Wilson ? --216.174.134.2 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why all of a sudden after the information being up for several months is it being removed ? Return an article to its previous and long standing state is not vandalism. --216.174.134.2 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that a matter of contention has arisen. I won't revert anymore, my apologies. An anon IP has correctly pointed out that expressing changes in small samples by using percent + or - distorts reality. Nobody intends to question what is going on in North-central neighbourhoods or mimimize what is happening there. However, article pages belong to the encylopaedia project, and are not a soapbox. Article pages should express NPOV data only. Using percent increases when the sample is so low in the first place is to mislead Wikipedia readers. We need to rewrite this section -- I think we can do this and satisfy the anonymous IP 216.174.134.2 at the same time. -- Mumun 無文 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure anything we can do will satisfy the person with the anon IP, as they appear to have an agenda of their own. I agree with all of the recent changes and I am not sure that  someone that is as inflexible as our anon IP person should be percieved as a legitimate author of  this article. Anyone who is legitimate should have a login name to make every one feel more at ease with their intentions. The changes that were made were legitimate and made sense to everyone except our anon IP person but so far the anon IP person has resisted any form of comprimise, even  when reasons for the change were supplied. Friesguy 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, the stats shown in the North Central article are both misleading and false. THEY ARE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY OF REGINA, NOT NC, as it is stated by the original author. Also, the section was poorly written and poorly formatted. I would like to point out that the person continually vandalising the section is from Saskatoon, go figure. Also, I was the one with the anon IP stating that using % values with such small increases was a poor choice, I was just too lazy to log in :) --Reginaguy 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I had a hand in authoring this section, I have rewritten some parts to clear up the confusion. --206.163.235.114 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's much better, but it is still not satisfactory for the following reasons:
 * 1) Poorly formatted (last paragraph is a mess)
 * 2) As stated numerous times, using percent increases for numbers so tiny is misleading and meaningless
 * 3) I don't understand why it would be neccessary to include Regina's crime stats in this section. This is an article about NC, not all of Regina
 * 4) The information is very negatively biased. I would like to hear your reasoning for only including crime rates which went up, when, overall, crime rates went down. This is very misleading.
 * 5) It is estimated that there are more IV users in north central than there are in Vancouver's downtown East side, this is not a fact, and it was not claimed to be a fact by the author of the Maclean's article. Therefore it is important to include the word "estimated"

For the above reasons, I will once again revert the changes. Please discuss and justify why you believe your version is better before changing the article again. Thank you--Reginaguy 09:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we come an agreement on a new wording before reverting this again ? 1) reformat it without changing the content if you are bothered by it. 2)One could argue using the percentages for population increases is misleading also, the fact is those are the percentages. 3)Because nearly 1/4 take place in this area and it states so in the article. 4) It states overall crime has gone down, a national trend, but crimes against people, especially violent ones, are going up annually. 5) I am ok with estimated and will not revert that again but don't cull so much from the article.

I believe that the information included gives readers a true look at Regina, with out a booster agenda. I also believe we need a section on First Nations and the issues faced by them in Regina. Regina has many great aspects about it and this article more then covers them, I believe it needs some balance to show the other side of the city.--206.163.235.114 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Block anon IPs
can someone temporarily lock the article so that Anon IPs can't edit? We're having problems with pesky trolls

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginaguy (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Created Regina Neighbourhoods section
Ive created a Regina Neighbourhoods as was discussed in here some time ago. The article definitly didnt belong in the Urban Planning section so it will now reside in the Regina Neighbouhoods sub section. I will attempt to fill in some info from other neighbourhoods when I have time, but this is a busy time of year for me, so if anyone else can lend a hand it would be much appreciated.Friesguy 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No way, not until there is an agreed upon wording. I completely disagree with the reasoning behind the changes and believe they are relevant to any article about the city. The only purpose behind eliminating them is a booster agenda and that is a misguided and illogical reason. The article should remain until an approved wording is agreed upon. Regina has issues and we should cease to attempt to hide them and instead confront and deal with them.

Also of note is the agreement between the city and the First Nation Bands was the first agreement in the history of the city, not the second in the mayors tenure. Piapot is the first one agreed upon in the city proper, the rest have been outside the city or in the industrial area. The significance is in commercial traffic and the type of customers served, as in very few first nations frequent those areas. --206.163.235.114 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed above in the discussion area and the majority of the editors and people who help on the site seem to agree that the consesus is that the article is in the wrong spot and that we should create the Regina Neighbourhoods section. I would appreciate you leaving the article as it is as you are not the only person that decides what should be on the articles page, and it would appear to me that the majority has spoken for the creation of the sub article. Also, FYI, the industrial area is part of the city and it is the 2nd time Fiacco has signed an agreement, read my sources above, Friesguy 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the second servicing agreement with an individual band, it is not the second agreement with all the bands. That is the agreement discussed. The servicing agreements are discussed in the following sentence.But you can get all booster and territorial, I didn't see a vote on the moving of the article. Leading me to believe that no consensus has appeared. While your at it, tell me the secret to living one's life in a glass bubble ? --206.163.235.114 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding, the moving of the North Central article has been discussed several times throughout this discussion page in the various headings and most if not everyone except yourself so far has stated it made more sense to move the article while discussing merits of how to best deal with the myriad of edits being dealt with lately.Friesguy 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Local Issues
Please leave this section alone for now.--206.163.235.114 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This section is a duplication of what was created in the Regina Neighbourhoods section, for the sake of consistency I shall remove it, PLease feel free to add to the sub section as I moved your whole North Central article to the subsection.Friesguy 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not it.and Why can there not be a local issues section, it is better then a neighbourhoods section.--206.163.235.114 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is saying there can't be. Such a section should actually contain something other than "under construction" labels. In addition, it should summarise content from other articles, not duplicate it. --Kmsiever 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Einstein, it is suppose to replace the stupid neighbourhoods section. --206.163.235.114 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the NC article being buried away from sight ? Why can not be placed on the main page as local issues category ? This is a very important issue in Regina and part of the city, why do you continue to attempt to hide it away ?--206.163.235.114 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 206.163.235.114|206.163.235.114, the neighbour section is redundant. Regina is not large enough for such a section. A local issues section would be better and it might highlight issues and lead to solutions in the future. I say open up the editting and let a local issues section be developed.--Mayor Quimby 04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you do; you're the same person. --Kmsiever 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right then, you have no reasoned debate on this matter. Just what seems to be a dictatorial stance on everything. Do you actually have a reasoned answer to my query?--Mayor Quimby 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I second (or third?) the notion that the new article on Regina Neighbourhoods be expanded to include information other neighbourhoods. There are neighbourhoods worthy of a few words. Then that article should be summarised in a short paragraph which should appear as a section in the Regina, Saskatchewan article (as per Friesguy above). This way the NC section is not 'buried away from site'. Posted the same message on the other article. -- Mumun 無文 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A neighbourhoods section is redundant. There is no difference between most areas of the city. Most have brown houses with white people in them and agrage in front. There are maybe 2 or 3 distinct neighbourhoods. Where as, there are many local issues and First Nations are not covered inthe article. I had attempted to build this area on the page but was met with wiki-terrorists that refuse to have it any way but their way. Local issues are more relevant to the reality of Regina then a booster neighbourhood section.--Mayor Quimby 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We all have to work and compromise within Wiki as I dont think any of us ever gets totally what we want, or as we want it. I know I have had to alter my stance on several issues over the years and the article is better for everyones input. There are issues you raise mayor Quimby that are very relevant to Regina but most of us feel it is too lengthy to appear on the main Regina Page, which is why most of us had agreed to move it to its own sub section with a summary on the main Regina Page about Regina neighbourhoods. PS calling us names isnt a great way to start off a giveandtake relationship. Friesguy 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade and a neighbourhoods section is redundant.--Mayor Quimby 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Mayor Quimby/206.163.235.114, why not start a Local Issues and Governance in Regina, Saskatchewan article. We can then re-insert or re-integrate a summary of the article in the 'main' article (Regina)? This will enable us to keep the main article tight and of a reasonable length. I noticed Vancouver has such a thing, and there are many examples of 'main' articles that have closely associated articles. How about that? Mumun 無文 16:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First to asume, that I am someone else is ridiculous. Second, I do not trust any of you to follow through, A quick glance at the history shows your disregard for such developments and lack of patience in development or implementation of such an area. The impression given my yourself, Friesguy and Kmseiver is one of intolerance to any idea that does not meet your concepts for this page. There is little or no discussion with edits from outside sources, a jump to call people vandals and ageneral disregard for any other opinions. Basiclly, you three are wiki-terrorists.--Mayor Quimby 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it a little hypocrytical for you to call them wiki-terrorists? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that you are intolerant of ideas other than your own? You seem to be an extremely closed minded person. Every time they (or myself) have reverted or changed your edits, they have stated why in the discussion page, yet you never seem to have a valid reasoning behind your edits (or at least you don't state them). You need to step back, take a breath and get over yourself.--Reginaguy 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics and neighbourhoods
I am uncomfortable with the insertion of "footnotes" within the demographics section. Surely these should be moved to the foot of the article where, indeed, the project should be undertaken to provide citations of sources for statements throughout the article. The neighbourhoods sub-article does not discuss "neighbourhoods" but only the north-central precinct and the social problems that pertain there. Some re-thinking is in order: either the "neighbourhoods" section could actually enter into discussion of neighbourhoods generally (though it doesn't really seem all that interesting: what could it contain that isn't banal and trivial?) or it could be renamed. I see nothing wrong with explicitly naming the sub-article "North-central social problems" or something of the kind, with a brief statement in the main article linking to the sub-article. Mr Quimby might perhaps take note of the protocol that has arisen among longstanding editors of the Regina article, which I follow, regarding the mooting of substantial changes rather than making them unilaterally. Masalai 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there isn't really a need for a Regina neighbourhoods section, I also think it should be renamed to "North-central social problems". But I think it should be kept as a sub-article, because it is rather lengthy for such a small topic.--Reginaguy 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Public, separate and private schools
Do I detect a bit of POV in this section that might reasonably be pruned? I was about to adjust slightly for the fact that, whereas in previous years, Catholic children were legally not permitted to enroll in "public" schools and non-Catholic children in "separate" schools, today there is a much more inclusivist franchise. And then I noted the subtle mentions of home schooling being "small but growing" and the new private schools similarly being "small but growing." Am I missing something here? I think we need to avoid anything smacking of politics in such a highly-charged matter. Of course I have not -- as per my previous comments -- presumed to edit out these adverbs, but...comments, please? Masalai 10:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Being fully public schooled, I don't know anything about whether the claims are correct or whether they were added in good faith. All I can say is use fact for things that aren't very controversial and outright remove things that are (and back that up here); strive for a neutral point of view. *shrugs*  Big Nate 37 (T) 12:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been resolved privately between editors and the text accordingly adjusted. Masalai 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. I saw a recent change to this page, upon closer examination it was related to the article's WikiProject status. At the time, I simply went to the bottom of the page and saw an open question, so I answered it without realizing how old it was.  Big Nate 37 (T) 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITIES Assessment
To explain my assessment for WP:CITIES on this city, it was assessed on the importance scale as 'high' because it is a provincial capital in Canada (national capitals are 'top' importance, provincial and state capitals are 'high').

The 'B-class' assessment was made based on the article's organization. It has an infobox, and it has a reasonably good lead (though the lead could be expanded to be a better summary of the article -- see WP:LEAD). It contains many of the essential sections of a good city article, based on the guidelines for cities at WP:CITIES; although the order of sections could be re-examined. I would begin with history, followed by geography/climate, demographics, and then economy. The 'urban planning issues' section is a bit awkward -- it seems like it might fit better into geography, or maybe some info into history? Move 'notable people' into 'see also'. The only content in the section is a link to a separate article, so it's definitely a 'see also' item; blank sections should be avoided.

The article has a good amount of citations and sources, though several sections are without citations, so it falls short of the Good Article criteria.

I'd recommend promoting the culture section, possibly to just after economy. Move sports & media to new sections, and focus more on the culture of the population itself. You might want to add a section on parks & outdoor attractions as well.

Move transportation & education closer to the end of the article. Add a section on basic infrastructure: water supply, electricity, hospitals & healthcare. I'd put the last sections in order of: education, transportation, then infrastructure.

I'd recommend a good copyedit of the article, cleaning up any inconsistencies in grammar and/or spelling. Once these above issues are worked out, the article might be ready for nomination to Good Article status.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
Although I've noted the comments above, the lead section seems a bit long to me as per Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions WP:LEAD. Perhaps a slight trim down? what do others think? Michellecrisp (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire article is too long, as I have brought up in the past. It's nearly double the recommended maximum length. Much of it is because of wordiness. --Kmsiever (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * is the following wording really too much detail for a lead section?
 * '' Wascana Centre, created around the artificial focal point of Wascana Lake, remains Regina's signal attraction and contains the Provincial Legislative Building, both campuses of the University of Regina, the provincial museum of natural history, the Regina Conservatory (in the original Regina College buildings), the Saskatchewan Science Centre,[7] the Norman Mackenzie Art Gallery and the Saskatchewan Centre of the Arts.

 Michellecrisp (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ms Michelle and Mr Siever might note that the opening section was extensively expanded specifically in response to the suggestions of Dr Cash that such expansion was appropriate. If they can offer constructive additions (or indeed subtractions, along the lines that Dr Cash suggests) it is of course always welcome by the general Wikipedia community. If they can offer such suggestions in comfortably native English and with decent politeness, of course their suggestions will be all the more favourably received. Masalai (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of these towns have enjoyed somewhat of a renaissance as a result of the excellent roads that for many decades seemed likely to doom them; they—and to some extent the nearby city of Moose Jaw — are now undergoing a mild resurgence as commuter satellites for Regina.


 * I've already provided suggestions. Have you implemented any of those suggestions yet? --Kmsiever (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"the lead section seems a bit long to me"
But this is never an appropriate editorial comment, surely. Editors' personal opinions are never relevant. Is "to me" the criterion that Ms Michelle proposes to apply to Wikipedia? Masalai (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I apply that criterion on a daily basis. When I offer an opinion at an AfD, it's the result of how things seem "to me"; when I remove external links from an article, it's because "to me" they don't appear to satisfy the qualities desirable in an external link.


 * Are editors to be denied their personal opinions? --Sturm 14:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Visitor Attractions
I thought that this had a polite view about Mormons, until I saw that it said that it is appropriate even to Christian visitors. I think it has been settled that Mormons ARE Christians. Can someone please just delete the entire second half about the Regina Saskatchewan Temple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.235.146 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Crime Statistics
On the main page there are 2 year old crime stats stating that Regina has the worst crime rate in the country, the latest crime rates came out about a month back and winnipeg, saskatoon, edmonton and a couple of other cities had worse murder and other crime rates than Regina. The bad stats were put up pretty quick, perhaps they should be taken down just as quickly. Friesguy (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, Friesguy, fix it up. Masalai (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the reference to an outdated MacLean's magazine article (2006 stats)should be replaced with more current information. The Regina City police just released more current crime stats for example.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverado2015 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro
I´m removing this line "It attracts visitors for the vitality of its commerce, theatre, concerts and restaurants" it is too much POV, vague and really the same reason many tourists are attracted to many cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.19.209 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Metro Population
I was just wondering how Regina's metro population is determined. I checked out Metropolitan_area but it's pretty all over the place. It seems like the metro population of the Regina area could arguably include Moose Jaw, but obviously the metro area falls short of that by only being 15,725 more than Regina city's population. So, I guess my question is... what towns and communities make up that number? And is the metro population something that's determined by a square kilometre radius from Regina, or is it more esoteric? Wiccapedia2 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The metro population would be determined by StatsCanada, their rules are explained - http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Reference/dict/geo009.htm The StatsCan website used to also show all the towns within a Census metropolitan area, but a quick search failed to show it, but it may still be there if you look around 198.169.189.226 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo?
Is that seriously the best photo of Regina that anyone can come up with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccapedia2 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are able to come up with a better one, by all means go for it. Masalai (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I got nothin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccapedia2 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Municipality of Sherwood?
Just askin' - the infobox currently says, "District: Municipality of Sherwood". Is this correct? What does it mean?  PK T (alk)  14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It means Municipality of Sherwood (duh). Hence, for example, the Sherwood Credit Union, now re-named Connexus Credit Union. Masalai (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vagina?
Does Regina rhyme with vagina or does it sound like jeans, like blue jeans? The article is not clear about this. It doesn't have to be added, just let me know. And please do not be nasty and refuse to answer this by giving an excuse. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MVOO (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 July 2010
 * The former. The article is clear to anyone who understands IPA, and I have added a note to try to clarify it for others. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Rsm.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article,, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
 * What should I do?
 * If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
 * If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
 * If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)|}

"Catholicism"
Until relatively recently this would have been entirely unambiguous; it would probably only have been "high church" members of the Anglican Church -- now like most Christian insitutions in Canada other than fundamentalist groups somewhat waning -- who would have insisted that "Catholic" was inadequate without an adjective. However, nowadays in Regina, though unfortunately less extensively than elsewhere in Canada, simply being smaller in number -- immigration is much more diverse than elsewhere. It includes people of churches aligned to the Vatican but not "Roman" Catholic. There are some Syrian Orthodox from Syria itself, non-Muslim sections of Palestine, southwest India and Ethiopian Orthodox themselves or others from east Africa; so there must or will eventually also be Syro-Malabar Catholic and other eastern Catholic denominations, with the Pope their supreme bishop but not Roman Catholic as such. So it is not pedantry to remove "Roman" from the label for Canadian Catholics. Masalai (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

City of Regina Flag
I think you have the incorrect flag posted here. I you look at the City of Regina's web page: http://www.regina.ca/students/regina-facts/city-symbols/index.htm the blue colour on the flag is lighter than what you have posted here, I think this needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.31 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

“Regina (pron.: /rɨˈdʒaɪnə/ or pron.: /rɨˈdʒiːnə/ by outsiders”
Excessively considerate of non-Anglophones in other countries who have never visited Canada. But it would not be thought even appropriate much less necessary to state for such persons the correct pronunciation of such words as find, kind or mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.249.222 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Top Employers section
Does anyone have the numbers for a "Top Employers" section?

I've seen this on other city wikipedia pages and it's kinda neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccapedia2 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But the illustrations in the opining section could be much better than here, can't that be agreed? And down bellow is where such illustrations now fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Masalai (talk • contribs)