Talk:Winnipeg/Archive 5

Climate
The climate section has some errors. It claims that the temperature "generally remains below 0", but the chart right below states that the average daily mean is 2.6. Also, Chicago is not "known as a windy city" in that there are high winds, but in that its leaders tend to boast a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.147.10 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY! What idiot is in charge of this page?? Chicago is NOT known for high winds (I live in Chicago), "Windy City" does indeed refer to the boastfulness of certain politicians of the past. It's amazing how someone can post something on a site that is supposed to spread knowledge and have absoluetly no clue as to what they are posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.15.5 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "Koppen" climate classification is useful. There's already a link to the climate type which gives all the scientific low-down including the classification scheme. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to communicate information; I suggest we use English for this instead of cryptic acronyms known only to climatology weenies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So do we assume that people who read the Moscow entry are more intelligent than those who read Winnipeg? That is disappointing. See the line in the Climate section of Moscow, where we read, "Moscow has a humid continental climate (Köppen climate classification Dfb) with warm, somewhat humid summers..." I guess those Russians are better educated! :-) ...add London, New York City, Hamburg, etc. to the list of less dumbed-down cities. They all mention the Köppen climate classification, and lived to tell about it! --Skol fir (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Though it really is not a big deal, I would prefer that the Köppen classification code for the city's climate be displayed in this article (as the Köppen system if the most widely used system of its kind in the world, found in near any high school geography textbook, and is used in most articles for major cities). Wtshymanski's dislike of the Köppen system is not relevant, nor is his ad hominem attack ("climatology weenies") productive. I would advise him against pulling either of these "points" into the discussion in the future.1brettsnyder (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with 1brettsnyder. I don't see why we should not include the Köppen system, as it has been accepted worldwide (except apparently by Wtshymanski). -- Skol fir (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To show the general acceptance of the Köppen system, I can also provide an example of a featured article for July 14, 2007, which discussed the climate of India. I quote:
 * "The climate of India comprises a wide range of weather conditions across a vast geographic scale and varied topography, making generalisations difficult. Based on the Köppen system, India hosts six major climatic subtypes, ranging from arid desert in the west, alpine tundra and glaciers in the north, and humid tropical regions supporting rainforests in the southwest and the island territories."
 * As a featured article has reached the highest level of standards at Wikipedia, and mentions the Köppen system, this should also be satisfactory for the Winnipeg article. Case closed.
 * --Skol fir (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Case closed? "Highest standards of Wikipedia" is always a danger flag. This is where the Wikipedia weenies would say clever in-jargon like "WP:OSE" as if that explains anything; which is *just* as annoying as running across a piece of obscure technical jargon in a straightforward description of the city's climate. If you look back in the edit history of the article, you'll find a long and pointless series of edits and reversions as two climate weenies battled over *which* mystical series of occult runes actually matched the Winnipeg climate better.
 * Why not translate the whole project into Latin or Esperanto, if you're going to use private codes in articles anyway? Esperanto is so much more logical than English, so it's clearly the superior way to convey information in an encyclopedia; the trifling extra work that requires the reader to master a new language is entirely justified by the logical spelling alone.
 * It's OK to be a weenie on Wikipedia, though...all our best content is provided by weenies. Non-weenies don't know enough about anything to write an encyclopedia article. But we mustn't overdo it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I never heard the terms "weenie" and "weather" used in the same breath, I had to look it up and dredged up this gem::: "Are You A Weather Weenie?" It sounds like fun. Maybe I should join the club! --Skol fir (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
We could continue racking up edit counts by reversions, or we could talk about which picture we want. Daytime or nighttime? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Daytime - me again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the daytime shot you're referring to? If so, I vote for either the nighttime shot or a different image altogether, as I don't think the image I linked above is either high quality or representative of the city. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t a pissing contest but if you are going to put a daytime image of the city put one the represents the entire skyline and not 4 buildings at portage and main.
 * But the "skyline" of Winnipeg *is* those 4 buildings at Portage and Main. How about File:Winnipeg-Skyline-feb18-2008.jpg, which at least is daylight. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * umm No it's not http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3725283635_544decaa5f_o.jpg

That pic makes the city look cold and barren. The main photo should put forth the best angle of the skyline and the view from the Forks is by far not it; besides also being so overdone through out the years everywhere, time to get a new perspective.Wpg guy 23:15, 29 June 2010
 * But the city is cold and barren. At least it's a daylight picture. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And why do away with some of the resent pics that were added. The picture of the riverwalk at the forks is representative of Winnipeg’s third season, fall. The Curling pic at the Forks demonstrates Winnipeggers enthusiasm to embrace winter. Brings some warmth to this cold embarrassing page. People complain about the lack of good pictures on this wiki page all over forums on the internet. Looking at other Canadian cities there are far superior pics on their pages then the ones represented here to showcase the diversity of the city. Wpg guy 16:10, 29 June 2010
 * You're welcome to add a few pictures, but keep them relatively small and relevant. I removed some of the pictures because there were too many of them - the page was cluttered, the images sandwiched the text, and some pictures added little to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wpg guy, please discuss here instead of edit warring over images again. Now, we may be able to incorporate some additional images into the page. However, your current configuration results in image stacking and text sandwiching - see WP:Image tutorial. You might be better off spreading the images throughout the article, or replacing some of the pre-existing images with higher-quality ones. However, you do have to gain consensus here for "your" version. Please do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough about the clutter, but this page lacks decent quality photos. Calgary, Edmonton even Regina have 25, 28, 35 pics respectively.  As you mention, spread them around if you feel they don’t fit where they are, you don't have to be a wiki nazi about it;ultimatly they do enhance this page to the level of rival canadian cities. Wpg guy 23:21, 29 June 2010

Hey the editing warring over the image of Winnipeg in the lead isn't getting anyone anywhere. Some of the pics being proposed seem to be of poor image quality (e.g., Winnipeg-Skyline-feb18-2008). Perhaps take a look at some other cities on the great plains (Omaha, Des Moines, Denver, Saskatoon) for some ideas. In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that you stick with the nighttime scene (for my money the best so far) and continue discussing the matter here until you get consensus. Sunray (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree thank you.Wpg guy 20:40, 06 July 2010

utosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.82.121 (talk)

you guys are still on about no winter skyline shots blah no wonder i gave up on contributing............................ 1ajs (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Way late to the conversation, but as the uploader of the winter/daylight image, I feel like I should chime in: I'm not from Winnipeg, nor have I ever been there. I was simply struck by how bad the previous image (a semi aerial black and white shot of some high rises) was and decided to find a better picture that made Winnipeg look like, you know, an actual city. Unfortunately, the winter picture was the only free picture I could find of the skyline at the time. I'm more than happy to see a better, more representative image has been found. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate (new)
Winnipeg is not Dfb climate by Köppen clasification. Dry month, february, has 14.5 mm and rainest month, juin, has 89.5 mm. February is less than 1/3 of Juin and less than 30 mm. Winnipeg is a Dwb climate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.240.192 (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The map at Köppen climate classification suggests otherwise, as does this source and this book. Do you have a source to support your assertion that Winnipeg is Dwb? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This source explains the disparity between your calculations and the classification of the area. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have cut theGordian knot. Not everyone who reads Wikipedia is a climatologist. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do certain people insist on placing the statement "According to Environment Canada....Winnipeg is the coldest city in the world with over 600,000 population", when even with the qualification that the claim only relates to daily minima for the Dec-Feb period the statement is not true. There are numerous other cities that are far larger (Harbin, Ulan Bator, etc.) that have colder nightly minima during the winter months. Is it because the statement is sourced? Should a statement that is patently false belong in this article simply because a source can be provided? Can it not be accepted that Environment Canada makes errors? (Many, many, errors, I would add). And really, who cares what city has the coldest daily minima in the winter months; times of the day when most people are sleeping. More important is annual average temperature. With respect to that, Winnipeg is not even the coldest major city in Canada, Edmonton is. I've removed the statement a few times, but certain editors (you know who you are) continue to re-insert it. --24.77.41.241 (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But how do you define "coldest"? Average temperature for three months, or one cold night in 90 ? What are the average temperatures for other contenders? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You do know that Edmonton uses the Edmonton City Center Airport for it climate data because the Edmonton International Airport is not within the city about 14km south next to Leduc, and is not a accurate representation for Edmonton. Kyle  1278  19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Environment Canada knows that? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who know with them :)  Kyle  1278  19:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the first time this argument has been brought up. See Talk:Winnipeg/Archive 4.  Kyle  1278  04:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored the info about Ulaan Bataar since I dont see any reason for it not to be there.  ☮ Soap  ☮  15:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't have a citation that compares Winnipeg and Ulan Bataar. That seems to me a pretty good reason for omitting it. Sunray (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible NHL Return
With the many credible sources which have detailed the possibility of the NHL returning to Winnipeg, I believe these possibilities deserve a brief mention, either on this page or on the "Sport in Winnipeg" page. Does anyone else agree. JakeH07 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave in Sport in Winnipeg if anywhere, but it's all crystal-ball speculation right now and should be clearly identified as such. A citation of a business writer, not a aports writer, would be useful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

More archiving
Archive 4 has commentary on the article up to about the end of August 2010. Much discussion of pictures there. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Direct U.S. connections by rail
What is meant by "only city between Vancouver and Thunder Bay with direct U.S. connections by rail"? There are several railway border crossings between Vancouver and Winnipeg, such as Coutts, Alberta (south of Calgary) and North Portal, Saskatchewan (south of Moose Jaw). Is there something about these other connections that make them not "direct"? The reference given to support the statement is a dead link. Indefatigable (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Passenger service? Is there a a VIA/AMTRAK connection from Calgary to, say, Helena MT?Skookum1 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Skyline image
I am not sure about the new skyline image that was added. My vote is that the old picture captures the skyline of Winnipeg more widely and clearly. Thus I vote we stay with the original. What are others thoughts? Time to move forward or stick with the other for now?

New

Original


 * My problem with the old one is that, while it is most certainly wide, it's also from such a distance and angle that it makes the actual skyline look insignificant and gives undue prominence to the Legislative Building. Plus, the size of the image in the infobox makes it even less flattering... all you can see the Legislative Building and a bunch of light. The issue here for me is the NHL's return... I'd like to see Winnipeg have an infobox image that projects something larger so as to counter people's misconceptions about the city. The problem is that there are precious few images which present the entire skyline in an imposing way on Wikipedia that don't also include snow (something I know users have objected to in the past). A lot of such images do exist, but nobody's ever taken the time to give one up to Wikipedia. So while the one I used doesn't represent the skyline in full, it compares favorably with the ones at Edmonton and Columbus, Ohio, which were my templates in this exercise. Honestly, I think Winnipeg might benefit from hoping on the montage train. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the file tag and changed the size of the image, I think it looks a lot better now and the scale is much more obvious. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with montage move. Should we both try to mix one up and see if we can get something good? Krazytea ( talk ) 18:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So I threw in a montage that I quickly put together with the best pictures that I could find available. I do not know what others thoughts are but it is a good start. I did however notice that some of the pictures are doubles of what are in the main article so I do not know if the best route is to change the ones in the montage, the ones in the article, or just leave it as is. Regardless I hope this is a good start but more discussion is needed in my opinion. Cheers, Krazytea ( talk ) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really love the montage. I don't have Microsoft Publisher, so I can't make one, but the one you added seems perfect. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should show snow - the ground has snow on it for 6 months of the year, it seems un-natural to depict Winnipeg only without snow. Too bad you can't see the mosquitoes in the pictures. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I included a picture of the Assiniboine Park Pavilion with snow, I also sent someone to take some pictures of the provincial bird (the mosquito) unfortunately they were killed by the swarm. So I will have to wait for the next foolish volunteer to add that. But seriously MichiganCharms glad you liked it and for others who have serious suggestions or updates please go ahead or pipe up. Krazytea ( talk ) 05:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Climate section
Looking at the sources listed in the "Climate" section I think we may have some original research happening. We cannot compare Winnipeg with other cities unless a source specifically does that. To draw those comparisons ourselves is OR, which is contrary to WP policy. I will tag it and start cleaning it up. If there are no sources, it will need to be trimmed. Sunray (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed with the continual improvement of the sourcing in this section. Most of the sources confirm the comparisons given with other Canadian cities. For my money it gives a great overview of the weather in Wpg. There are a couple of exceptions, though: the last two sentences in the section. Who says that those dates are the highest/lowest recent temperatures? The sources given are daily reports for those days. There is no comparative data given.


 * One more thing struck me. Why include the climate data for the Forks? It is from a different source, varies slightly from the airport data, and generally doesn't add much to the picture. Also, the precipitation data is from the airport. Is this chart needed? Sunray (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed those things you mentioned Sunray, thanks for the input. 74.216.26.129 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Article length
Winnipeg is just over 124,000 bytes long. Paris is only 130,800 bytes long. Let's not add too mcuh more to this article without some care to tone and utility; this isn't Wikitravel nor www.cityofwinnipeg.com. --Wtshymanski (talk)
 * I note that we have coverage of the gelato district and sushi bars, but not one word on the North End, Winnipeg which arguably is where Winnipeg's greatest Canadian cultural contributions come from. I found 20,000 hits on Google Books for "North End" "Winnnipeg as opposed to only a couple hudred for "Osborne Village Winnipeg". Also I note a near total lack of snow in the myriad of pictures, this is not realistic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with ya although I am not sure about how the book search is relevant. Since this article mainly covers contemporary contributions the North End has become more synonymous with poverty, crime, and social issues that it has with cultural contributions. However I agree that we should add something pointing to the storied history of the neighbourhood. In addition, there is very little information on North End, Winnipeg in the history section. Perhaps this is something we could work on expanding as the article deserves the attention since their is little to no mention of anything on the North End in the History of Winnipeg article. Krazytea ( talk ) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have an issue with the lack of snow pictures since articles of similar winter cities such as Edmonton does not show any or Calgary which only displays about two. The Winnipeg article has about 2 including the montage, I do not think cities portraying the four seasons is overly important. Rather what is important is to highlight more notable images that contribute to the article. Krazytea ( talk ) 02:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Edmonton has two images of winter one in the montage at the beginning of the article and of the legislature under the government section.  Kyle  1278  06:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The boosterism is so sad, too. "Winnipeg is near the longitudinal center of North America" - a geometric oddity, not a particular virtue, and Rugby North Dakota is much closer, as is Brandon. "Experienced a boom in the past.." -yes, then that damn canal got built. Every neighborhood is so vibrant, it's a wonder anyone can sleep at night. And banging the drum for "The Forks" - *every* place where two rivers run together (or split) is called "The Forks"! (Why is it even plural...there's only one "fork" ?). Moderation, please. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Wtshymanski some of the article needs to be gone over and re-written in some places, it needs a neutral tone as encyclopedia should be.  Kyle  1278  16:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a litle more honest and neutral, instead of writing "...has the first except for ", to say instead "...has the second "? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you.  Kyle  1278  04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Too many pictures
This article has been subject to an onslaught of pictures over the last month, some were constructive but many were not. Can we try to get some consensus on these pictures? For myself on a newer wider screen computer most of the images are so busy and compressed they far outpace they body of the article which is supposed to be the focus of Wikipedia. I find this somewhat annoying that these changes are taking place however I do not want to discourage new editors from contributing and reverting every one. What are other peoples thoughts, it becomes fairly busy and somewhat of a booster article instead of encyclopedia style. Krazytea ( talk ) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixing this now - man lots has changed since the GA review :-( .Moxy (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already removed a few pictures and will not adding anymore pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.46.167 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

New editor
First of all, someone vandalized Winnipeg's climate graph. Secondly, I will not add so many pictures anymore, as too many people are saying there is too many pictures. Thirdly, Winnipeg is not the coldest city with a population of over 600,000 (ANY MORE). I emailed Environment Canada and they cleared it up with me that Winnipeg used to be the coldest city (With a population of over 600,000) until Ulan Bator grew bigger then Winnipeg so now they can take that claim (as Ulan Bator has always been colder it just used to be smaller then Winnipeg in population). When the 1981-2010 Climate Normals come out then Environment Canada will probably have something on their website that says that Winnipeg is now the second coldest city in the world with a population of over 600,000; but they do no longer say Winnipeg is the coldest city in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.26.129 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pointless, anyway. Just give the facts and let the reader decide what comparisons to make. It's a weird sort of negative boosterism. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try and not make comparisons unless the reference actually makes the comparison. I removed the Winnipeg the Forks Climate graph because it is not sourced from Environment Canada thus is not a fare comparison to the Winnipeg airport climate graph. I also removed the part that says Winnipeg's recent hottest and coolest temperatures and replaced it with saying that 'they happened as recently as those dates' but not saying 'they are the coldest/hottest recent temperature'. 74.216.26.129 (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.46.167 (talk)

Climate data for Winnipeg is all wrong
I can't track down the exact change that messed with it, but the Climate data for Winnipeg shows Winnipeg's average high in January as -74 C. Pull back a few days, and it's shown as −12.7 C. 24.76.161.68 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I fixed it now. Is there still something amiss? Krazytea ( talk ) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. Either I was commenting about a version of the page I'd loaded 8 minutes earlier, or Wikipedia still hadn't updated its own cache with the fixed template. 24.76.161.68 (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Awesome pictures that the Winnipeg Wiki needs
Here's one picture that Brian Scott took: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanscott/2635909620/in/faves-11523072@N02/

I emailed him to see if he would add it to Wikipedia but he hasn't replied so if anyone on Wikipedia could take a picture with the same view and add it to wikipedia that would be great.

An amazing skyline image would be taken somewhere from the south as seen in this image: http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/6509/skylinepf8.jpg

I would love to hear your guys opinions on these pictures and it would be great if you could take them yourselves and add them to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.46.167 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, put as many pictures as you like on a Winnipeg Wiki. But this is not the Winnipeg wiki, this is the Wikipedia. An overview and a couple of snaps suffice; there's always Google Street View if you want to explore the city in more detail. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already removed a bunch of pictures because you guys are saying there are too many pictures but I just thought these picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanscott/2635909620/in/faves-11523072@N02/ & http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/6509/skylinepf8.jpg we could make an exception for.--74.216.46.167 (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of more boring bland tourist brochure shots, how about picture that actually illustrate things particular to Winnipeg and how we live here? Contrast some million-dollar McMansion with a boarded-up hovel just a couple of kilometres away across the river. How about a picture of a streetful of heavy equipment on snow removal duty (an awesome sight), or a picture of a mosquito trap (I've never seen one, and yet the trap counts are a staple of summer weather breaks)? There isn't even a picture of a Sal's or Kelekis. One of the funniest ads I ever saw was "Winnipeg high-speed chase" with Buddy in his Chevy spinning his tires in the snow, while right behind him is a cop car, also spinning tires in the snow...and nobody moving.
 * I'd suggest shots of distinctive Winnipeg-style architecture but I'm not sure there is one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How about a picture that shows lots of pedestrian street life in a trendy neighborhood of Winnipeg's like Osborne Village or Downtown somewhere. That would be good too. --74.216.46.167 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about Wtshymanski, he is part troll part useful contributor. Good luck in finding more pictures for Wiki commons. Krazytea ( talk ) 20:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A sidewalk covered in dead leaves, cigarette butts, and flattened Tim's cups would be as representative. Don't forget the panhandlers. And few other cities in the world have transvestite hookers wearing fishnet stockings and Jets-logo parkas. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Winnipeg Montage with a new picture added
I added a new picture to the Winnipeg Montage.

Old version: New version:

Tell me if you think we should use this one now or if you don't like it.--Jd.101 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

how much monthly expense for survive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.90.154 (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Gosh that montage is tiny. Is there any way to increase the resolution? Surely the source images are not microscopic. Mattximus (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyclocross in Winnipeg
added to sports section about the 2013 Manitoba Cyclocross Championship races which were held at The Forks as shown on youtube video with mention of the organizers of this competition are submitting a bid to host the Canadian Cyclocross Championships in 2014 or 2015. 174.49.136.109 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to nominate as a Featured Article?
I was wondering if this article needs any improvements before it can be a featured article. After a quick glance, I believe this article is a good candidate. Any comments? Techman224 Talk  18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets ping User:Nikkimaria she would know best and loves Winnipeg. --Moxy (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't pass at the moment: it needs some considerable citation cleanup, among other things. However, I think the content itself is sound and complete, so I'd be happy to work on getting the other details up to scratch. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a very well written and constructed article, but I agree with Nikkimaria. It need some work done with the citations, a Peer review never hurts either. Otherwise the article looks very good, and I think it is a strong contender for reaching Featured Article status. Regards,  Kyle  1278  19:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any examples of what citation work needs to be done? Techman224  Talk  00:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Checklinks tool. The dead links are as follows. 37,*40,*47,*50,*54,*60,*63,*78,*104,*114,*118,*120,*122,*126,*128,*132,*133,*141,*159,*180,*186*,187*,188*,189*,190, and Regards  Kyle  1278  01:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources below we can use? ...sorry a bit late to this...as Niki is well at work already. -- Moxy (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)



Moxy, Kyle, any thoughts on further improvements needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually no! looks good all around. Lets do this review then move on to Ottawa for GA. :-) -- Moxy (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article looks good, think that it is a great candidate. Best of luck!  Kyle  1278  20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Historic Population Table
I propose including a historic population table under the demographics section. I suggested this during the featured article nomination, but it was rejected without debate, simply that it's too detailed. Here are some reasons I think it should be included: I propose a compromise. Since the numbers are "too granular", it's possible to add the table in collapsed form. Please see. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no harm in doing this. It takes up almost no space, so if you don't like it you can ignore it. It does not interfere at all with formatting. It's just there if anyone wants to click on it. Thanks for your consideration. Mattximus (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A survey of Canadian cities that are GA or Featured and found that 100% of them have the historic population table in the article under the demographics section. Please see Montreal, Edmonton, London, Ontario, Coquitlam, Lethbridge, Moncton, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador and Hamilton. Furthermore, it's included in the page of almost every single city in the world where data is available. It is very odd that Winnipeg is one of the only cities in the world without a table.
 * The table gives a sense of history and scope to the city at a glance. You can tell with a click how this city evolved, when it grew, when it shrank. It gives incredible insight, and the ability to compare with other cities at a glance. Most importantly, it gives context to the text of the article.
 * Hi Mattximus, thank you for your comments. I reiterate my concern that this level of detail would be more helpful and appropriate in a subarticle such as Demographics of Winnipeg or similar, per WP:SS and related pages. Collapsing the table does not make the numbers less granular, but it does interfere with the formatting, as it requires that the article's layout be flexible enough to accommodate both the collapsed and uncollapsed versions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did test the formatting, when placed at the right when collapsed it does not interfere with formatting at all. It is almost insignificant in it's small size. I tested it when expanded and the formatting remained perfect. I really think the massive gains and context and insight is worth the almost invisible collapsed small box. Would this not be a good compromise? It's also the first recommended section in demographics in the Wikiproject Cities so we would be going against this project's suggested guidelines. Mattximus (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the US guideline; the Canadian version doesn't discuss the issue. For the formatting, I think this really depends on your setup - on my screen the uncollapsed version does create formatting issues because of interaction with the second table, and testing it on a wider screen it can actually bleed into the following section. I think part of the issue is it's so much larger than the other table, even in just comparing headings. What about a version more like Ashton-under-Lyne? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mattximus invited me to comment on this. I saw the addition and revert before that and was coincidentally planning to provide my comments if a discussion was initiated anyway. Inclusion of the template is appropriate and collapsing it is common practice to avoid obvious formatting consequences. Screens will always vary and there will always be formatting problems in articles with multiple templates and images as a result. When expanded, what I see is the ethnic origins table stack next to the historical populations section above the image. No unnecessary whitespace as a result. One thing that could be done is to float either table to the left to avoid the stacking (preferably the ethnic origins table). The historical populations template, in my opinion, is a brief and concise summary of the municipality's size over time, appropriate to both "History" and "Demographics" section of articles, and would therefore meet the intent of WP:SS, whereas detailed prose to speak to its population history would be too granular and more appropriate for the Demographics of Winnipeg sub-page. Moreover, I believe the ethnic origins table is a better candidate for transfer to the sub-page. If there was a horizontal version of Template:Historical populations, similar to the design presented at Ashton-under-Lyne, then I would be game for that. There was a request for that in 2012 (see Template talk:Historical populations), but the only thing that came out of it was the suggestion to use Template:Demography. Alas that does not have the "percent change" column and its formatting is inconsistent with the other template. In summary, inclusion of the full population history of Winnipeg is a worthy addition to this FA and would not void its FA status. Formatting consequences can be minimized or even resolved entirely. Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The version suggested certainly would present an issue for FA status, quite aside from issues of content: its citations were very problematic, generally incomplete and with links going somewhere other what was suggested by the citation details. I've put up a better compromise version, but even that has a few incomplete citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the vertical population table like found in Edmonton since the horizontal version is much harder to read. I also can't seem to replicate your formatting issues. I could not get it to bleed into the following section, perhaps it has to do with screen resolution? It still seems perfect to me. Nevertheless, the horizontal mode is better than not having a table at all, and thanks to Hwy43 for inquiring about the possibility of a percent change between census on the horizontal one. If we settle on a vertical or horizontal format, I can work on the citations to make sure they are up to Featured quality. Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that there is a third version of the table uploaded by Frietjes. I rather like it. I might change the p/a to a more traditional % growth since all censuses are exactly 10 years apart, but that's a minor quibble. Would this format be acceptable to all parties? Mattximus (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the format uploaded (thanks ) is an ideal compromise. No problem with changing from p/a to % change, but in the event the quinquennial census populations are eventually added for 1956 through 2006, we'll have to revert back to p/a due to the varying five and ten-year intervals. Hwy43 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so, from my perspective: it's quite obtrusive in comparison to the other horizontal format, and is harder for the casual reader to understand. Mattximus, in what way do you find the other format hard to read? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This revert resulted in the loss of the percent change between each census. From my experience and observation in historic population research and presentation, it is unconventional to present a single-entry (i.e., one city) over a lengthy time series in horizontal format. A small screen resolution results in this table bleeding off the page. Further, think about if this was being laid out in book format. Such tables are difficult to fit within page margins or even a page with no margins. Text size would have to be reduced significantly within the table to make such tables fit, which compromises legibility. Horizontally dominant tables are hard to fit and harder to read. Hwy43 (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This table is narrower than the climate data table further up the page, which is a standard presentation for geographical articles - if this is an issue I would suggest that would be the place to start rather than this table. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists and regardless that table is not an issue. The climate table has a finite 14 columns (unless we add non-existent months) compared to 16 census years and counting in the population table (there could be 11 more if the quinquennial censuses between 1906 and 2006 are added). Its 16 rows outnumber its 14 columns making it vertically dominant, whereas the population table has a single row. Flipping columns for rows in the climate table would further lengthen its horizontal width, so its current presentation is the best option. Further it has extraneous space within the table that I have just addressed. You stand alone in favouring a horizontal format over a vertical format. Hwy43 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You stated above that a horizontal format would be acceptable to you. I favour having neither, but if we must have any the horizontal seems the best compromise yet presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A horizontal version similar in design to the Ashton-Under-Lyne example was a grudgingly acceptable alternative only to not including a table whatsoever. Then a better alternative was presented that resolves my concerns expressed since. What we have now falls short of the now unsatisfactory original alternative. Hwy43 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What we have now is a horizontal version similar in design to the Ashton-Under-Lyne example. The "better" alternative you point to is, as already mentioned, quite obtrusive and hard to follow, and having no table at all would be far preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to repeat the key point from three posts ago why the current design falls short of the Ashton example. You are the only one who prefers having no table. Your arguments are not compelling and this appears to be WP:IDL and WP:OWN. Hwy43 (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In publications, offline encyclopaedias, textbooks, etc. demographic tables are always presented vertically. I can speculate as to why. When you have numbers presented vertically you can easily compare the place holder (tens, hundreds). This is why math is structured like this. I think the horizontal table is not a very good way to read numeric information, but is better than not having this information at all. If the main complaint is formatting, perhaps we can explore different ways the table can be positioned so as to not interfere with existing tables? Does anyone know an expert wikiformatter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs)
 * Mattximus, you are right the horizontal table is not a good way to read numerical information. I've previously stated that no formatting consequences were observed when stacking the ethnic origins table next to a vertical population history table. Hwy43 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried it again and found no formatting issues. It didn't bleed into the next section. Maybe it's just a resolution thing? I also miss the % change column. Mattximus (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)