Talk:Halifax Common

Canada: Nova Scotia / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

there s a North Common and South Common and therefore a Halifax Commons - the name of this page is incorrect -Mayumashu 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South or central?

Is it called the "south common" or the "central common"? Ouuplas 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This map, as well as Google Maps has it labelled as "Central Common", so I guess I'll change it. Ouuplas 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

This legal document refers to it as the Commons. Sprocket 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 40 years I've lived in Halifax, I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as anything but the Commons (I know, I know, original research, but . . . ). However, HRM has chosen to call the new skatepark (sic) the Common Skatepark. I suspect there's actually no valid way to decide which is more "correct". Awien 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage does not make right - otherwise it would be correct to say "I seen that" or "Where was that boughtin" or "Don't that car work?" or other classic Nova Scotianisms. The official name is the Common. We should say that then that common usage is "the Commons." WayeMason (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you use hopefully? To mean I hope ("incorrect"), or with hope ("correct")? What's a sea change? A big change ("incorrect"), or assimilated by the ocean ("correct")? Or cool? Or fabulous? Languages are in a constant state of flux whereby yesterday's mistake becomes today's standard because enough people have adopted it, and yesterday's Latin becomes today's French because enough mistakes have become standard for bad Latin to have evolved into good French. And as for your Nova Scotianisms, it's by no means inconceivable that if enough people "caught" them from a smash hit something-or-other, they could in fact become accepted usage within a generation.

That being said, though, I have no objection to saying that in common usage the space is referred to as "the Commons". Awien (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WaldoWordwatcher:

You are clearly waging a crusade against what you perceive as a mistake, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for that. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Referring to the use of the term Commons as “mistaken” is biased and violates the NPOV policy.

You are also incorrect in claiming that the term Commons is “frequently” used by ”some” residents. It is in fact, as my edit stated, the common usage, that is, what Haligonians actually call the space. For evidence, look at the coverage of the 2006 Rolling Stones concert. All the press coverage both before and after the concert referred to the venue as the Commons, as did the bloggers and those who posted videos to YouTube. Among the first thirty hits, only ESRI calls it the Common. This may confirm that for legal or official purposes, Common is the preferred form, but does not alter the fact that Commons is the form in common use. I am therefore restoring the more neutral and balanced wording.

Before you revert again without adequate explanation, please discuss the question here, including showing evidence for your claims. Awien (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Awien, WayeMason is correct. Poor usage doesn't make something right. The correct name is the Halifax Common and it always has been. You are wrong in saying that all press coverage refers to the venue as the Commons. See the advertising and press coverage for both the upcoming Paul McCartney and KISS concerts. More and more press people are using the correct term. See, for example, The Coast, which consistently gets it right. Only the Chronicle Herald seems to use the term "Commons" on a regular basis. Watch CBC and you will see that their coverage is now using the correct term except for the occasional slip-up. Take a look at the city's web page. They only use "Commons" when they are referring collectively to the various commons spread through HRM (for example the Mainland Common and the Dartmouth Common):http://www.halifax.ca/ConcertOnTheCommon/HistoryontheHalifaxCommon.html

I hope we can all embrace accuracy and refer to the Common as the Common. There are numerous history texts about Halifax that show the Common has been called that for centuries and it appears that only in the last few decades have people become sloppy with the reference, perhaps because they hear about the House of Commons and carry the plural over to the their references to the Common. There is a trend toward use of the correct term. Visit the restaurant "jane's on the common" :http://www.janesonthecommon.com/ for example (and some fine food, I might add!).

One can also become involved with the group "Friends of the Halifax Common" if one wants to learn more about the Common. See their web pages: http://www.halifaxcommon.ca/index.html and this story about the Common and the group: http://novanewsnet.ukings.ca/nova_news_3588_12929.html

If you want further evidence, you can look at "Historic Halifax" by William Coates Borrett (Ryerson Press) or "History of Halifax City" by Dr.T.B. Atkins (Mika Publishing). Two good articles on the more modern history of the Halifax Common are "the Armory and The Common" by Margaret L. Perry in the Atlantic Advocate, September 1984, and "Common ground" by Mary Guildford, the Sunday Herald, March 2, 2003, page C8.

I'm not trying to be a difficult person, just accurate and correction of a mistake is not an example of bias as you suggest. Best regards WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaldoWordwatcher (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WaldoWordwatcher

I am not denying that the legal/formal/official name is the Common, nor does my saying that “in common usage the whole area is referred to as the Commons” imply that I am. It is a statement of fact, as few minutes with Google will show: the majority of people say Commons. To note that fact is not the same thing as saying that Commons is correct, but the statement that Commons is common usage is correct.

In linguistic terms, usage is determined with reference to a corpus of examples. The corpus on which you base your contention that Common is the legal/formal/official usage has no relevance in determining what the common usage is. For that, we need a corpus of everyday spontaneous occurrences of the term(s) in question. Blogs, concert announcements, reviews, ticket offers etc. as found via Google comprise just such a corpus, which shows that in common usage Commons outnumbers Common by a wide margin.

For the purposes of the article, noting that there is a divergence between legal/formal/official and common usage is all that is required. To describe the common usage as mistaken is POV pushing, which is contrary to WP guidelines.

So I am once more rewriting that sentence in a more factual, NPOV form. Please desist from reverting it in the name of your crusade for correctness. Awien (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, in my experience the people I know refer to the park area far more often as the "Common" so it is you who seem to have an agenda here. Your re-writing of the entry to imply that the majority of people use the incorrect reference is POV pushing. If you watched the CBC news last night you would have seen that the area is referred to as the Common. You can watch the broadcast online so please do. When I have time to revisit this I will attempt to come up with wording that recognizes your crusade for incorrectness but addresses the correct usage. Ask yourself this, would the entry be accurate if it said "city residents correctly refer to the area as the Commons"? Obviously not, so pointing out that this is not the correct name is not a matter of bias - it is a matter of fact.WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article indicates that Common is the correct form. The definition uses that form. There is no need to add any such pejorative modifier as "wrongly", "incorrectly", "mistakenly" etc. to the factual statement that Commons is the majority popular/local usage.

Your claim that among the people you talk to Commons is rare and mine that it is common are both original research and not admissible. I have backed my claim with objective evidence, you haven't.

Popular usage is what it is, there is no need to add any value judgment to the term. To designate a term popular or local is enough. Please stop phrasing the statement in such a way as to imply that those who say Commons are an ignorant minority. Awien (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, I have certainly backed up my claim that the correct name is the Halifax Common with objective evidence. If you look at the links provided above you will see that. You have not backed up your position that the majority of city residents refer to the Common as the Commons with objective evidence. Your reference to YouTube entries and blogs that you found using Google is not objective evidence that the majority of Haligonians use the incorrect term. At best it could be said to be evidence that some people who post on the internet about Rolling Stones concerts use the term. That is not proof of what most residents of the city say most often in their daily lives - only proof that you found some references to the term that you like by using Google. It is not objective evidence of the thing claimed. Funnily enough, when I entered the phrase "halifax common" in Google, the references that came up were all to the Common for both of the first two screens of hits (I didn't go further as the result seems obvious). Included in the hits was this one from just over an hour ago from the Canadian Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gL8uhv89rETe6O-b4WR3jOKHE1hA Again, the term used in this current entertainment news piece is the Common. There are three letters in today's Chronicle Herald about the upcoming McCartney concert, all from city residents and all referring to the venue as the Common: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1131255.html I believe this is objective evidence of what people call the area.

Please don't claim that you have produced any objective evidence that the majority of city residents use the incorrect term. Anybody reading this can use Google themselves to look at the search hits but, again, those are not objective proof of what is common usage in Halifax, only evidence that some people post incorrectly on the internet. Fan interest in a major concert like the Rolling Stones event can lead to a spike in entries that is out of proportion to routine references to the venue so your example is not objective evidence of normal usage.

I have never denied that a portion of the city's population uses the incorrect term. I have acknowledged that fact. I have never characterized them as an ignorant minority as you suggest. That is not a nice thing to suggest here. I can understand why somebody who has used the wrong term for a long time might become defensive about its use when they learn of the error of their ways but I don't think it is fair to impose value judgements on my entries, which have been factual. It is a fact that the Commons is not the correct name of the area. It is not a pejorative comment - just a fact.WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a change that I hope embraces your position on common usage without implying that all or a majority of residents use the incorrect term. It should not appear pejorative to you so I hope it works.WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, though maybe not definitive. Thank you for being willing to compromise.

Re what you say above:

If you read what I have written, you will see that I have at no point questioned your assertion that Common is the formal/legal/official term.

If people don't say Commons to you personally, I would guess that is because they know your views on that form.

You seem not really to understand what common usage means. Maybe you should look it up in a good dictionary or a linguistics textbook, but briefly, common usage is what people say when speaking naturally, in ordinary, informal, unforced situations. Internet postings are a good source of exactly that. We could also go to novels set in Halifax, letters and diaries, etc.; the internet is just handier. Official documents, formal writing, writing subject to bureaucratic or editorial oversight may not reflect common usage.

If you Google "Common", you find "Common"; if you Google "Commons", you find "Commons". What I Googled in order to avoid biasing the search was "Rolling Stones Halifax". 29 of the first 30 mentions of the venue called it the Commons, 1 called it the Common. What you call "only evidence that some people post incorrectly on the internet" is actually evidence that most people spontaneously say Commons.

Googling "Paul McCartney Halifax" also yields a wide majority for Commons, while the instances of Common were skewed by the fact that almost half were repeats of one CP article by Steve Macleod, and almost half (Icelandair, for example) had clearly been cribbed from the WP article (which proves you are having an influence anyway and don't even need to disparage local usage).

The promoter of the McCartney concert says Commons.

Here's something for you to think about. The Oxford English Dictionary at the entry common notes "formerly often commons", and among the citations one from 1641 reads "[some] deal no better with their impotent and old servants than to turne them off their hands to live on a Commons or dye in a ditch". What you perceive as a sloppy and recent corruption of the "correct" term may in fact be an archaism.

Awien (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Waldo WordWatcher wrote] Awien, Let me address your latest batch of assertions in order. First, very few people have any idea of my views on the use of the correct reference to the Common or even that I have any views. I based my observations on what I hear generally in use by others. I do hear some people use the incorrect but common reference but I do not confront them, which might embarass them, I just feel a bit sorry for them. Your insinuation that I am affecting the way people interract with me is intended to distract from the factual information I have been presenting and does not elevate the discussion.

[Awien replied] So you DO admit that Commons is common.

[WaldoWordwatcher replied] I didn't say "common", only that I hear some peopleuse the incorrect term.

[Waldo WordWatcher wrote] I have no problem with the concept of "common usage" so your suggestion that I look it up is similarly unhelpful to the discussion and sounds somewhat condescending. What I do have trouble with is faulty reasoning. Your assertion that what was used by a sampling of a limited number of internet posters who saw a particular Rolling Stones Concert (which by the way was advertised using the incorrect name) is proof of what is used by the majority of residents, is just tendentious reasoning. Most of the city did not attend that concert and a very small sampling of people posting who may have had their usage skewed by the advertising does not represent the day to day usage of an entire municipality.

[Awien replied] Why was it advertised as being on the Commons? Because that's what the promoter naturally called the space because it's common local usage.

[WaldoWordwatcher replied] People make mistakes...

[Waldo WordWatcher wrote] The first press release by the promoter attributed the use of "Commons" to the promoter, but since then he has consistently used "Common" in all the print, radio and television promotion. See page 2 of the "Metro" newspaper for July 10, 2009 and page B4 of the Chronicle Herald of the same date. You will see that the promoter is also now publishing a map of the "Halifax Common Concert Site". His one slip-up is not representative of the large amount of subsequent promotion he has done. As you can see from the news story of the same date, he appears to be rerring to it by its correct name: http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/259510--final-preparations-underway-for-sir-paul

[Awien replied] In other words, he initially used the term that came naturally because it's common local usage, THEN switched when he was told it was incorrect.

[WaldoWordwatcher replied] Fact is, the advertising got it right throughout the promotion after the first press release.

[Waldo WordWatcher wrote] Finally, thank you for the citation from 1641 showing that there was an archaic use of the term "commons" 368 years ago. Luckily for us that usage seems to have fallen into disuse here 122 years later when our Lieutenant Governor made the following grant, which I suggest is a more relevant quotation: "I Jonathan Belcher, Esquire, Lieutenant Governor of His Majesty's Province of Nova Scotia or Acadie, by virtue of the power and authority given to me by his Present Majesty King George the Third, grant land lying and being in the peninsula of Halifax containing in whole two hundred and thirty five acres for a Common for the use of the inhabitants of the Town of Halifax forever."WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Awien replied] Commons wasn't archaic in the 17th and even 18th century, it was current usage. British settlers who came to NS at that time could very well have brought the term with them and continued using it despite the official deed of grant saying Common. And I repeat yet again, I'm not denying that Common is the official name, just insisting that Commons is common, and may be a very longstanding holdover rather than a recent corruption. I thought you might be less hostile to it if you knew that its history is honourable.

Can't hear myself think any more over the racket coming from the Common(s) . . . Awien (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, "Commons wasn't archaic in the 17th and even 18th century, it was current usage" Now you're really becoming confusing - we aren't living in the 17th or 18th centuries and you"re suggesting either that it was common usage in Halifax in those times (not supported in any way by your reference to a dictionary reference not related to Halifax) or that it has continued as the primary reference from the 1600s to today (completely unsupported by any evidence on your part and flying in the face of the various objective historic references I earlier provided). "Current usage" (not supported by evidence relating to the Halifax Common) in those centuries does not equal "common usage" in the year 2009 (forsooth my liege, thou art a knave - if I'm wrong on that). If you have some evidence of an alternative chain of usage over the last three and a half of centuries, please provide some sort of non-anecdotal, suppositional ("could very well" or "may be" in your words) evidence, anything....please... to support your claims. You are really fishing now.

I'm glad to see you are now saying that Commons is currently a "common" reference rather than asserting that it is the usage of "most" residents - perhaps we are moving toward a common ground on this, but please stop characterizing my requests for verifiable objective evidence with words such as "disparaging" and "hostile".

I hope whatever racket you hear from the Common doesn't disturb you any further. If you are that close to the Common, I hope you enjoy the show and that you remember that Sir Paul said the other day " “We are in England here at the moment and we are rehearsing for the Halifax Common... “We’re coming to the Common,”. Link: http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/local/article/258759--sir-paul-gives-a-shout-out-to-halifax

Again, enjoy the "rilly big shew" on the Halifax Common :)WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Wordwatcher

I'll rephrase in case I wasn't clear. I maintain that a word that's in the OED can't be all bad, and that it's perfectly plausible for a form that is no longer current in the UK to have persisted locally here.

As for Sir Paul, not only is he not a local, he's not the Beatles. Basically, as PublicSpace? wrote to The Coast, "I want my Commons back." ^_-

But shall we declare a truce? Or meet at Jane's On The Common and continue the discussion in person? Awien (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in all my 44 years living in the area, i have never heard the halifax or dartmouth commons referred to as "the common". my guess, is that its usage without the s, is limited strictly to wikipedia... or typos. calling either park "the common" falls very strangely on my ears, like bad grammar, as though the speaker is not completing their sentence. the common what? 142.177.77.2 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, I think we have already reached a "truce" and the current entry embraces both our positions- it is an accurate compromise and I'm OK with it. Both positions have been discussed and a reasonable result acieved for the article. My best regards.WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 142.177.77.2 References to the Common are clearly not limited to Wikipedia and typos. Please see all the detailed discussion above. The Dartmouth Common is correctly referred to as the Dartmouth Common also. Please see the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter, which copies the long standing references in the Municipal Government Act:

"66 (1) In this Section, "Dartmouth common" means the common of Dartmouth so far as it was vested in the City of Dartmouth on April 22, 1986.

(2) The Municipality may not sell, lease, license or otherwise alienate the Dartmouth common.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), no person shall build on the Dartmouth common.

(4) A person may build an addition to a building located on the lands described in the Schedule to Chapter 87 of the Acts of 1994, An Act to Amend Chapter 68 of the Acts of 1986, the Dartmouth Common Act, if the building and the addition are both totally located on those lands.

(5) The Municipality may build, expand or improve public transit facilities on that part of the Dartmouth Common adjacent to Nantucket Avenue and not exceeding six acres.

(6) When the lands referred to in subsection (5) are no longer used by the Municipality for public transit facilities, the lands revert back to their use as part of the Dartmouth Common.

(7) The Dartmouth common is held by the Municipality in trust for the inhabitants of the Municipality."

I see you have already amended references to the Dartmouth Common elsewhere citing the authority that "blue links work much better than red". Please do not change accurate content on the basis of your personal perception, which flies in the face of official terminology and (shout out to Awien here - I have never heard the Dartmouth Common referred to as the commons) common usage. Before you make any further changes, please show objective evidence.

As to your assertion that you have never heard the Halifax Common referred to as the Common.... See all of the above discussion and add to it the Canadian Press article of an hour ago about the McCartney show: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halifax_Common&action=edit

Please do not make changes to accurate content based on your perceptions. Best regards, 24.224.170.118 (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

get your facts straight, i did not make any changes, nor did i request your spiel, nor is this a game of smarty-pants. i simply stated (on this talk page) that without the 's', is sounds pretty stupid. 142.177.77.2 (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 142.177.77.2 Please refrain from ad hominem attacks (in keeping with Wikipedia rules).

"spiel" , "smarty-pants" and "stupid" are not appropriate. As far as whether you have made changes to the related content, the history shows": (cur) (prev) 09:13, 7 July 2009 142.177.77.2 (talk) (16,021 bytes) (Undid revision 298585373 by WaldoWordwatcher (talk) - blue links work much better than red) (undo)

What I saw looked like the same IP address 142.177.77.2 but if I'm wrong, I apologize. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia but you are not signing your "contributions" and the IP address is the same for these related entries(please see Wikipedia policies) and I don't understand how it wouldn't be you if the same IP address is listed for the article if it is not you that made the change?? Again, whether you made that particular change or not, please refrain from ad hominem attacks - check what discourse is acceptable on Wikipedia. Best regards. WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well please accept my apologies, if you assumed i was attacking another user. i did not say the user was stupid, i simply stated that a particular word without an 's' at the end, "sounds" grammatically stupid. i do not intend to make any changes, that's why i'm posting to a talk page. as for the "other" article, yes, i did revert you, but only because you had broken a working blue-link, rendering it uselessly red. it shouldn't have been left that way. i see someone has since created a redirect to fix this issue, so it's no longer my concern. have a nice day. 142.177.77.2 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "142.177.77.2" Apology accepted regarding the link, and I hope you will think about the use of expressions such as "spiel" and "smarty-pants" in responding to other users in the future. They are not very friendly terms and if you go through the discussion above you will see that people with an interest in the article have been able to engage in a dialogue on the issue (even though we hold different views) witout descending to that type of ad hominem attack. I've come to respect Awien's intellect and interest in the subject matter even though we have divergent points of view. Saying "get your facts straight, i did not make any changes" [sic] to the related matter was clearly not accurate and it was only after I posted the citation to your change that you "'fessed up" and tried to justify the change that you had, in fact, made. I would not have posted my observation that the person at your IP address had made the change without having confirmed the address first. I'm glad another user dealt with the blue-link/redirect issue, but denying your earlier change was not accurate.WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please, let's refrain from discussing (or confusing) the issues of other articles on this talk-page. such posts will only irritate the other users. though i do have a few additional comments, i will post them to your user talk-page instead, either later tonight, or later in the weekend. peace and happiness to all. 142.177.77.2 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Waldo Wordwatcher

I have now rewritten the introductory paragraph so as to improve flow and readability, while still hopefully reflecting the compromise we had reached. To that end I have refrained from making or implying either value judgments or hypotheses concerning the form Commons in favour of a simple statement of fact.

In particular, “local usage” has the advantage of both being accurate and avoiding the Common/Commons/common awkwardness, and “more often” is supported by the fact that the “McCartney Halifax” search showed Commons as the majority usage by a wide margin even before adjusting for multiple copies of one article and WP cribs - this AFTER the promoter adopted the form Common.

I believe this is still something we can both live with, and hope you can agree. Awien (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello awien. just thought i should mention that your bare link to "halifax" in the opening sentence, still requires some form of disambiguation. 142.177.77.2 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done (I think that's what you meant?). Awien (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, I see your edit but I don't think it reflects the compromise, as it is suggesting a mjority usage that, as discussed above I don't believe is proven by a bubble of stories about a particular event. While I have no problem agreeing that a significant number of locals say "Commons" I have not seen any proof that it is a majority. If you look at the Coverage in "Metro" it almost always "Common". The same with "The Coast". The Chronicle Herald currently uses "Commons" more, but not exclusively. CBC uses "Common" in most stories but CTV uses "Commons" more. I don't believe the scale has been tipped one way over the other so I'll think more about this when I have more time to see if I can come up with another way of expressing it. Best regardsWaldoWordwatcher (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, how about "in common usage very often referred to as the Commons..."?? It has the element of volume that conveys your position about its usage being common but it doesn't presume a majority being proven objectively. I could be happy (well not truly happy but happy in a compromising way) with that as long as we can keep the content of the article accurate. I have quite a bit of historical information that could be added if I ever find the time. Your thoughts? WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WaldoWordwatcher:

You are still confusing formal usage (newspaper articles, radio and TV reporting etc.) with familiar/common/local/everyday usage, i.e. what people say in everyday life.

You also seem to be dismissing the Google search results on the grounds that what people say is a mistake and therefore doesn't count, whereas what they actually show is that in everyday life, a large majority of ordinary people say Commons.

But since you want more proof, here you go. I have just also searched the listings of homes for sale or rent in the area on realtor.ca (via the map, not via the search engine). Of the first 10 I found that mention the Common(s), 9 say Commons, 1 says Halifax Common Park. That's not "more" or even "most", that's "almost all".

So "more often" is already such a concession that I suggest you let it stand. Can you bear it? Awien (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added "popular" to further underline the distinction with formal/legal/official. Awien (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awien, I think the addition of "popular"helps. I still think you are missing my point about extrapolating from limited samplings of internet use to apply "findings" to a broader population but that discussion will have to wait until another day as I will be traveling for a number of weeks with limited time and opportunities to use the internet. My best wishes to you for an unCommonly good summer. WaldoWordwatcher (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WaldoWordwatcher

Don't forget that limited but hopefully representative samples called opinion polls are how election results are predicted; new drugs are tested on a small sample of patients; advertising and new products tried out on a sample of consumers, and so on. A well-chosen sample generally reflects the larger population.

Have a good trip! Awien (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotectronics

Is this a typo for pyrotechnics? Or if it is in fact a different form of fireworks, a brief explanation would be useful. Awien (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is not a typo, pyrotectronics is a unique form of Pyrotechnics used for situations such as concerts and venues where people may be in close proximity to the explosions. It uses radio requencies (AKA elecronic frequencies) to ensure fireworks do not mistakenly go off in the wrong direction. Disney World uses Pyrotectronics rather than normal Pyrotechnics.

Thanks for the explanation - changing it back. Awien (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

attendance figures

yes, i'm fully aware of the recent disagreement over the kiss concert attendance figures as well as the reference(s) that would be used to back it up. and though i had been completely satisfied with the way it eventually worked out, i now see that the web-page used as reference material, no longer says anything about the kiss concert whatsoever... meaning that the reference is currently non-applicable and needs to be removed. personally, i don't really care what number the article states, as long as the figure is reasonably accurate and true to form. i only took it upon myself to get involved with adjusting the figure, after someone had posted a ridiculously exaggerated 70,000... which i immediately knew was false because the concert's official website states that ticket sales would be capped at (or limited to) 40,000. it means that the actual attendance figure is 40,000 or less, which once again, needs to be properly referenced to discourage further padding.

while i'm on the topic, i should also mention that i disagree with using 60,000 as the attendance figure for paul mccartney. though there "may have" been an estimated 10,000 free-loaders gathered on citadel hill, the article is not about citadel hill, it's about the commons, and should reflect the main topic. references to an estimated 50,000 are easy to find, and i'd be more than happy to add one if i knew we all agreed. 142.177.77.2 (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have figures from reputable sources, you should go ahead and correct any errors you've noticed.

Btw, I left you a message on your talk page a few days ago. Don't know if you saw it . . . Awien (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alright, as we've discussed above, i have used "the chronicle herald" to reference the paul mccartney attendance at 50,000. should the source web-page ever go missing, we could always use any one of these in its place.

~told you this reference would be an easy and plentiful find ;)

it's probably a good idea to keep them filed here on the talk-page, as it would look kind of weird trying to jam them all into that little table cell. -pat- 142.177.77.2 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff

I removed a great deal of fluff from this article including discussions about "stellar" performances and unreferenced and unprovable comments about the quality of performances. I also added CN tags to a lot of unsourced numbers. I still think the page needs work but anyone editing should remember that this is a an encyclopedia not an advertisement for the common as a concert venue.--Chris902 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the 78th Highlanders Pipe & Drum may be an important figure in the city's culture and heritage, they should perhaps be written back into the article. -- WikHead (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's two issues here. One is that the 78th Highlanders are not particularly important in the city's heritage and culture (I lived in the city for over twenty years and worked in a museum at one point and had to google them to figure out who they were). The more important one is that it's absurd to list that level of detail about a concert on the Common on the common's wiki page. No other concert venue has random minutiae of that detail about random performances that occurred on premises.--Chris902 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halifax Common. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711022652/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090709/paul_mccartney_090709/20090709?hub=Entertainment to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090709/paul_mccartney_090709/20090709?hub=Entertainment

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halifax Common. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]