Talk:Lethbridge/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikilinks

We need to remove some of the red links in this article. Not because the links look bad, but because some of the things are guaranteed not to get articles that are more than stubs. Some of the buildings in Lethbridge, well, it's difficult to prove their significance to a worldwide encyclopedia. Phoenix2 19:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the list of towers. Were there others you thought should not be linked? Since you wrote your comment, I made articles for a few of the red links. --Kmsiever 05:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Weather (Wind)

Why no mention in the weather section regarding the absurd amount of wind in the city? If someone where researching the city on Wiki, for a potential move, I'd say the omission could be considered downright criminal. Just a thought. (RJ)

Wind is mentioned. In the climate section, it states that frequent chinooks are one of the causes for mild winters in Lethbridge. And for the record, it's hardly an absurd amount of wind (at least compared to any other prairie city). In fact, there are at least seven other cities in Canada windier than Lethbridge.[1] As I sit now looking outside there is not a single bit of a breeze. --Kmsiever 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I lived in the city for 20 years. The mention of the wind in Lethbridge on the main page is still misleading in my mind. Chinooks are a part of it yes, but to say the mountain ranges are what shields the city from wind, makes it sound like the city is a haven, safe from wind. Any person I have ever come in contact outside of the city, who has been to Lethbridge makes mention of the wind to me. Also, I'd say if you did a poll in the city, asking what people like least about their own city, wind would be near the top.

I see it is mentioned, but again, I think as far as how it's mentioned, wind must have a great PR rep, because it is shown in a favourable light. --RJ

It doesn't say the mountains shield it from all wind; it says the mountains shield it from strong northwest and southwest winds, which is true.

I can appreciate your experiences, but we cannot use anecdotal evidence or hypothetical polls to determine what goes in a Lethbridge article. --Kmsiever 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. —Centrx→talk • 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lethbridge, Alberta → Lethbridge – Lethbridge already redirects to Lethbridge, Alberta. All other uses are much less common. --Kmsiever 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Proposal consistent with the Canadian naming convention (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Canada), and with recent decision on Saskatoon. Skeezix1000 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Skeezix1000. --Usgnus 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per nom Phoenix2 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per move of Saskatoon. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bearcat 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - No practical reason to do this, it will only create problems. --Qyd 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Such as... Phoenix2 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. There will be no problems, just as there have been no problems with Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Vancouver, Saskatoon, etc. Skeezix1000 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

such as having redirects, such as establishing a trend to move articles (the saskatoon argument proves it :/), which in turn starts endless debates about who deserves the short title. It works as it is, so why move it? --Qyd 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work. Disambiguation for the sake of disambiguation, where it is not necessary, does not make sense. It is not a "trend" -- it is the Canadian naming convention. And what endless debates over Canadian place names are you refering to? And what possible endless debates would we have over Lethbridge? Skeezix1000 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does work as it is. It's redirect, not disambiguaion (and the dab is entirely justified). And yes, it is creating precedents, which are used in arguments for moving other pages. Another possible problem: when this wave reaches articles that use the {{Canadian Town}} template (which uses PAGENAME for image links, and the same is valid for every occurence of PAGENAME), we're going to see some unnecesary red links.(see GVRD moved for example) I'm not saying this can't be fixed, I'm only saying that unexpected problems can arise. --Qyd 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The page just moved today. Fixing it was a snap. --Usgnus 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was easy here. But the editor that moved the page didn't notice it, because he/she didn't expect that problem. That is what I'm trying to say. I've seen pages that were left for months in that state. --Qyd 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Winnipeg move (5 days old). It uses the {{Canadian Town}} template, so the fix is a little more complicated. --Qyd 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All it needed was "|Location Image=Winnipeg, Manitoba Location.png" added to the infobox. --Usgnus 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The solution is to stop using {{{PAGENAME}}} to construct filenames instead of not moving pages. --Usgnus 04:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't aggree more. PAGENAME is very usefull in automating tasks, however it should always be substituted. But my point is that moving pages without a solid reson creates un-necessary work. --Qyd 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, provided that we add a redirect from Lethbridge, Alberta to Lethbridge, and provided Lethbridge adds an extra 'l' to the beginning of its name. Llethbridge. --Yamla 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, why? -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Any thoughts to how we can get more feedback on this proposal? --Kmsiever 04:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The listing appears to have been deleted at WP:RM, so I relisted it.Skeezix1000 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Skeezix1000. --Kmsiever 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Satellite communities?

What's with the Satellite communities subsection. Many of the communities listed there are towns and villages with their own administrative and economic system, with separate history, and as far away from Lethbridge as 50km. To my knowledge, there is no official "Greater Lethbridge Area"" of some other official form of regional partnership. If I'm missing something, please add explanation to that section, if not, please use another title, like "surrounding communities". --Qyd 13:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Satellite (disambiguation), a satellite community can be "a town within commuter range of a larger city". By this definition, all of the towns listed are satellite communities since there is commuting between those towns and Lethbridge. But if you and others do not like the term "satellite", we can always use dormitory or bedroom as the above article suggests. In addition, if you would like to read more regarding a regional partnership, see http://www.southgrow.com/ --Kmsiever 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the term satellite very misleading in this case, as it implies that all those communities serve the city of Lethbridge and have no economy, administration and infrastructure of their own (South Grow looks like an economic alliance, doesn't imply any subordination of every south-central community to Lethbridge). Bedroom community would be also wrong, as: "A bedroom community, dormitory town, commuter town or dormitory village is a community that is primarily residential in character, with most of its workers commuting to a nearby town or city to earn their livelihood". It also gives a sense of distance that may not be in line with the actual geography (as does "near the Canadian Rockies" for example). --Qyd 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "satellite" implies that at all. The closest I think it even comes to that is implying that those communities depend on Lethbridge for their economy, which is in fact true. Lethbridge is the location of the shipping companies, airport, and rail hub (well, ok Kipp is, but it is only 5 minutes from the city boundaries). Many residents come to Lethbridge for shopping, entertainment, post-secondary education, services and work. In addition, many of the food producers in the region bring their food to Lethbridge for processing (directly or indirectly). Certainly, other communities have their own economies, but if Lethbridge was wiped off the map, it wouldn't take long for the rest to die as well. That being said, virtually of the communities listed are primarily residential. Outside of a main commercial strip (except for maybe Taber, which has a slightly larger commercial area), virtually all the rest of the land use in the communities is residential (including schools, churches, etc). None of the towns have the economy that can provide enough jobs to their entire respective populations. --Kmsiever 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Famous Lethbridgians

We already have a List of Lethbridgians article. Should there be a blurb about famous Lethbridgians in the main article? If so, obviously, we don't want to duplicate the first article, so we would need to determine how we mention people here. --Kmsiever 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)