Talk:Winnipeg
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Winnipeg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
![]() | Winnipeg is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2016. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
Flag icons
[edit]There has been some disputes to have flag icons in the infobox on various cities WP:INFOBOXFLAG states: "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not." Meaning that cities, being human geographic articles could potentially be permitted to have flag icons. In addition there are many other articles such as New York City, Moncton, Fredericton, Las Vegas, etc. that have flags in the infoboxes. I am interested to see you input. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- They are allowed, but not required, and I'm not sure they add much value here - the Manitoba flag in particular is quite hard to recognize at that size, and is unlikely to be recognized by most readers anyway. I see you have been going through articles systematically to add/remove these - you would probably be better off waiting until a definitive consensus either way emerges at the relevant guideline pages (where I see you have posted), or failing that just leave it to the discretion of those working on each individual article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is a good point you made about its size. The Canadian flag however, is easy recognizable. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#flagicons in infobox. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should this article use the SVG files of the Crest and Flag from Commons?
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
It is currently disputed by Nikkimaria whether File:Flag of Winnipeg.svg and File:Crest of Winnipeg.svg are free-content images. For this reason, they have taken it upon themselves to police these three articles in refusing to allow their use of these images. To further this, they have uploaded low-resolution PNG versions ([1] & [2]) under non-free content licenses and will only allow their usage on these articles. I therefore ask the community to decide if we should use the files from Commons or not. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support for using the images from Commons[edit]
I see no valid reason against using the Commons files. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The trust between the English Wikipedia and the wikimedia commons? Interesting, it's a bit loaded, but interesting. You follow this up with a Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Then you obligate Nikkimaria to conduct some activity off Wikipedia and then suggest if she does otherwise this simply wouldn't be about copyright at all. The commons handles it's copyright affairs and Wikipedia just trusts it? Sure but could you link me this policy? If this question is the utmost important question being ignored could you do something to put some weight behind it. New to this dispute, being brought here for the first time by the RFC bot, this sounds like a new argument and you have not offered much that I would consider this with any weight. Could you drop the hostility, please? It's not helpful. You keep casting aspersions without doing anything to back them up. This reads like a conspiracy theory. Nikkimaria and all the Admins are out to get you and you will take it to Jimbo. Nikkimaria has at least offered a case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Again you continue and again you have not shown the policy. I've said that you appeal to emotion and tradition because I've read your responses. You have offered no means to verify any supposed policy that you are discussing. Show the policy that says that the English wikipedia should ignore it's own policies regarding copyright and leave it to the Commons. Make it a serious issue by justifying it with policy. Nikkimaria has pointed out that the image is improperly licensed. Nick-D, along with others, pointed out that it was improperly licensed in the above linked ANI. You can click on the picture and review the license and see that it is improperly licensed. File:Flag_of_Winnipeg.svg This is a derivative work, the creator isn't the original creator of this flag. If it was public domain before this recreation it remained public domain after its creation. The creator can not release a public domain work into the public domain and also can not release a derivative work into the public domain as they do not own the copyright. File:Crest_of_Winnipeg.svg presents the same error. It also provides that this crest is in the public domain. There is no way to verify this. You do not argue against these points. You only argue that we should defer to the commons. Again if we should defer to the commons and this represents policy, as you suggest it does, then please just link the policy so we can verify. You are suggesting that something is being done wrong here yet you don't actually show this. Show it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 would apply. If there was a free equivalent available. There is no evidence that there is a free image available. Your evidence is that there is one on the commons. This is not evidence it is free. This is evidence provided that this is on the commons. The license is wrong. It does not comply with Wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with you. Again your proof is that it is in the commons. Yes I see this. Everyone see's this. We aren't asking that it be proved that it is in the commons but that it is proved that the image is free. Beyond proving that it is in the commons you have proved nothing at all. You done so in a rather hostile manner and you have been very verbose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Opposition to using the images from Commons[edit]
|
Fry has stated that "I am not opposed to locally-hosted SVGs and would cease my pressure on this matter once they were uploaded". This has been done and the PNGs have been replaced in the article with the locally-hosted SVGs. This should resolve this matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Notable People Section
[edit]I recall that featured articles should not have subsections that are blank, or simply a link to another page as we do here for "notable people". Either way it does not look very appropriate, I wonder if we can either write a short paragraph with the key notable people, or relegate the link to the see also section. As is, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a featured article. Mattximus (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "featured articles should not have subsections that are...simply a link" is accurate, but I've moved the link to See also nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Conflicting MOS guidance
[edit]Per MOS:INFOBOX, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". Other, more local MOS guidelines suggest a more expansive approach, but in this particular case shorter is sweeter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- All, Nikkimaria is referring to the use of all three
|name=
,|official name=
, and|settlement type=
parameters in the settlement infobox for Canadian cities. This is the third time in less than two years that she has drawn her line in the sand against consensus. The consensus at WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes in August 2014 before this all started was "All articles on Canadian cities should use the following model for name fields:
|name = Sample |official_name = City of Sample |settlement_type = City
- Nikkimaria challenged it in a discussion started in September 2014. The consensus to that discussion was the status quo; i.e., using all three parameters.
Dissatisfied, over a year later, Nikkimaria initiated a formal RfC asking "Should use of all of
|name=
,|official name=
, and|settlement type=
be required for all Canadian cities?" With the except of her, all commenters answered yes. The outcome of the RfC, closed a mere 4.5 months ago, was "There is consensus that the all of the perimeters [sic] should be used for all Canadian cities. The majority opinion is that it is best to be consistant [sic] and that the fields are useful."Now the belligerence about this has resurfaced once again despite the pre-existing consensus being twice upheld within the span of the last year and a half. When does this stop? Will it ever stop? Nikkimaria may not like it, but there should be no removal of usage of all three parameters due to the longstanding and and twice recently reinforced consensus on this matter. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except of course that compliance with CANSTYLE is not mandatory and is subject to common sense, especially when it comes into conflict with other guidelines with broader consensus than, what, four people? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- While that may be your POV, unfortunately others have not come out with the same in favour of your desired outcome. Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fortunately the "subject to common sense" allowance for exceptions is already included in CANSTYLE, just as the "parameter inclusion is decided on an article-by-article basis" provision is already part of MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- While that may be your POV, unfortunately others have not come out with the same in favour of your desired outcome. Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except of course that compliance with CANSTYLE is not mandatory and is subject to common sense, especially when it comes into conflict with other guidelines with broader consensus than, what, four people? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- And now we have inexplicable removal of the basic pieces of information all community articles are expected to have – elevation and coordinates. The WP:CCSG explicitly states coordinates are one of the things "A complete article about a Canadian community should have". Bizarre. Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the things listed under "optional entries"? We can restore the title display if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is a start, though I've observed that the application of coordinates is usually inclusion within both the title and infobox. Don't be surprised if a gnome surfaces at sometime to set it to display within the infobox as well. What do you intend to do with the now absent elevation of Winnipeg? It should at least be covered in the prose (with a reference), most appropriately within the Geography section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't intend to do anything with it, as I expect most of our readers won't care and it varies even within the city anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Hwy43 this should be included, not sure what the issue is really. Krazytea(talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see no reason to remove the elevation from the infobox. Meters (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- What is your reason to include it? It's a nonsense number - there is no single elevation for the whole city, different sources give different numbers and this one includes no source at all - and one most of our readers won't care about. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are reasons why it is preferable to have the elevation made available. One such reason is when considering the climate numbers. For example, people sometimes wonder why Regina is a little colder on average in the winter than Saskatoon when it's almost 200 kilometres further south. This is partly because Regina is at a higher elevation. On average about 6.5°C is lost for every 1000m of elevation gain. For this same reason Denver, Colorado would have a very different climate if it sat at sea level instead of at 1,600m like it does. When people are looking into and wondering about Winnipeg, the elevation number is useful to know since it is the coldest major prairie city. Of course there will be variations of the elevation in different parts of town but the reference I just added is for the elevation at the climate station. Winnipeg doesn't have significant changes in elevation through its borders so I don't think further clarification of this point is needed in the article. Another reason why people might wonder about the elevation is for people who have just moved or are visiting Winnipeg. If you go to a new place that's at a significantly different elevation than what your body is used to the effects of exercise, such as going for a jog, can be very noticeable. Seeing that elevations can vary greatly in the middle parts of the continent, it's nice to know what it is where you are. Of course it won't be of interest to every page visitor, but neither is anything else in the article. Air.light (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- What percentage of Canadian city article infoboxes does not include the city's elevation? The reason to include it is that it is a longstanding convention that city articles in Canada include their elevations in their infoboxes. This has got to be one of the most lame and unnecessary edit wars I've encountered. Hwy43 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Other articles do it" isn't a reason for any article to do it. Why do you consider this to be essential, given the problems it presents and its relative insignificance to the average reader? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus seems clear here that the elevation should remain in. It's useful to some people, it's now sourced, and despite the above claim I don't see any problems with using it. Meters (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Other articles do it" isn't a reason for any article to do it. Why do you consider this to be essential, given the problems it presents and its relative insignificance to the average reader? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- What is your reason to include it? It's a nonsense number - there is no single elevation for the whole city, different sources give different numbers and this one includes no source at all - and one most of our readers won't care about. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see no reason to remove the elevation from the infobox. Meters (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Hwy43 this should be included, not sure what the issue is really. Krazytea(talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't intend to do anything with it, as I expect most of our readers won't care and it varies even within the city anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is a start, though I've observed that the application of coordinates is usually inclusion within both the title and infobox. Don't be surprised if a gnome surfaces at sometime to set it to display within the infobox as well. What do you intend to do with the now absent elevation of Winnipeg? It should at least be covered in the prose (with a reference), most appropriately within the Geography section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the things listed under "optional entries"? We can restore the title display if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Relief maps
[edit]There has been a recent push by at least one user to convert all the pushpin maps to relief maps. I am not sure how I feel about this to be honest but I really do believe we should lean away from the alternative map and stick to the original. The relief map has its place, but in the infoboxes it becomes particularly busy and noisy. Most noticeably in a city infobox which is already filled with montages, seals, flags, etc. I think best to keep it simple but thought I would listen to others first. I also have the topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manitoba#Relief maps. Krazytea(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I'd put it in the geography or history section. It's weird, because of how tall it is, and it adds clutter to the infobox. But it is nice to see where exactly Winnipeg is on a map. Psychotic Spartan 123 11:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
RFC on inclusion of either electoral districts or elected federal/provincial politicians in infobox
[edit]The consensus is include a list of federal and provincial politicians in the infobox. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In Canadian city/municipality infoboxes, a collapsible list of federal and provincial politicians (or the respective electoral districts) are provided. Currently Winnipeg does not have this. I added the list but there is no consensus on its inclusion. Is there consensus for it be included? Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. First, the electoral districts do not correspond neatly to the city. Second, this information (if it to be included here at all) is better presented in the Government section rather than in the lead. Third, it causes significant bloat given the ungainliness of the lists. Fourth, it's not compatible with the template in use nor with the MOS. Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. As a collapsible list in the infobox, it doesn't take up any unnecessary space. It provides appropriate information that is later expanded upon in the article body. I don't see why Winnipeg should be uniquely without this information. The electoral districts do not correspond with many cities across the country, but that does not preclude them from political representation. --NoGhost (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Information about provincial/federal representation is summarized, not expanded upon, in the article body. If a full list of representatives is needed here, that's where it should go, rather than shoved into a parameter not designed for it. Having the expanded version misplaced in the lead and the summary in the article body is the opposite of what should happen. As a featured article, this needs to follow MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. A link or list for MLAs and MPs is present in the infoboxes for Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, Victoria, Vancouver and Saskatoon (the ones I checked). I see no persuasive reason not to include such links (not the actual lists) here as well. DonFB (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it provides information about local government officials. As others have mentioned, not sure what the arguments against the list are. Corresponding borders are interesting, but note they include the entire Winnipeg metropolitan area, in fact large parts of the metropolitan area are not listed. Yet the metropolitan area, population, and density are all included in the infobox. Krazytea(talk) 04:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes (Summoned by bot) Per otherstuffexists and NoGhost. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. There is a long-standing convention to include these lists in infoboxes for major cities. If there was an objective MOS-incompatibility to such surely the establishment of this convention and its application across major cities and other communities would have had a rocky ride, yet this is the first I've seen an objection to it. It is a collapsible list that defaults to collapsed, so it only expands the infobox if an interested reader chooses to expand the list. The list is a brief summary of what a more fulsome Government section could and should include (i.e. detailed discussion of electoral districts). Hwy43 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes - Summoned by bot. I see no reason not to include. Those interested in reading more can simply click on the collapsible list. Meatsgains (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Include - called by bot - the list provides so much information, and when collapsed is so inconspicuous, I can't see why it shouldn't be included. It took me a while to even find the list in the version where it was added. -Darouet (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lead list of teams
[edit]Not sure listing sports team in the lead is good thing. Definitely not the norm especially in an FA article about a place to list every team.--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Moxy, if you'd like to propose a different formulation for that paragraph feel free. The current one is quite similar to Hamilton, Ontario, also a FA, but if we can improve it we should. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I concur with Moxy. The lead could just as easily highlight business-oriented things such as headquarters of corporations, such as New Flyer, or that we have "CentrePort". Jimj wpg (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Language
[edit]-they can welcome you in different languages like spanish, french there are many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.194.17.85 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Murderpeg
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have added 3 links. The first indicates that CBC New acknowledges that Winnipeg is called #Murderpeg, that Winnipeg has the "label of Murderpeg" and a MacLean's article that Winnipeg is "nicknamed "Murderpeg"'.
Winnipeg is routinely the most violent city in Canada and Brian Bowman is seeking Provincial and Federal aid to deal with this problem.
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/winnipeg/2019/11/7/1_4675720.html
Ignoring that Winnipeg is nicknamed "Murderpeg" will never help in resolving this (often fatal) issue.
There is also a 4th New York times reference indicating that Winnipeg is called Murderpeg, but I removed it because a subscription is required to view the article, which seems against the spirit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie3737 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this here. I'm not convinced that this nickname warrants inclusion in the infobox here. We cannot list every one of Winnipeg's nicknames there - that is why we have List of city nicknames and slogans in Canada where I have added it with some of your reliable sources.. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Vaselineeeeeeee,
Interestingly, the top two links that indicated that Winnipeg is called "The Gateway to The West" were both dead links. The current link indicates that we claimed that we were "The Gateway to the West" in 1912, not in the present day.
The links indicating that Winnipeg is called "The Peg" and "Winterpeg" are from 2011 and 2012. Since then, the crystal methamphetamine crisis has overtaken Winnipeg, and now "Murderpeg" is a very common nickname for this city. The references that I cite are from as recently as the November, 2019 killing spree, and are much more contemporaneous than the decade old references for the other provided "nicknames".
As well, none of the other references use the specific phrasing that Winnipeg is nicknamed "The Peg", "Winterpeg", or "The Gateway to the West", like the provided MacLean's article. This was Magnolia's intial contention about the CBC News Article (which stated that Winnipeg is called #Murderpeg, but not "nicknamed" Murderpeg). Similarly, the provided references for the other "nicknames" are all from less credible sources than CBC News and MacLean's magazine.
If you would like remove "Murderpeg" as a nickname, please provide some data or citations that indicate that the other three suggested nicknames are more common and credible in present-day Winnipeg than "Murderpeg" is.
Sincerely,
Winnie3737 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie3737 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- As per Vaselineeeeeeee, I think we want to avoid listing every nickname ever used for the city. As such, I've trimmed the listing back to just "Winterpeg", which seems to be the most broadly used (examples: [4][5][6][7][8]). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Two of the citations that you provide are just duplicates of the same article, and that article doesn't even mention "Winterpeg". Therefore, you have three remaining citations, which is not evidence that "Winterpeg" is a more common, valid or broadly accepted nickname than "Murderpeg". If you would like to keep removing "Murderpeg" as a nickname, please provide any evidence that it is a less common or valid nickname than Winterpeg, and not duplicated citations that don't support your premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winnie3737 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, "winterpeg" gets 85k Google hits while "murderpeg" gets 772 - of course that's not a perfect metric, but it seems a pretty strong indicator that the former is significantly more common than the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion of "Murderpeg", per Vaselineeeeeeee. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also oppose Murderpeg. The nickname is not enduring enough, flaring up only periodically in the news during higher frequency periods and then disappearing, just like Deadmonton for Edmonton. A sourced reference for Murderpeg at List of city nicknames and slogans in Canada is the only weight and coverage the nickname deserves on Wikipedia. Hwy43 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per arguments above. Is this some kind of joke? Even Chicago, with a homicide rate almost 5x ours, doesn't have names like "Chiraq" listed anywhere on the article. —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hiding content
[edit]Based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content and the fact that the "[show]" button does not work on some browsers I removed the "|state=collapsed". This was reverted based on Talk:Winnipeg/Archive 5#Historic Population Table from 2014. I don't think that a seven year old discussion by three people is sufficient to override the MOS and hide material. Ping the three editors from that discussion Hwy43, Mattximus and Nikkimaria. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would support the uncollapsing of the table. Hwy43 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Uncollapsing causes sandwiching which is also undesirable. Collapsing of supplementary data is permissible per COLLAPSE, or alternatively the table could be moved to a subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would not support moving the table to a sub-article. To save from repeating, those interested in why can review my comments in the 2014 discussion linked above. Hwy43 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, I would not support moving the table to a sub-article either. I do support having the default be uncollapsed. Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would not support moving the table to a sub-article. To save from repeating, those interested in why can review my comments in the 2014 discussion linked above. Hwy43 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Uncollapsing causes sandwiching which is also undesirable. Collapsing of supplementary data is permissible per COLLAPSE, or alternatively the table could be moved to a subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather: all three pinged editors have commented in the above. Consensus is to uncollapse. Hwy43 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Should pick accessibility over anything Moxy-
21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Should pick accessibility over anything Moxy-
Change image of the Esplanade Riel to exchange district image
[edit]Hello, I think that the image of the Esplanade Riel in the info box should be changed to an image of the exchange district. My reasoning for this is that I plan on taking pictures including the Esplanade Riel in another a picture once 300 main is complete. The image I had in mind instead of the Esplanade Riel image is titled Exchange downtown.png 21pegedi89 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your argument. You plan on taking another picture of the Esplanade in future, and you will want to include that? So why not wait until you have that before proposing a change? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m not making an argument. I’m simply proposing an idea. However, you are right in saying that I should wait until the image is actually taken. I guess I will wait until 300 main is completed in order for you to fully understand what I’m suggesting. 21pegedi89 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Change introductory image?
[edit]The introductory image is currently a photo of the University of Winnipeg. This is not an image that best captures Winnipeg. It does not show Winnipeg’s unique skyline, or Portage and Main, or really anything that is a major physical facet of the city.
Frankly it’s strange and poor choice for the introductory image for the Wikipedia article for Winnipeg and I suggest that we pick something else. HALitosis 9K (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- The lead currently uses a multi-image collage, including both Portage and Main and a skyline shot. Since both of your suggestions are already present, is there something else you believe should replace UWinnipeg within the multi-image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I’m not sure if I can show you on here, but on the Wikipedia app, the introductory image - the very top image, the first thing users would see - is a stand alone photo of the University of Winnipeg campus. I think one of the skyline photos of downtown with the Riel Esplanade bridge would be good for the introductory image, but I’m open to other ideas. HALitosis 9K (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is a problem with the app, and ought to be addressed via a bug report. On both desktop and standard mobile view there is a multi-image displayed that includes both a skyline and an Esplanade image (with the skyline on top). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
OK! Thanks Nikkimaria. I can see that when I swipe left and right, it goes the other images of the collage. However, when I exit out of photo view, the U of W image returns to the top of the article page. Strange that this would be happening.
I’ll try to report the bug, but I may return here to get some help on how to do that. HALitosis 9K (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Please update this with the 2021 census data that was released on 10/26/2022.
[edit]Please update this with the 2021 census data that was released on 10/26/2022. 209.104.249.26 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Go ahead, don't be shy, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Question about {{Infobox settlement}}
[edit]I wanted to learn something about the Template:Infobox_settlement as used on the article's page, so I copied the entire template invocation onto a sandbox page on my user pages, and in the map display it throws an error. So maybe it doesn't work on user pages, so I tried the sandbox in the main namespace, and it still throws an error. Let me demonstrate (ignore the missing footnotes):
Winnipeg | |
---|---|
City | |
City of Winnipeg | |
From top, left to right: Winnipeg panorama featuring the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Wesley Hall at the University of Winnipeg, Downtown Winnipeg, Saint Boniface Cathedral, Esplanade Riel bridge, and the Manitoba Legislative Building | |
Nicknames: | |
Motto(s): | |
![]() Interactive map of Winnipeg | |
Coordinates: 49°53′4″N 97°8′47″W / 49.88444°N 97.14639°W | |
Country | Canada |
Province | Manitoba |
Region | Winnipeg Metropolitan Region |
Incorporated | 1873 |
Named for | Lake Winnipeg |
Government | |
• Mayor | Scott Gillingham |
• Governing body | Winnipeg City Council |
Area | |
• Land | 461.78 km2 (178.29 sq mi) |
• Metro | 5,285.46 km2 (2,040.73 sq mi) |
Elevation | 239 m (784 ft) |
Population | |
• City | 749,607 (6th) |
• Density | 1,430/km2 (3,700/sq mi) |
• Urban | 758,515 (7th) |
• Urban density | 1,429/km2 (3,700/sq mi) |
• Metro | 834,678 (8th) |
• Metro density | 157.90/km2 (409.0/sq mi) |
Demonym | Winnipegger |
Time zone | UTC−6 (CST) |
• Summer (DST) | UTC−5 (CDT[7]) |
Area code(s) | 204, 431, 584 |
As you can see, it won't show the map except on the main Winnipeg page, and nowhere else. I looked at that macro/template, and I don't find any reference to {{PAGENAME}}, like this: Winnipeg. But since that reads "Winnipeg" it must also be referencing {{NAMESPACE}}, like this: Talk, or both together, e.g. {{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}, like this: Talk:Winnipeg. I'm just trying to figure out how and/or why it does this.
"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Rfc1394, when it's being used on another page, you need to explicitly call the Wikidata item associated with the Winnipeg article - see example. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Municipal Manual (PDF). City of Winnipeg. 2007. p. 16. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 September 2015.
- ^ "Census subdivision of Winnipeg". Statistics Canada. Archived from the original on 3 March 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2014.
- ^ "Census metropolitan area of Winnipeg". Statistics Canada. Archived from the original on 3 March 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2014.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
normals
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
2021CityCensus
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Census Profile, 2021 Census Winnipeg Metropolitan Population". Statistifcs Canada. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
- ^ "Winnipeg". The World Clock. Archived from the original on 9 February 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2014.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Geography
- FA-Class vital articles in Geography
- FA-Class Canada-related articles
- High-importance Canada-related articles
- FA-Class Manitoba articles
- High-importance Manitoba articles
- FA-Class Canadian communities articles
- High-importance Canadian communities articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- Wikipedia articles that use Canadian English
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists