Talk:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

General Comments

Removing link to Mile One Stadium. Irrelevant. Delief 20:18, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about what looks like boosterism on the page. dmlaenker 16:16, Mar 14, 2007 (NDT)

The percentages for religion and ethnic background in the demographics section each add up to more than 100%

The Great Fire of 1892: Can someone confirm the date, please ?

When was The Great Fire of 1892 ? July 18 ? not July 8 ? Can someone familiar with the history of St. John's confirm the date, please ? Thanks. -- 64.229.205.2 8 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

You may also visit the heritage website for confirmation of July 8, 1892 http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/rhs/greatfire.html HJKeats 8 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected the date in the main text, accordingly. Today is the anniversary, eh ? -- 64.229.205.2 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

United Irish Uprising

should there be any mention of the planned rebellion that occured during 1800 United Irish Uprising as a result of the wexford rebellion of 1798? it was small but of note

External links

Hi Magnolia677 I did request discussion before any further revert, but you still reverted. I note that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article". These links appear useful. I don't remember coming this excluding approach to external links before and I've done plenty of editing. I have occasionally deleted the odd entry, though. Rwood128 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

References

You deleted the city's official website, and added this encyclopedia entry. I'm not sure how that was an improvement, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I added a more useful city sub-page (a more direct route to the most useful information for someone from away), and the encyclopaedia site was already linked. The heritage page is probably on the city's main page, somewhere. Rwood128 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I think that the city subpage was there originally and I deleted the main page, as being less useful overall. Rwood128 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as the official webpage is there I'm ok. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary said it all. “Official link to the community only” per WP:CCSG - a long-standing established consensus that aligns with WP:ELMINOFFICAL. It was a “careful” edit that was reverted despite the explanation with link. It is not for us to subjectively determine what subpage could be more useful than the landing page of a city’s official website. It is the landing page of a city’s official website where a reader is expecting to arrive, and they can explore as they see fit from there. Hwy43 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hwy43 I've just added an "official" link and it was reverted by Magnolia677. I'm not trying to be difficult or engage in edit warring but trying to improve the article. I came upon the Government of NL web site while editing something else. I fully understand that external links can be misused, but I was close to accusing Magnolia677 of vandalism. Or is it just a bureaucratic obsession. Maybe I'm being pigheaded? The revert seems to me to be totally wrong. See New York CityRwood128 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

To put it another way, I suggest that the rule is being applied too narrowly and against the spirit of WP. Rwood128 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Another revert with this explanation: "this is a website for Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism; the official website is already linked". So only one external link is permitted? I suggest that user Magnolia677 visits a few more similar sites and clean them up first. I just checked New York City, London, Seattle, Tokyo. Rwood128 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And Half Moon Bay, California, Scottsboro, Alabama, and other sites recently edited by Magnolia677 seem equally at fault here. Rwood128 (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I hate this kind of squabble but I really don't understand. Anyhow in reality this is a trivial matter. But I wish I understood your approach Magnolia677? At least Hwy43 seems to be consistent, if still too narrow in his interpretation of rules. Rwood128 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

At WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, a consensus of editors agreed "Normally, only one official link is included". This is a Wikipedia article, not the Facebook page for St. John's. If readers want to find information about "customizable itineraries" and hotel deals they can look it up on Google. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm inclined to agree. However, it is confusing that many (most) articles do not apply this rule. You evade my question on this and your failure to deal with examples in your own edits. Here are two typical examples:

Miami

• City of Miami – Official Site
• Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
• U.S. Census Bureau – Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights for City of Miami
• Miami-Dade Municipalities

Glasgow

• "Glasgow" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 12 (11th ed.). 1911.
• Glasgow districts map and other Glasgow maps
• St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador at Curlie
• Glasgow City Council
• Interactive Attractions Map of Central Glasgow
• TheGlasgowStory
• [http://ssa.nls.uk/search.cfm?

Perhaps you may now see why I was somewhat irritated, and confused by Hwy43's original edit and your subsequent reverts. The policy that you both are arguing for here does not seem to be applied in actual practice and the numerous examples that I have cited support this reality. Perhaps this discussion needs to be continued elsewhere? Rwood128 (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rwood128: Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will read carefully, but given what is current practise, I wish you would stop evading my questions by pointing to WP pages and regulations rather than stating your opinion about the numerous examples that I give. I'd suggest that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't apply here, if you carefully look at actual practise as opposed to theory. Anyhow I leave the matter in your hand. Perhaps all external pages should be banned. Rwood128 (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

See Manchester, Edinburgh, Belfast, Melbourne, Delhi, Chicago, Helsinki, etc, etc, I presume, because I have difficulty finding any city that complies with your standards Magnolia677. That doesn't mean that some cleaning up might not be required to my examples, but it does surely mean that most editors don't seem to be applying the regulation or consider it worthwhile. In that case your "Other stuff" argument doesn't work. Rwood128 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

External links added to city articles are frequently spammy and promotional. Tourist websites, such as the one you added, do little to enhance an encyclopedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Why do you continue avoid the question that I actually asked?

The one that I added was an official government of Newfoundland and Labrador site, but on further thought it might not be suitable, but I will review it further. There may well be useful sites that might be added beyond the official site, relating for example to heritage buildings in St. John's. City sites like this article must cater to a lot (or mainly?) to visitors and tourists. Rwood128 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Began catching up on this and Magnolia beat me to WP:OTHER. We are all volunteers here. It is neither my nor Magnolia’s responsibility to apply WP:ELMINOFFICAL to all thousands of Canadian community Wikipedia articles and hundreds of thousands of community articles around the world. I fixed the external links sections of St. John’s and 47 other cities articles in accordance with WP:CCSG (after fixing category issues) and you are the only one of dozens of watchers multiplied by 48 articles that has contested. The overwhelming majority understand, agree with, and abide by WP:ELMINOFFICAL and WP:CCSG. Once upon a time, when I was not familiar with these, I too felt additional external links such as those to local chambers of commerce could and should be also included. I became aware of these, evolved my thinking and accepted over time, and embraced through implementation when I see any opportunity to do so on a manageable set of communities commensurate to the time I have to burn being a volunteer at that moment. This will be the last I comment on this discussion. It is time to move on, and instead of using my little free time on repeatedly trying to explain things like this ad nauseam, I would rather spend time making meaningful contributions that actually improve articles that need it. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say and wonder why I have spent time on this matter here, but the "overwhelming majority" apparently don't accept the restrictions, as my examples indicate. Anyhow I will concentrate on improving this article in other ways than external links. Rwood128 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Clarity: "overwhelming majority" refers to the 48 Canadian city articles where changes were made, multiplied by each of their "dozen or more watchers". Hwy43 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear but I was using the phrase "overwhelming majority" to point to what my numerous examples revealed about what actually happens on WP. Here's another very recent example of what actually happens on WP: recent edit to English literature. Rwood128 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Much of this page is based on 10 year old data. Would be good to have a dedicated page about the city elections with a link to it here

At present the only data about the city elections is at St. John's City Council (with current councillors) and 2017 Newfoundland and Labrador municipal elections (and earlier pages) which just gives the election results. Something like this would be good to have in the run-up 2020 Halifax municipal election?

Good article reassessment

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist: lack of edits improving compliance with the second of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The biggest issue with the article right now is a lack of citations for several sections. Other things include:

• In Infrastructure#Transportation, is a list of the ships in the harbour too much detail for an article on the entire city?
• The St. John's Cycling Master Plan was officially launched in July 2009. Its first phase will consist of 43 km (27 mi) of on-road painted bike lanes, signs on an additional 73 km (45 mi) of roadway, the installation of 20 bicycle parking facilities and the addition of bike racks on the fleet of 53 Metrobuses. Needs to be updated.
• Is there any intercity public transport?
• Why is anglophone in lowercase but Francophone in uppercase?
• Are there really only two television stations?
• English was mother tongue spoken by the majority of residents of St. John's (92.9%) with the second most common language, Chinese, as the mother tongue of 1.1% of the population. I'm surprised that the percentage of French speakers is not mentioned, considering that Francophone schools are mentioned and that there are French language radio stations.

Steelkamp (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Delist - Citation issues still exist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2023 (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.