Talk:Embrun, Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Embrun, Ontario was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: October 15, 2006

Embrun, Ontario has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	To-do list for Embrun, Ontario:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
copyedit for spelling, flow, always scrutinized in FA make the article less redundant.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article is part of WikiProject Prescott-Russell, an attempt to expand articles relating to Prescott and Russell United Counties, Ontario, Canada.

Contents 1 Nomination for Featured Article 2 Expansion 3 Eglise St. Jacques 4 Pending Tasks 5 Notes 6 Motto 7 Cleanup 8 GA Nomination 8.1 GA failed 9 History 10 ??Question?? 11 Organization

[edit] Nomination for Featured Article

My goal on Wikipedia is to increase knowledge and publicity of Embrun, Ontario. I realized from the start that getting it Featured would be a good idea. So, I extended it and modified it to meet the criteria for Featured Article Candidates. After a few weeks of this, I believe I am ready to nominate the Embrun, Ontario article as a Featured Article Candidate. Now I can only hope that the rest of the Wikipedia community is supportive of the Embrun, Ontario article.--FruitsAndVegetables133 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You need soruces, and some images before it can become a featured article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of Embrun being a featured article. I agree, and think that Embrun is a perfect candidate, and so are many other places as well. It has an excellent amount of history, facts etc. -Loghead1

[edit] Expansion

I cannot seem to think of anything else to put on this page. Does anyone have any ideas how to expand this article? Loghead1 00:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Maybe put some information about buildings in Embrun, like the Eglise St. Jacques or the Place d'Embrun.

[edit] Eglise St. Jacques

How exactly can we find information on Eglise St. Jacques. I have done lots of searching, and I can't find any decent history for it, except for the fact that it was built in 1856, the same time Saint Augustine-de-Catherine was renamed Embrun. Loghead1 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pending Tasks

About the pending tasks, what is the definition of "small" section?

[edit] Notes

A couple of notes about some of the editing that has gone on here:

1. Embrun does not have city status at this time. References calling it the "city" of Embrun are to be removed at once, and that includes removing "city of" from the map graphic. Wikipedia does not call places cities because we feel like it, or even because the local residents think of it as one; we call places cities that are legally incorporated as cities by the appropriate designating authority — in this case, the provincial government of Ontario. So until the provincial government actually passes a law in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario conferring city status on Embrun, this article cannot and will not call Embrun a city.
2. In a similar vein, there is not a single documentable reference on Google to the phrase "vassal community" meaning a satellite community or suburb; it means a community of feudal slaves, and I really doubt that's what Forest Park is. Again, Wikipedia cannot invent and define our own unique personal terms for things; we are restricted to the terms that are actually in use in the English language. You can call Forest Park a suburb or a satellite community if you wish, but a "vassal community" it ain't. A helpful guideline, if you need it: if a term is so obscure or unattested, or self-invented — it sure as hell ain't no French calque — that you have to provide a definition in the references section of the article, then it's not a term you can use on Wikipedia.
3. I'd still like to see an actual documentable source for the claim that Embrun's population virtually doubled in just five years from the 2001 census figure. Even Calgary isn't growing that fast. The cited source for the 11,000 figure is an Embrun resident's personal website; not a single reputable census data source currently supports the claim. Even Russell Township's municipal website doesn't support the claim. I'm pulling administrator rank here on this one; until the actual Canada 2006 Census data is released, or a reputable source is provided to confirm that the town has actually grown so explosively, this article is not to cite any population figure later than the actual, documented 2001 census number.

— Bearcat 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. If you lived in Embrun since before 2001, you wouldn't be surprised that the town has grown that much. At http://broadband.gc.ca/demographic_servlet/1329, it claims that for the 2001 Census, Embrun had 6,770 people. Since then, almost two new neighborhoods have popped up. About 2,000 houses have been built in that five-year window. I would say that, as of 2006, Embrun has to have at least 9,000 people. Ask anyone in Embrun; they'll tell you that the town has grown a lot. --216.106.103.139 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. But that doesn't change the fact that the population statistics need to be cited, using a verifiable source (preferably Statscan). Your own estimates are not sufficient. Skeezix1000 12:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I do understand. I'm not disputing that the town's population has grown, and I even understand some of the reasons why that might be so: ever since the Ottawa and Clarence-Rockland amalgamations, I'm sure the kind of people who would formerly have lived in outermost Gloucester or Rockland to avoid the big city taxes and such must be looking now at places like Embrun and Casselman and Russell. But information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable: we can't cite a resident's own personal population estimates as a definitive source; we have to cite actual demographic data compiled by an official source such as Statistics Canada. You'll notice that in my edits, in the 21st century section I included an acknowledgement that anecdotal evidence has suggested rapid growth in the past few years; we just can't cite the 11,000 figure as official until it's actually reflected in a verifiable source. Bearcat 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• A Wikipedia user wrote an estimate of 2,000 homes being built since 2001. Although you shouldn't estimate on Wikipedia, the estimate sounds pretty resonable. He/She also said that Embrun had 6,770 people in 2001. The AVERAGE household in Canada has 3 people. You do the math!
• Also, I was reading the deffinition that you wrote about the two words that somebody most likely accidently wrote. Someone obviously made a mistake. When you correct those kinds of mistakes, you absolutely do not need to turn to slang terms. And by the way, a helpful guideline, if you need it: AIN'T ISN'T A WORD!! CHECK THE DICTIONARY!
• I have another problem. A city is not a city unless it has 10,000 people. As the article's references say, Embrun has 11,500 people. Although it is not legally a city, others may mistaken it for a city. IT IS A SIMPLE MISTAKE.

Loghead1 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One, Wikipedia is not a "do the math" kind of place; we rely on verifiable, cited facts. Two, "ain't" is not a word you can use in formal writing, but it most certainly is a word you can use in casual conversational English, such as on the talk page of a Wikipedia article; you just couldn't use "ain't" in the article. And finally, it is not a simple mistake to call Embrun a city; Embrun doesn't have any legal status apart from that of Russell Township. City status is conferred by the province; a community either has that status or it doesn't. And finally, you still haven't provided an actual reference to confirm that Embrun currently has a population of 11,500. Bearcat 04:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should learn to do math, especially with all the statistics that they do on Wikipedia! Also, ain't isn't a word, in formal, and in casual form. I've never even heard of formal, and casual form. Of course, people do make all kinds of grammatical errors, it is quite common. But AIN'T sure ISN'T in the dictionary! The proper word you will want to use next time you feel the urge to use "Ain't," use: isn't. And, yes, it IS a simple mistake to call Embrun a city. The estimate that Wikipedians have put onto the artical is 11,500 (ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED). People will call it a city because any town that has over TEN THOUSAND people is a city. If people call it a city, it would be WIKIPEDIA'S fault for keeping the estimate there. Also, I cannot prove, and no one else on Wikipedia can prove that Embrun has 11,500 people until they release the results of the census, but you can estimate yourself, because the average household carries 3 PEOPLE, and a fellow Wikipedian gave a fairly approximate (in my OPINION) estimate of 2,000 homes. So, since you are not a, "do the math," type of person, then I guess I will have to lead you through the multiplication problem.

2000 X 3 = 6000.

Then, after you do that, you add,

6770 + 6000= 12,770 PEOPLE.

That is even more than the estimate. So, maybe the amount of houses estimated built was a little bit much, but it sounds pretty close. So, 11,500 people, or a little more, or a little less sounds like a pretty good estimate now, doesn't it!

Loghead1 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, at least until you provide a source to show that the 2,000 new homes is an actual confirmed number of local housing starts compiled by a reputable economic or census data collector. Until that source is shown, it's just an unverifiable claim. And no, a city is not any town that has over 10,000 people; a city is a community that has been legally incorporated as a city. A community doesn't magically become a city the moment its population rolls over from 9,999 to 10,000; that's just one criterion out of several that have to be met. For one thing, to become a city Embrun would have to be detached from Russell Township; it can't become a city while still being part of another first-level municipality. And have you checked out the population of Markham (which is a town, not a city) lately?

And as for "ain't", it most certainly is in the dictionary. Maybe it isn't in yours, but it's certainly in the one I have on my lap right now; the usage note specifically states that while it's not standard English, it can be used "jocularly or in fixed informal phrases". Jocular, if you need it defined, means "joking or facetious"; the phrase "it sure as hell ain't no French calque" is a facetious, and therefore jocular, use. I'm certainly in no need of remedial English lessons, I assure you. Bearcat 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I realize that it has to be legally incorporated. But a while ago, a city usually was a city when it hit the ten thousand mark. This is mainly the reason why I continuously say that if people call it a city, it would just be a silly mistake, because most people still think that if a city is at the ten thousand mark, it is a city.

I still disagree with the many things that you have said so far, though.

I know that ain't isn't in the dictionary. If ain't was in the dictionary you had on your lap, then it must be completely out dated. AIN'T IS NOT A WORD.

But I still have to say, around two-thousand, or less would be a great estimate of the amount of homes built since 2001. You would have to see it to believe it. But I do know that you cannot put estimates on wikipedia, and I agree with that, because it is not the proper information that they are looking for. But I am really sure that when the results of the census come out, Embrun's population will be about 11,000!

Also, why do you come onto the Embrun Discussion so much anyway? Aren't you from Toronto or something?

Loghead1 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone reading this from my office in Embrun, allow me to add that "ain't" is also in both dictionaries that I have with me. While I admit that one of them is fairly old (1980's) the other is a more recent (post 2k) edition.

What you keep arguing about in here, Loghead1, is that your estimates are right, whereas what is being pointed out is that personal estimates are not allowed in a wikipedia entry. The key words are "no original research". Because you have seen or documented something is not the basis for adding it to wikipedia until said research has been published and independently verified. The HellHound 101 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have one more argument to make here. I am positive that ain't isn't a word. I was doing some research, and I found out that, yes, it is used in everyday language, but it is not really a word. It is basically slang for, "are not," and several other English phrases. As said in many of the pages I went in to, ain't is a more common word in uneducated speech. Basically, I TAKE (my opinion) this information as if they are saying that mainly unintelligent people use the word, "ain't."

Loghead1 02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of "can also be used jocularly or in fixed informal phrases" are you having trouble with? I can't believe you're still hung up on something this insignificant. Bearcat 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice that in your own argument you state that it is a word, Loghead. "mainly unintelligent people use the word, "ain't"". To quote Wiktionary "This word is still considered an illiteracy and can stigmatize the user as ignorant." That it is a slang word or a jocularity, or that it carries a stigma, in no way eliminates the fact that this contraction is indeed a word.

[edit] Motto

I changed the motto to Fibri Ad Exemplar; that is what is says on the Community Pride Poster for Embrun made by Skylar Productions in 1991. I don't know how anyone came up with Stand by. But does someone know what Fibri Ad Exemplar means in English? I don't know that. --FreshFruitsRule 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was checking some online Latin Dictionaries, and I think that one of the words means model. Loghead1 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't use online translators/dictionaries to translate sentences. Sure, they work fine sometimes for words, but you can't just combine a bunch of words together to do "word-by-word" translation. Online translators don't apply grammar rules like human translators do. For example:

The English sentence 'I went to the store. I bought five pairs of shoes and four hats. I wish I could have bought some sandals as well, but I didn't have enough money' is grammatically correct.

Translate that into French using google translators and you get 'Je suis allé au magasin. J'ai acheté cinq paires de chaussures et de quatre chapeaux. Je souhaite que je pourrais avoir acheté quelques sandals aussi bien, mais je n'ai pas eu assez d'argent'.

Translate it back into English. You get 'I am travel to the store. I have bought pairs five of shoes and hats four. I wish I could has buy some sandals as well, but I had not enough money', which is NOT grammatically correct.

As you can see, the ONLY WAY TO GET A PERFECT TRANSLATION is to ask a HUMAN FLUENT IN BOTH LANGUAGES TO TRANSLATE IT FOR YOU. When you translate multiple words with ONLINE TRANSLATORS IT WILL NEVER COME OUT PERFECT. --216.106.107.187 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, online translators usually produce semi-accurate translations. While competent human translators always translate better than online automatic translators, but you can usually get a sense of what it is and correct it a bit, if you know the language somewhat. But for a language that you don't know at all, online translators are not good. --SomethingSomethingSomethingSomething 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you talking about translators. Obviously somebody didn't read the VERY short SENTENCE (notice NO S) above. I used an online dictionary! An online dictionary is very different from an online translator. With a dictionary, you check single words to see what they mean. The dictionary explains several definitions for a word, in a language you understand; therefore you have a good idea of what the word means, and have a good understanding of the sentence. A translator is different. For a translator, you type a full sentence into a box provided, and they give you the words to use. NOT THE MEANING. Also, translators can be accurate SOMETIMES. But other times, translators may not be correct. Loghead1 00:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I attempted to clean this up a little. This page still has a lot of fluff that I wouldn't consider encyclopedic, it's too long. Any ideas on how to make this a bit more organized? 209.105.207.181 19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should get rid of the information about all the neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods are too small, so it is not worth while having all that information about them. That would do some good to the article.

Loghead1 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

I think this article is probably at Good Article level. I'm nominating at at Wikipedia:Good article candidates--FreshFruitsRule 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

1. Well written? Fail

2. Factually accurate? Fail

3. Broad in coverage? OK

4. Neutral point of view? Fail

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• The lead section doesn't summarize or give a clean overlook of the article to the reader.
• Make sure that image Image:Embrun, Ontario Coat of Arms.jpg has a fair use rationale clearly written.
• No reason is given for the destruction of the Saint Augustine-de-Catherine road in 1853, it would be helpful to find one if it exists because the reconstruction that is mentioned right after is tough to understand by itself.
• The lines However, now that the town was creeping closer to the river, flooding became a terrible problem. For 100 years (trenching, dikes and valves built in the 1950s prevent floods from occurring now) families living close to the river would have to evacuate the area during the flood season. are time-dependent and it might not be accurate in a decade from now and so WP tries to eliminate any time dependancy there could be. Also, do the families have to evacuate or they don't, it is tough to tell.
• Is there a reference for Because of this, the houses near the river were where the poorer people of the town lived.
• A line like A full-sized church and a schoolhouse graced the town is repetitive.
• In This bridge still exists today on St. Jacques Street. the editor used some time-dependent words that should be avoided. Many other instances of such are present in the text and should be removed.
• This boundary became known as the Embrun-Casselman Lumber Front. should be cited to give help to the reader that is inexperienced with these events.
• Starting with Each company bought land to the north and south of the front. , the text of this paragraph tends to be vague and tough to understand and some copyediting might be required. Also, more accurate dates would help immensely.
• In The lumber industry had more or less destroyed itself., I'm wondering if destroy is a too powerful word for such a case?
• Inline citations should go after the punctuation. More inline citations should be added as it presently lacks many in important parts of the article.
• Expansion would be good for Media and Education as it doesn't even mention the date of inauguration of these media and education houses.
• St. Jacques Street is a major road in Embrun. It is another very busy street which lead to Notre Dame Street. It also is the street where you can find three of Embrun's schools (St-Jean, La Croisée, École secondaire d'Embrun). Therefore you can only imagine how traffic moves slowly there in the morning because of the school buses compacting in this 2 lane street. doesn't comply with NPOV.
• The Trivia should probably be removed or turned into prose and added in other sections.
• The bullet point paragraph starting with Average Afternoon Temperatures Per Month: isn't really necessary unless it is made in a small table.
• Politics should be expanded.
• Tourist Attractions is more or less important and should less enthusiastic and more encyclopedic.

Many of GA's criteria aren't met and therefore will give time to the editors to come in accordance with the criteria by re-working the text. If any question arise feel free to request assistance. Lincher 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

There are almost no sources given for the history section, and several reliable sources (such as [1] from the Municipality web site) appear to contradict what is in the history section in some ways. I've been looking into the history of this page, and it appears that 216.106.103.241, an anon, wrote all that. I think the history section might be a big lie to be honest. --FreshFruitsRule 20:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There. Re-wrote the history section with verifiable facts. --FreshFruitsRule 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ??Question??

Today, March 24th, 2007, the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is visiting Embrun, and I was wondering if we should put that into this article. As I have been told, he came to visit the town for a cocktail party. He went to the Russell Township town hall for the party. If people do not think that this is article material, please let me know. If you think that it should be added into the article, also please let me know. P.S. I wouldn't put the information I just stated as lazily in the article.

Loghead1 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll need a source to place it in the article. If you have a source (be it a newspaper article, reliable website, etc.) you can put it in there. But if you just simply place it in the article without saying where you heard it from, then don't put it in there.

The local media (newspapers) are probably going to do a story on it, so I'll wait until they publish this week's paper. Loghead1 13:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I have noticed that the Embrun article is very unorganized in some parts. Some paragraphs begin with one thing, and end with another. An example of unorganization in this article was when somebody put the information from Canada Post about how many residences there are under "History." People need to be more organized in their writing so that information isn't all over the place. Otherwise it will be too confusing to understand. Loghead1 13:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)