Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa/General

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] City of Ottawa

I'm looking to start an article on the municipal government, and we need a naming convention. I work at City Hall and the name of the corporation is "City of Ottawa", but this might be confusing to readers if used as an article title. So are there any other ideas?

We could also put it in as "City of Ottawa" and have one of those tags that says This article is about the municipal government. For more general information, see Ottawa. -Joshuapaquin 23:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

If you're doing an article on the City as a corporation, I think "City of Ottawa" is best. Anything else might be too confusing. There's already an article on Ottawa City Council. Corporation of the City of Ottawa could be a redirect, but I wouldn't make that the main article title. --Spinboy 05:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We already have an article on the city council. How would this particular article differ. And wouldn't Government of Ottawa work best? -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think Government of Ottawa is too confusing, it makes me think of Government of Canada. --Spinboy 06:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article would differ in that it would discuss the city as a corporation rather than as a political entity. Putting this content under Ottawa City Council would be like putting information on PWGSC in Canadian House of Commons -- they are connected, but separate components of the government. -Joshuapaquin 03:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have started the article at City of Ottawa. -Joshuapaquin 23:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


Ottawa is listed as four largest city in Ontario? FOURTH? well what are numbers 2 and 3 then? In another Wikipedia article, Hamilton is also named fourth largest city in Ontario. Isn't Ottawa the second largest, and Hamilton third??? Someone might want to check into this.

 Rank in 2001 City Population

 1 Toronto 4,682,897 
 2 Montreal 3,426,350 
 3 Vancouver 1,986,965 
 4 Ottawa/Hull 1,063,664
 5 Calgary 951,395

 The Steve  06:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It could refer to geographically, because in those terms, Ottawa is huge. -- Spinboy 06:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect this is a typo, and meant to say Ottawa is the 4th largest city in Canada, not Ontario.

[edit] Schools

At issue: For example: Bell High School (Ottawa) or Bell High School (Nepean)? I think it should be the first one because it's all Ottawa now, but Earl Andrew disagrees, he thinks it should be the latter, trying to argue that it's not all Ottawa, it's the City of Ottawa, but somehow they're seperate. --Spinboy 21:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the shcool's address is in Nepean. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's because the city hasn't changed all that with Canada Post yet because it's quite expensive to harmonize all of the former municipalities to become Ottawa. --Spinboy 22:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Canada Post is not "urging" anyone to move quickly to transform rural postal codes into a larger city one. It is our mandate to deliver mail to existing addresses and the only time those addresses change is at the request of the municipality.
Requests for address changes could be due to amalgamation, as is the case in Ottawa, or as a result of civic addressing in rural areas to implement 911 emergency service. Whatever the case, Canada Post does not change addresses, that decision is left to municipalities. [1] --Spinboy 22:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier for the reader to have the schools listed under (Ottawa) rather than a miriad of other place names that one would have to be intimately familiar with? Gloucester, Orelans, Nepean, Cumberland, etc... Certainly the article could mention their location in closer detail, and have redirect from their more specific location. Peregrine981 03:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
That's what I would think, and you could have for example [[Bell High School (Nepean)]] point to [[Bell High School (Ottawa)]] --Spinboy 03:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I was just looking at the entry for Ottawa Technical High School and as an alumni of that fine institution I believe that it was written by someone with absolutely no idea of the school. Does anyone check their facts ? Dave Malette

[edit] Transitway/O-Train

The relatively coherent article at Ottawa Rapid Transit has seemed to have suffered from entropy lately - there are now separate articles for each service, and even for their stations (witness Greenboro Transitway Station/Greenboro O-Train Station)! I think we should try to come to some agreement on how this should be laid out, and I personally vote for merging intermodal stations that are in the same facility (as both Greenboro and Bayview are). Radagast 14:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think Ottawa Rapid Transit should be merged into the O-Train and Transitway articles, and I see no reason where there is both an O-Train and Transitway station article that they cannot be merged. For simplicity sake, merge the Greenboro O-Train article into the Transitway article. --Spinboy 16:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've gone and redirected Greenboro O-Train Station to its transitway article, and same with Bayview O-Train Station. Those were the only two duplicates I came accross. --Spinboy 17:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've now gone in and renamed both of those (Greenboro Station (OC Transpo) and Bayview Station (OC Transpo)) to names that don't preclude either mode. Radagast 03:32, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
I like that idea, I'll update the naming convention for that. We should do that for all of them, transitway and o-train. --Spinboy 03:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sortof on a related note, why do all the Transitway stations -- particularly O-Train stations -- need separate entries? I'm a little confused as to the reason, so feel free to enlighten :) I'd understand if this were a travel guide, but... -- Dunro 17:27, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

That's a good question. Unless they have an extensive, notable history, do they need one? --Spinboy 18:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
They are encyclopedic, as metro stations all around the world have articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I just really can't see many of these becoming more than excess stubs that could be combined into 1 article. (I can't think of 1 transitway station that "stands alone" as significant). But... I'm just an outside observer right now -- trying to understand why Carling station, of all places, needs a stub. (Mmmm... elevator & platform. Tax dollars at work :D). I guess I preferred the old format. --Dunro 15:07, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
I think that this article on Meta will help you decide whether you want the transitway stops to be in combined or separate. Specifically, the links in the box on the right. --RealGrouchy 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbourhoods

I have created articles for Centretown West and Lebreton Flats, and one for Ottawa SuperEX. I invite additions and corrections. Ground Zero Ground Zero 21:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how to add this to the discussion, but I think a lot of the neighbourhood articles are not written in the neutral point of view. Specifically, I think the authors of the articles show an elitist attitude in the way they describe poorer or working class neighbourhoods. Terms like "a mixture of poor and respectable" businesses and "high density, low class housing" do not belong in an encyclopedia which is supposedly NPOV.

Can you point to specific examples of this lack of NPOV? And personally, I don't see anything wrong with your second term although I agree that the wording of the first term should be changed. Third, I must question the veracity of your claims as being from an IP address, I was curious if you had any previous edits and what they were. You do have a few but one stands out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina&diff=prev&oldid=22115331

Could you explain this as I have looked in many news sources and have not found and proofs backing your edits.--D'Iberville 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

While I do agree that some of the neighbourhood articles use some derogatory wording in reference to low-income areas, I think some of the things that you (the unsigned) removed contained valid information, others however, are excellent NPOV rewordings. As for the personal attack by D'Iberville, I think you are being childish and unfair in saying what you said. This person's opinions on the subject are as valid as yours and mine. I realise this user's first few edits were nonsense, but they have made several useful contributions since then. I'm sure a lot of poeple's first edits on wikipedia are not so useful, but everyone deserves a second chance, and your attitude will discourage new users from making valid contributions to wikipedia. I, personally, would rather see this person continue to stand up for the underprivileged of Ottawa. --Someones life 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, settle down there! At no time did I attack the anonymous user. However, I would qualify your calling me childish and unfair as a perfect example of one of these said attacks. I saw that it was an IP address so I was curious as to his involvement in Wikipedia, I went to his talk page and the only comment on there that led me to question his commitment to Wikipedia so I asked him and still do, about the reason for his edit in Hurricane Katrina, which, although funny from my perspective, is somewhat inappropriate for that article... unless he was serious, in which case, as I stated, I could not find any news source which backed up his claims.
One thing that I didn't do was reject his claims without base or state that his opinions were unimportant. To the contrary, I agreed with his assessment that "a mixture of poor and respectable" lacked a NPOV and asked that he point to specific articles which he thought were guilty of not being neutral.
Finally, although "stand[ing] up for the underprivileged of Ottawa" is a noble cause, I would think that removing non-NPOV is not the best example of this. Moreover, if someone did want to stand up for the underprivileged of Ottawa, doing it here in the Wikipedia is exactly the wrong place to do so as Wikipedia can not take a position on a social cause, no matter how just you or I may see it.--D'Iberville 10:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I am still learning how to use Wikipedia here. The Katrina edit was done by my 9yo child who thought it would be funny to pull such a prank and I made sure it didn't happen again. I do feel there are other statements regarding neighbourhoods that are also contrary to NPOV. Examples include this description from Vanier, and I'll paraphrase: in recent years it [Vanier] has been tarnished by strip malls, low-end retail and subsidized housing. The use of the term tarnished when referring to the housing and commercial extablishments used by low-income people is definitely derogatory, and should not be included. Also, regarding the Riverview neighbourhood, calling Russel "infamous" for having a large proportion of low-income and black residents is not only contrary to NPOV but also potentially racist. How many people would describe neighbourhoods as being "infamous" for having a high concentration of whites? Wikipedia should not be used as a means of either elevating of degrading neighbourhoods based on the writers' personal bias either for or against said neighbourhood.
Perhaps, but I find there is a tendency for the articles to gradually be reduced to a very bland geographic summary. OK, my edit of the Lowertown article first had any mention of the homeless shelters removed (fair enough), complaints about King Edward diluted (OK), my comment that it's a "poor" neighborhood changed to "multicultural and diverse", then someone didn't like that I mentioned it was a notably African neighborhood (it is! I work there!), and so on. OK, who will even care to read what is left if we remove all "off-putting" or different facts about the city?Dan Carkner 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It was I who removed the reference to it being an African neighbourhood. The article read: Lower Town is home to a wide variety of immigrants and visible minorities, of which there are 2495 of the latter (including 1025 of African origin).. Singling out a group which makes up less than half of the visible minorities and only about 10% of the entire population didn't seem to have any value. Pburka 04:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ottawa's Lebanese population is far less than 10% of the population, and far less than half of the visible minorities, but is still notable and visible, no? Lowertown and Vanier are burgeoning Francophone African neighborhoods, it's not a racial targetting campaign to mention it. Dan Carkner 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no issue with including information describing the burgeoning Francophone African communities in Lowertown and Vanier. However I felt that the previous wording did not express this. It simply provided a count of the number of black people in Lowertown with little context. I would object similarly to an article which mentioned the number of Lebanese in Ottawa with no additional context. Pburka 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was also struck by some of the wording used in describing neighbourhood demographics, even before discovering this talk page topic; so there's still some work to be done here.derrick 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new as a Wikipedia user, so please forgive any lapses in protocol. I've edited the description of Hintonburg, which demonstrated NPOV issues. The description of the residents living south of Wellington as people who "no longer consider themselves part of the same community" was not backed up by citation. As someone who has been very active in the community for seven or eight years, I can note that the balance of activists in the area is split between north and south, and that issues of concern in the neighbourhood tend to be worked on by teams of people from across the area served by the Hintonburg Community Association. I've also deleted a reference to "run-down by Ottawa standards" as vague, replacing it with "has experienced some neglect." The reference to homes south of Wellington as "very expensive" was subjective (compared to what?), so I've replaced that with "steadily risen in price", which is more accurate and verifiable, I feel. I hope I've added to the article by adding to the description of the businesses in the area as mostly proprieter-run.--Jleiper 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Wales Bridge

I just put his together about a surprisingly important part of the area's history, one which has been sadly neglected. As I'm not a local, however, I'm relying on my short visit last month, along with online research; if anyone local can add to/correct this, I'm sure it would improve it even more. Any comments would also be appreciated! Radagast 01:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Great job! :-) I would add to it, but alas, I don't know all that much about it. -- Spinboy 02:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Super job, indeed. I remember reading an article in the Ottawa Sun about it, but this just about covers it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alta Vista

I just made an article for the neighbourhood of Alta Vista, if anyone wants to edit/add to it. specifically, i was unsure of the exact boundaries, i did my best from what i could find out, but if anyone knows more, feel free to edit. --Someones life 19:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks really good. The boundaries mentioned are deffinitely at its broadest :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You did a great job, thanks bro! If y'all can help out and add {{OttawaProject}} to the top of the talk page on Ottawa related articles you create or find that don't have it. There's just too many for me to add it to all of them. Thanks a bunch! I discussed this on the strategy page. -- Spinboy 05:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I just went through all the links on the list of ottawa buidings and added it to all the articles that didnt have it. --Someones life 16:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) -- Spinboy 22:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media

Hey y'all...a couple of media-related questions for you.

  1. Somebody created Category:Television stations in Ottawa...do you guys want to use this, or would you prefer to leave the TV stations in the main Category:Ottawa-Gatineau media parent category? There's no issue with it on Wikipedia policy grounds; a lot of American media markets already have their TV and radio stations separated out this way (though Ottawa is so far the only Canadian market for which this has been done, and so far only CHRO has actually been filed there, and as of today the equivalent Category:Radio stations in Ottawa has not yet been created.)
  2. CBOT was moved to CBOT (TV) to allow for disambiguation. Usually the suffix used in dab situations is -TV rather than (TV), but a quick search on the CRTC site suggests that "CBOT-TV" is never actually used; even in decisions that refer to other stations as CXXX-TV, CBOT is always just CBOT. Can anybody confirm what the preferred form is in this case?

Thanks. Bearcat 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like Category:Ottawa-Gatineau media because there aren't any other categories for Gatineau. I think it should go to TV stations in Ottawa, newspapers in Ottawa, radio stations in Ottawa, etc. -- Spinboy 20:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the main reason I created it as Ottawa-Gatineau is that if it's just "Ottawa media", it can't include CHOT, CFGS, CKTF or any of the other stations licensed to Gatineau. Bearcat 22:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Right. Let them do their own category. -- Spinboy 22:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
But it's a single media market. If multiple cities are defined as a single media market, then by Wikipedia rules the category or categories have to encompass the whole market, not separate categories for each city. See e.g. Category:Television stations in Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, Category:Television stations in Albany / Schenectady / Troy, Category:Television stations in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Category:Television stations in Sacramento / Stockton / Modesto, etc. One media market = one category. Bearcat 22:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat. It doesn't make any sense to split Ottawa and Gatineau media since it is a single market. Moreover, some of the media which serves Gatineau is on the Ottawa side of the river (Le Droit, Radio Canada radio and television). It's one urban area -- I can't think of a valid reason for splitting it. May as well have "Category:Ottawa media west of Bank Street" and "Category:Ottawa media east of Bank Street". Skeezix1000 15:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farm Boy

I created the article today, it seriously needs expansion, so if anyone works there or has some top rate info, please add it in. -- Spinboy 18:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Done and done.05:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

I created {{OttawaMember}} for folks to put on their user page. -- Spinboy 21:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lowertown

I started creating a Lowertown article, but ran into some problem when I started trying to describe its extent. The Byward Market article claims that the market neighbourhood extends all the way to the Rideau River. This leaves little room for Lowertown! So what is the general consensus? Does Lowertown exist, or is it just part of the Byward Market?

In my opinion, the Byward Market ends at King Edward Avenue, and Lowertown extends from King Edward in the west to the Ridea River in the east, and the Ottawa River in the north to Rideau Street in the south.

As an added bit of confusion, I think that Stats Canada actually considers Lowertown to extend one block further south, to Besserer Street.

I believe that the Byward Market is part of Lower Town. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't change my comments. Lowertown and Lower Town are used interchangeably. The former is more contemporary, and the latter is more historical. Even the city's own website uses both spellings, although Lowertown is more common. Pburka 03:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
No links go to "Lowertown". They all go to Lower Town. In fact, I've never seen "Lowertown" in usage. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I think "Lowertown" is just as valid as "Lower Town," if anything it looks a bit more natural to me. But the division between the Market and Lower Town is definately King Edward Ave, although I suspect the Market was once considered part of Lower Town, not the other way around (when Ottawa was just made up of Upper and Lower Town--think about it). As an aside, try looking up a picture of how King Edward used to be and you'll realize just how much this neighborhood was ruined by aggressive city planning. Dan Carkner 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Do the dictionary test: If you can find references to "Lowertown" in reputable media outlets (mass or otherwise), then it is acceptable. I, however, subscribe to the Norman Levine story, "In Lower Town." --RealGrouchy 20:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun. Using google, I can't find a single reference to Lower Town in either of these papers. Also, from the City of Ottawa web site: [2], [3], [4] (just a small selection). To be fair, the city does use both terms. Google says the city uses Lower Town 102 times vs. Lowertown 161 times. Pburka 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Byward market is part of lowertown. I would say it's borders are canal, river, river, rideau street. (Besserer is in Sandy Hill.) --Someones life 00:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K-Lau-Bro

While we're on the topic of neighbourhoods, I just discovered K-Lau-Bro on Wikipedia. I've never heard of this, and google's only hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone can provide some sources indicating that this name is actually used, I think that the article should be deleted. Pburka 03:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a possibility. I've never heard of it either. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN? -- Spinboy 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
This area is like a subdivision. They have been deleted in the past. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been bold and redirected K-Lau-Bro to Centretown. Pburka 15:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:University of Ottawa

There's a dispute over at Talk:University of Ottawa about addition of POV material to the U of O article. -- Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There's an RfC in regards to Anakinskywalker, one of the disputants in above article. -- Spinboy No ads on Wikipedia. 00:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Section

I've updated the demographics section and also moved population history to a new page. I doubt anyone visiting a city's page on wikipedia would be interested to see population history from 1901 and agglomeration from 1851 on the main page. sikander 20:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page images layout

The images on the page are good and I don't want to remove any, but I think the positioning can be better. Anyone want to take a stab at it ? This is how it looks in 1920x1200. sikander 20:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OttawaProject Template

I have proposed a minor rewording of the OttawaProject template at Template talk:OttawaProject. Skeezix1000 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

When I started the project, it, folks was for OTTAWA only. Not Gatineau, not the NCR. Just the amalgamated city of Ottawa. That's the scope. Gatineau should go and start their own project. Spinboy 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Spinboy, or GreenJoe, if you disagree, raise the issue again and try to seek consensus to reverse the edit. Your views do not govern the matter. Thanks. Skeezix1000 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I obviously am raising the issue. What Spinboy chooses to do, is up to him. GreenJoe 20:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Ottawa templates in Gatineau articles/Scope of Wikiproject

[edit] Earlier discission

User:GreenJoe has been proceeding on deleting the Wikiproject Ottawa template on Gatineau articles, but the template itself specifies that the project includes articles within the National Capital Region and that according to the article National Capital Region (Canada) it does includes Gatineau as well as Cantley, Chelsea and other surronding areas and the templates thus must be kept. I've sent him a message in regards to that.--JForget 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Does not. The project name says Ottawa, not Gatineau. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa/General. GreenJoe 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Then if it's the case we would have to remove "National Capital Region" in the Ottawa Project template--JForget 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I already did. GreenJoe 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a somewhat unilateral move, GreenJoe. The template did refer both to Ottawa and the National Capital Region, so was in fact, correctly applied to those articles. If you have issues with the scope of the template or the wikiproject, the better approach would have been to have raised it here, because some editors might not agree with your proposed solution. Personally, I believe Ottawa and Gatineau are both in the same metropolitan region and both form the National Capital Region, so it seems logical to have them subject to the same template and Wikiproject. Perhaps the image on the template and/or the name of the Wikiproject need changing. That would be my approach, although others may disagree. That's why consensus should be achieved before making such significant edits. Skeezix1000 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You never achieved consensus. You made a similar unilateral move. I went and checked. GreenJoe 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Besides, this change affects not just the stupid template, but the entire project and really, you should have discussed it here, not on some template talk page, and gave plenty of notice. GreenJoe 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Not clear what you are talking about. Even if you have problems with other editors, that does not entitle you to ignore WP:CON. Please engage in discussion before you go making significant changes, as not everyone necessarily agrees with your wholesale edits today. Skeezix1000 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Your little change affects the entire WikiProject Ottawa, by changing the scope to include Gatineau and the NCR. You say it affects just the template. YOU ARE WRONG. It affects the project. You really should propose this to be re-named to WikiProject NCR if that is what you want. The founder himself told us that the scope was mean to just be Ottawa. GreenJoe 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As for WP:CON, you too are guilty of ignoring it. You never got consensus to change that template. GreenJoe 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have always (mostly) put that based on what was said on the National Capital Region Article (and actually I have probably forgot a few towns). We can have a debate over this, but most users (including I) will say that it includes areas that are mentionned in the NCR article.--JForget 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
My last edit to the template conformed with WP:CON. Before making any unilateral edit, I raised the issue on the talk page, and posted notice of the issue on both Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa/General. I waited two weeks, nobody objected, so I made the edit. In other words, I did not make a unilateral change, and I gave other editors the opporunity to comment or object.

In any event, what I may have done, or may not have done, is not relevant. What "the founder" may or may not have told you is irrelevant. What is relevant is WP:CON, and if you want to make significant changes, esp. when there are other editors who seem taken aback by them, then allow for there to be a discussion first.

Oh, and welcome back Spinboy. Skeezix1000 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a debate over this. No one contributed to the last one on the template talk page. GreenJoe 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:CON simply requires that the opinions of other editors be solicited, not that they actually comment. The fact that you chose not to comment does not allow you to unilaterally reverse a previous process. And, yes, thank you, there should be a debate before NCR or Gatineau os excised. Skeezix1000 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT the scope of WikiProject Ottawa is being [debated]. Your input is requested. Thank you. GreenJoe 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The official "What is the scope" debate

The issue: Does this WikiProject include Gatineau and the other areas of the National Capital Region, or not? I vote no. GreenJoe 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with the proposed change to the template, and would suggest that the scope of the Project logically includes both Ottawa and Gatineau. The area is one metropolitan region, and forms the National Capital Region. It seems silly to have a project that includes the National Gallery of Canada, but ignores that Canadian Museum of Civilization that is barely a stone's throw away. It's one urban area - let's have one project. Skeezix1000 20:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The project doesn't have any more say on an article than any other editors would, however, semantic dicking around about scope is unnecessarily divisive and I don't see it helping the project in any way, let alone the encyclopedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The template OttawaProject should remain what it was before today and it should include all of Ottawa and Gatineau (plus theNCR region). Would not conflict on what is mentionned in the NCR article (areas included). Also the project it self should include all of Gatineau and Ottawa plus surroundings. (NCR)). Actually, maybe we should also include all the Ottawa Valley (Renfrew, Arnprior and Pembrooke as well as the Pontiac, Maniwaki and Papineau regions (basically all the Outaouais region)--JForget 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ottawa being the national capital, I suggest that the scope of the project is for articles of the national capital region. Worst case scenario... The project COULD be renamed to WikiProject NCR. --Deenoe 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh.. I wasn't aware that it included Gatineau, although it reasonably could. If so it should be renamed Wikiproject Ottawa-Gatineau. I think it's fair for people in Gatineau to not want to be immediately lumped in with Ottawa any more than we Canadians would want to be included in the scope of Wikiproject USA, if such a thing exists ;) .. I think Wikiproject NCR is a worse name though.. it wouldn't mean anything to most people. Dan Carkner 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't yet. That's the point of the debate. One user decided the talk page template should include the NCR and gatineau. GreenJoe 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
GreenJoe, please stop mischaracterizing what happened. Thank you. Skeezix1000 11:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Non-problem, per Peter M Dodge. Articles do not belong to a wikiproject, but to all editors, even un-registered ones. And if WP:Ottawa participants want to focus on any other article, so they should. If someone doesn't want to contribute to Gatineau related articles, there's no forcing them. --Qyd 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the issue that GreenJoe has raised. It's the practical issue of which talk pages a template can be applied to, raising a larger issue of the scope of the Wikiproject. Whereas I agree that we need not be rigid in our application of the template or the scope of the project, I don't think anyone is suggesting that articles belong to a particular wikiproject, or what articles project participants must contribute to. Skeezix1000 11:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems reasonable that the Ottawa Wikiproject covers everything in the Greater Ottawa Area, including those parts in Quebec. Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver explicitly covers surrounding communities, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto also sometimes covers the GTA. - SimonP 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
i agree with simonP, based on his reasoning. AceGT09
If Ottawa itself can expand to include the suburban areas, it seems logical to include the entire national capital region in the scope of the template. This does not stop the formation of a separate "Pontiac county" project. When I drive into work I see a lot of vehicles crossing the bridges both ways every day, so it is not hard to argure that the NCR is one ecconomy, and others have mentioned media outlets as an example - indeed all the ottawa TV and FM stations have transmission equipment at camp fortune in the Pontiac.cmacd 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If it'll end the argument, please do consider renaming the project, but there's really no logical reason why it shouldn't include Gatineau, whether that was the creator's original intention or not. Ottawa and Gatineau are a single metropolitan area. They're a single media market. Entities such as the National Capital Commission have jurisdiction in both cities. Gatineau-related topics (Canadian Museum of Civilization, Casino du Lac Leamy, etc.) were continually being filed in Ottawa-specific categories until I created a set of Gatineau-specific categories. Other Canadian city WikiProjects specifically cover neighbouring communities as well as the main city of focus. And projects specifically cover whatever the general consensus of involved editors chooses to include in them; the original creator of a project does not have any special veto power. Meanwhile, the only argument we've seen against including Gatineau is located in the immediate vicinity of "because I don't want it to" — which, needless to say, falls pretty short in the compelling logic department. Bearcat 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the call for the "What is the scope" debate; I've recently found myself in some hot water on wiki with regard to some Places of Worship stubs in other Canadian Cities (Hamilton and Edmonton) where there wasn't a local Wikiproject. I have no problem with Gatineau included here, unless a separate Gatineau Wikiproject is sought.

Bacl-presby 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If the project is intended on being of 'administrative' use (official 'City of Ottawa' i.e. wards, city services, etc...) then it should include only Ottawa proper. There is, however, a large body of material that conforms to a much broader scope that focusses on the importantance of the area as it relates to being the capital of Canada. To break it down in purely administrative terms, there would be projects for:

  1. City of Ottawa
  2. City of Gatineau
  3. Federal Government of Canada facilities

From a 'academic' perspective, it makes sense to have these three divisions. From a usability standpoint, it makes more sense to have a single category for all of the relavent articles. In so far as Wikipedia does not attempt being (overtly) academic, I think the project should include the Greater Ottawa Area. Renaming the project to include a reference to the NCR is (I think) a bad idea. It doesn't have a whole lot of meaning outside Ottawa or federal government. Paulshannon 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that the project encompassed all that is within the National Capital Region. If anything it should include all that is within the NCR and no need for name changing. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we achived consensus or something, but for me it's clear that Wikiproject Ottawa includes Gatineau. If it's such a big deal, then let's rename it to Ottawa-Gatineau --Deenoe 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind what I said, I'm pretty sure articles on Mississauga are under Wikiproject Toronto. Why Gatineau shouldnt be under Ottawa? --Deenoe 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone else has done it, does not make it right. --Waterspyder 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

  • Ottawa is not the NCR, Ottawa is a part of the NCR and is no greater or lesser than any other component of the NCR (which is primarily thought of as Gatineau).
  • Ottawa, and not the NCR, is Canada's Capital, but due to the proximity of the resources, it is often referred to as Canada's Capital Region (never Greater Ottawa Area).
  • Please let's also keep in mind that Gatineau and Ottawa do exist in two seperate provinces, with different laws, transportation systems, governments and regulations. The similarities are very superficial and mostly marketed from a tourism standpoint (thanks in large part to the National Capital Commission). Students from Ottawa who wish to pursue post-secondary studies in Gatineau pay out-of-province fees to do so, even if the University is in Gatineau).

So, if we're writing a tourist's guide to visiting Ottawa, then by all means call it the NCR or Ottawa-Gatineau. However, if we're trying to capture "Ottawa", Canada's Capital city, with it's unique language requirements, demographics, transportation, liquor laws, municipal government, inter-city travel services, Universities, Hospitals, school boards, tax rates, employment rates, pension contributions and dozens of other factors then it needs to remain Ottawa. I would definitely acknowledging Gatineau as a source of cultural enrichment with it's Museum of Civilization, shared resources for major festivals like Winterlude, and locations like Place du Portage as a significant employer of Ottawa residents, but in my mind, that's really where the similarties end. --Waterspyder 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Gatineau IS part of the Canada's Capital city. Yes, they have different laws and etc... but their economy are linked TIGHT. This is not really about laws... The different laws is not something that we should be concerned of. Ottawa and Gatineau's economy work together, and when Ottawa makes a big project, it has influence on Gatineau, and it goes both ways! With the new Rapibus coming up, the impact on Ottawa is going to be HUMUNGOUS. Rapibus also made it very clear that links were tight, because for a while, it was thought that instead of moving tracks to lay a road for the Rapibus, they should use a LRT on the existing tracks. All that to say that Ottawa and Gatineau is linked, by economy, tourism (Civilizations Museum, Casino du Lac Leamy..), and it should be under the same Wikiproject IMO. --Deenoe 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My background is somewhat in publications, and one of the most important things that has to be determined is "What will be included". In a digital age, I think we are far too inclined to try to include as much information as humanly possible, sometimes to the detriment of the information being presented. So do we stop at the Ottawa city boundaries, or Ottawa-Gatineau, or Ottawa-Gatineau and the Ottawa Valley? People commute to Ottawa daily and access its resources from Hawkesbury, Cornwall, Smiths Falls, Prescott, Alexandria, Golden Lake, Eganville and all places in between. People regularly travel to Ottawa, and make day trips to the Perth Garlic Festival, or the Renfrew Lumber Baron Festival. It definitely ties their economic and cultural involvement into the city of Ottawa, but sometimes we have to learn where to stop. I think there is absolutely enough material for Gatineau to have it's own project and to link the two to demonstrate the integration where appropriate and point out the economic and cultural influences the cities have on each other, but I think we have to know where to draw the line and not overload information into one project. It's difficult enough trying to incorporate information from the various municipalities that were amalgamated into the larger Ottawa we are familiar with today. I move to make the legal geographic boundaries of Ottawa the place to stop on this project, or at least a starting point on discussions on where that boundary needs to be. --Waterspyder 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't care. Depending on what aspect of life you're talking about, Ottawa and Gatineau can be grouped together (like museums) or are worlds apart (transportation law). If Gatineau articles bleed into the Ottawa project, then so be it. If they become too much of a clutter, then the Gatineau people can fork. Neither one affects how I will edit Ottawa and Ottawa-area related articles. --RealGrouchy 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Ottawa_General_c297.html"