Talk:Aylmer, Quebec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
This doesn't make sense in parts. One paragraph discusses how there were not enough voters to succeed in the vote, even though the vote was successful. The next talks about how the vote was three votes short. Which is it?
Removing these bits until clarification is gained...
Recent events--how about a major fire in the 1920s, too?? Bacl-presby 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone tell my why the name Symmes is so prevelant in Aylmer? What is the history and why is it pertinent?
Not sure on that one; How about Lucerne?? No mention of it in the article--Bacl-presby 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aylmer Radical Youth Alliance
hmm been living here for a number of years now and this is the first I've heard of this group and its support from the Socialist community. Seems to me that it is more of a trend than an actual citizen's party, its "pressures" existing before the fusion. Les amis de la Forêt Boucher is much better known in its defence of that sector. I'm also perplexed at its First section placement and validity of its own seciton in the first place as compared to other pro-green conversation groups.--Dryzen 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Except for this article, the group gets zero Google hits. Moreover, the information is unsourced. It is either a joke, or a vanity edit by some group trying to get attention. Either way, it should be removed from the article. Skeezix1000 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I thought so. --Dryzen 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Except for this article, the group gets zero Google hits. Moreover, the information is unsourced. It is either a joke, or a vanity edit by some group trying to get attention. Either way, it should be removed from the article. Skeezix1000 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I was a little surprised by the POV with the original posting; so...I figured that this reference (originally posted on February 12.2006) must have been of deep local signifigance, so I highlighted it months ago (July 21 to be exact, see comment with history) ! I'm surprised that it lasted so long in the article... :) Bacl-presby 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
