Talk:Expo 67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Expo 67 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


Archive
Archives
Archive 1


[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I'm of the opinion that this article meets the prose and manual of style criteria for promotion to Good Article status. I couldn't find anything noticeably wrong in terms of spelling and grammar.
2. Factually accurate?: The article is sufficiently referenced, with 36 citations, everywhere that is required.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers the topic in excellent depth and is very thorough.
4. Neutral point of view?: I'm satisfied this article is written from a Neutral Point of View.
5. Article stability? The article does appear to be stable. I can't see anything that would give cause to fail this article under this criteria.
6. Images?: Images are used well, and are used correctly as far as licensing is concerned.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First line - 1999

The first line of this article claims that the expo was "The 1999 International and Universal Exposition" - surely 1967? -- Mithent (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Initiating discussion so as to give User:Lonewolf BC a proper forum in which to express his grievances. --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no grievances. I merely disagree with an edit G2bambino wishes to make. Reasons have been properly given by edit-summary, already.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not good enough. You have to discuss in order to reach an agreement; edit summaries are not the proper place to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Acutally, there is nothing wrong with explaining a revert by edit-summary. That is supposed to move the disagreement to the talkpage immediately, if the would-be changer wishes to pursue the matter. If you wish to pursue this, use the talkpage to seek consensus. Don't use edit-warring to try to make your desired change in the lack of consensus for it. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I said the edit summaries are not areas for discussion; hence, I do look to the talk page for resolution. However, you disrupt due process by generally refusing to engage in discourse on talk pages, stating your edit summaries are enough and dumping the issue on others to resolve for you. Given this pattern, I think you might wish to familiarise yourself with the first step of the dispute resolution process, which itself instructs users to "discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself." Not doing so "shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it." Now, as you're the sole party with any problem here, it's up to you to lay out your reasonings in order to entice rebuttal and eventually, with luck, resolution. --G2bambino (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh road-apples. If you want to think I'm the bad-guy go ahead, but spare me (and other editors) your mendacious finger-pointing.
You already have (by edit-summary) my reasons for being against the changes you want, but here again: "founder" should be based on real executive power; "owner" is redundant for a Crown Corp. but if used should be "Government of Canada" (self-explanatory) If you're unclear on them, say how so and ask me questions. I think they are quite straightforward, though.
I strongly suggest that lay out your reasons for wanting to make the changes.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol. In case you haven't noticed, there are no other editors here; so, no need to put on the gleaming puppy dog eyes and convince anyone you're all sweetness and innocence; there's no audience.
I did, of course, read your edit summaries, and did reply to them: Yes, real exec. power. What is "government"? And that's where the "discussion" left off. So, you have yet to prove how the Prime Minister is the "real" executive power that founds a Crown corporation, and what exactly is meant by "Government of Canada" and how you propose to clarify that in the infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether the infobox should name the PM or the GG as the founder of the crown corporation, but I have listed this dispute under the RFC section at WP:CWNB for outside input. However, in terms of Wikipedia policy, I'd like to stress in my capacity as an administrator that Lonewolf BC is correct here. G2bambino, as the person who introduced a significant change to the infobox, the onus is on you to get consensus for your change. Lonewolf does not have to get consensus to change the infobox back to what it said three days ago; you have to get consensus to make the change in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna 'watch this page' for awhile. But, I'm not gonna get involved (third person wise). Great to see you guys, aren't 'edit warring'; congrads. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's impossible for me to get a consensus if the only other participant in the dispute won't discuss his problems. If others weigh in, then fine; but so far the disagreement is between LW and myself only, so the only consensus to be sought is between he and I. Perhaps you're not aware, but LW doesn't take to discussing matters very well. --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In a situation like that, the proper procedure is to summarize the dispute on the talk page, and then solicit outside input from the RFC section of WP:CWNB. And for what it's worth, it hasn't exactly been my experience that you're all that much more inclined to discuss disputes of this type than he is, but at the moment that's neither here nor there. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, in theory that might be the proper route to take, but in practice it has not been very fruitful; in my experience, RfCs garner little to no response (though somehow yours at WP:CWNB got a flood of replies - how[?]). Regardless, an RfC isn't, and shouldn't be, necessarily the first step to take; direct discussion between the two (or more) disputing parties is the initial move. By skipping this step, however, LW blocks an edit and then departs, leaving the situation statically in his favour and others to sort out the problem. This is a consistent pattern, and the uncooperative nature of it puts his motives in question. When people's habits are causing the disruption, then it is relevant to bring them up; I'm not sure the last time you had any experience of a discussion, or lack of one, with me, so, I can't comment on your observations. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Crown corporations don't fit neatly into pre-made parameters of Infobox company. I say leave out founder and owner altogether. It already states it's a crown corp.; further elaboration is best left to the text of the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a PM or GG can be said to be a "founder" of a crown corporation. The "government of Canada" or "Canadian Cabinet" perhaps but I think the best thing is to leave the section blank. Saying the GG is the founder is misleading as Massey had no personal role in devising the crown corporation but simply assented to it (assuming it was created by an order of council). Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Leave it blank. That's the problem with infoboxes: they try to force everything into set little boxes, when life, of course, isn't like that.Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I would suggest deleting the infobox altogether. This article is about the event/festival, not about the company that organized it. There are other fields that are totally pointless e.g. Area Served: the world (!) Put the information into the article if it is interesting and substitute it with an more appropriate infobox if you must.Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The article is about the fair, not the crown corp. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleBlue. None of the other world exposition articles I've just looked at have this infobox. Maybe there should be an infobox for world's fairs but this isn't it - using a corporation box is like trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. Delete the box. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I could refute any claims that there is no founder of a Crown corporation, but, given the further observations r.e. infoboxes and world fairs, it seems unnecessary to do so. It's absolutely true that this article is about the fair, and not the corporation that ran it, so the infobox is completely inappropriate. This point totally eluded me until it was brought up here, but why couldn't this just have been sorted out so easily in the first place? --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Because sometimes it is hard to stand back and see the forest not the trees, I guess. And that's why asking for outside opinions can often help clarify the vision. Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I've lost my beloved infobox:-) Well when I put it there last year, all I could do was put a square box in a round hole. I don't have time to create a World's Fair box. Would have preferred a better opening graphic than the fair's passport, but I think the image police probably killed the original graphic. Abebenjoe (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)