Talk:History of the petroleum industry in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the petroleum industry in Canada article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Deletion per WP:NOR?

I removed the proposed deletion template because I don't find that the article violates WP:NOR. On the contrary, this looks like a very promising article, though it certainly needs:

  1. References. Lots of them.
  2. Some cleanup, mostly regarding structure.
  3. A better title. I suggest History of the petroleum industry in Canada, after History of the petroleum industry in North America.

GregorB 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

This article has been transferred wholesale from here and, although licensed under a CCA, goes against what I perceive Wikipedia to be. Undoubtedly, it is an interesting essay, but is it encyclopaedic? Bubba hotep 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you in that the article - as it stands now - is less than perfect encyclopedic material. However, I don't think it's an essay, because I don't see that it reflects its author's personal point of view. I'd say it's more like a magazine article or a popular book, i.e. it's nothing that a bit of style editing could not fix. With that, and the points I've outlined above, this could still be a fine article. GregorB 14:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I might take a look and have a fiddle when I get a chance. Title needs changing first, might do that later. Bubba hotep 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No time like the present. Strike number three of your list! I think the whole thing needs doing quicksmart though because the person who prod'ed it did have a bit of a point. Bubba hotep 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good! The article is now no longer orphaned, and I've broken it into sections, which begins to adress point #2 (albeit feebly)... GregorB 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


I wrote the article, and I'd love to be involved in the editing. However, I don't have a clue how to edit it, including putting in links. I've searched the Wikipedia site, and I can't find anything that really explains this. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbcomm (talk • contribs)

I've added a welcome message to your talk page that provides you with a number of resources on how to edit Wikipedia pages. You can ask here too, of course - what would you like to do? One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature. Sandstein 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am now pretty well finished with my editing. I will keep an eye on this to make sure future changes are accurate. I'm quite pleased with the outcome. Thanks for your help, and your various notes and comments.Pmbcomm 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two-part article?

I think the division of our coverage on this subject is somewhat arbitrary and awkward. I would like to move the pages to more descriptive titles that reflect their content, i.e.:

Better titles would be fine, too, if you can think of some. Any thoughts? --Merovingian ※ Talk 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with that idea. The history is consistent. in the industry itself, we have a consistent way of talking about them, and the history reflects that. Your second suggested title, in that context, would be particularly misleading. Rather than give them separate titles, my preference would be to put them back into a single long history. That is actually my general preference, but the story had become quite ungainly at more than 11000 words. They do fit together as a single history, with the conclusion in part 2 representing a conclusion for the combined piece.Pmbcomm 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that combining might be a good idea. The concept of having "parts" of a larger article is rather unorthodox for Wikipedia, because we don't have to have articles of any set length. That said, we could also siphon off some of the excess information into petroleum resources of Canada. This would be a good place to describe them in detail and leave this article mainly about history. --Merovingian ※ Talk 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is now three parts, and yes, I agree with it being unorthodox to name the articles with Part 1, Part 2 etc. See Wikipedia:Article series and Wikipedia:Article size for standards for splitting and naming. It should be considered to move this series over to another Wike, e.g. wikibooks or wikiversity.--rxnd ( t | € | c ) 11:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the approach used in the Brazil article. Let me figure out how to do that, and I will consolidate my petroleum history in the same way. 19:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the new approach that you implemented. The structure change has lifted the quality of the article-series significantly. Good job! --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trans Canada Pipeline

Can it truly be called a Trans Canada Pipeline if in fact it does not encompass all of the Canadian provinces? The Trans entry in Wikipedia determines its use in geographic terms to convey the meaning "beyond" or "across" something. --HJKeats 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TransCanada PipeLine

This is actually the legal name of the pipeline. It cannot be called anything else!!!Pmbcomm 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of the articles in the series

The articles in the series should probably be renamed to remove "History of the petroleum industry in Canada", as they are already linked to that article by the portal on top. For example History of the petroleum industry in Canada (oil sands and heavy oil)‎ could be called History of oil sands and heavy oil in Canada or something catchier, just to make the topic of the article clearer. NJGW (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

I would like to comment on the tone of this article. I question its neutrality. The text sounds like it is lifted from a promotional brochure related to the oil and gas industry. There is nothing wrong with stating that Canada is or has been a lead producer of natural gas, but I do not think that this is the place for a warm review of Canada's commercial success in the field. I would like to see a more balanced approach to the subject. As it stands, I do not feel confident that the article is offering me a complete analysis of the "History of the petroleum industry in Canada." Even if we refrain from raising environmental issues (which might be worth a paragraph) a purely economically based assessment of the role of petroleum extraction Canada still needs to offer pros and cons, and a variety of angles on the topic. Otherwise, I feel that it is unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staghorn Sumac (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)