Talk:Kingston, Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingston, Ontario article.
Article policies
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.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian communities
This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Suggestion, March 9 2006

I suggest we look to the Syracuse,_New_York topic -- it's well organized, and has many facets we haven't covered yet, or don't cover as well. Note: Syracuse appears to have no problems with having their seal on Wikipedia (see the "Coat of arms" section below).

[edit] Coat of arms

I have recently inquired, and we sadly CAN NOT use the coat of arms in this article. Quote:
"Ryan, Your inquiry was forwarded to my attention.

Thank you for your interest in the City of Kingston. As our Coat of Arms is under copyright and for use by specified City of Kingston departments only, I cannot grant you permission to use the Coat of Arms image for your Wikipedia article.

Also, the City of Kingston slogan in your article is incorrect (("A Civil And Creative Community With A Proud Past") A new slogan was created after the 1998 amalgamation of the City of Kingston, Kingston Township and Pittsburgh Township. The new slogan is "where history and innovation thrive"." ryanakca 20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh. What ever happened to "Pro rege, grege, lege"? Credmond 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the coat of arms, is there anything to prevent somebody taking a photo of a city truck, with the coat of arms on the side of it, and using THAT in Wikipedia? Credmond 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the flag? Is that copyrighted too? --Arctic Gnome 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. for a city that recently adopted the new motto "where history AND innovation thrive" they sure don't seem very innovative, I mean not allowing us to use their coat of arms and possibly flag for an encyclopedia article that will only raise awareness and provide information about the city.. haha.. and don't get me started on their mass transit system.. or lack thereof, it could really do with a revamping. All in all Kingston isn't a bad place though, we just have had a bunch of bad mayors. Basser g 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related topics for possible development

Wolfe Island (Ontario), Simcoe Island, Cedar Island (Ontario), Milton Island (Ontario), Amherst Island, Garden Island (Ontario) Snake Island (Saint Lawrence River) Brother Islands (Eastern_Lake_Ontario) Nine Mile Point Lighthouse Big Sandy Bay


Confederation Basin

Portsmouth Olympic Harbor

Collins Bay, Ontario

Kingston Penitentiary

Marine Museum of the Great Lakes

Cathcart Redoubt and Shoal Tower to complete the set with Murney Tower and Fort Frederick

Kingston Yacht Club and Kingston Rowing Club

[edit] Media

Please note that per Wikipedia policy, a radio or television station may only be listed on Kingston's article if it is licensed to Kingston itself. Stations from New York which happen to be available in Kingston are not to be listed here; that is not what a city article's media list is for. Bearcat 21:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's nice, but that leaves one awkward issue: Kingston is the closest city for some of these US-based border blasters, specifically those using Cape Vincent (a tiny village directly opposite Kingston/Wolfe Island on the St. Lawrence River). "CIKR-FM is a Canadian radio station, broadcasting at 105.7 FM in Kingston, Ontario. The station broadcasts an active rock format branded as K-Rock 105.7. The station's owners also operate WBDR, from the nearby American community of Cape Vincent, New York, through a local marketing agreement" is more likely to belong here than in the Watertown, New York page, even though WLYK (what was WBDR-FM) is not licensed to Williamsville, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links - commercial link section

As per policy, external links to sites that sell products or services should be avoided. A commercial links section could also become endless. For more info, go to Wikipedia:External links. BrianC 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't simply re-revert - if someone has removed your link, then it is an indication that people aren't happy or don't understand whyu it is there in the first place, and it needs to be explained/discussed on the talk page.
In terms of concern/opposition to LVEC - the article doesn't mention LVEC; unless/until it does, a link either pro or concerned adds zero/nada for the outside/non-Kingstonian reader (and that is what we are here for). My suggestion is to leave the link off, UNTIL there is a para in the article which discusses the LVEC (under 'development' or some such heading). If this paragraph can show indications of substantiated opposition/concern (i.e. supported by outside sources (WP:V), then the LVEC site link would be substantiated.Bridesmill 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This LVEC link has been reverted even though it's obviously a POV. Therefore, the link should be removed.
LVEC should not be discussed in the article unless, according to policy, the "article .. clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view" to maintain a NPOV. This would go far beyond the scope of the article. The article is not a discussion forum. Who, outside of Kingston, cares about LVEC anyway? BrianC 15:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In part, my point exactly. On the other hand, what here concerns most non-Kingstonians? Who knows? Plenty of precedent for upcoming development in a city to be mentioned in the article, and some precedent for (non-trivial) opposition to these plans to be mentioned. So if someone wants to mention LVEC, fine (Personally I can't be bothered). And they would have to mention the project, where & what it is, and if there is significant verified/notable opposition, it may be noted. Only after that is there any substantiation for putting a link up - and that link needs to provide a value-added to the reader and should be matched with pro-site link(s) - non-notable rant sites don't meet that bill (see the recent ativity at Goole for an example). As I stated there, the aim of these pages is to inform the public & one would think to showcase communities - and major points of view. I'm thinking if there is not a credible argument 'for' the link from other than the person who put it up, it needs to go as presently it adds nothing.Bridesmill 17:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. I note that the LVEC is not being discussed at all in the Kingston, Ontario topic. All I see is a link to KCAL, and as a person who watches Kingston-related topics daily on Wikipedia, I can't recall the LVEC being "discussed", one way or another, in this topic. As for the link, I think it deserves to stay for two important reasons. Fistly because all the "mainstream media" outlets in Kingston have links from this Wikipedia topic, and secondly this mainstream media and entrenched business interests in Kingston have control of all the print outlets, and they hold all the megaphones, and the LVEC project is very topical among Kingston residents at the moment. I have several other points that justify the link and I'll be happy to discuss these with you offline. Steven Black 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying; but this is an emotional appeal rather than a logical one - you are in need of a soapbox & wish to use WP as such - unfortunately that fits in with WP:BAI. This is not the LinkPage for kingston interests. I personally have a website too that I feel is of interest to Kingstonians - but for those exact reasons it is not there (maybe someone else will consider my stuff notable enough, then they can put it up) In terms of discussing offline, sorry, but this involves much more than you & I and that would simply not be fair to the rest of the interested editors.Bridesmill 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The link shouldn't be there unless the article actually discusses the controversy. For one thing, as the article currently stands, the average reader doesn't even know what the hell an LVEC is, or why there's a webpage for citizens concerned about it, unless they live in Kingston and are already familiar with the matter. "LVEC" is not a term in general usage with most people who aren't already familiar with the controversy; most people don't have a clue in hell what it means. So if you think the link should be there, then put a subsection somewhere in the article talking about the controversy — otherwise the link just looks like spam. Bearcat 19:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Bearcat and Bridesmill, I corrected the link to address your concerns. Bearcat, I'd be happy to summarize the controversy for WP but I don't think it's necessary given your concerns about applicability to general non-Kingston readers. Note that currently there are several links under "Community and Information Links" that also aren't of any concern to your (or my) conception of "average reader" and what is or isn't a "Kingston interest". Considering the magnitude of the issue in Kingston, I propose that the link should stay so long as this local issue remains unresolved. Morever given that one of the underlying themes of the LVEC controversy is the active suppression of opposing points of view, and the demonstrable disreguard for public input on the matter, I'll need you to identify yourselves as something more tangible than aliases before I'll consent to let the matter drop. Steven Black 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I don't live in Kingston and never have (in fact, I've only ever been to the city once, and even that was for just long enough to stop for a donut and a smoke en route to somewhere else on the 401), and have no connections to anybody involved in the controversy. My only interest in the matter is from the perspective of a Wikipedia editor and administrator who recognizes that the relevance of external links on a Wikipedia article has to be explained if it isn't inherently obvious. And the link hasn't been corrected at all; it still just says "Kingstonians Concerned about the LVEC" without explaining what an LVEC is or why anyone's concerned about it. Bearcat 23:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the link hadn't been changed yet when I started writing this comment, but I see that it now has. I'm satisfied with the current phrasing of the link, and will have nothing further to say here. Bearcat 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prominence/Prominent Kingstonians (now Notable Kingstonians)

I don't want to be labelled a deletionist, but IMHO 'Prominence' means more than mere notability; there are prob hundreds of 'notable' people who have some passing connection with Kingston. Are we going to list them all (including those who aren't even notable enough to have Wiki articles) or are we going to keep it down to a reasonable level of true 'Prominence'? If it is going to be 'notable people', rather than prominent, it should prob be an article of its own....thoughts?Bridesmill 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. User:StevenBlack 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. BrianC 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Dan Aykroyd live near Sydenham rather than in Kingston? BrianC 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Googled Robert A Mundell and came up on a webpage on the Queen's University website that gives details on him living in Kingston. Reinstated him to the list of prominent Kingstonians Jsp3970 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Also Googled Patricia Rozema and she is listed as being born in Kingston in 1958 so reinstated her to the list Jsp3970 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked on both their respective articles a month ago - no reply. Rozema's article says she was born in Sarnia, not Kingston. Google results in 362 hits PR & Kingston, 723 hits PR & Sarnia, incl IMDB says she was born in Sarnia; another says Kingston but moved to Sarnia at young age. In any case, birthplace needs obviously to be verified first of all - second, how much time & how prominent do you have to be to be a 'Prominent Kingstonian'? Does living here for a few NN months count? Mundell spent one high school year in Kingston. Same question remains. But I am curious that nobody at their articles could give a reason to call them Kingstonians.Bridesmill 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dan Aykroyd - Yes, he's a South Frontenac resident - near Sydenham - again, article states Kingston, but what's the limit on this? my thought is you either have to live a considerable time, or do significant schooling (post-sec) or achieve your notability here. In his case, none apply.Bridesmill 00:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've sent an email to PR's website asking for clarification on place of birth.Bridesmill 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Paul Bernardo really considered a notable resident of Kingston just because he is incarcerated there?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.114.111 (talk • contribs)

I think it depends on how we define "notable" for the purposes of this article, and we do have to draw the line somewhere. I believe that a notable person is someone who is remarkable or worthy of attention. I wouldn't say that PB is worthy of attention or is remarkable in any way.BC 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

The list of schools is getting very long. Since the article is about Kingston, lets stick to Kingston schools. Schools in distant communities such as Napanee should not be listed. Yes, they may be in the same school board as Kingston schools, but they are NOT in Kingston. BC 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

The Davis Drydock, please note, is still very much in operation. StevenBlack 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)