Talk:Underground city, Montreal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| 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 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. |
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] above ground
- Perhaps there should be something specifically mentioning that segments of city do exist above ground? While I know this, there are some people who may not fully grasp that concept. Comments anybody? --Riley 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now that I re-read the page, I see the first paragraph makes mention of this. Oops! --Riley 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] metro station photos
It would be nice to have images for all of the metro stations. Suitable ones are probably available on Flickr. Any volunteers?
Djg2006 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] map for the print-challenged?
the research here is excellent and thorough, but how about a map of RESO to graphically illustrate the interconnections and locations? how does one acquire permissions for an actual RESO map, or would that be public domain? -- Denstat 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RESO map...
... is available under external links
[edit] Split
I think that RESO should be split off, then we can talk more about other parts of the underground city without crowding.
[edit] Error
Place-des-arts has at least one freestanding entrance (bleury south of de maisonneuve and président-kennedy). Does anyone disagree? 66.130.8.119
- No. If your re-read the text, you'll see that it is correct.Djg2006 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed
Various items in this article are given as "proposed". Who is proposing them? Have they been proposed by various authorities (in which case they should be identified as such) or are simply "wishing thinking" on the part of editors? Grstain | Talk 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's my only concern, as well. It sounds like wishful thinking on the part of editors. Other than that, this is an OUTSTANDING JOB! Great. Shawn in Montreal 06:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- why do you consider a proposal to be valid only if it comes from the authorities?Djg2006 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a question of whether the proposal comes from the "authorities" or not. A proposal from Transport 2000 or the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, for example, which have no authority in the matter, would be valid, as long as it were indicated as such. The "proposals" in this article seemed like "wishful thinking" on the part of the author of the article. Wikipedia should describe what is, not what someone would there to be (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). - Grstain | Talk 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Montmorency
I've taken out this section as I've seen no plans for Montmorency station to have interior links to any of the educational facilities mentioned, particularly the cegep. If I'm wrong, please add back with citations. - Montréalais 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Split?
Shouldn't this be split, so that the central portion (under a title, RESO or such) be a separate article, and we'd summarize it here, along with deeper treatments of the rest of the netowrk? 70.55.86.210 06:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo du RÉSO.png
Image:Logo du RÉSO.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
