Talk:Alberta

proof needed

Many things in the article are not cited such as this 1st statement in the article. "Alberta is the most populous and fastest growing of Canada's three prairie provinces" Any proof?74.216.38.66 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

[1] AlexiusHoratius 05:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

well what exact source would you like to see cited? Rjensen (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is not common knowledge needs to be cited - very little are cited with a tag. Something like this info below:

"Alberta is named after Princess Louise Caroline Alberta (1848–1939), the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert."

How did you know that? where is that source is from?

Things like that need sources. Otherwise I'll have to tag this article to be check over for verifiable sources.74.216.49.135 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Government of Alberta Web site states that, "Alberta was named after Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, fourth daughter of Queen Victoria." http://alberta.ca/home/182.cfm Twhanna (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure one would need to cite that Alberta is the largest of the three, in Canada it IS common knowledge. Wikipedia also has population data (which is referenced) that verifies this. Something that should be removed however is any and all references to Fahrenheit as it is not a recognized measurement of temperature in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.50.249 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Steam Trains

In the tourism section... It boasts one of the few operable steam trains in the world, offering trips through the rolling prairie scenery.

In the Australian state of NSW, and New Zealand's South Island have several each. Some only run on weeknds; others only on weekends, but there are many steamtrains... and they shouldn't be always celebrated as they run on abandoned lines. -- 58.105.129.146 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Loads of operating steam trains in the UK too. But I'm not sure what your point is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor quality

No offense to the editors who have tried to create this article, but it is terribly written. Every fact is a comparison (Alberta is the second ... after _) (Calgary is the third ... after _ & _). Not everything has to be compared to somewhere else. The grammar could be improved in many areas. Also the words Alberta, Calgary, and Edmonton appear an insane amount of times. Sometime just "the province" is better and less repetitive. There are too many images, some of which add nothing to the article. I'm going to try and clean this article up a bit. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is an old article..any thing you can do to help would be great. If you can do what you do to other articles here we should be up to speed in no time :-) .Moxy (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is overdue and the lack of references, despite the September 2010 request to add them, attests its current quality. Thanks for taking the initiative and for the good work. The momentum you are building is tempting me to join in once other distractions subside – keep it up! Hwy43 (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See also inclusion

UrbanNerd has been blanking a useful link to Wiki articles on Alberta separatism that he does not want users to see --explaining he is unable to justify his action. That approaches vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have rationale as to why it should not be included, but I'm interested in what he wants to discuss on this talk page despite that he can't begin to explain why this is inappropriate. Hwy43 (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

He said he was going to take to the talk page, I am assuming here. But with no talk, it appears he doesn't want to defend his edits. 117Avenue (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya let's include every fringe movement in the see also category. Why not start a Moonshing in Alberta article and include it there as well. I can't get over the amount of whining I'm seeing. UrbanNerd (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes actually, any article related to the province of Alberta should be linked to, to build an interlinking encyclopedia. 117Avenue (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps UrbanNerd is still caught up with the redneck fringe. Here's teh Western Standard report on 2005: "A movement that was once restricted to what central Canadians might call the redneck fringe, has managed to spread to westerners who are, in many cases, urbane, white collar and increasingly too young to be nursing any grudges over the National Energy Program. What's more, sympathy for breaking up the country along east-west lines is no longer strictly something you'll find in Alberta. More than ever, support for separation is growing all across the West. That's the conclusion of a Western Standard poll, which found that a record number of people in all four western provinces say they are willing to look at separating from the East. According to the poll, which was conducted in July, using random selection methods, 35.6 per cent of westerners agreed with the statement: "Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country." online Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, good for you Rjensen, you found some western separation propaganda. It's irrelevant. The article has nothing to do with the province of Alberta or its article. It is more of a fringe theory which is not widely followed and has more to do with the famed western canadian inferiority complex. The separation article is only a loosely tied subject and as goes against wikipedias Wikipedia is not a directory policy. Also it's inclusion also seems to be somewhat of a promotion, advertisement, or recruitment into learning more on the subject. Which again is against policy. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad for you UrbanNerd -- you have produced no RS to support your own POV, and instead try to block information. 40% of Albertans are fringe? Look at Western separatism: the myths, realities & dangers by Larry Pratt & Garth Stevenson (1981); and Bell, Edward. "'Separatism and Quasi-Separatism in Alberta," Prairie Forum, Sep 2007, Vol. 32 Issue 2, pp 335-355 for scholars who take it seriously as an indicator of serious anti-eastern sentiment Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor Rjensen, you don't get it. First of all those numbers are in no way accurate. Second that topic in no way ties to the provinces article. Please read WP:SOAP, specifically the areas on promotion, advertisement, or recruitment. Thanks. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ WP:SOAP (whether intentional or not), sources (whether factual/disputed or not), and POVs aside, the article in question, despite its notability, should not be listed under the See also section for the following reasons.

• It is already appropriately wikilinked within the body of the article (see second last paragraph under the Government section). Including it again under the See also section is redundant.
• No other Alberta-related articles wikilinked within the Alberta article reappear in the See also section, despite numerous of these wikilinked Alberta-related articles being as notable or more notable than the article in question.
• The Quebec sovereignty movement is significantly more notable than this movement, yet it is not listed under Quebec's See also section. However, it is wikilinked in Index of Quebec-related articles, which is the listed main article under Quebec's See also section.

Based on the above, I am going to place Alberta separatism under Index of Alberta-related articles, where it can sit alongside numerous other Alberta-related notable articles, including those of similar political nature. While I'm at it, I'm going to place Symbols of Alberta there as well. Then, I will add Index of Alberta-related articles as the main article under Alberta's See also section to remove any perception of SOAP on the Alberta article.
Finally, please cease all personal attacks and patronizing comments directed at other editors anywhere on Wikipedia, including on talk pages, within talk section headings, and within edit summaries. This behaviour is disruptive and inappropriate. I also recommend placing appropriate and valid rationale in edit summaries when making potentially controversial edits, or proactively going to the talk page, instead of placing something that could be interpreted as being wholly motivated by POV. A little extra effort there could have saved us all some time that could have been better spent on making constructive article edits elsewhere on WP. Hwy43 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note about your first point. The fact that it is already linked to in the body of the article is not a reason to leave it off See Also. Because guidelines actually stipulate (WP:EMBED) that in order to link something in the See Also section it should already be linked to in the article. That being said, I don't have an opinion on if it should be included or not. Just wanted to point out that something already being linked in the article is actually a reason to put something in the See Also section. Not to remove it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the first point. I recall reading the contrary previously, but it was likely from a discussion rather than a WP guideline. Hwy43 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Friendship partners

I just added an update section notice box to the Friendship partners section, and it wants to direct readers to this talk page, so I should also write something here. There is only one reference in this section, and it is dated 1999-2000. If Alberta truly does have friendship partnerships with countries, and provinces, around the world, wouldn't there be more coverage about it? 117Avenue (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)