Talk:Edmonton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Edmonton has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Alberta / Communities (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Version 0.5      (Rated GA-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article has an assessment summary page.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Welcome to the new Edmonton To-Do list! Please feel free to add point form tasks to the list. When tasks have been completed, please strike-through them and do not delete. Happy research!


  1. Address issues to reinstate GA status!!
    1. Citations 1 through 20 revised.
  2. More relevant pictures/placement thereof
    1. Better UofA picture
  3. Expand and work on sub-articles (festivals, sport, etc)
  4. Possible politics section

Removed items from "Arts and culture"[edit]

In the course of cleaning up the above section, I removed three items that either didn't really fit with the prose, or had notability concerns. Maybe we can find a home for them, or just leave some out.

  • Edmonton's poet laureate is Ann Marie Swell.[1]
  • If we had a literature section, this could go there. But I'm not aware of much Edmonton lit of note. It could go in Arts, but right now there doesn't seem to be a good place.
  • This would be nice to include, but where? Also needs better refs.
  • Not sure this needs to be in there, already one mention of Ukrainian dance. The Interior (Talk) 22:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "Poet Laureate". City of Edmonton. Retrieved March 10, 2012. 
  2. ^ "Edmonton Rock Formation lizard". Enchanted Learning. Retrieved March 28, 2010. 
  3. ^ "Edmontosaurus". Howstuffworks. Retrieved March 28, 2010. 

Lowest recorded temperature[edit]

There are plenty of sources, like http://www.sott.net/article/198923-Temperature-of-46C-in-Edmonton-area-makes-it-coldest-in-Canada that document a lower recorded temperature in the Edmonton area than the −40.6 °C (−41.1 °F) on January 26, 1972. I understand that these (December 2009) measurements were taken at the EIA, which isn't in the City of Edmonton.

I can't find a source inside the city for the time frame of December 2009, but it seems unlikely that the temperature in the city proper did not drop below -40.6 when the EIA measurements registered less than that for several hours.

Certainly there must be historical temp records for 2009 within the city itself?

Shiggity (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • This is the data for December of 2009 [1] taken within the city.
  • Stony Plain just west of the city [2]

Kyle1278 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

List of extreme temperatures in Canada disagrees. TBrandley (what's up) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If you read the section it says "this was the only time since recordings began at the airport in 1953 that a temperature below −40 °C (−40 °F) has been recorded there." The −49.4 °C is also mentioned beneath that part. Kyle1278 02:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That sentence refers to the City Centre Airport station its self. Kyle1278 03:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the Edmonton International Airport, located in Leduc, also is not on the list in question. TBrandley (what's up) 03:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • [3] Hourly Data Report for December 13, 2009 for the Edmonton International Airport.
  • [4] Hourly Data Report for December 13, 2009 for the Edmonton City Centre Airport.

Can't pull the month since the changes they have done to the station. [5] Kyle1278 03:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

Right on, I didn't think the difference would be that huge (-32.2 @ 2 am @ City Centre Airport) but apparently it was Shiggity (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem I was surprised two when that happened. The two are only 30 km apart but have a temperature difference of 13.9 degrees. Kyle1278 04:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just read this and looked at the sentence in question, which reads "The lowest temperature ever recorded at City Centre Airport was −40.6 °C (−41.1 °F) on January 26, 1972[43] – this was the only time since recordings began at the airport in 1953 that a temperature below −40 °C (−40 °F) has been recorded there." The sentence is referenced to this, but the only thing referenced there is that on that particular date at 5 am, 6 am and 7 am the temperature was -40.6 C. What the reference does not tell me is if it is the coldest ever recorded at the airport, nor if recording began in 1953. In fact it does not even tell me if the coldest temperature on January 26, 1972 was -40.6. The temperatures were read on or near to the hour and just give a snapshot. Between the hours the temperature could have dipped below -40.6 but would not appear on the hourly weather report. The minimum for the day would have been recorded at the end of the climate day separate from the hourly observations.

If you scroll down a bit to the weather box, which is collapsed, and open it you can see that January, February and December all have recorded minimums lower than -40.6. The coldest is December at -48.3 C in 1938 and is sourced to this. A look at the metadata shows that the maximum and minimum temperatures for the station have been recorded from data dating back to 1937. I looked at Edmonton City Centre (Blatchford Field) Airport and the second paragraph, first sentence it confirms the 1937 opening of the weather station. That was unreferenced but I found one here. The sentence either needs to be removed or rewritten. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence it dose not add anything to the article, and as you said the reference given dose not support what is written. Kyle1278 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Major Concerns over edits[edit]

Hi All, Reviewing edit history I see major deletions on the 17 of may. Looking line by line, I see no justification for the reverts. In fact, I doubt the editors read the lines they were changing because it looks far better before than after. There is a great deal of historical information embedded in certain sections; I see that this was moved to the historical section, but then moved back into individual sections. Other relevant, sourced material was also removed en masse. The article right now looks pretty weak...not informative or dispassionate but rather folksy and written as if a senior citizen was reminiscing about the topics. I think an entire rewrite is necessary.--Markh15 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This article achieved good article (GA) status in March 2009. This status was reaffirmed less than 3 months ago. Given this, there is doubt that most others would agree with the above-stated opinion on the article’s current state.

Any mass changes with the intent to improve should be undertaken carefully as to not compromise this article’s GA status. The subject mass changes that were reverted involved a smattering of rearrangements and additions of new content. Yes, some of the new content was sourced. However, some of it was also unsourced.

If the original editor or the concerned editor above (perhaps one in the same) feels strongly, it is first suggested to rearrange the existing content only, without adding any additional content. Once done, then concentrate on adding new content, all of which must be sourced. Hwy43 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics[edit]

In the demographics section, why isn't there any average ages listed? Can we get this information and post this, please? Thanks! Bllasae (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

See last sentence in second paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Geography section[edit]

I have,once again, reverted the change by user:YLSS removing the references to the countries which contain the cities that are at the same latitude as Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I did, however, also implement the change suggested by YLSS to phrase the sentence differently for better readability. I would also like to comment on my thought process so this is not interpreted as the start of any "edit war" (since this was the second time I reverted).

The initial reason given by YLSS for the change was "cities outside America are not followed by contries" (sic). This is patently untrue. We refer to Moscow, Russia to differentiate it from Moscow, Alabama, or Moscow, Scotland, or Moscow, Vermont or any of the other more than twenty possible places in the world one might be referring to as "Moscow". Yes, I know, 99% of the time we are referring to the Moscow, but in an article whose primary audience might conceivably be mostly other North Americans, such as school children writing essays or researching geography, I thought it wise for us to retain the references to which countries those other cities are located within. While a "European with a knowledge of English" may, from a very Eurocentric viewpoint, know by second nature what countries the European cities of Hamburg, Dublin, Manchester, and Magnitogorsk belong to, not everyone will. Or perhaps they may mistakenly think we refer to one of the other more than twenty places we might mean when we say "Hamburg". Or the more than fifteen places known as "Dublin". Or they may note that Magnitogorsk might more accurately be considered to be in Asia rather than Europe. ;) You catch my drift, no doubt.

When YLSS reverted my first change, the reason given was different. The reason seemed to be more for sentence flow. With this I can agree. I have added the recommended parentheses in place of the more cumbersome commas. Thank you, YLSS, for this suggestion. Garth of the Forest (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy that we escaped edit warring on such as issue! Yes, I'm usually quite frustrated by the American way of disambiguating things using commas, especially when there's no need for it, but of course I do not go around editing this, especially in articles expected to be written in American English. But in this particular case the sentence "It is at the same latitude as Hamburg, Germany, Dublin, Ireland, Manchester, England, and Magnitogorsk, Russia." was more readily interpreted to mean that Edmonton lies at the same latitude as Hamburg, at the same latitude as Germany, etc., and most stunningly, at the same latitude as Russia. So thanks for changing the formatting! I'm not against using brackets. YLSS (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayor[edit]

Just a reminder to everyone that a person who wins an election does not instantly become the incumbent occupant of that office the moment the results are announced on election night. Rather, there is a transition period of about a week or two, during which results are certified and preparations for the handover of power are undertaken — but, and this is important, the outgoing mayor still holds the office during that time. I'm not familiar enough with Edmonton's municipal politics to know exactly on what date Don Iveson will become the mayor, but as of today he has not been sworn in yet, and thus is not yet the actual mayor — as of right now, Stephen Mandel is still the actual mayor for at least another few days, and his name is not to be replaced with Iveson's in the infobox until Iveson is actually sworn into office. Bearcat (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The official election results are due on Friday, and AFAICT the new mayor & council will be sworn in during, or immediately before, the inaugural meeting on Tuesday, October 29.—Odysseus1479 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IBM Smarter Cities challenge[edit]

IBM granted 400,000 USD worth of expertise and advice to assist local experts in improving the lives of Edmontonians through the effective use of data and technology, listing the city as a 2011 Smart Cities Challenge winner.[6] -- from the Stephen Mandel article -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Highest recorded temperature[edit]

The article states that the highest recorded temperature inside of Edmonton was 38.3°C, and cites a book from 2007. However, I cannot find any corroboration of this claim; for example, Environment Canada lists that date as 34.5°C [7], which is the highest recorded for that day. Furthermore, downloading the entire historical data from Environment Canada for both Edmonton International and Edmonton Municipal, I see the highest recorded values as 34.9°C on 2002-06-26 for City Centre Airport and 35.6°C on 2008-08-18 at Edmonton International Airport. All of this calls into serious question the validity of this "Edmonton Book of Everything", yaknow? So I think I'm going to edit it to reflect the Environment Canada data instead. Please do chime in if you have good sources or further data. Phil Urich (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox highways[edit]

I suggest re-adding a section that was deleted yesterday. It is useful for anyone wanting to know which roads go to the City. Also, I am pretty sure that HWY 2 does not require a reference to know it is true. Gingeroscar (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an atlas. 117Avenue (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundancies[edit]

Was there an actual discussion at some point that agreed on the current parameters for the infobox in Alberta municipality articles, or was "consensus" intended only to mean a convention that nobody has questioned? If the latter, consider it questioned: the current state contravenes the provisions of MOS:INFOBOX, as well as common sense - it's not necessary nor helpful to have a redundancy like "Edmonton - City - City of Edmonton" at the top of the page. If the official name differs from the actual status, it might make sense, but here not so much. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two consensuses to choose from. First, WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes states that all articles on Canadian cities should use the name, official_name and settlement_type parameters in their infoboxes. So, the consensus is actually country-wide.

Second, consensus to utilize the name, official_name and settlement_type in this article was achieved through WP:EDITCONSENSUS back in early 2010 (in fact, it was actually done per CANSTYLE). Consistent implementation of this across all urban municipality articles in Alberta occurred shortly thereafter, becoming the established convention also through EDITCONSENSUS in compliance with CANSTYLE.

Use of all three parameters was discussed previously on my talk page in regard to Winnipeg. I was told “The use of the parameters on Alberta municipality articles need not dictate how they are used for Winnipeg”. Likewise the reverse about Winnipeg dictating Edmonton and Calgary (though given CANSTYLE, it looks like all three parameters should be invoked at the Winnipeg article). MOS:INFOBOX was also mentioned at that same time yet there was no reply to a request to elaborate on the specific principle being contravened.

What we have here is a long established consensus in Alberta municipality articles to use all three parameters that complies with the national consensus, and obviously an even longer established consensus to have such parameters available for usage at Template:Infobox settlement. I’m confident we won’t see the day where one or two of these parameters are removed from the template. Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Climatological data[edit]

Down here in the States, Edmonton has a reputation for being one of the coldest large cities in North America. Suggest a chart of climatological data be added — which will show among other things record winter lows in the -30 to -40 C range, including an all-time low of -48.3 C (-55 F). (Gentlemen, start your engines!) Sca (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The table is already in the climate section, although it's hidden by default. Meters (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

New Edmonton[edit]

What is the possibility of changing "Edmonton" to "New Edmonton". I am a bit confused because there is already an Edmonton in England and it would make it clearer for everyone.

Perhaps the people of "New Edmonton" can bring it up at the next city council meeting.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.0.167 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll get right on that. And while we're doing that we'll get rid of the rest of our duplicated names, starting with London, Paris and Berlin in Ontario. Oops, we already did Berlin. You can start with Boston, MA; Vancouver, Washington, and Raleigh, North Carolina. Meters (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Climate[edit]

Why does Edmonton continue to use the downtown City Centre Airport for climate data? The airport is now closed, but that is not the main point of my discussion. The problem here is that the Urban Heat Island Effect distorts Edmonton's climate data by about +3C for minimums and 1.5C for yearly mean, which is common for UHI. Compare with the Edmonton International Airport data in Leduc. Other cities such as Winnipeg and Calgary use their international airport climate data in their articles as their primary climate data. Yes, I understand that Edmonton's International Airport is further out of town than the other said cities but it paints a more true picture of the climactic conditions in the greater Edmonton area. Winnipeg has an automated weather station at The Forks downtown and it is listed in addition to the airport. I recommend both stations be listed with the International airport as the primary to allow for better comparisons of the climates of cities across the country. Montreal and Toronto are both guilty of this as well. Just something for everyone think about. Feel free to comment - Classenc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classenc (talkcontribs) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time someone from Manitoba has explored this. Here are the facts.
  1. Is the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA) closed? Yes.
  2. Is the ECCA weather station still in operation? Yes.
  3. Is the ECCA weather station within Edmonton? Yes.
  4. Is the Edmonton International Airport (EIA) and its weather station within Edmonton? No.
  5. Is the EIA adjacent to Edmonton's urban development footprint? No. It is four miles to the north.
  6. Is the Winnipeg (The Forks) weather station within Winnipeg? Yes.
  7. Is the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport (WRIA) and its weather station within Winnipeg? Yes.
  8. Is the WRIA adjacent to Winnipeg's urban development footprint? Yes. It is nearly surrounded except for lands to the northwest.
  9. Is Winnipeg a colder city than Edmonton? Yes albeit marginally.
It is evident from the above facts that the international airport weather station location contexts of Edmonton and Winnipeg are much different. It is speculation that the ECCA weather station will ever close. Why would Environment Canada toss an opportunity to continue collecting weather data at this location to go with the long history of data already recorded?
I oppose replacing the current data with that from the EIA based on the above. Also given the above, I oppose adding the EIA data in addition to the ECCA data as it is well beyond Edmonton's current city limits. Hwy43 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I also oppose replacing the current data, the EIA is outside of the city limits. The climate data for cities should be from a station located with in the cities limits.Kyle1278 19:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Hwy43 and User:kyle1278 that we should continue to list the city centre data, but User:Classenc's proposal was actually to add the international airport data, not to replace the city centre data. Let's discuss the actual proposal of having both sets of data. Is there a good reason not to list both sets? Some city pages do list more than one set of climate data. Edmonton's data is clearly subject to the heat island effect, and I think it would be a good addition to the article to have a mention of the heat island effect and to be able to compare the city data to somewhere just outside the heat island (the International Airport or some other nearby station). I do not agree with having the city centre data be the secondary data. Another option would be to mention the heat island effect and its approximate magnitude (yes, with a RS) and to link to another article for a nearby location with climate data. Hmm... I see that Edmonton International Airport does not include its climate data. Leduc, Alberta does. Meters (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A quick note just to clarify, I have opposed both adding and replacing. I just didn't emphasize (i.e., bold) the former as I did the latter. I'm popping out for some New Year's activities. I'll provide additional comments this evening. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I noticed that when I reread your cmt after saving my edit. I'm not pushing to include both sets of data at all, and in fact the more I think about it, the more I agree that the International Airport not being in Edmonton proper is enough to keep the data out.
I think some mention of the heat island effect would be worthwhile, but that's a different issue and does not require the addition of a full set of weather data from outside the city. Meters (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The first and foremost reason that the EIA data should not be included is that it is well beyond the city limits. How many city pages list more than one set of climate data in which one or more are from weather stations beyond their city limits?
The urban heat island (UHI) effect is moot. Such an effect is not unique to Edmonton. Other major metro cities in Canada also have the same. Edmonton's UHI effect is no more notable or encyclopedic than the UHI effects generated in other Canadian cities. It just so happens that Edmonton's international airport is beyond Edmonton's UHI while the international airports of most or all other major Canadian cities are within their UHIs.
I haven't been able to find the previous similar discussion, but I recall it being an attempt to cherry-pick Edmonton's EIA climate data to advance an inference that Edmonton is actually colder than Winnipeg during the winter. The fact of the matter is both of Winnipeg's weather stations are within its city limits, and both are within Winnipeg's UHI. A comparison of the two cities' international airports cannot be done to determine the colder city because of their different contexts. A comparison of the two cities' weather stations within their city cores (ECCA and The Forks) is a reasoned and defencible comparison to determine which is city is colder as both are nearest to the centres of their respective UHIs. Hwy43 (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I agree that the Edmonton International airport data should not be added, since the airport is not within Edmonton.
And as I also said, the heat island effect is a different topic, and does not require the addition of a full set of weather data from outside the city. So we're agreed that it is moot when considering the issue of whether to include the airport data. I don't care if other cities mention it since I have no vested interest in which Canadian city appears to have a colder climate, and I am not suggesting the HIE's inclusion so that it can be used to compare to other cities' climates. In fact, I would not object to removing the line The city has milder winters than either Regina or Winnipeg, both further south of Edmonton in latitude.
FYI there is at least one major Canadian city that has that its airport outside the builtup area that would be subject to the HIE. Halifax's airport is well out into the undeveloped countryside. It's more than 20 km from Dartmouth and even further from Halifax. It is within the Halifax Regional Municipality so its climate data is included in the Halifax article, together with city centre climate data.
Meters, yes we are in agreement. My intent was to elaborate for the benefit of the two others and future interested parties. I would also not object to removal of that statement. It is a tad subjective. i.e., what is mild? Using this source, which is derived from Environment Canada data, I think it would be more appropriate to state things like: Among the core cities of Canada's metropolitan areas, Edmonton ranks eighth in lowest average daily maximum temperature at 9.3°C, ninth in lowest average daily minimum temperature at -1.0°C and ninth in highest average number of days per year that the temperature stays below 0°C at 83 days. Similar statements could be added to other city articles that are within the source's tables. Hwy43 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer that. Unless we can cite a source that explicitly says that Edmonton's climate is milder that the other cities we should avoid a direct comparison. I(t comes across as a bit of an in-your-face taunt to the more southern cities. Meters (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag icons[edit]

User:Vaselineeeeeeee has added flag icons to the infobox of this article, and several others across Canada. I deleted the addition, and stated that consensus needs to be reached. Vaselineeeeeeee instead reverted my edit, and stated that other stuff exists. Please note that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states: "where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan)...the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not". There has also been extensive discussion about flag icons on Vaselineeeeeeee's talk page. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What extensive discussion about flag icons on my talk page? There has been no such thing. Anyway, why do you say "other stuff exists" like it is a bad thing? Because flag icons are inserted in the infobox on thousands of other articles is a very significant observation. For example, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Fredericton, Moncton, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Jersey City, Hoboken, New Jersey, New York City, and much, much more. I understand there are instances when flag icons should not be added, however, this is not the case for stating the country/province/state of a specific city. Thanks, with regards. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I just read the MOS and it stated: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." I think if you really want them you should bring it to their talk page and have a discussion? Mattximus (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There cannot be discrepancies between the various pages of major cities like stated above. I disagree with the statement that they are distracting. When looking at the country or province/state, the flag just enhances the significance of the term and gives the reader a better understanding of the specific city. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about them one way or another, I'm just quoting you the guidelines. If you are passionate, it's that talk page you should ask to change the recommendations. For now, I think we should stick with what's already been decided until the guidelines are changed. Mattximus (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says that for human geographic articles such as settlements flags may be used in infoboxes. I don't really care if we use them or not, but if consensus has been to not use them then they should stay out of this article until a different consensus is reached. Per WP:BRD I'm removing the flags again while this discussion continues. Meters (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus reached to not use them though. Also, having these types of discussions usually never results into anything unfortunately. The discussion will go on for a few days, people will give their opinions, then people will forget, and nothing usually changes... Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There may or may not have been a formal consensus to not use flagicons in Canadian geographic articles (I don't know) but clearly your attempt to add flagicons to this and other articles is contentious. Thus it needs to be discussed. You'll need to get consensus to change those articles. WP:BRD means it should be discussed after the first undo to the status quo. Edit warring and removing comments from your talk page are not the way to go. Meters (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but the same could go for your reverts on me too couldn't it? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. I undid you once. Meters (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you understanding that flag icons are a part of thousands of city articles? No one seems to understand this. It is almost a given on any article that the icons be added, more examples Fox Creek, Alberta, Sundre, Alberta etc. etc. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. They may be used, but they certainly don't have to be. In this article they have not been used. We're asking you to get consensus to add them. Meters (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXFLAG is clear and flags should not be used. Note that User:Vaselineeeeeeee has just returned from an editwarring block (for 1 week) after he kept on insterting league (serie A) on italian players with argument that it exists on some other pages. I told him about WP:WHATABOUTX and just because it exists on other pages does not make it right, but the message dont seem to have gone through. No flags!. We have to follow wikipedia guidelines. QED237 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
^ That is irrelevant. It is really troubling when my edits are getting reverted. I do not understand why people are reverting my edits and saying they nonconstructive etc. meanwhile I just listed about 10 pages and yet all the flags are still on those pages. I do not understand why you have some sort of fetish with my edits?? Since there are these rules people are mentioning about flags, why are people only taking them seriously on recently added pages, and not on the pages that have been there for some time now? "Just because other stuff doesn't make it write??" On what grounds? Rules are rules no? If there are flags on other pages, how can people turn a blind eye??? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edmonton has achieved good article status through the combined effort of many editors. This status is being protected by 225 "page watchers". Most are editors who have worked on the page and have added Edmonton to their Watchlist. This means that 225 editors are notified when edits are done to the page. If an new edit is not constructive it is immediately reverted. Other pages may have fewer than 30 "page watchers" and edits to these pages are less likely to be immediately reverted. Flag icons are usually left on these pages because they don't detract from the page content. However they are occasionally reverted.-- Kayoty (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So User:Kayoty, you would like to have the flag icons added back correct? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So would I. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flags are explicitly permitted on articles for cities and other such places. I'm not sure what Magnolia677 misunderstands, but Edmonton is not an example that fits the statement that "where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan)...the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not". Edmonton is **NOT** an article that "covers both human and physical geographic subjects". Once this misunderstanding is tossed out, there's no issue here with the flag icons. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, flag icons may be used in articles such as this one. I don't really care one way or the other. My only concern was in stopping the edit war on this article and seeing if we could get a consensus on whether to use flag icons or not in this article, if there was no previous consensus on this or Canadian city articles in general. Meters (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)