Talk:Montreal

Montage

I really like the montages of cities and because Montreal is a major city I think there should be one. Could someone please make a montage of Montreal. I think it would look really nice. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please put a better picture up? There were better ones in the past for the main picture. That pic is drab, gray and ugly and is definitely not one of the best pics of the city. It's really bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.195.225 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

montage added by Karlos87

I have found a Montage of Montreal with some really cool images, i agree, Montreal is a major North American city and i feel it should have a montage. i am going to put it up because people have asked (i mean no harm to anyone who disagrees) Karlos87 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have stated why I have reverted the montage you implemented on your talk page, Karlos. Personally, I like the choices of images used in the montage, but it is too large and there is way too much of a focus on the Montreal Stock Exchange Tower. Anyone else want to comment? Nations United (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the montage is useless and ugly. Unlike a city like Ottawa, which can't exactly be summed up in one image (or at least, nobody's found that image yet), Montreal's current image shows many (if not most) of Montreal's important features, such as the port, Old Montreal, and the downtown skyscrapers. Furthermore, even if there was consensus in support of a montage, I think that the choice of images could be better (Stock Exchange too big, for example) and the white shading between pictures wastes space and is visually unappealing. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a new montage (see this) that has less emphasis on one particular picture and better shows all of the city's features, in accordance with the comments here. I also made it smaller.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just uploaded the new montage. If you have anything you feel needs to be changed, please comment here before just reverting it.

Generally it is up to the person adding something new to the article who has to state their case, not the person who wishes to revert it. At least that's the case on the other articles I usually contribute to.

I'm not going to edit the page because I'm not a contributor to this article, but I will say there's this odd "washed out" look to the montage that most of the other one's you've made have as well. Maybe it's just my screen, or the fact that I'm looking at a smaller version of it. Just pointing that out. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the standard skyline image. IMO, the various pictures of the city belong in the main part of the article and not the infobox. --MTLskyline (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're just deciding this, on behalf of everyone, based on your single opinion? The idea behind the montage was that most major cities have a montage photo up. Putting up that shot of the skyline (a drab, gray, ugly shot) just adds insult to injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.248.244 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Although, I liked the montage and I want it to be put up, MTLskyline has every right to revert it to the status quo. This montage did not get a consensus to be put up. I personally, although I think it could have been improved, liked it, but there are users who do not, so before it is put up, there needs to be a discussion and consensus. Hope that clarifies things. Nations United (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the second montage suggested above. IMO the best picture within this montage is the aerial night view of the city buildings at the top of the montage, so if we must have a cityscape rather than a montage (or even in the interim while this montage is perfected), could we use the cityscape at the top of this montage to replace the grey cityscape we have now? If others agree, please post your support. ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The night skyline panoramic image was in the article before as a separate panorama, and that is where it should remain. I don't like the idea of sticking it into a hastily made montage. I prefer a daytime shot of the skyline from the east (such as from the Jacques-Cartier Bridge), since that is the skyline's most flattering angle, in my opinion. There are too many night shots in the current montages, the borders are too thick (and they should be white like this one). I am not opposed to a montage per se, but I think we should come to a consensus as to what merits inclusion. --MTLskyline (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concur that the thinner edges do look much better than the thicker ones. ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 13:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Official name of Montreal

The infobox fields (not the article's title) must be filled properly. There is no need of consensus to say that the official name of Montreal is "Ville de Montréal" (which is even used in English communications by the city (see a picture): "The Ville de Montréal, Montrealers, and I [...]"). Yes, in English, the most common name is "Montreal" (no accents) —and that's why it is the article's title—, but it is certainly not the official name of the city. If the field is named "official name", you must provide the official name (Ville de Montréal), then give the common name in the appropriate field (in this case: "other name: Montreal"), and fill the original name in the field "native name" (Montréal). Sincerely, Jimmy^talk 05:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The official english name is "Montreal". For french spelling please use - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal Po' buster (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And you decided it, without any source to support your statement? What you are giving here is the common name used in English. The official name is the name officially used by the city, and in this case, it's not "Montreal" or "City of Montreal", as shown above. Find sources saying that "City of Montreal" or "Montreal" is the official name, and I will agree. For now, the references say that the official name is "Ville de Montréal", no regard to the language. See for example: Rome. The article's title is the common name used in English, but the infobox: name=Rome; official_name = Comune di Roma; native_name = Roma. Before changing the infobox anymore, thank you to discuss and/or find sources to contradict the official name. Sincerely, Jimmy^talk 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The only fair thing to do is use both languages. Even though there is no need for french in english articles. Po' buster (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I took what Po' buster did, but I put Ville de Montréal in the official name slot, and City of Montreal in the "other name" slot of the template. I removed "native name" and "name" fields, which I think are not needed. We don't need the city's name listed 4 different ways. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. --MTLskyline (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The official name in english is City of Montreal. Since this is an english article it should be used. It clearly states in WP:CANSTYLE/WP:PLACE that accents and french are not used in english articles. Plus "Ville de Montreal" means City of Montreal, so really there shouldn't be any issues. Po' buster (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if you think there is no need to put the French name, you are wrong. The official name is in French only, so it must be stated in French, regardless you're on EN or FR Wikipedia. Anyway, the infobox must be used the same way as on other articles, and there is no exception for a Canadian city. The field "name" is the common name, the field "native name" is the native name, and the field "official name" is the official English legal name (and here, the official language is the same in French and in English). See for example the article Rome. The fields of an infobox are not there to be interpreted by each person, they have their designated function. Please discuss before reverting again and respect the encyclopedic role of Wikipedia, and, by the way, try to avoid point of views like "there's no need to put French in English articles", etc. These are disapproved on Wikipedia and may result to consequences. I've seen it so many times since you contribute on this article. Jimmy^talk 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL Po' buster (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An official municipal name isn't automatically in both English and French. The official name is whatever the relevant statute or regulation says it is. IIRC, the official name of Montreal is in French only, thus the official name for all languages is the French one. Po' buster, you are misinterpreting WP:CANSTYLE - yes, the guideline/naming convention in this case states that we should name the article "Montreal" and use the English-language term here on en-wiki, but it does not state that we should translate official names in infoboxes, nor does it say that we should exclude official names from infoboxes or leads. BTW, WP:CANSTYLE most assuredly does not say that "accents and french are not used in english articles" - if that's what you took from it, then you should reread the guideline more closely. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that having 3 names in the infobox (which no other city does), looks sloppy and overcrowded. I'm not against having the French name in the infobox (Ville de Montréal), but neither Montréal nor Montreal should be there. In Toronto's infobox, it doesn't say both Toronto and City of Toronto. Mexico City's it has just Mexico City and Ciudad de México, but not simply "México". As far as I know, Italian cities (like Rome and Milan), are the exception to the rule. All other city articles use two names or less. In this article, it should be one in French (Ville de Montréal) and one in English (City of Montreal). --MTLskyline (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 3 names is pointless. Only two names are needed: 1) the official name of the city as per the law giving it its legal existence and 2) the usual name of the same in the language of this encyclopedia. The first is clearly Ville de Montréal. The second is probably just "Montreal", but since "Montreal" is ambiguous, it only makes sense to mention that it is the City of Montreal (or Montreal City, whichever), not the region, or island by the same name. -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree french should be mentioned. But as I have previously stated english should be the main focal point, and french secondary. I think the Beijing article is a good example. Po' buster (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with providing only the official name and the usual English name, and removing the French common name. Then, "Montreal" (or "City of Montreal", as you guys prefer) would be the top title of the infobox and under would appear "Ville de Montréal". What do you think about that? Sincerely, Jimmy^talk 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --MTLskyline (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Either delete the french version from the Infobox or (at least) make the english version prominant. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Canadian Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico City and Hong Kong have bilingual infoboxes (of equal type size). Lyon and Marseille are just in French. Why didn't you take issue with any of them?--MTLskyline (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, it's the same at Tokyo & Moscow. I'm throwing in the towel on these 'city' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The name of the City in English is Montréal, according to the City itself as well as the Province of Quebec, and the Government of Canada. Thus, the title in the infobox should be Montréal, with the article title and name throughout the text remaining as Montreal to reflect common usage. While the actual name would be in the infobox, the common name would be in the article title and the article text, meeting the intent of Wikipedia's guidelines, and seeing both sides accommodated with the real vs. common names both being covered. Trackratte (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Climate/Weather"

Moved to bottom per talk page conventions. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed new, improved, clear and much better climate fact of Montreal. I'm proffesional with this, and have done so for over 70 cities worldwide. Please, DO NOT change back to the old one. It's not that it's wrong, but it's too much unnecessary information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.235.12 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced. See WP:V for more. Also note that there is established consensus on population numbers (perhaps you missed "DO NOT CHANGE THE FIGURE"). Please discuss your changes here before making them in the article again. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Largest City?

I think the article used to say something about how it was the largest city in Canada until the 1970s when Toronto surpassed it. Is that right, and is that not an interesting fact that should be mentioned somewhere? If it wasn't the 70s, when did it stop being the largest city? TastyCakes (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Montreal was the largest city in Canada up until around the 1976 census (when Toronto officially passed Montreal). That being said, I don't think that the '76 census is accessible online. I'm not sure where else a source for this claim could be found. I'm pretty sure it was removed because of it lacked a verifiable source, despite being true. --MTLskyline (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm a google search gives a bunch of links saying it was surpassed in 1976, but I think most of them got that from this article. This paper makes the claim separately, it appears to be a student paper, although does list references, so I'm not sure if it passes as reliable? TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the source is fine, provided that you use another one: maybe this one from the City of Toronto? --MTLskyline (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Toronto's CMA surpassed Montreal's in 1976. The City of Toronto only surpassed the City of Montreal in 1998, when Toronto amalgamated with the other municipalies that comprised Metropolitan Toronto. For a source: Statistics Canada. Table 051-0030 - Estimates of population, census divisions and census metropolitan areas (component method), 1981 census boundaries, annual (persons), CANSIM (database), Using E-STAT (distributor). http://estat.statcan.gc.ca.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&EST-Fi=EStat/English/CII_1-eng.htm (accessed: February 2, 2011) Bisonblight (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No wonder why, nationalism is a curse everywhere. 80.174.178.19 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Skyline of Montréal

Hi everyone,i just added a photo of Montréal Skyline.The photo is from Flickr.Thank you!Quebec7440 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And said photo is not free, per its description at Flicker. Since free alternatives are available, it has been removed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

official image of Montreal page

Hello,i dont want to delete the official skyline photo,but i found a montage of montreal and the same photo of montreal skyline is on the montage.The montage is more beautiful than just an image.If you look at any others cities(New York City,Ottawa...)you can see a montage!!Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quebec100 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to bring the idea of putting some more picture in the article of others major touristic interests. Is there are moderation for adding more picture in this article because of his certification? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.212.224 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Montreal

Someone has undone all the changes I proposed in the "history" section. The person believes important to mention that Cartier visited Stadacone, that Mohawks are from a part of the New York upstate region, etc etc. I should remind this person that the article is about MONTREAL. These information brings about a too broad context. At best, these information should be put in the "History of Montreal" page, but not in the general article about Montreal. Should I remind the community that the Montreal page was criticized for not being narrowed enough. Please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.85.5.20 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

add Montréal/St-Hubert Airport?

The discussion of airports makes mention of two international airports, but I think it would be appropriate to mention general aviation airports as well. There's at least one – Montréal/St-Hubert Airport – and maybe others. 86.47.222.9 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's more than that, List of airports in the Montreal area, too many to be included. A link to the list would be better. something lame from CBW 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Big Chunk of History Missing

In the History section, the second paragraph ends with a discussion of the Isle of Montreal in 1639 then the third paragraph jumps to the 1700s. Montreal was "founded" in 1642. Was this distinct from the Isle of Montreal? Why isn't there a discussion of the history of Montreal between 1639 and the 1700s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangnad (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

nightlife

Just an idea about the new info added for the part about MTL nightlife... I think it is great that that has been added, since it is definitely a part of the cities characters, however, I find it odd that all of these different kinds of nightlife interests are added (Latin, African, jazz, etc.) but "gay" or "LGBT" is not thrown in there. Montreal has a really big gay community and a big part of that thriving nightlife scene is going on in the gay village, it's probably worth giving credit to that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.194.198 (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

crime rate

there is no mention in this artical of the crime rate in this city. It would be nice to have it list an honest and fair account of the city's issue with outlaw motorcycle gangs as well as it's standing in the drug trade of canada. A few words on it's prostitution indistry wouldn't hurt either I think. After all, these things are big money makers, and should not be discounted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.81 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Largest inland port?

Which is the largest inland port, Montreal or Duisburg? Duisburg has 40 million tonnes of goods per year.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Schwa vs. ʌ for first syllable of pronunciation

It seems that for locals, the first vowel in Montreal is unstressed and reduced, and so surfaces as a schwa. This tells you nothing about whether the underlying vowel is /ʌ/ (as in gut) or /ɒ/ (as in got), even if [ʌ] is phonetically closer to [ə] than [ɒ] is. For non-locals, the first syllable is unreduced and is stressed (either secondarily or primarily, depending on whether you think secondary stress exists in English). If a local Montrealer were singing a song with the city's name in it, would the first syllable rhyme with don or with dun? --Atemperman (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It would rhyme with dun. --MTLskyline (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I can verify that. In fact, pronouncing it as "don" in English is one of the clearest signs that one is not from here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a peculiarity of the word Montreal, or would words like monetization and monstrosity be pronounced munnetization and munstrosity? --Atemperman (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't include those words, imo. But as a lifelong 50+ Montrealer, I've had at least one other peculiarity pointed out to me. A Winnipeg-born friend has pointed out to me that I pronounced "hot dog" as "hut dog," and then went on to say that she'd read somewhere that it's a peculiarity of Montreal English. I'm also a Montreal Jew, and that comes into play too, apparently, as different entrenched ethnic groups had their own nuances. Some of this stuff is sketched out in Quebec English. MTLSkyline may have his own take, as well. YMMV, as the kids say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks. To follow up, you can probably imagine yourself singing such that photograph, which presumably you normally pronounce as ['foʊɾəgræf], gets rendered as ['foʊtoʊgræf]. That is, you give vowels their full value and don't reduce them to schwa. If you sang the word hot, would it be homophonous with hut, or would it have the vowel of monster? Essentially what I'm trying to get at is whether certain words with a short o change the /ɒ/ to /ʌ/, so that even in careful speech or in song it sounds as /ʌ/, or whether the /ɒ/ reduces and is rendered as /ʌ/, and so if you were trying to elocute in an elevated style, it would come out as /ɒ/. --Atemperman (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a native Montrealer. I'm not Jewish, but I'm from a mostly Jewish area of the city. I say "Muntreal", but monetization and monstrosity with /ɒ/, although monstrosity with a schwa doesn't seem unimaginable to me. I say ['foʊɾəgræf], and I don't say hut dog. I've never actually noticed hut dog before. I'll pay attention now. 64.140.121.1 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Second largest primarily French-speaking city in the world?

The article states that "Montreal is the second largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris.", but both Kinshasa in DR Congo and Abidjan in Côte d'Ivoire are larger than Montreal, and french-speaking. SphericYetCubic (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

that is racist! You cannot compare Paris with Kinshasa. Paris is white, Kinshasa is black! 93.219.172.32 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right: one of the sources for that information says that it's the largest french-speaking city in the Western world, which has been left out of the article. I'm going to add that now so that the sentence in more accurate. Thanks for pointing that out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murmuration (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an old debate and I'm sure you'll find previous discussion in the Talk page archives. Let me just briefly point you to Kinshasa#Language which states that: "French is the language of street signs, posters, newspapers, government documents, schools; it dominates plays, television, and the press, and it is used in vertical relationships among people of uneven rank; people of equal rank, however, speak the Congolese languages (Kikongo, Lingala, Tshiluba or Swahili) among themselves." I think this is why some have insisted that Montreal is a French speaking city in a way that Kinshasha is not. But the irony of me, an English-speaking Montrealer, and part of a community of same, explaining this, is not lost on me. Anyway, hope this is useful context. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep this is silly. One of the sources for that statement says not "the largest french speaking city in the world", but the largest in "the western world". This is an important difference. One of the "sources" isn't actually a source but a link to the Wikipedia page of an African city claiming it is larger, so actually that is more of a counterclaim. And there is one book source which I am unable to review because that book is completely unavailable where I am.

The page for Kinshasa also states it is the largest French speaking city in the world. One of the book sources backing up that statement is easily available on the net, and anyone can check it out. Can anyone actually go and confirm the statement made in the book source for the Montreal claim? Otherwise we have to competing cities for the claim of largest French speaking city in the world, and I think there should be mention of that in the statement, something like "Montreal may be considered as one of the largest French speaking cities in the world", and then have a similar statement on the African cities' pages who also claim to be the largest. Otherwise we have this annoying situation where articles of Wikipedia are contradicting each other. Anawrahta (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Economy

The section about the economy of Montreal should not contain a list of tourist attractions. This is an encyclopedia not a directory.

It also should not contain five or six subsections. This makes the article choppy. Each section of the article should be nothing more than a general summary of the subject. There are Tourism in Montreal and Economy of Montreal articles which would both me more appropriate places for this information than the Montreal article itself.

If I may add one more thing: please do not significantly expand the article without sourcing anything or verifying that the information has not already been mentioned elsewhere. For instance, a paragraph about the city's airports was added, despite this information already being included under Transportation. --MTLskyline (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

A request: Please could someone take a photograph of 5309 Place Lucy and upload it to Commons? This is the crime scene in the case of Luka Magnotta, and would be useful for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The story of Luka Magnotta has no belonging to the Montreal page, first of all it's not his birthplace and the story of a gruesome murder gives no tangible information about the city itself, I don't see any info about the Boston strangler in the Boston page and that story is even more shocking than the Magnotta one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.239.150 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)