Talk:Edmonton

Organization

Overall organization of this article seems to have become stable. However, as seen below, we need an economy section. Where would this best fit? Rendar 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Transportation

Sorry folks, Edmonton was not the first town in Western Canada to implement electric streetcar service. Winnipeg commenced its service in 1891, 17 years earlier than Edmonton, and if I'm not mistaken both Vancouver and Victoria were earlier as well. First town in Alberta, perhaps. --142.161.176.147 17:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed:

• Victoria: 1890 (3rd in Canada)
• Winnipeg: January 1891
• Vancouver: 1892:*Edmonton: 1909 (October)
• Calgary: 1909 (July)
• Regina: 1911
• Letbridge: 1912
• Saskatoon: 1914

- Tyson2k 22:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Correction - Streetcar service commenced in Winnipeg on 27 January 1891, not 1892 as indicated above. --142.161.188.127 22:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Military

Does anyone else think the recently added listing of all of Edmonton's Cadet groups should be edited down to a few sentences at most? I'd do so myself, but that would practically mean reverting to my last edit, which I'd prefer not to do unilaterally. Silly Dan 16:33, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

• I see no need to edit the list down. It's a short article, and this info isn't really getting in the way. I say keep it. Denni☯ 18:47, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

• • It just doesn't seem to be something worth including to that level of detail in a general encyclopedia article about the city, any more than, say, a list of bookstores would be. It's valuable information to Edmontonians, but would the general reader be interested? Silly Dan 19:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

• • • It this what Wikipedia is, just another encylopedia, or one that provides more detail or information beyound what can be found in a regualr encylopedia?
    • A list of bookstores would take up considerably more space than this list. And I would not object to a list of specialty bookstores either. People always have the option of not reading something if it's there. They have no option if it's not. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• • I support shortening the list. Sure it's a short article, and somehow including them makes it longer... so it's filler. Why not include some more relevant information instead because there's still a lot missing. Does Edmonton not have culture? Theatre? Entertainment? (The "restaurants and nightlife" section is really short). What about tourist attractions? Is Edmonton tropical? Or is it a desert? Perhaps a climate section would be nice. I think these things are far more relevant to an article of this size than a list of all the cadet groups in the city. I say shorten it. I hope people agree because I think this article is REALLY lacking compared to other city artcles.

• • • Yes, there is perhaps a lot of other items that need to be added, but I suspect the "cadet" that put up the list is not out of the home participating in Edmonton's nightlife, the culture or theater, etc. Yes, ther is culture, theatre, entertainment, etc., but I am not involved in that area or an expert. This project has to depend upon those that participate and their interests. There is also more military than what is listed. Sandy and Cecile just gave the unversity a gift of orriental art for some 37 mil, making it one of the largest collections, and the UofA is Canada's second largest university, and that needs expanding. We need an article on Fort Edmonton Park as well. Etc,etc,etc. All speed is not necessary progress.Glenlarson 17:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1932 Hunger March

I checked out this page after I heard a song on Internet radio about the hunger march of 1932. Might be a nice thing to add to the history section. --Lee Hunter 18:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Murder

It seems that Edmonton now has the greatest proportion of murders of any major city in Canada, at least for the 2005 year. Do you think it would be interesting to add a section on murders and other crime statistics for the city? --Yamla 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, any such information would need to be properly cited. --Yamla 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the murder rate section be removed. It is a one year statistical anomaly and is not a long-term trend. I shall edit it out right now and if anyone objects please discuss here. Furthermore, such a topic doesn't really fit with "demographics" anyways. If necessary it can be restored. Rendar 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

West Edmonton Mall

Just curious as to why west ed is "north america's" largest mall. Guinness rates it as the worlds largest shopping center. Reading it as north america seems to cheapen it a little. If it's good enough for guinness it should be good enough to wikipedia, right? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=49967 --KellenS 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, a larger mall has recently opened in China. Guiness is either out of date or has not verified their info lately. --Arch26 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one mall in China which is larger. Saudi Arabia has also constructed a larger mall. Denni ☯ 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Site examples showing that there are larger malls. This claim has been made many times before, but until the space is filled with shops and attractions it cannot be considered the largest shopping mall. It is only a giant warehouse with a few stores in it. As the westedmontonmall website still considers its self the worlds largest, guiness book still considers it I say it should still say worlds largest.

Here are a couple of links to read: [1], [2]. -- timc | Talk 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, I turned one corner of the mall to discover two people playing badminton. The stores in that section of the mall had not opened yet, and the couple was taking advantage of the open space." Again Like I said, Until the mall is full of stores (probably %90 or more) it will not be considered. There are many buildings that are larger then West Edmonton Mall. But Unless they are full, and of mostly stores then it will not be considered. Check Guinness book of world records. They investigate, and have updated since these supposed malls have been built. If we are going to just go by random homemade websites believe me west edmonton mall will win http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzlargemalls.htm

This whole issue can be resolved quite simply by providing citations. If Guiness says it's the world's largest mall but other sources dispute that, then say:

"The Guiness Book of World Records lists West Edmonton Mall as the world's largest mall,<ref>{{cite book| title=Guiness Book of Records| year=etc}}</ref> but MegaChinaMall disputes this.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.mcmall.cn/noitisnt.htm| title=etc}}</ref>"

Then there's no need to argue minutiae and come to a singular decision of our own. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be deciding such things anyway. Bryan 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Population Density

I think the comment about population density is misleading, considering that the Edmonton city limits includes sizeable tracts of farm land surrounding an urban core. For instance, from the northernmost extent of development at 167th avenue, the city limits extend for another six miles, out to 257th avenue. This is not comparable to a city like Chicago wherein all land is urbanized. Has anyone calculated the population density for the urban area rather than the city limits?

Kesahun 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not unique. Here is a brief list of other cities in Canada that face a similar situation: Calgary, Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Halifax, Kingston, London, Ottawa, Montreal, etc, etc. In fact, of major cities, only Toronto and Vancouver have no rural area within the city itself (and I'm not even positive that that is still the case for Toronto, since it merged most of its suburbs). Anyway, Vancouver is surrounded by water on 3 sides, and the City of Burnaby on the east. Toronto is surrounded by other cities and Lake Ontario. Even Montreal, which is confined to an island has rural areas within the city proper. I understand that Edmonton may have more rural area than SOME of the these cities, but the phenomenon is really not unique enough to note the clause that you are proposing. Edmonton is simply not a dense city. This has more to do with the urban circumstances that surround prairie cities in general ("unlimited" land for example), than it does with some perceived demographic "quirk". (And let's not forget that the Chicago is located in one of the most densely populated regions of the US, is surrounded by other cities and a lake, and has a metro poulation of 8,000,000... this is hardly a noteworthy comparison in this case). --Arch26 07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has legitimately calculated the density of the built-up area. This is not a common practice and would yield highly variable and temporal results. --Arch26 07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Edmonton is neither statistically nor subjectively particularly dense. What I'm saying is that one should not draw too many conclusions from population density statistics. The area of Ottawa is 2200 km2, compared to 683 km2 for Edmonton. (The reason being that the "City of Ottawa" is an amalgamation of distinct communities seperated by undeveloped land.) In the case of the City of Edmonton, 44% of the land is zoned as Agricultural or Reserve Zones. The vast majority of that is in a belt surrounding the actual city. See Edmonton Land Use and Inventory Information for more info.

The other reason its misleading, is that the City of Chicago is the most highly developed square at the centre of Chicagoland. Chicagoland has vast suburbs that are incredibly spread out, but that doesn't enter into the calculations. My point is just that population density isn't really a meaningful statistic, so long as the boundaries of cities are arbitrary. Your comments about prairie cities implies Edmonton has a problem with sprawl. True, no-one in Edmonton feels compelled to build high-rises, land is cheap. Still, 85% of the metropolitan area population lives in a continuous built-up area, save for 1 mile of empty space between Edmonton and St. Albert or Sherwood Park. Compare this with the outer fringes of the Chicago area. Not quite city, not quite country. Kesahun 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I fully understand the dynamics of CMA vs. city proper relationships. My argument was simply that many cities (not metropolitan areas) have ZONED farmland winthin their most immediate defined boundaries (that being the city limit). Calgary, Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Halifax, Kingston, London, and, Montreal ALL share that quality with the city Edmonton. In no case was I referring the the amount of undeveloped land in the GVRD, or the Calgary Region, or Greater Montreal... etc. --Arch26 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ex-water levels

Should it be mentioned that Edmonton used to have very high water levels? (When Edmonton was a city, not just a piece of land)

• Could you please be more specific? I'm not sure what you're asking about - water table levels or river levels?NorthernFire 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant the latter, as I'm pretty sure the water levels were once high enough to flood certain neighborhoods in and around Edmonton. Sorry if I confused you on the matter.

• The only residential area of Edmonton ever to be in danger of high water levels is Riverdale. The last time that area flooded was about twenty years ago, so it's not exactly a common occurence. The much more regular problem is in low-lying areas of the city, portions of Mill Woods, for instance, where a heavy downpour results in flooded basements and backed-up sewers. Denni ☯ 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, thanks, for I thought it was once Edmonton-wide. Thanks for the info.

Neighbourhoods + CMA

This issue regarding the lack of a CMA page as well as a list of neighbourhoods article has already been long since addressed - I created both such articles - The Edmonton Capital Region and List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton. Hence, the original text here is now cut out. If there are any outstanding related issues, please let me or Rendar know. NorthernFire 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Moist continental climate - Dfb?

This is not the wording used in the Köppen climate classification, the terminology there is Continental climate with warm summers (Dfb), I believe. Orcaborealis 15:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's been changed in the article now to "continental climate with mild/warm summers and cold winters". This is more accurate, since even climates in the Dfb zone in the Köppen climate classification scheme can be somewhat dry. Edmonton is an example of this, although the precipitation is hardly that uniform throughout the year - sometimes closer to Dwb (cont. climate with driest monthly winter precip 1/10th of that summer monthly maximum or less) than a classic Dfb like Halifax or Moncton where the year round precip is much more uniform. NorthernFire 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Calgary or Edmonton first?

I created a redirect from Edmonton-Calgary Corridor to Calgary-Edmonton Corridor so if we so choose, we can use the Edmonton-first terminology. I hope that will prevent an edit war over the link. What do people think? Kevlar67 05:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the Edmonton-Calgary Corridor as Statisitcs Canada has OFFCIALLY named this region the Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. A redirect is good in case people make mistakes, but it would completely inaccurate to refer to it as the former on purpose. --Arch26 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What's official is one thing... but if we believe people in Edmonton would say it with thier own city's name first, then it would be more correct. I'm not saying that is true, but if it was, than that's what the article should say. Kevlar67 07:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And since it is wrong to do so, I will be the first one to correct a contribution whereby it was referred to as "Edmonton-Calgary Corridor". For the sake of accuracy, consistency, and objectivity. I applaud the redirect page though, because it will avoid a dead link in situations where the name "Edmonton-Calgary Corridor" is used incorrectly. I think we are in agreement. --Arch26 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I don't think articles in Wikipedia should have "trivia" sections. They are only a repository for information that is either unimportant or information that should be placed eleswhere. Most of the information contained in the section that I removed could have been more elegantly dispersed elsewhere within this article or within sub-articles. Some info already exists in the article anyway. In addition, some of the figures such as the claim that WEM is largest in the world are just blatantly wrong. If the user feels that any of this information was important enough to leave in the article, then they should simply organize it better. --Arch26 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that most of the information in trivia sections would be better off integrated into the main body of an article, I see nothing inherently wrong with a "Trivia" section existing. It serves as a good area for new information to be placed when the article currently doesn't have a good place to integrate it into, or by editors who don't have the skill or time to do the integrating themselves. If you delete trivia that should be integrated into the article, then please make sure you actually integrate it when you do so. That said, the most recent "Boston Pizza" trivia is IMO sufficiently trivial to not be worth integrating here; it's already mentioned at Boston Pizza where it's more relevant. Bryan 23:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only called a "trivia" section because it contains information that's too trivial to include in the body of article (I know that the above user has already stated they agree with this, but I thought I'd re-emphasize because it's important). If it is so important then point me to a high quality article (that is, a "good" or "featured" city article) with a trivia section. Trivial information not only clutters this encyclopedia with facts and "tidbits" that are uninportant to most readers, but it has a negative impact on the overall flow and quality of the article. City articles are also very broad, so minutia that is often considered trivia on the city page may fit well in a more specific article. For example, the Boston Pizza fact is better placed in Boston Pizza's own article where it is already (as stated above), where it does not clutter the much broader based article on Edmonton. From the standpoint of an international reader (perhaps, most readers), a factoid on a CITY page about a western Canadian restaurant chain serving mediocre food is not really notable. If an editor is having trouble finding a place for a piece of information, then it is better addressed on the discussion page where other users can review the content and help find a place for it. There are certain pieces of trivia which may genuinely be informative. I would argue that, if that is the case, then even a novice editor should have little trouble finding a place for it in another section of the main article. --Arch26 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any "featured" articles offhand with a trivia section, but that's kind of my point - a trivia section is a spot where "unfinished" material tends to show up, so an article with an extensive trivia section is probably in a rough state. When you see such a section, by all means try to integrate stuff from it elsewhere into the body of the article (or related articles) and perhaps delete the particularly useless stuff. But don't automatically assume it's all worthless and simply wipe the whole section on the sole basis of its header being the word "Trivia." Sometimes there's good stuff in there that doesn't have an obvious permanent home elsewhere in the article yet, and a trivia section provides those tidbits with a reasonable temporary home while that's resolved. Bryan 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is often stuff there that deserves more than to be relegated to a trvia section. I just don't think that an article needs or should have a need for a place to dump unfinished or "mysterious" material regardless of how relevant it is. This is an encyclopedia. The information presented should always be relevant and comlete. As far as I'm concerned, "unfinished" material should only be dealt with in one of two ways: (1) On the discussion page, or (2) in the main article or section body provided that the appropriate template tag is applied (there is a tag that is available that is a disclaimer of unfinished articles or sections). I think that if the trivia section's sole purpose is to be a place for unknown or incomplete information, then you had might as well just call the section something like "incomplete" or "work in progress" or "mysterious" instead of "trivia". Now, is that very encyclopedic? --Arch26 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the Trivia section (again), and moved the information it had to more appropriate sections. I couldn't find a place for four facts, though:

1. The Boston Pizza origin fact is already on Boston Pizza, so I didn't think it was needed here.
2. The fact that the Oilers and the Eskimos have each won their league championships repeats information already in the Sports section.
3. I'm not sure what the description of the CTV, CBC, and Global stations as "superstations" meant, so I couldn't work out where to put it in the Media section.
4. The fact that portions of Canada AM were aired from Edmonton during the 2006 election is too trivial to bother with, I think. Other Canadian news broadcasts have had Edmonton-based segments, and there's no point in listing all of them. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be rewritten

A lot of what is written here is very subjective.

This kind of feedback is totally useless. Blanket statements like the above are just plain unhelpful. If you have an issue, then point out some specific examples... or fix them yourself. Why, specifically should the article be completely re-written? This kind of feedback does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of this encyclopedia and is quite simply far more aggravating than it is helpful. Thanks. Oh, and sign your comments PLEASE. --Arch26 07:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5, Economy section

I just reviewed this for Version 0.5, and approved it for inclusion on the CD. However, I am concerned that the articles doesn't have a specific section on its economy, unlike most city articles I have reviewed. I realise that mention is made (more than once) of the diverse economy and the oil, but this is important enough to the life of a city to have its own section. The last paragraph of the intro could form the foundation of this section. For some examples see

• Toronto#Economy which also directs to the main article, Economy of Toronto
• Montreal#Economy
• Vancouver#Economy which also directs to the main article, Economy of Vancouver

Once you get a decent section written, please can someone change the "B" tag in the template to "A" because otherwise the article seems good. Thanks! Walkerma 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So noted. I will tackle this on the weekend if I have time. Let's work on getting this article to A status! :) Rendar 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have Economic Development Edmonton data from 2004 that is straight from the source. It was part of a package published by them in 2005 called "Greater Edmonton by the Numbers". This should give the skeleton and we'll shine it up collaboratively. 209.89.3.74 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did an edit and rework of the economy section that was added. Everyone please give it a look over and make sure it stays encyclopedic as opposed to an EEDC brochure :) Rendar 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost the largest in North America?

I made the change in the claim to reflect data from many other cities. For example(s), Edmonton is barely larger than Chicago (684 km² vs. 606 km²), it is smaller than New York (1214.4 total, 785.5 land), about half the size of Los Angeles (1290.6), less than half the size of Houston (1558), and less than a third the size of Jacksonville, FL (2264.5). When compared to cities that are even smaller in population, Edmonton is less than one twelfth of the area of Juneau, AK (8430 total, 7036 land) and less than 6% of the size of Sitka, AK (12461.8 total, 7444 land). So, it is clearly not the largest or close to the largest in North America. There are 24 cities in the United States that are larger by land area alone and at least 28 that are larger in total area, some of which are larger by a factor of 18 (Sitka, AK).

Even within Alberta itself, Calgary is larger, at 789.9 km². Within Canada, it appears that there are 38 cities and towns that are larger. Although some of these are just "towns", most are either cities, "villes", or regional municipalities. Also, in my mind, even if all 38 were just "towns", it would seem misleading to call Edmonton one of the largest cities on the continent if many "just town(s)" were larger (and much larger at that).

I hope the new wording still reflects the fact that Edmonton is a relatively large city, by area, but that it no longer makes a claim to be one of the largest on the continent. Ufwuct 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

I don't like the large lists in "Festivals" and "Culture", but these small faults still do not detract from this Good Article. Morgan695 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody should move them into their own article along the lines of Festivals in Calgary and List of attractions and landmarks in Calgary. --Arch26 22:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Alberta

How about posting a picture of the U of A not taken from the north side of the river? You can't see much of anything in the current picture.