Talk:CFB Edmonton

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CFB Edmonton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: Alberta / Military Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

Military history: Aviation / Canadian / North America / World War II / Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Aviation: Airports C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

Numbers

How many soldiers and support staff are based at the Garrison, and how many of those served in Afghanistan? 198.161.51.146 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of History section June 8, 2009 and restoration of section June 21, 2009

The history section was (justifiably) removed since it was deemed to be non-free content taken from another website. However, as the writer of that content, I can safely say that the majority of this content (I believe there were some small edits of this content by others over three years) was written by me using several sources (on record, but should probably have been listed as sources on the article page), and was never lifted from that site. That web site (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_edmonton/history.html) used/copied this material verbatim from this article. If the sequence of edits from Nov. 2006 are checked, you can see that I had made a few changes from my original edit, which proves I was the original writer. The site that "stole" this text used the final wording. The web master of this site has been contacted by User:CambridgeBayWeather to verify their source but, as yet has not replied. I suspect this chicken/egg problem is going to recur often with Wikipedia as more and more websites use Wikipedia as a primary source.--BC_{talk to me} 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed runways

It is common practice to strike out the info on closed runways. See for example Andrew Airport, and other defunct airports in Alberta. Just because the helipads are still open doesn't mean that the runways should be removed. 117Avenue (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that strike-outs on runway data will be meaningless to a casual reader. It makes much more sense to list the current, open and available runways and discuss any former runways in the article text. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if the airport is closed like Andrew Airport then strike out the details. If the airport is still in operation then remove them but cover it in the body. You can then give more detail such as when the runways were closed and why. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. That means runway 16/34 at the Edmonton City Centre (Blatchford Field) Airport should be removed from the infobox, but re-added when 12/30 closes. 16/34, and CFB Edmonton's runways are always historical, and it shouldn't matter if they're completely closed like Andrew, or semi-closed. 117Avenue (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should show the current situation and status, the historical information should be described in the text. As I said before most casual readers would not understand that a strikethough is intended to mean the runway is closed. The Canada Flight Supplement doesn't use strikethroughs for closed runways. Usually when you see strikethroughs on webpages it means the information has been replaced by new information, such as "~~Rated as 7/10~~, Now rated 8/10". - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course the Canada Flight Supplement doesn't strike out closed airports, I am assuming it just doesn't mention them. But the standard that has been set, is to strike out closed runways. 117Avenue (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this standard? For instance when it comes to what goes into an aircraft type article we have guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my first comment, in all the defunct airports. 117Avenue (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that some people may have done that, but what I am asking is where was that decided as a consensus discussion or where is it indicated as a written-down guideline as above? - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you got me there, it was done before I got here. CBW, did you strike out the old airports or was is someone else? Is it just an Alberta thing, or is it seen Canada wide or airports in other countries? 117Avenue (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I change an active to a defunct I strike out, Canada wide. However, I can't remember if it was like that before I started editing or I'm to blame. In truth for most of the defunct ones I was of the opinion that they needed deleting but I was told that it wasn't a good idea. Look at List of abandoned airports in Canada. While I can understand keeping Ernest Harmon Air Force Base what other information is ever going to be added to Fort McPherson Water Aerodrome, but that's a bit off topic. Other countries depend on any particular editor and where they got the source information. Airports listed at the World Aero Database tend to show closed runways but other sources such as the Aeronautical Information Publication don't. By the way, 16/34 at Edmonton City Centre (Blatchford Field) Airport shouldn't have been struck out as it's only a temporaryclosure. By the way that's a bit confusing as Edmonton City Centre (Blatchford Field) Airport#Future plans says that it's to be closed permanently but the NOTAM indicates that it's not. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm confused about the Edmonton City Centre now too, because in the news they've been saying permanent, and have showed video of the lights and signs being taken out, and the painted X on the runway. Is September 23 the day of the next Canada Flight Supplement? If you have striked out all the defunct airports in Canada, then I would say that it is a standard, and it should be included on the Template:Infobox airport/doc. Also, I think "List of abandoned airports in Canada" is not the correct name to use, because "abandoned" implies that it is still there but not used, when Edmonton City Centre is closed, it will be developed, and not exist anymore. 117Avenue (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't think of that but 23 September is the new CFS at 0901Z. I think I used abandoned because that's what's used in the CFS. There are some like RCAF Detachment Alliston and Armour Heights Field that are what the City Centre will be. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so we have figured out Edmonton City Centre for now. But is striking out a standard that has been put into place, which we can write down? 117Avenue (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Operating airports with closed runways hoping to get some more opinions one way or another. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks (CFSPDB)

The article for Military prison redirects their Canada section to this page when referring to the Canadian Forces Service Prison and Detention Barracks (CFSPDB). But this article has no mention of the military prison operating here. I think this needs to be added to the article at the very least? Spudst3r (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]