Jump to content

Talk:Montreal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 132.205.236.34 (talk) at 17:28, 20 February 2020 (→2020 update to Montage: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleMontreal 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 8, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article


Goliath

Why is there a goliath rollercoaster picture in the sports section? it was enormous and doesn't belong there. I resized it. It should be deleted, it looks like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.199.149 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, I concur that the thinner edges do look much better than the thicker ones. ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 13:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still no montage? Shanghai, Tokyo now have one, most Canadian cities have one, I think Montreal needs one too. From what I've seen in the previous discussion, most users agree with the idea of a montage at the top of the page as long as it is nice and well-thought. I will try to work on something and come with a proposition. (of course we can modify it so everyone is satisfied)Thecalmar (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I see this discution last for years and nothing have changed yet. Is everyone finally ok to pub the montage of talk (see this)? I am going to put it on the main page tonight if it is ok. (talk) 23:24, 08 Juin 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre.willame (talk • contribs)

I created an updated version of the old montage (dated from 2010) with better quality images and featuring the main attractions of Montreal. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 03:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also open to propositions that could improve the montage (e.g. better images). I think that we really need a montage since the Wiki pages of most of the major cities in the world already have one. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 03:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new montage, especially with the fireworks shot, but could it be re-done with MTLSkyline's skyline pic from the Champlain Bridge or the one from Jacques-Cartier Bridge? Montreal's skyline has changed a little since the nightime shot from the Belvedere, and it would demonstrate the impact of our skyline. Mtlfiredude (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I can certainly modify the montage with your proposition. I seem to experience some difficulties in finding the image(s) that you are referring to... may I have the links to these pics? Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 04:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, thanks! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montreal_skyline_September_2013.jpg Mtlfiredude (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would we also be able to get rid of the black border and replace it with a white, thin one like Toronto's montage has too? Only reason I'm asking is because I think Montreal should have a montage that stands on its own. I'm not saying that other cities in Canada aren't great in their own way, HOWEVER, Montreal was at one point Canada's largest city and, with that being said, has stood out well especially when it hosted things like the first Olympics in Canada. Again, I'm not saying that other cities in Canada aren't great - I think they're awesome - but I feel that Montreal's montage should be comparable to Toronto's and that's why I'm wondering if we can put the this white border on, instead of the generic black. Quaiowe (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! I have modified the montage with your suggestions. I have also changed a few images that are better in terms of quality. Cheers! Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 03:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow it looks great! Thanks Mtlfiredude (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to removal the camera viewpoint description from the montage as it distracts readers. The rest of the description stays. Mkevlar (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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, Jimmytalk 05:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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, Jimmytalk 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Jimmytalk 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Po' buster (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Jimmytalk 02:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --MTLskyline (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Climate/Weather"

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I totally agree and, further to this, Centre-Sud contains a neighbourhood call "Le village Gai". The metro station for this area (Beaudry) even features rainbow pillars, a symbol by the civic government that embraces the community. I seem to remember there being an LGBT subsection, as it is one of the defining features of Montreal - the gay village is also bigger and more obvious than namy of the neighborhoods mentioned (and perhaps has a greater effect on tourism, culture and nightlife) 70.82.3.19 (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the whole sentence should be removed. What is and what is not considered a "French speaking city" is too complicated. In the case of Montreal, a culturally and socially bilingual city, classifying it as "French speaking" somewhat alienates half the population which doesn't speak French as their primary official language. Might I suggest replacing it with a sentence regarding it's rankings in the world's largest bilingual cities instead? Thephotographguy (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significance of distinguishing it as the 2nd largest French speaking city in the Western world? That seems a very refined and irrelevant set of categories in which it still comes in second. What is the western world, and why is it relevant that Montreal is the 2nd largest French speaking city IN IT? I think it would make more sense to distinguish it as the 4th largest, after Paris, Kinshasa and Abidjan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.204.35 (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


Pronunciation

Isn't the local Anglophone population cot-caught merged? In which case it doesn't seem to make sense to make a distinction, as the article does, between "local" /ˌmʌntriːˈɒl/; and non-local i/ˌmʌntriːˈɔ:l/;. Grover Cleveland (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New skyline picture

Does anyone have a good, recent picture of the Montreal skyline that could replace the current one and put to advantage our skyline? Not that it's bad, but it dates from 8 years ago... Some buildings seem to be missing. I would love to take a new picture, but my means of transportation are limited... Mtlfiredude (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been thinking that the page is due for a more recent and higher resolution picture. Ideally the picture should be clear and should show the skyline as the main subject of the shot. I like this one, but the colours are a little over saturated and it is from 2011. If there is nothing on the Wikimedia Commons category, then you might want to try Flickr. When searching make sure to do an advanced search, and check all three Creative Commons boxes (all three boxes need to be checked for the image to be uploaded to Wikipedia):
  • Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content
    • Find content to use commercially
    • Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon
From there you can use the Flickr upload bot on Wikimedia Commons to upload the pictures (there are instructions there). --MTLskyline (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the pic that you proposed until someone takes a more recent picture... Eh, 2011 is already better than 2006! Mtlfiredude (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least find a skyline picture from the previous angle that shows Old Montreal? The current picture is the least flattering angle. Also, that picture of Place Jacques Cartier is very dreary & barely shows the buildings. Who removed the nice photo of the fountain with the fire? Montreal's wiki looked a lot better a couple months ago even if a few buildings were missing.

If anyone has a recent skyline picture taken from the Champlain or Jacques-Cartier bridges which includes the new skyscrapers (Altoria, Courtyard Marriott), that would be great. With all the new skyscraper projects around the Bell Centre, the skyline will be drastically changed by 2017! Mtlfiredude (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montages?

Is there a reason we are not using the montages? There are several viable? Is the above one of the reasons, as that is easily fixed. Still think Montages are the best way to go. Krazytea(talk) 03:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could come up with a good montage if we discuss what items to include first, before making it. In my opinion, we should try and use mostly daytime shots with good lighting. We should also use narrow white borders like the montage used in Toronto or New York City's article. We don't want too many things in it either. Ideally six or seven max. And nothing outside city limits like the airport. Here are some ideas in no particular order (I would say point 1, 2 and 3 are a must, but everything else is negotiable):
--MTLskyline (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated or biased information?

Reading through the article lately, I've noticed some statical facts that seem a few years out of date. Or were purposely drawn from sources that paint an overly optimistic and biased view?

Some examples....

  • Air:

"In 2011, Montreal-Trudeau was the third busiest airport in Canada by passenger traffic"

It should be mentioned as of 2013, Montreal-Trudeau has dropped to forth busiest airport in Canada, respectfully behind Toronto, Vancouver and now Calgary.

  • Eduation:

"In 2014, McGill was ranked as the top University in Canada for the ninth consecutive year by Macleans,[153] and as the best University in Canada; 18th best University in the world, by the QS World University Rankings."

Huh? In some specific area or category? And unless someone has a time machine, 2014 is still in the future. It must be noted in ratings, McGill has dropped below University of Toronto in terms of top university in Canada, in OVERALL STANDING. It has also fallen in place world wide. There are reputable sources and references published in recent weeks for these facts. Yes, McGill was the top ranked university in Canada, but that is in the past, the article needs to talk about the present (or at least state facts as past, not present).

  • Société de transport de Montréal (STM):

No mention Montreal's subway system is using the oldest rolling stock in North American? (and parts of the world). The MR-63 trains still in operation, were built back in the early 1960's and still in use today. The MR-73's date back to the early to mid 70's. Replacement trains are on the horizon, but it's an important, if not unusual, fact.

  • Economy:

"Montreal also plays an important role in the finance industry. The official legal corporate head offices of Bank of Montreal and Royal Bank of Canada, two of the five biggest banks in Canada, are still in Montreal with their operational corporate headquarters in Toronto, Ontario."

This is deceptive..."an important role"? RBC and BOM banks moved their head offices out of Montreal years ago. "Legal corporate head offices" is more in title or name than function, there is a far greater importance having the head offices based in Toronto.

Also missing in the article are mentions of all the head offices that moved from Montreal to Toronto and relocated elsewhere within Canada. It is a significant amount that merits mention. It could be worded even as "despite numerous head offices relocating from Montreal in recent years, several head offices of importance remain located in....". Also strange there is no mention that in such a short period (approximately 35-40 years) Montreal has gone from the economic capital and engine of Canada to one of the poorest provinces in Canada. Certainly an important anomaly should be mentioned, even in brief? Apple2gs (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Apple2gs, careful about the use of the terms "biased" and "deceptive" - everyone wants to articles to be as objective as possible. Feel free to add changes as necessary, as long as the references are there to back it up. The MacLeans also should specify that it is within the "Medical and Doctoral" category, the three categories they use are not meant to be compared, the rankings are only within the group. Scaldwell17 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of Montreal's current economics under "Modern History" needs appears to be opinion rather than cite-able fact. If fact, it's in need of a citation: "Although politics and language issue still weigh heavily on any real economic growth considering the austerity measures that need to be put in place due to bad policies undertaken during the late 1970s and early 1980s and again in the mid 1990s to late 90s on a provincial level and decades of corruption from the Municipal level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.155.84 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow tint in the climate chart

Commissar lubi reverted an edit for me twice. He first made that non-nonsensical reason: (Last time I checked snow is not naturally green). Does snow look naturally black, blue or green? It's just a box demonstrating snowfall intensities! The template's original blue tints turn black for the very intense snowfall, while the green turn to dark green. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


If you did not notice, Mahmudmasri, I reverted my second revert. I wanted to prove a point: no need to become hostile over a misunderstanding (as I initially presumed your edit to be vandalism). In other words, chill out and do avoid falsely accusing others of "irresponsibility". -Commissar lubi

Turcot merge

I came across Turcot, Quebec and wondered why such a pitiful 1-sentence article containing only a piece of miscellany should be allowed to exist. Its one reference, the Commission de toponymie, only points to the Turcot Interchanger, not the former village. I therefore propose it be merged here. - SweetNightmares 01:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Commission de toponymie reference and it mentions that there used to be a village there. In case someone wants to expand the article with history about the actual village, I would leave it as it is.Tinss (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Montreal

I do think we should mention this ...not the way its was added though. Many sources for this ,,,the one that got the most coverage was Corruption in Montreal in the 2000s was a ‘perfect storm,’ auditor general says There is also the huffington post.archive here -- Moxy (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davis, Canada?

What's with the line stating that Montreal is in "Davis, Canada?" It's in Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.140.198 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mattximus (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population

WP:CANSTYLE says to use official Canadian census data for populations in the infobox. Someone keeps changing the inbox to an unofficial estimate. CanStyle says these estimates are only to be referenced in the article, not the infobox. Every other Canadian city uses the official census data in the infobox. Not sure why this editor feels that Montreal should be different. 216.48.162.150 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why is the "city" population 1,649,519, and the "urban" one 3,407,963??? 184.171.208.30 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The city population is the accurate population count for residents of the City of Montreal as of the last census (2011). That urban number refers to what statscan calls a "Population centre"; if a few municipalities border each other (as does occur on and off the island of Montreal), they are summed up and you are given the "urban" number. Mattximus (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Q"Why is there a city and urban population?" A: People confuse the island of Montreal with the city of Montreal.See 2002–06_municipal_reorganization_of_Montreal--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Montreal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

|official_name = Montréal ? Reference is missing

Hello @Trackratte: exist for this chance any reference at what time this name - Montréal - get official status in Canada? Because in the old days it was only Montreal in official English, and is still around the world in English. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three references for this in the "name" section to avoid too many refs in the lead. trackratte (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it is some how funny. Every where around the world in English - Oxford etcetera is it Montreal. At what time is this new official name "official? Maybe it need an explaination at this point. How I see it via the references is this only now - from 2016 on official. (Oh Canada :-) ). Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC) PS As I see the name Montréal is only a recommendation for translators. Ok from 1983 on.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why the article uses Montreal without the accent, but notes in the lead and the infobox that the official name is with the accent as the official powers that be at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels all stipulate that the name is with an accent in both official languages. trackratte (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there 3 different climate charts?

This seems a bit excessive, I don't know of any other city with 3 large climate charts. Anyone know which would be considered the standard and comparable to other Canadian cities? Mattximus (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

École Polytechnique massacre

There is no mention in the history section of the École Polytechnique massacre, also known as the Montreal massacre, which occurred on December 6, 1989. A significant omission in my opinion.--Brenont (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

montreal-population - some link

http://countrydigest.org/montreal-population/

Hello @Samsara: this means maybe the island of Montreal and not only the metropol - just as info - The population of the wider Montreal metropolitan area is 4,060,692 (2015 data) and the population of the islands of Montreal is 2,006,966 (2016 data). see the link.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your ref is bogus. The source cites an estimate, not an enumeration. Also, for context, all articles about Canada citing ongoing statistics are adversely impacted because most data from 2011 are statistically worthless. That said, there are certainly issues in this article regarding statistics. Namely, editors citing data from different sources (often, federal vs. provincial) with different methodologies (actual census enumeration vs. projections based on previous censuses, in the case of population). I'd guess some of that is good faith trying to plug the hole left by the gutting of the 2011 census, but some of it appears to be politically motivated axe-grinding by angry (insert linguistic group)-Montrealers trying to bolster their "side" (I say that as a born Anglo-Montrealer who's spent his adult life in Ontario).
Oh, there's also the separate issue of the "Montreal" article alternately talking about the City of Montreal, Island of Montreal and Greater Montreal Area. That's brutal. To my mind, "Greater Montreal"/"Montreal CMA" should be mostly outside the scope of this article. Including "The 450" in this article (esp. the lead) seems conceived to boost the top-line population number and/or boost the proportion of Francophones relative to "Anglos" and "Allos". This is a historical sore spot for Franco-Québécois who've long worried that, being an island (metaphorically, that is) in an English-speaking continent, their language and culture might be wiped out. Demographically, they may be right...but tant pis! White people in Europe and the Americas will just have to get used to not being the top dogs anymore.184.145.42.19 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Montreal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why cant we use Montréal as the Article title? That's its real name Sean Kingston (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montreal&curid=81001&diff=758913928&oldid=757647347#.7Cofficial_name_.3D_Montr.C3.A9al_.3F_Reference_is_missing--Maxim Pouska (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bref, Wikipedia policy prescribes that the common name in the English language be used for article titles. As "Montreal" is the most common title in English, perhaps in large part due to simplicity and the lack of diacritics on English keyboards, the title of the article is "Montreal" as a matter of policy. However, its official name in both Canadian English and French is reflected in the article lead, and in the infobox, so that the reader is aware of both the common and official/"proper" spellings. trackratte (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The text " officially Montréal in both Canadian English and French," is for all people around the world a precise information. Only (officially Montréal), Nobody around the world thinks it is correct, if he or she looks in an dictionary. But better would be: "officially Montréal in French and also in Canadian English", maybe.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Canadian" in this case applies equally to both English and French, ie Canadian French and Canadian English as the Governments of Quebec and of Canada maintain official spellings, whereas foreign countries are unlikely to have an officially established usage, thus the precise "Canadian English and French". There is also the point that there are multiple countries and multiple different types of "English" and of "French", some may have official spellings for foreign cities, and some may not. trackratte (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Census 2016: Canada's population surpasses 35 million

Hello

Census 2016: Canada's population surpasses 35 million. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-2016-census-population-1.3970314.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization and genocide.

The wording "colonization and genocide" is missing excacte citation - Without a correct reference - WP:IC -to the text in the book and the page where you can find this it is not OK. I revert it now.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field hockey in Québec and Montreal

Hello - field hockey is very well known in Montreal. A reference to India and Pakistan is not relevant for Montreal - (missing Germany, not relevant for Montreal too). For moore information you can see via facebook - search worts via google: "Field Hockey Quebec Montreal" - or "Montreal field hockey" and "Welcome to the McGill Field Hockey Team".--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS maybe someone can write my correction better and a little more about field hockey in Montreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Pouska (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK-signed.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language spoken at home

In the lead the article claims "56.9% of Montrealers speak French at home, 18.6% speak English and 19.8% speak other languages.", this does not make sense since 4.7% of Montrealers are unaccounted for. Looking at the source it appears that whoever wrote this statement only took the numbers for persons who only spoke one language at home, ignoring those who spoke a mix of English, and/or French, and/or some other language, ie were bi/tri/etc lingual. I would either clarify the statement to something like ""56.9% of Montrealers speak only French at home", or change the numbers to reflect the overlap between languages ("60.5% of Montrealers speak French at home"). Are there any opinions about those two options, or suggestions of alternatives? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no responses about this topic I went ahead and changed the percentages to include those who speak more than one language at home. I am open to this changing if anyone feels strongly it should be something else. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Montreal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Montreal → Montréal – With the accent mark, this is the official name of the city. Not quite sure why it is not titled with the accent. This move also goes for all related Montréal events, places, etc. JE98 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the above 2014-2016 Gbook evidence shows Montréal is now the English name, just as Lévis is the English name for Lévis, not "Levis", so WP:UE means use Montréal. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your Google Books results make my case. All but one on the first page are in French. —  AjaxSmack  02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. This is one of those cases where both forms are used commonly, so we should defer to the official name. Note that I would not support moves of articles related to the city's sports teams, as the common name of the teams does not include the accent.  ONR  (talk)  18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New account, see ongoing Sock investigation In ictu oculi (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As noted before, we use the common English name. As noted above, the Montreal Gazette does not use the accent in its title. The Montreal Alouettes do not use the accent on their English website, although they do on the French website. Finally, we prefer the common spelling. Cuchullain pointed out San Jose, California; I'll add Hawaii to the list of articles where the title does not include the diacritical or special character. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments made by Cuchullain and others above. The majority of Canadian English sources omit an accent on this place name.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I already voted oppose, but I have this comment to add. In many ways, this is parallel to Mexico, which also officially has a diacritic that is almost always omitted in English writing. Seems like some people want to use official designations in foreign languages, even if they are not remotely close to the most common spellings/names/versions used in mainstream English writing. Here's what Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia had to say about that. Academicoffee71 (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Population

There are groups that are not visible minorities(white) but not from European origine. They should be mentioned here. Example: North Africans (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) and Mideastern (Lebanon, Syria, Turkey). If they are meant to be the (Arabs) group. Then things should be corrected: (Arabs) should be renamed (North Africans)and(Mideastern)and should not be considered a visible minority. Calling this group (Arabs) is wrong because we have to distinguish betweeen (Arabophones)and (Arabs), this group historically have many origines : Berbers,Arabs,Turks,Copts,Kurds,etc...also, there is other first linguages spoken in this group. Ex: Berber,Turkish, Coptic, Kurdish, etc... So things should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpa17 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the point you are trying to make, the racial groups are simply as described in the linked survey. Perhaps the 2016 census did a better job of making this distinction (and the entire section should be updated with information from it), but the distinction you're trying to make is not supported by the data that was available to the writers. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Coat of ams of Montreal

Statement from the Canadian Heraldic Authority on the new coat of arms of Montréal September 19th 2017

Oyez, oyez! Here is an exclusive first look at the new arms and flag of the city of Montréal, which were unveiled this morning as part of a ceremony of reconciliation taking place to mark the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The white pine tree symbol was chosen by an advisory committee consisting of a Kahnawake chief representing the three Mohawk communities near the city, a representative of Montréal’s urban Indigenous community, an Anishinaabe elder, and the director of the Centre d’histoire de Montréal. The Chief Herald of Canada assisted the committee in its deliberations to ensure that these newly revised emblems complied with heraldic standards. The grant of these official heraldic emblems will be recorded this autumn in Volume VI, page 750 of the Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada. Source(https://www.facebook.com/HeraldryHeraldique/)

Photos of new arms can be found at CBC's Radio International Canada http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/09/13/on-its-375th-birthday-montreal-refashions-city-emblems-to-honour-indigenous-peoples/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfugger (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Montreal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montreal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montreal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section on "Recent Controversies"

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The section was simply a scattershot of recent random news items. The paragraphs on Haitian border crossings and corruption in the construction industry are possibly relevant, however, the former is adequately covered by another page (and may not have long term relevance), while the latter spoke of corruption in general, despite the source specifically speaking of corruption in the construction industry, which is misleading. A section on corruption could be reincorporated (perhaps together with the crime section?), but I leave it up to someone better informed to do so. cnte (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More recent skyline pic?

Does anyone have a more recent skyline pic for the collage? The picture is becoming old (2013).

The best angle would be from the Champlain Bridge. Mtlfiredude (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Montreal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Montreal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Montreal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map Showing Montreal in Red

The map that shows the outline of Montreal is a bit misleading. When I first looked at it, I assumed the red area was all land. In fact, there are waterways running through it that I couldn't see until I zoomed into it. This made it very hard to identify Île Bizard or any other islands in the city, which is what I was looking for. A better map, which distinguishes between water and land, both in and out of the city, would be useful. I would do this myself, but I don't have the tools, don't know what tools would work, and don't know where I would get a starting-map. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 update to Montage

plenty of discussions were made here with regards to the montage but they are all dated. Someone updated it with an image that was on the wikicommons, but someone deleted it without reason. We need to update the montage or at the very least the first picture of the skyline, as it is very outdated. A new one exists on the wikicommons, so why are we not using that?

132.205.236.34 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montreal&oldid=941783991"