Talk:Expo 67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Expo 67 has been listed as one of the History 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
Date Process Result
September 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 8, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I'm of the opinion that this article meets the prose and manual of style criteria for promotion to Good Article status. I couldn't find anything noticeably wrong in terms of spelling and grammar.
2. Factually accurate?: The article is sufficiently referenced, with 36 citations, everywhere that is required.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers the topic in excellent depth and is very thorough.
4. Neutral point of view?: I'm satisfied this article is written from a Neutral Point of View.
5. Article stability? The article does appear to be stable. I can't see anything that would give cause to fail this article under this criteria.
6. Images?: Images are used well, and are used correctly as far as licensing is concerned.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First line - 1999[edit]

The first line of this article claims that the expo was "The 1999 International and Universal Exposition" - surely 1967? -- Mithent (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Initiating discussion so as to give User:Lonewolf BC a proper forum in which to express his grievances. --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no grievances. I merely disagree with an edit G2bambino wishes to make. Reasons have been properly given by edit-summary, already.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not good enough. You have to discuss in order to reach an agreement; edit summaries are not the proper place to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Acutally, there is nothing wrong with explaining a revert by edit-summary. That is supposed to move the disagreement to the talkpage immediately, if the would-be changer wishes to pursue the matter. If you wish to pursue this, use the talkpage to seek consensus. Don't use edit-warring to try to make your desired change in the lack of consensus for it. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I said the edit summaries are not areas for discussion; hence, I do look to the talk page for resolution. However, you disrupt due process by generally refusing to engage in discourse on talk pages, stating your edit summaries are enough and dumping the issue on others to resolve for you. Given this pattern, I think you might wish to familiarise yourself with the first step of the dispute resolution process, which itself instructs users to "discuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself." Not doing so "shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it." Now, as you're the sole party with any problem here, it's up to you to lay out your reasonings in order to entice rebuttal and eventually, with luck, resolution. --G2bambino (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh road-apples. If you want to think I'm the bad-guy go ahead, but spare me (and other editors) your mendacious finger-pointing.
You already have (by edit-summary) my reasons for being against the changes you want, but here again: "founder" should be based on real executive power; "owner" is redundant for a Crown Corp. but if used should be "Government of Canada" (self-explanatory) If you're unclear on them, say how so and ask me questions. I think they are quite straightforward, though.
I strongly suggest that lay out your reasons for wanting to make the changes.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol. In case you haven't noticed, there are no other editors here; so, no need to put on the gleaming puppy dog eyes and convince anyone you're all sweetness and innocence; there's no audience.
I did, of course, read your edit summaries, and did reply to them: Yes, real exec. power. What is "government"? And that's where the "discussion" left off. So, you have yet to prove how the Prime Minister is the "real" executive power that founds a Crown corporation, and what exactly is meant by "Government of Canada" and how you propose to clarify that in the infobox. --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether the infobox should name the PM or the GG as the founder of the crown corporation, but I have listed this dispute under the RFC section at WP:CWNB for outside input. However, in terms of Wikipedia policy, I'd like to stress in my capacity as an administrator that Lonewolf BC is correct here. G2bambino, as the person who introduced a significant change to the infobox, the onus is on you to get consensus for your change. Lonewolf does not have to get consensus to change the infobox back to what it said three days ago; you have to get consensus to make the change in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna 'watch this page' for awhile. But, I'm not gonna get involved (third person wise). Great to see you guys, aren't 'edit warring'; congrads. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's impossible for me to get a consensus if the only other participant in the dispute won't discuss his problems. If others weigh in, then fine; but so far the disagreement is between LW and myself only, so the only consensus to be sought is between he and I. Perhaps you're not aware, but LW doesn't take to discussing matters very well. --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In a situation like that, the proper procedure is to summarize the dispute on the talk page, and then solicit outside input from the RFC section of WP:CWNB. And for what it's worth, it hasn't exactly been my experience that you're all that much more inclined to discuss disputes of this type than he is, but at the moment that's neither here nor there. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, in theory that might be the proper route to take, but in practice it has not been very fruitful; in my experience, RfCs garner little to no response (though somehow yours at WP:CWNB got a flood of replies - how[?]). Regardless, an RfC isn't, and shouldn't be, necessarily the first step to take; direct discussion between the two (or more) disputing parties is the initial move. By skipping this step, however, LW blocks an edit and then departs, leaving the situation statically in his favour and others to sort out the problem. This is a consistent pattern, and the uncooperative nature of it puts his motives in question. When people's habits are causing the disruption, then it is relevant to bring them up; I'm not sure the last time you had any experience of a discussion, or lack of one, with me, so, I can't comment on your observations. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Crown corporations don't fit neatly into pre-made parameters of Infobox company. I say leave out founder and owner altogether. It already states it's a crown corp.; further elaboration is best left to the text of the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a PM or GG can be said to be a "founder" of a crown corporation. The "government of Canada" or "Canadian Cabinet" perhaps but I think the best thing is to leave the section blank. Saying the GG is the founder is misleading as Massey had no personal role in devising the crown corporation but simply assented to it (assuming it was created by an order of council). Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Leave it blank. That's the problem with infoboxes: they try to force everything into set little boxes, when life, of course, isn't like that.Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I would suggest deleting the infobox altogether. This article is about the event/festival, not about the company that organized it. There are other fields that are totally pointless e.g. Area Served: the world (!) Put the information into the article if it is interesting and substitute it with an more appropriate infobox if you must.Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The article is about the fair, not the crown corp. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleBlue. None of the other world exposition articles I've just looked at have this infobox. Maybe there should be an infobox for world's fairs but this isn't it - using a corporation box is like trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. Delete the box. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I could refute any claims that there is no founder of a Crown corporation, but, given the further observations r.e. infoboxes and world fairs, it seems unnecessary to do so. It's absolutely true that this article is about the fair, and not the corporation that ran it, so the infobox is completely inappropriate. This point totally eluded me until it was brought up here, but why couldn't this just have been sorted out so easily in the first place? --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Because sometimes it is hard to stand back and see the forest not the trees, I guess. And that's why asking for outside opinions can often help clarify the vision. Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I've lost my beloved infobox:-) Well when I put it there last year, all I could do was put a square box in a round hole. I don't have time to create a World's Fair box. Would have preferred a better opening graphic than the fair's passport, but I think the image police probably killed the original graphic. Abebenjoe (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

Should this article be Expo '67? Just wondering. If everyone agrees, I'll move it soon. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It never had the apostrophe, as this was the original French name that also became the English name. Check all the links to the sources and you will see that it never had the apostrophe.--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I also disagree. Check the sources and do a search; you'll be hard-pressed to find a apostrophe. It wasn't used. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball[edit]

I have started a discussion on the placement of the WikiProject Baseball banner on this talk page. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Man and His World, closed in 1981 or 1982?[edit]

The article states after Expo'67, the site became known as 'Man and His World' which ran until 1981—the year it finally closed. Doing some searching I found a scanned brochure which touts a 1982 season for Man and His World (<-click link to see). I can't seem to find any other evidence of a 1982 season other than this brochure pamphlet, leading me to believe it was published the year prior, before a decision was made to permanently close the site. Still, it makes me wonder.

A bit more searching, I found this Montreal Gazette newspaper article archive printed in August 1983. It states the Saint Helen's island section of Man and His World had been closed for the past two seasons, meaning it was indeed closed in 1982 and 1983. Oddly there is still mention of Man of His World continuing but in a very small section of Norte Dame island; sounds more like it was a weak attempt at keeping the name and spirit of alive more than anything else. As far as I know, everything that was Man and His World was on Saint Helen's island. And apparently the site underwent extensive demolition between 1984 to 1986. I would say the article is accurate but still would be interested in hearing if anyone has a different history of the site, if it did continue beyond 1981--Apple2gs (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Expo 67: opening date[edit]

Just noticed the info box states the opening date of Expo 67 as April 21, 1967. Is there any significance or importance to this date?

As far as I'm aware, the opening ceremony took place on April 27, 1967, and Expo 67 officially opened to the public on April 28, 1967. I'm assuming the April 21st date is completely erroneous, especially considering the closing date was also in error (previously the same person listed it as October 27, 1967, when in fact it wasn't closed until the 29th). The only reference to April 21st are one or two photography blog sites mentioning this date, and likely the source the Wikipedia article took it from. On a note of interest, the Seattle Word's Fair Expo opened on April 21, 1962, and likely the source of the mix up (it came before Expo 67).

As for the actual opening date in the infobox, should it be the opening ceremony (27th) or the opening to the public (28th)? I've put the 27th for now, though if anyone feels the 28th is more accurate for the infobox, please discuss it here.--Apple2gs (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: Just recently learned from an Expo historian that the official opening date, as per the BIE, was indeed April 27, 1967. So the date in the info box is now correct. As for the closing date, although originally scheduled for October 27th, the BIE granted a two day extension which the city of Montreal took advantage of. So no need for a discussion afterall (I'm leaving this text though, just in case there should ever be a dispute over the dates in future).--Apple2gs (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Expo 67. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Use of official logo as main image[edit]

The Expo 67 official logo was used as the article's main image for a while but had to be removed for copyright infringements. As it is now in the public domain, I suggest we revert to this image instead of the current official map for the Infobox. Rubix99 (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)