Talk:Montreal/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Montreal - Crime section

A fact tag was placed on part of this section on 26Dec07. I saw this text being added on 15Dec07 and asked the editor if they had any facts to back it up. There have been several other edits since then but nothing has verified the claims. Residents might know the city, but Wikipedia is not Lonely Planet and shouldn't be giving a bad name to certain neighbourhoods without verifiable statistics. Since the editor who originally added the paragraph has not contributed since, I propose eliminating the paragraph discussing unsafe areas in the city. Any comments?

I'm not considering the para's above and below - organized crime and school shootings, perhaps a separate discussion would be appropriate for both of those. Franamax (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Completely agree with you. If this article is ever going to be featured, we need to get rid of all unverified claims starting with this one. MTLskyline (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's take it out then, if someone wants to re-add with appropriate references, all the better. Franamax (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Architecture Section

This section claims Montreal as a "World Capital of Design". This appears to be untrue, Torino is the 2008 Capital of Design and is the first such city named.

However Montreal is a UNESCO City of Design [1]. I'm not sure how to change this, I can't find anything about the "downtown being divided into component pieces". Franamax (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed some signs and yellow cones around downtown, but frankly I think this "World Capital of Design" subsection gives it undo weight. I'd suggest cutting the "World Capital of Design". And if you agree with what I did for Expo-era architecture, perhaps in favour of an expanded subsection on Roger Taillebert's (sp?) Olympic Park architecture? Like it or hate it, it is notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with cutting out the sub-section and just using a sentence to say it is a UNESCO City of Design. I'm not too good yet with "cite" templates yet so I don't know how to put in the link I found above without screwing things up.
I was also wondering how to mention some of the other cool Expo buildings so go ahead and add a bit. Isn't one of them a casino now? I have been to the Grand Prix for a while so I don't know what's there any more. Definitely one of the notable features of Montreal.
Also, isn't the whole Ile-Notre-Dame a piece of architecture, or at least civil engineering? It should at least be in Places in Montreal. Franamax (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just figured out the cite web thing, I think, so if you paste it into the Talk page here I'll add it, paring down the sentence as you suggest. I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak but I love my town too much. Yes, the French and Quebec pavilions have been turned into the casino, with France as the main building, and yet I don't think its considered a landmark in the way that Habitat is, as striking as the French pavilion was. Don't know why but its just not. However, please feel free to add it if you like. That's just my opinion. As for Ile Notre Dame, it is categorized as an artificial island and if you check the cat you'll see that there's lots of them, although I gather ours is one of the bigger ones. Though it really can't be considered architectural, if there's a source out there that states that it was one of largest man-made islands at the time, it might be worth adding to the Notre Dame article. It's certainly been eclipsed since by that man-made archipelago off Dubai and that island airport off Hong Kong, to name just two. As for Places in Montreal, St. Helen's and Notre Dame Islands are really thought of, these days, as a single park and Parc Jean Drapeau is in the Places in Montreal main article and the Landmarks template . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality improvements

Before expanding this article further, we are going to need to improve the quality of what is already here:

  • Fix spelling/grammar
  • Add citations to all claims
  • Remove information without reliable sources (i.e. Partner Cities)
  • Improve the pictures in the article (the infobox picture of Montreal should have the mountain in it)
  • Trim down the table of contents
  • Remove all lists and turn them into paragraphs (i.e. educational institutions)

This is going to need to be a team effort. We have our work cut out for us. MTLskyline (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I've added about 5 sources, and have removed some unverified claims in preparation for the Good Article evaluation we will be receiving. I have reordered the sections, and removed lists as well. What's next? MTLskyline (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Spelling/grammar - my 1-1/2th time through the whole thing, looks good.
  • Citations - ohh mama, needs way more cites, should we fact-tag a section at a time?
  • Info/RS - the worst is gone now, what's left looks cite-able (congrats on Partner Cities)
  • Pix - looks OK now, could always use more I guess
  • Table of contents - OK now? or use TOC-LIMIT to limit the sub-levels?
  • Lists - looks to be all done


  • Can some stuff be slimmed down? We're already bumping the 100K limit, Shopping, Culture, Nightlife seem to all have been added piecemeal. Not every store in Montreal needs to be there.
  • Musee des Beaux-Arts, did I see that in there or not? Is there a "Museums and Galleries" sub-sub-section that I missed?
  • Need more on neighbourhoods, parks, where are the neat spots that make it such a great city to live in?
  • Rue St. Denis - does that have the more French-speaking party spots? It always seemed to me that Crescent was more for the anglos, haven't been there for awhile but are you covering nightlife, etc. completely?
  • Did I say already it needs more references? :)

It's all looking better than even two months ago! Franamax (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Partner Cities

Responding to the section above, I too have wondered at the large number of partner cities shown, and the only references I have found are the ones already footnoted. If it will help anyone who wants to check, here are some search results showing when the partner city name was first put in the article:

Algiers - Earliest #1485: ID110594707 24Feb07 15:31 - [2]
Amman - Earliest #341: ID169305288 5Nov07 03:50 - [3]
Amsterdam - Earliest #2250: ID82307345 18Oct06 23:01 - [4]
Athens - Earliest #2251: ID82306306 18Oct06 22:56 - [5]
Barcelona - Earliest #1723: ID98773961 6Jan07 01:13 - [6]
Beersheba - Earliest #485: ID162700299 6Oct07 17:45 - [7]
Beirut - Earliest #1641: ID103313109 26Jan07 04:44 - [8]
Brussels - Earliest #933: ID137382744 11Jun07 03:44 - [9]
Bucharest - Earliest #1195: ID126941228 29Apr07 20:57 Alexcaban - [10]
Busan - Earliest #2451: ID77152835 22Sep06 11:45 - [11]
Cali - Earliest #2451: ID77152835 22Sep06 11:45 - [12]
Casablanca - Earliest #1217: ID126398934 27Apr07 14:53 Alexcaban - [13]
Dublin - Earliest #1198: ID126938338 29Apr07 20:44 Alexcaban - [14]
Harrisburg - Earliest #2642: ID74016699 5Sep06 21:03 - [15]
Havana - Earliest #934: ID137380803 11Jun07 03:31 - [16]
Honolulu - Earliest #2642: ID74016699 5Sep06 21:03 - [17]
Lima - Earliest #1196: ID126939650 29Apr07 20:50 Alexcaban - [18]
Lisbon - Earliest #1197: ID126939208 29Apr07 20:48 Alexcaban - [19]
London - Earliest #2260: ID82093965 17Oct06 22:59 - [20]
Lyon - Earliest #1433: ID114094190 10Mar07 17:39 - [21]
Milan - Earliest #791: ID144252541 12Jul07 20:18 - [22]
New Orleans - Earliest #933: ID137382744 11Jun07 03:44 - [23]
New York City - Earliest #3606: ID50361793 27Apr06 02:42 Orthographer - [24]
Port-au-Prince - Earliest #154: ID180300022 26Dec07 20:16 - [25]
Shanghai - Earliest #2462: ID76864799 20Sep06 21:31 Geo android - [26]
Suva - Earliest #91: ID183253279 9Jan08 21:14 - [27]
Tirana - Earliest #588: ID157282306 12Sep07 01:28 - [28]
Yerevan - Earliest #2086: ID85441025 3Nov06 09:14 ROOB323 - [29]

Most of these were added by IP editors (which is not bad of itself) and some I have checked were added without edit summaries. Maybe the safest thing to do here is check each city very briefly and take them off the list unless something turns up quickly? Or just plain take them off the list? Either would be better than putting 20 fact tags into the article. Franamax (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I got rid of all the unsourced cities and replaced them with a table listing only partner cities with sources. MTLskyline (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I've edited all the above articles and added a {{cn}} tag to stop people trying to match up partner cities from their end. Beware those who will try to solve the problem by just adding back the partner city on this end to make it all symmetrical! We need specific citations, not just a blanket reference to Sister Cities International. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Montreal - Crime section (again)

Why is there even a section for crime in this article? For comparison, I don't see a Crime section in other major Canadian city articles nor in Paris or Marseille. All these other cities have problems with well-entrenched organized crime groups, is there something particularly notable about crime in Montreal?

The main part of the crime section is wholly unsourced, and twice now I've taken out (un)helpful opinions on which are the bad neighbourhoods. This section needs to be properly referenced or scrapped entirely. Any comments?

As far as the school shootings, these are horrific events and I'm not comfortable saying they should just be ignored. However, is there something endemic to Montreal that causes mass shootings such that they need a section of their own? Maybe there is another spot in the article where they can be mentioned? Franamax (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you completely with regards to the crime section. I didn't know what to do with it when I was re-organizing the article so I stuck it in at the end. I would say to delete the crime section and perhaps put the school shootings note under education (and with sources)? MTLskyline (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing is looking better and I agree with your reworking of the crime section. One thing on the school shootings, my preference is to deny recognition to perpetrators of crime, their identities are available through the linked articles, so I am going to remove some wikilinks. No problem if anyone wants to revert me. Franamax (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Official language

I see nowhere in the article that the official language of Montreal is, by its very charter, French. It's even in its first article:

In the French language Wikipedia article, that information is in the infobox. I believe we should do the same with the English infobox here. -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I think that it would be better to mention it in the lead of the article instead of in the infobox. I don't see very many geography articles on English Wikipedia that list the official language(s) in their infobox (with the exception of provinces and countries). MTLskyline (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, even though I find there is already too much on language in the intro paragraphs. How about: "The official language of Montreal city is French[1]." With [1] being a link to this document (which is in English instead of French) :
-- Mathieugp (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it fit in the Government section? It is a government-y type thing. Franamax (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If desired, it is possible to add it to the infobox. Just add:

|blank_name =Official Language

|blank_info =French

to the bottom of the infobox. —MJCdetroit (yak) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I would remove the demographic info out of the lead, and move that information to Demographics.

"As of the 2006 Canadian Census, 1,620,693 people resided in the city of Montreal proper, of which roughly 57% speak French at home, and 20% speak English.[1] The population of the Montreal Census Metropolitan Area (also known as Greater Montreal Area) was 3,635,571 at the same 2006 census. This larger census metropolitan area, which includes all the former suburbs that were swallowed up by the mega city, is predominantly French-speaking, bringing the average figure for "language most spoken at home" to 70.5% of the population (as of 2006 census)."

And then replace that with a merged sentence, something like this:

"The official language of Montreal is French as defined by the city's charter[1][2]. It is also the largest French-speaking city in North America and the second-largest in the world after Paris.

I would put a link to both the sites you found Mathieugp. Just use the "cite web" template and indicate which one is English and which one is French.

To indicate the population of the city I would put something like this:


As of the 2006 Canadian Census, 1,620,693 people resided in the city of Montreal proper and 3,635,571 resided in the Montreal Census Metropolitan Area."

Cheers. MTLskyline (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I support all that advice but I have a problem with the existing "swallowed up by the mega city" phrase. It's vague and doesn't tell anyone unfamiliar with the immediate city history exactly what it refers to, and I don't like the active voice (or whatever it is), do we have a reference for megacities swallowing cities? Franamax (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed unsourced figures from the lead of the article plus the rant about swallowing suburbs. If you check in the history of the article, all of this had been added on January 29, 2008 by an anonymous IP from Mississauga, Ontario, who apparently didn't like that 70.5% French-speaking figure. (chuckles) What's left now should remain in the lead I think. Most city articles contain population figures in their leads, and concerning Montreal I think the % of French speakers should also remain in the lead given that it's a unique characteristic for a North American metropolis, plus lots of people are looking for that figure when they check the article. Godefroy (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. I added the sentence suggested by MTLskyline regarding language. I did not touch the rest of the paragraph however. (I do not mind either way.) Concerning the infobox, is there any opposition to adding the code suggested by MJCdetroit? -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead. It's one of the defining characteristics of the city. Where in the infobox would you put it? Near denonym or near the mayor's name or at the end? MTLskyline (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I showed it at the bottom in the example above. If you want it near the denonym it would require this code:

|population_blank2_title= Official Language

|population_blank2 =French

However, to put it near the mayor's name is possible, but it would require some "rigging" in regards to the "leader" fields and may look odd in the code itself, but it is possible. —MJCdetroit (yak) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to add it below the demonym and above it as well, but there was an alignment problem, at least with Firefox 2 on Ubuntu GNU/Linux 7.10 -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is because Official Language is just too long. You can get around that by making the image_skyine really big (over 300px). Or you can take out the   which would cause the line to break after Official in much the same way that Postal code span breaks on two lines. For the mean time, I've place the language in the government section with 'Language' on one side and 'French (official)' on the other. Visually it looks good; it's just a little goofy in the code. —MJCdetroit (yak) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article has a long way to go and a lot of cleanup needed before it passes GA

  • There is an overuse of images; articles typically do not have a panorama shot covering the horizontal span of the page.
  • Tables/pics should not be so prolific that they sandwich text on both the LHS and RHS simultaneously. This is true of a couple of table sections.
  • Very large parts of the article are not sourced.
  • Mild recentism in the history section
  • One line sentences need to be merged
  • There is also touristy POV within some sections, eg "The Ville-Marie borough is arguably the heart and soul of the city. Its vitality is extraordinary and it is constantly bubbling over" and "Montreal is known for contrast between old and new architecture. Architecture and cobbled streets in Old Montreal have been maintained or restored to keep the look of the city in its earliest days as a settlement, and horse-drawn calèches help maintain that image." as well as the sourcing
  • The culture section is also very touristy and also needs sources "Montreal became well-known as one of North America's "sin cities" with unparalleled nightlife, a reputation it still holds today" etc
  • Sport sections also have hyperbole and POV such as "clearly" "packed crowds at the small but picturesque"
  • Sport should generally not go before important thins like government

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your GA review and comments! It's much appreciated! We'll improve this article over the next few months and try again. Most of the problems seem simple to fix. MTLskyline (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked our reviewer for some city articles to compare with, details here. Franamax (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

New infobox image

We need a new image for the infobox, because the other one seems to have been deleted for copyright violations. Perhaps post your suggestions here for a replacement, and then we'll choose one.

I'm partial to this one (not a skyline shot, but shows nice architecture): Image:NotreDame by MSteckiw.jpg

MTLskyline (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The one you just put in is fantastic! Franamax (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Montreal article

Greetings Montreal. I was just going over this article and find the history section to be too long. Should cut the size of it in half. There's a seperate link for History of Montreal already in the main article.

As well, "Infrastructure" section, should have its own seperate article Infrastructure of Montreal and then add a "See also" link for it in the Geography section.

Also, "Architecture" should have its own seperate article Architecture of Montreal and then add a "See also" link for it in the Geography section.

As well, "Culture" section is too lengthy, especially when you consider that there is a seperate article and link for it supplied already, Culture of Montreal...Have a paragraph Intro for the section then move most of the info that's there already over to the Culture of Montreal article if its not included there already. Leave the "Sports & recreation" section the way that it is. Also keep that chart: "Sports teams of Montreal" there the way that it is.

External links section should be removed. Keep in mind that some of the links there could be used as citation sources for the article. Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  06:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--Sounds good thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, the first time I went through it I thought that most of the culture section was rather brief and superficial (beginning with a blurb from an unknown magazine, even!), considering the culture of Montreal to be so unique, topical, and interesting in North America. At the same time I thought the Sports and Recreation section was crazy long, kind of overwhelming all the others especially when it just mentions the "recreation" part in passing--oh, there's parks in Montreal? There's already a Sports article so we don't need a discussion of every single team, sport, event, location, etc, and it might be nice to mention something other than professional sports (or rename the subsection). I'll try to find some time to work on an alternative version...a number of these sections could be more succinct and informative! Markex (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Culture - Shopping

A whole lot of the Culture section could use a rewrite, but in particular, what is the point of the Shopping sub-section? It is basically a list of stores, would the article be any less encyclopedic if that whole section were eliminated? Put another way, what in that section is notable about Montreal as opposed to any other big city in the world? Also how does shopping relate to culture, and do we have a comparison in other city articles, say the Corso in Rome or Bloor St in Toronto as great shopping streets?

I'll vote for Ogilvy's and the great window displays but that's not enough to sustain a section. Is there somewhere else to put that one reference and scrap the rest of the section? Franamax (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have one suggestion: the Saint Catherine Street article is badly in need of clean up and already has content on department stores and shopping on the street. Anything here that's extraneous, and related to Sainte Catherine, could be moved there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the shopping section completely, as I see that you have put the info in St-Catherine Street already. Cheers. MTLskyline (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I think that much of the really early history (pre 1763) doesn't need to be included on this article page. Ville-Marie in the 1700s has little to do with Montreal today. The days of Ville-Marie up to the capture by the British can all be taken care of in one paragraph rather than five. The rest, although important, is not needed on the Montreal article page, IMO. Also, I don't think the paragraph about Camillien Houde's opposition to conscrpiton is important either. MTLskyline (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Shawn's recent trim is a good thing, it addressed the ciriticism of "mild recentism". I wouldn't necessarily agree with reducing Ville-Marie to just one paragraph, how 'bout one for pre-European, one for early establishment, one for fur trade and missionaries. The conscription affair is certainly notable in terms of Montreal's relation to the country and provides some temporal punctuation. The 50's, 60's, 70's could be reworked a bit in terms of the Quiet Revolution vs. open separatism; Jean Drapeau as the only guy doing it (though maybe he was!); and I heavily doubt Drapeau planned the opening of the Seaway.
Also, the referencing stops at Prohibition, we all know it's true after that, but needs some sources to back it up. Franamax (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how extensive early history will/should be removed, but I want to voice strongly my opinion that the evidence of early settings of the Montreal island by St.Lawrence Iroquoians must not be entirely removed. This fact is has important repercussions on too many fields to be discarded, fields including anthropology (one of the most important active area in anthropology in Montreal is the exact location of the first Iroquoian village), politics (Native revendications of the region), history (Cartier met Iroquoians in Montreal). We should also make an effort to not be too "white-centered" in Wikipedia. A few lines over the first occupants of Montreal is certainly not too demanding.Marcus wilby73 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture section

In my opinion, the first two paragraphs are solid, except for three points: 1-it would be sufficient to say that Montreal is active in contemporary dance, without mentioning the different companies (I do think, though, that Montreal active contemporary dance scene should be mentioned, as it is one of Montreal trademark for those interested in that fine art) . 2-Too many details are written about "ethnic theatre". These details would be more appropriate in the "culture of montreal" page. 3-The presence of the Museum of Fine-Arts of Montreal should be added, as it is the most important museum (width and attendance) in the city.

The following paragraphs are WAAAAY too long, even repetitive. One sentence should be sufficient to reveal that the city has many outdoor festivals (no need to mention every festival). The night life section has been clearly added recently as half of information there repeat what appears in other sections (examples: the Formula 1 events are mentioned in the sports section, where it belongs. That the Plateau is lively is already mentioned in the first two paragraphs, when it is said that Quartier Latin is a hub of cafe and bars). In my opinion, the whole night life section should be reduced to one sentence. Also, do we need to portray photographically the Super Sexe club? Looks like an ad to me. As for the shopping section, I agree with the opinion above that it should be reduced greatly. In my opinion, a few sentences saying that the most lively commercial activity is centered around the Ste-Catherine avenue and that lots of activity also occurs in the "undergroound" (souterrain), another trademark of the city, should be enough. Marcus wilby73 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be in here... for example, mentionning that the OSM has a new conductor.
I think also the entire paragraph about Place des Arts shouldn't be at the top of the section. The following paragraph ("Montreal is the cultural centre of Quebec...") is a good overview of Montreal's culture, so why is Place des Arts ahead of it? Place des Arts should have its own sub-section (like Festivals, etc.) M.nelson (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to take a whack at it, if you like. You're quite right about the lead. Kent Nagano is kind of a star conductor and I think there could be a brief reference in relation to the OSM mention here, perhaps. Anyway, have a Culture of Montreal article that can absorb anything that gets cut here.Shawn in Montreal (talk)

Please explain

Montreal, or Montréal in French,[4] (pronounced /ˌmɒ̃ʀeˈal/ (help·info) in Quebec French, pronounced /ˌmʌntriːˈɑːl/ (help·info) in European English, and /ˌmɔ̃ʀeˈal/ (help·info) in European French) was the largest city in Europe up until the 70's and is now the second-largest city in Europe and the largest city in the province of Quebec. It's early in the morning for me but has Quebec somehow changed continents or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Someone vandalized the article. It was meant to say Canada, and has been reverted. MTLskyline (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the line "Bike rentals are also available at the Old Port of Montreal, as well as quadricycles, inline skates, children trailers, and segways. On October 31, 2008, Time Magazine named it #19 in Time's Top 50 Inventions of 2008." I know Time Magazine was talking about the bike rentals, but it sounds like, from the text, that we're talking about either the quadricycles, inline skates, children trailers, or segways. Maybe those lines could be tweaked a bit, so we know that Time Magazine is talking about Bixi? It's just something I noticed:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many snow shots/Geography and Climate

There are too many snow shots in the Geography section. I'd like to propose that there be one (maybe two) snow shots in climate only. And that perhaps Climate gets its own section, rather than be a subset of Geography, as this does seem what editors like to write and post photos on (full disclosure: including me), and Montreal does "enjoy" the status of some of the coldest temperatures and greatest temperature range of any major city in the world? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Montreal?

I think that Montreal needs a WikiProject to deal with all the Montreal articles... or atleast a noticeboard. (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not make an account and help us start one? MTLskyline (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, after a month, and no other comments, is anyone besides MTLskyline actually interested? This talk page is already performing duties that a talk page for the Montreal article should not be doing, instead a WikiProject should be doing it. Or should Montreal continue to be the only large city in Canada without a wikiproject? (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


A culling needs to be done to reduce the surplus photographs floating around in this article . We're getting to the point where photographs sandwich the text on both sides throughout most of the article. The article should only have the best and most important pictures. MTLskyline (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

I have found 117 locations in this article where a citation is needed, and placed the tag accordingly. Please before adding any new unreferenced information, please try and find citations for the current unreferenced information. I am sure that finding sources to all these claims along with other general clean-ups will give the article GA or FA status. MTLskyline (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Still missing citations

I've done a lot of work on the article, but we still need to find sources for all the citation needed templates. We CAN do this. MTLskyline (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost there!

I have found citations for most of the article. All that remains are 21 sources to be found. Once we find the remaining citations, we can nominate Montreal as a Good Article. MTLskyline (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Someone should add the Portal:Montreal

to the page. Why is the article protected?? (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

language on island of montreal

On the island of montreal 53% of the population are bilingual english and french, 29% speak french only, 13% speak english only, and the rest of the population cant speak english and french —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn 9016 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Looking for someone who can make a montage [photoshoppe skills needed] for the top right picture for Montreal: just like... New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and London

I truly think Montreal deserves to be in the same distinction as those cities and that's why I think there should be a montage to show whats right.

I assume I have those photoshop skills, so I'll try to get this done as soon as possible. --m3taphysical (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hiroshima Symbol.svg

The image Image:Hiroshima Symbol.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural centre of French-speaking North America

The article states "It is additionally the cultural centre of Quebec, and of French-speaking North America as a whole".

No justification is given for this statement. I think "cultural centre of Quebec" needs some sort of citation otherwise it's just somebody's opinion. I happen to agree that it is the cultural centre of Quebec, but that statement without a citiation does not belong in an encyclopaedia. As for "French-speaking North America", this needs to be defined, because as far as I know Quebec is the only French-speaking area in North America. And even if "French-speaking North America" can be more clearly defined, the claim that Montreal is the cultural centre of French-speaking North America still needs to be justified.Eggybacon (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Haiti and certain other parts of Canada, particularly New Brunswick have sizeable French-speaking populations. In general a large portion of French-Canadian culture comes from Montreal, but I wouldn't say that the city is particularly influential in Haiti, the other main French-speaking nation in North America. So I agree with you that this sentence should be removed. MTLskyline (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
All statements should be sourced of course, but I think that removing sentences that are common sense and/or common knowledge is becoming a bad habit. It seems to happen quite often with things related to Quebec, possibly because knowledge of its culture is so scarce. It must not be that difficult to find statistics to back this claim and from there conclude that Montreal is to Quebec culturally as Toronto is to Ontario. I cannot think of a single French-speaking Quebecer who would be surprised or be sceptical when reading that Montreal is the "cultural centre of Quebec". Discussing the disparities, at all levels, between Montreal and the other regions of Quebec is constant.
The actual language of the people of Haiti is Haitian Creole. According to this source, 1.5% speak French and only 5% can speak it to some degree. No doubt the country is part of the French-speaking world, and French-speaking North America if really the Antilles are to be included, but based on this criterion alone, so should the United States...
The definition of French-speaking North America is indeed missing. There is stub on the French America (Amérique française) concept. French North America redirects to New France at the moment.
Making up about 85% of all native French speakers in Canada, and 90% of all those who still use it as a home language, Quebecers are certainly the centre of French-speaking Canada. And inside Quebec, no city concentrates so many important cultural institutions as Montreal does, from the schools to the production studios to the festivals.
Are Montrealers living in the centre of French-speaking North America? Besides maybe the Acadians of New Brunswick, is there a single community that has the critical mass needed to sustain the development of modern urban culture? -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

third after Paris and Kinshasa

Can we change "Montreal is the second-largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris, by number of native speakers." to "third after Paris and Kinshasa"? (See Demographics of Montreal, and I have seen this in an offline tourist guide as well) Commentor (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean, the current information is technically right. But it looks confusing, and looks like trying to praise Montreal by being 2nd where it is essentially 3rd. Commentor (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not just technically correct, it is correct. And the assertion has been made by other sources as well. Here are some Google serach results:
  • +"deuxième ville francophone" +montréal - 1,260 hits
  • +"deuxième ville francophone" +montréal -wiki -wikipedia - 1,020 hits
  • +"deuxième ville francophone" +kinshasa - 311 hits
  • +"deuxième ville francophone" +kinshasa -wiki -wikipedia - 129 hits
Most of the pages in fact don't even qualify the statement by saying "by number of native speakers", since this meaning will be taken for granted by most people.
It's interesting that over half the instances of Kinshasa being mentioned as the second-largest francophone city seem to be connected with Wikipedia (probably the French one).
A similar search on Google Books finds Montreal mentioned 39 times and Kinshasa only 5. Joeldl (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I find it strange that a confusion should arise from paying attention to the actual languages spoken by the inhabitants of a given city when ranking them by language. It seems to me that a greater confusion is likely to result from ranking Kinshasa as the 2nd largest French-speaking city in the world when it is a known fact that French is there but a colonial language, while Lingala is the national language most likely to be spoken as first or second language by the people. French is spoken by about 4 million people in the whole country, that is about 10% of the total population, and only as a second language. At least it is my understanding after reading this article: [30] -- Mathieugp (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not rephrase it in demographically precise language? If you wish to talk about native French speakers, say Montreal has the highest number of native French speakers in the world after Paris. It's obviously unclear what "French-speaking city" means. People who speak the language? Official language? Native French speakers? People who speak it at home? --soulscanner (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hits on blogs and tourist brochures do not prove anything. Kinshasa is a French speaking city as it's official language is French. According to the demographic definition, I could say that Montreal is the 4th largest English speaking city in Canada because about 1 million people speak English, and use it to say that is is effectively a bilingual city. You cannot use politically biased or encyclopedic sources to make a contentious claim. Yopu need to use neutral language. --soulscanner (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure when you added these comments, but the article presently says "Montreal has the second-largest number of native French-speakers in the world after Paris." which is "demographically precise". -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. See? We can agree when we try! :-) --soulscanner (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. I agree that the statement is factually accurate. However, I believe that "second-largest French-speaking city in the world, by number of native-speakers" is preferable on grounds of style and simplicity. You object to calling Montreal a French-speaking city, and I don't. It's what many sources do. Google Books returns 617 hits for +Montreal +"French-speaking city", most of which make the explicit claim that it is the second-largest French-speaking city.Joeldl (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source and rephrased it as "Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the world, after Paris," which practically exactly mirrors the source. I think "primarily" adds a helpful specification. Most sources leave out "primarily," so if someone wants to argue that "primarily" shouldn't be there, I won't object strongly. The difference really isn't all that big, because people understand of course that in all major cities there are minority languages. Joeldl (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)