Talk:Edmonton/Archive 2004-22

Really nice start! (WT-en) Majnoona

There's already a format for Project:restaurant listings. We don't use dollar-signs, but instead a rough estimate for the cost of a meal. --(WT-en) Evan 16:41, 29 Feb 2004 (EST)

Golf

I have added a link to http://www.golfedmonton.com in the golf section. I'm no golfer so someone else from Edmonton who does golf might want to add some of that info to the page like the Par and a short review of some of the courses. Just an idea :) - (WT-en) Magu2k

The GolfPatio.com website is managed by two Edmontonians and has a nice Edmonton golf section, http://www.golfpatio.com/edmonton/. Some courses, like Northern Bear can be booked online. Many of the blog articles are written by Head Pro from Devon. Hope this helps.

Some ideas to add

Just some ideas if someone ahs some time or knowledge, might want to add to these sections.

Might be good to add some info on Tim Hortons (other than it's brief mention in the downtown shopping section). Possibly in the food section? the Coffee shops subsection?

Hawrelak Park (other than brief mentions in the festivals area)

I would add more info on golf, myself, but have virtually no golf knowledge at all.

the Work section

the burgers subsection Mcdonalds? Kelseys? Burger Baron? Moxies?

the "Eastern European" food section - Is the perogie house coming back? or is it gone forever now?

The Sleep section. Thank god there is more Hotels than just the HoMac. What are some other good ones in Edmonton?

Also, might be an ok idea to put in a bit of info about posession of drugs, and emergency information (Hospitals, 911, etc? Not everyone esp Europeans know about or use 911)

Also, once I get a camera, I can take some pictures. Are there any particular areas that might be good to get a picture of, for adding to this page? I would think Muttart, maybe on of a nice area around the U of A, West Edmonton Mall, and a panoramic or wide view of the downtown area (For an example, see the Vancouver article) If any body offers some suggestions, I will work on getting pics of those areas for this article.

(WT-en) Magu2k

Why have the images been VFD'd without appropriate replacements? (WT-en) Aienan

Pictures in the Edmonton Section

Hi, I was wondering, if, well...I was putting up good images in the Edmonton section. I think atleast the majority are, but I want to know what you guys think (I put up every pic except the Grant Mac one, the Alb Leg one, amd the Muttart one). Thanks, guys!!!!!! -Edmonton Enthusiast (10/20/8)

Hello? Can someone help? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast (talk • contribs)

The photos look great to me! But two tips: 1) you can sign your name automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment, and 2) we prefer that all images go on the right side of the article, for formatting reasons. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:10, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

1) I don't understand, please explain. 2) I prefer to do both to add variety:)! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast (talk • contribs)

Just try typing ~~~~ after a comment, and all will become clear. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast - is that correct? THanks!

Districts

Do you think that maybe Central and South Central deserve their own articles now? There would still be a lot of info on the main page, but more focused on those pages. What do you guys think. It would be very focused on those districts. Then again it might be wierd, and maybe we should wait until all districts tdeserve it then we can have a proper out line in the EDMONTON section. Hmm...waht do you guys think?

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:56, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Hey - great work! - if you are meaning to districtify it, it's pretty much there i think, but I have to warn you - it's a huge pile of work! :o) Someone did it to Copenhagen before I arrived here, and it's sort of an endless struggle getting them all up to guide status. And in a lot of cities the districts have become half arsed work, which sucks - personally i'd rather prefer a well written large one-page article like Stockholm to something like the current state of Rome (no offense anyone) (WT-en) Sertmann 20:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Thankyou for such a nice comment! You're right, it is hard work! I could probably get some other help, though, but as I am doing already, I'll probably have to do it mostly myself. I think what I will do is start writting down information in Microsoft Word and then after I get enough information, I'll start districtifying/huge citying it. Hmm...thankyou, you're points are well-taken!:) Any other comments? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 20:21, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Hi, EE! I'd encourage you to always ask yourself, "What is better for travellers?" Is it better for travellers to have Edmonton broken into districts, or as one article? In any case, my approach is to gather content first, and break into sub-articles only when the main article is truly unwieldly. Thus, if you have an article for Wikivoyage, consider spending it on making the content better, rather than restructuring to create nearly empty sub-articles. But this is a volunteer enterprise, plunge forward and do what makes sense to you. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:39, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Jim, you're so friendly! Yes, as in the travller's pub, I said "I will add up information in Microsoft Word and then I will (after enough information) districtify. After I districify, I will go into the main page, and summerize it. Simply, that! I thinkl that will work, so that wehn it's started its nota blank/outline. I think I will have enough information from WT and other websites and enough stores in 1.5-2 weeks. Then I'll districtify. Don't worry, the main page will still be on status of a "guide". I think what I'lldo fotr restaurants is put 5 for each catergory, youk now, just sto summ it up, then in the districts, include a "long" list...What do you think??(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:20, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I knwo this sounds really dumb, but am I doing a crappy and stupid job with district articles, or is it just me? I just feels like I'm doing a CRAPPPPY job! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 21:26, 5 November 2008 (EST).

to add, to me it just doesn't seem to measure up to that of copenhagen or vancouver. stupid me. keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 21:30, 5 November 2008 (EST).

sorry if i am a little anxious but i'd rally like an answer. to me i am doing a crappy job. agree-ers? keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 10:22, 6 November 2008 (EST).

No you're not - But patience is key, I told you before you set out to do this, it takes time and effort (a huge bloody pile of it) to get districts right. I've been working on this a months to an end, and still look at Frederiksberg, Amager, Vesterbro, Vestegnen - hardly impressive eh? Now I don't know Edmonton - but I have a feeling you might have gone a little over the top in terms of the number of districts, for a city as young as Edmonton, I have a feeling it's hard to fill out good content on that many. But most of all you just need to keep working at them patiently, and they will probably get there in due time. Central is looking good though (WT-en) Sertmann 10:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

And may i add... Think about if you accomplish what you set out to do, then you will probably have made the best and most comprehensive guide for Edmonton - anywhere! I can't imagine Lonely Planet or Rough guide devoting more than a few pages to Edmonton (just try to print the Central or South Central districts and see how many pages you actually end up with, it get's quite impressive when you get them out on paper). As they say in Japan - ganbatte kudasai! :-) (WT-en) Sertmann 10:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Hey, Sertmann, thanks for the two fabulous posts! To talk about your first, actually thosde articles of district's aren't that bad, no, really. I mean, if you compare it to the Mill Woods or East Central districts of Edmonton, you'd know. In ther number of districts, I agree it's a bit high, but my logic behind it was each district had a different 'personality' so to speak and mixing it with other really wouldn't work. If I really had to, I could messh East Central wit h north and Mill Woods with southeast and just call it South which would be a pain to do, not to mention to try and hassle SHAUND to rename stuff on that fabulous map! On to the second, I have the goal to creat the best Edmonton travel guide that shows all kinds of stuff do do not found on other sites along with make the main article a star and have Edmonton destination of the month in sometime Summer 2009. Yeah, the Central and South Central districts are getting quite big, they may be able to get guide soon ;), but thats because the bulk of stuff to do is there, like any other city. It also doeesn't help that a lot of the suburban development in Edmonton is within city limits, whereas you look at Minneapolis, it doesn't need to list those dull suburbs because its' not actually within city limits. The West End also has been getting kind of big because it also has bunches to do. But you look at the north end of Edmonton, the largest district, and it barely has anythig. You see, it is mostly residential and inudstrial...not much to do, just a boring suburb. Heh. Anyways thanks for you're kind words, they're reassurign! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:54, 6 November 2008 (EST).

What, you want to change my beautiful map by merging districts??? Ahh, I guess it's possible :-) Don't worry about the map, if you want to get rid of Mill Woods, I can do it pretty quickly (just let me know if the time comes) (WT-en) Shaund 21:28, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Shaund I really don't want to. I will only do so if I have to. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 21:32, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Maps

I was wondering if someone could do some maps for Edmonton? Maybe one of the highway network, the districts, the LRt, etc. If you want, I could do some, but I need to know what specifically to do. I would prefer not to do ALL of them, but if 1-2 other people would do it aswell, I'd be fine with that. Thanky-ou!

Any takers?

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 20:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Nah, sorry - I have plenty of maps to do in Copenhagen :-), one thing you could do it you're not up for trying to make a map yourself - is to grap one from Openstreetmap.org. Get the area you want, and hit the export tab above the map. It's far from ideal since we prefer to have a uniform design, but atleast it's somewhere to start.

Making proper maps is a HUGE work, so you shouldn't expect anyone to make maps for you. Because it's so much work, people generally only make them for their "pet article" which most regular contributes only have one or two of. Regional maps is another matter, since they take less time, so if you want one of those at one point, that is one you could ask for - and get lucky (WT-en) Sertmann 21:17, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, since you said road region maps are easy, would you like to do one for Metro Edmonton. Just include the highway system...Google Maps is a good tool (most up-to-date, Yahoo isn't nor is Live or MQ...they don't Have anthony henday as it is today). Just remember anthony henday, whitemud drive, wayne gret. dr/75 st/fort rd./manning, yellowhead, etc...oh what am i saying you can look! if you have some questions just ask. So are you up for it? If you are...tell me what you are doing as you are doing so I can have basic info for other map-making. Thank-you for ALL the suggestions, you're a reall pal!(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:24, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I was just wondering if anyone would want to make makes maps for Edmonton-just wondering. I understand it takes time-I was just asking. ANY TAKERS?(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:25, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I'd encourage you to take a stab at it yourself. Check Project:How to draw a map for instructions. You can't use data from google maps or other copyrighted sources though. And it's hard work, but not at all impossible—I had zero experience with maps when I got started here. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd also encourage you to take a stab at it yourself. That's how things get done around here. Project:Plunge forward! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:41, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, thanks for the link. What I mean by GoogleMaps is look at it, and then make it yourself. Just look at it for placement, etc. That's ok, right? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:03, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

strictly speaking, no, since it's copyrighted, Openstreetmap.org, which i mentioned (and linked) above has good coverage of Edmonton, and don't have these issues, as it's open source/creative commons licensed.

That's so stupid. How are you supposed to get the info (w/o Open Street Map) and I mean, it's not like you're copying it (google, yahoo!, mq, virtual eaeth)...you are just looking at it for information. Also, by the way, the Open Street Map you said, of Edmonton, no offense, really sucks. Most of it isn't filled in, and the entire NW doesn't have streets ET ALL! You could probably use if for a map of Downtown or Old Strathcona-but even then, it shows no shops, restaurants, anything. I don't know. And I am NOT signing up for it...at least not now. Maybe someone else can look. Also...how do you think these people got the layout of the city roads, etc. (*cough* google *cough*.) I don't know. Thanks, anyways, though. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Can someone help me w/the above? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:21, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I almost always make my maps from Public Domain satellite imagery, using NASA's Worldwind. I don't know whether they have good images for Edmonton, though. You can also look for a good map online and ask the owner whether they'd be willing to release their map under our license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I think what I'lla do is that I will umm...I can make a simple highway map in Photoshop, myself, and I'lla see how that goes...and depending, I may end up making district maps, deeper road maps, transit maps, but, of coruse, we'll see:). But don't expect that map rightaway, I'll use OpenStreetMap and printed off maps for guidance!

Also, don't expect it in a SVG...probably PNG, sorry! But, people who want to edit it can, well, just ask me and then save it and re-edit it. I think that's ok! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:05, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Is there a reason why you won't give Inkscape a shot? If you have knowledge of Photoshop, it shouldn't take long at all to figure out Inkscape. And while a png from photoshop is better than nothing, it will eventually be discarded when someone draws an SVG map, which is why we're trying to convince you to just do it the right way the first time :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 18:31, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

With the ammount of edits to Edmonton, excluding mine, I don't expect that for a while. The reason is because I don't really feel like installing. I will think it over, than let you know, luckily, I haven't started the map:)! Oh I am so busy with WT.... (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 18:44, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Comments

Hey, here are some comments just from skimming through it

Merge "climate" and "when to go" sections.
"Newspapers" and "TV stations" should go in a single "Media" section.
Highway setup should be in Get in/around sections.
Merge districts and the districts in see (although this may be double work if you decide to distritify it)

And nummero uno, listings should be properly formated with the templates below the editing area - this is pretty critical, though a huge piece of work with all you've done already.

(WT-en) Sertmann 20:31, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey! Thanks for all the help! I think I need some help with hte last one...nummero uno? I don't get it? And the districts in the Understand is different from See because see is specific neighbourhoods, NOT DISTRICTS. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 20:33, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Right, listing should be formated like this:

* {{eat | name=Cafe Dabar | url=http://cafedabar.com | email= | address=10816 82(Whyte) Avenue | lat= | long= | directions= | phone=780-433-3306 | tollfree= | fax= | hours=M-Sa 9AM-10PM, Su 11AM-PM, Holidays as posted. | price= | content=Insert some text about the place here }}

Not like this:

*'''Cafe Dabar''', 10816 82(Whyte) Avenue, 780-433-3306, [http://cafedabar.com]. M-Sa 9AM-10PM, Su 11AM-PM, Holidays as posted.

that means it will become editable for casual users right on the page, like this:

Cafe Dabar, 10816 82(Whyte) Avenue, ☏ 780-433-3306. M-Sa 9AM-10PM, Su 11AM-PM, Holidays as posted.. Insert some text about the place here

You get this from clicking e.g. the link after Restaurants, in the section right below the editing screen ;) hope that helps (WT-en) Sertmann 20:47, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Oy, that does sound like a lot of work just for a restaurant listing. I will try to do that next time. Thank you for all your help. Hey, could you help me with the things that I've allso posted in the talk section here, I really would like a response. thankks!

Hmm, i still think you don't quite understand me - did you find the links and tried it? it shouldn't really take any more time, since you don't have to type in all the code by yourself. (WT-en) Sertmann 21:05, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Huh? Sorry I am being so difficult, i just dont get it :;(.

He, maybe this helps :) (WT-en) Sertmann 21:24, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

[[image:Help.jpg]]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I get it now! I will do that next time, thanks!(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:30, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast writes, "And the districts in the Understand is different from See because see is specific neighbourhoods, NOT DISTRICTS." Why would the two be different? The idea of "districts" is to help a traveller understand the structure of a city, to recognise the names local people will use for locations, to divide the complexity of a destination into simpler portions. In general, it's good to have one structure doing this work throughout the article. If you are tempted to break See listings into a different structure than is listed in Understand, then maybe Understand is wrong. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:47, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I will organise that when I get home. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:22, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Districtify

Hi, guys! Over the next 1.5-2wks I will be working extra hard at making Edmonton "districtify". Don't worry,bthe main page will still be on par with "Guide", but I will summerize more of it, and put all info in districts. FOr restaurants, on the main page, I'll put 5 for each category, thats it. So please, no one else districify, because I am gathering lots of information so that when I start, I'll have lots of info, and the thing won't be an outline. Don't worry, things'll be greayt!!

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:25, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Does anyone have any problems with that (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:39, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I changed my mind about "EAT". What I'll do is have like 10 restaurants under Budget, Midrange, and Splurge on the main article. Then In districts, it'll have asian, coffee shops, cypercafés, italian, mediterranian...etc., and a long list. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 18:37, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Actually, there shouldn't be any actual listings in the main article once you've districted it... you should just have a paragraph or two that gives an overview of the kind of food or restaurants that one can expect of the city, noting any specialties that are specific to the city, etc – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 21:04, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, ok, will do, with some examples, of course :).(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:21, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

EDMONTON-WIKI TRAVEL TOPICS

I was wondering, if in fact, anybody would be interested in having travel topics for Edmonton. I could go do some, someone else can do soem, or we could work on them together. Just asking. I was thinking one of each of thes: West Edmonton Mall (though i don't like it...), Fort Edmonton Park, Festivals, and The Edmonton River Valley Guide. What do you think? Comments...all welcomed! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:10, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

COMMENTS? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:41, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I would lean away from travel topics specific to the city, most everything should fit just nicely into the actual city article... better to keep the info concise, coherent, and in one spot :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Too much information?

I don't think these sections are terribly relevant to the traveller, so I'd like to set it here for discussion before we leave it in the article:

Metro area could be kept though, just so the travellers get a sense of what the metro area is populated by...plus the pictures nice ;) (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:22, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree the picture is nice, so I put it back in, but this information is already covered in a more appropriate place the Edmonton Capital Region article. (WT-en) Texugo 04:28, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I know, but it's just brief, some familiarity! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:32, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

T.V. Stations from Edmonton

CTV Edmonton Region - Is great for a nice hour-long newscast and offers many great Canadiana shows like Whistler or Canadian Idol. It was one of the first TV Stations in Edmonton Metro. It currently has offices in West Edmonton across from a Walmart Supercentre and a Best Western.

City TV Edmonton - Is really a unique radio station. As part of the now defunct CHUM, it is one of the first radio stations to have news anchormen/anchorwoman standing not sitting. It also gives home to the much praised Breakfast Television in the morning which gives an inside look on things going on in Edmonton Metro and asks people opinions about daily things around the city. The building is downtown on Jasper Avenue and 102nd Street.

Global Edmonton - Is a very clean, up to date (in terms of design) newscrew. The station itself carries major (hour-long) shows and everyday sitcom favourites (i.e. Simpsons, Friends)

Access: Alberta

CBC Edmonton

CTS Edmonton

Omni

Edmonton as a Media Hub

One thing not really know to Edmonton even by Edmontonians is that Edmonton is a media hub. Edmonton's major channels like CTV and CityTV get aired across the north of Canada and is quite the audience. It is also a large media center in it's own province, second only to Calgary, AB.

Edmonton has also appeared in multiple movies and T.V. shows, most of which, air in the U.S.

Metro area

[[Image:Downtownedmontonsummer2008.JPG|thumb|right|240px|Downtown Edmonton from the air.]] See Edmonton Capital Region

According to the 2006 National Census, Edmonton has a metro area population in total of 1,034,000. Although like Calgary and Winnipeg, Edmonton's suburbs are mostly within the City of Edmonton's city limits, in contrast to most American cities and Toronto. There are a few suburban municipalities, though, like (keep in mind these populations include farms):

Saint Albert, population: 53,000

Sherwood Park, population 83,992

Spruce Grove-Stony Plain, population 41,342

Devon, population 11,000

Leduc-Nisku-Edmonton International ,population 25,452

Morinville, population 12,000

Fort Saskatchewan, population 16,000

Beaumont, 5000 population

Namao-Lancaster Park, 7000 population

Bon Accord-Gibbons, population 9,000

(WT-en) Texugo 08:43, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

While we're at it, I don't care for the "Urban Myths" section either. It sounds very defensive, and calling cities like Buffalo and Rochester "similar size" is misleading, IMO. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:21, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

You know what, I don't even care, do whatever you want with the Edmonton article, delete it, I don't care anymore. All I was doing was adding, like sorry. In a way, I get your points, but it's frustrating every one going down on your ideas like this, especially when you're new. It's just a little overwhelming. I hope you know I had good intentions.(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:27, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Nobody's coming down on you, when we have new and enthusiastic contributors we welcome them happily! There's just a bit of a learning curve involved in writing awesome travel guides, so some of the people who have been here a while are trying to coach you. Definitely don't take it personally – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 14:09, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

'Kay, thank's for your kind words. I am trying to learn. Am I doing a good job? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:12, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Yep, you're off to a great start... once you move all those listings into the districts they'll look a bit more full... keep up the good work! – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 14:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the such positive comments. I think I agree. And when I get home (roughly 20-30 minute!) I'll continue working on the districts:)! I am trying really hard. Thanks for the kind words, you really made my day, I mean, I really needed that. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I was wondering about maps...Yeah, again crazy me...

I know most people won't accept this. But with me doing 90% of the district stuff/cleaning up main article for Edmonton. I was wondering if someone familiar with maps could make a simple map showing the borders of distrits, maybe Shaund? JimDeLaHunt? I don't know.I could give you ALL the information and evertything like the specific roads that need to be layed out and the district borders, I could make one myself but I am busy myself and I wouldn't be very good, trust me;). I think the only stuff you'd need to do is put in the river, major highways, some major roads, the city limits, know the borders of the districts and put those in with each a different colour. Should be simple for someone whos done this before ( I think ). So anyways, any thoughts? Like I said...simple for someone who's done this before :)!(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi, EE. I haven't done any maps myself, and I'm not ready to take on learning maps right now. Leave the offer out here. Maybe in a day or a week or a year, someone will come by and take you up on it. Or you will discover that the time has come for you to learn map-making yourself. This is a volunteer project. It's OK for it to unfold at its own pace. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 01:37, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jim, long time no see! Thanks for the points, but Shaund already took the job, if you look at mine or his pages you'd see. But alas, I will probably need more maps (i.e. just districts, LRT transit) and could keep it open to that. Any takers? I leave this open for a while on those two things. Keep smiling ,(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:25, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

To revamp, justincase people didn't get it. I am looking for some person who can do one-to all of the following:

Creat a map for:

Edmonton's LRT should be simple, but expect to be updating it as Edmonton's LRT is growing fast.

Edmonton Metro Area Map pretty mild in that you really just need to know the river, Edmonton's limits along with Sherwood park and some others, 2 lakes and the international airport. Not much.

Edmonton Downtown Map little hard but not bad really in that you need to label every road and you need to label the river properly and the parks. You also need to add a mild ammount of attractions.

The Edmonton District/Main map has already been created.

I will give out all t he iinformation for those maps for whomever is interested! I do hope to see some results! Keep smiling,

(WT-en) ee ^talk 23:41, 4 November 2008 (EST).

skyline

I have two different images of Edmonton's skyline from two different locations. I was wondering which one YOU prefered. The one which gets the most liked I will use in either Edmonton or Edmonton/Central article...

[[Image:GallagherParkedmab.JPG|thumb|center|500px]]

The above shows the skyline from Gallagher Park. This one is better framed and shows the beautiful river valley.

The one above is taken from Crestwood. It shows a mediocre view of the river valley but shows the sheer density of Edmonton's skyline. As you can see, you can barely make out some of the business district towers through the thick layer of downtown/oliver residnetial highrises.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?

keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:55, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Definitely the first one. Better colors, better framing. (WT-en) Texugo 23:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Any other reason? I mean it's not as dense and doesn't show as much? I am not leaning to one or the other more, I am just simply wondering. keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:00, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

It shows plenty and in a more appealing light. The size of the skyline isn't everything, plus those long rectangular panoramic shots don't fit into the article layout very well. (WT-en) Texugo 00:09, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

I would have it centred as is now and make sure it fits fine, see Copenhagen. keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:12, 2 November 2008 (EDT) ALSO SORRY IF I AM LIKE DEFENDING ONE IN PURTICULAR...MORE COMMENTS PLEASE!!!

By "don't fit very well", I mean that they break the flow of the article, because they have to be centered like that. Of course I know that other examples exist in other articles of panoramic shots, but I still find a normal shaped image far preferable. Especially if the normal-shaped image is a better photo, as is definitely the case here. (WT-en) Texugo 00:34, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Well I will try and find a way to use both, but the one that gets most popularity will definately be shown and in a more visible area. any other thoughts? keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:35, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Before using two shots of the same thing, let's wait for some more opinions. I'm the only one who has responded so far. (WT-en) Texugo 00:40, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

I prefer the 1st one too, it's a much much better picture (WT-en) Sertmann 00:53, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments guys! Sertmann, care to add to that? Keep smiling ,(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 01:27, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

what? is this a digital photography's digest now? anyway better composition - where you can see the suburbia contrasted against downtown, which gives a better picture of Edmonton i guess. I like the clouds, and i think the colors are much better. (WT-en) Sertmann 01:30, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Sorry I just need to know the general opinion of which is better for articles. Thanks for your comment. I wouldn't necessarily call it suburbs, I mean, inner [urban] suburbs, it's like 5 mins from downtown. Anyways THANKS! Any other comments/? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 01:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, stop yacking and stick the first one in :) Also, can you note the source of the images on each image page? They just say PD but don't note where they were found – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:16, 2 November 2008 (EST)

First one is much better, but I'd chop a quarter of the height of the image off the top. Rule of thirds, you know. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:41, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Caca, explain I don't get it. I took those pictures. LT=THANK YOU. keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:19, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Yes dookie, I didn't realize that, so nevermind, all good. I agree with LtPowers, I almost said the same thing last night, crop a little off the top and it will be even more beautiful – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 11:24, 2 November 2008 (EST)

See Wikivoyage:Copyleft#What do I need to do to get uploading images? for information about what information should be included when uploading an image so that everyone knows it is OK for it to be used here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:27, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Cacahuate, thanks you're always helpful!

Ryan: so I'm going to have to go back to say like the 20 pictures I uploaded? If I do, Iwill do it in baby steps. Ryan, also, what do you think, or would you rather not give an opinion? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:37, 2 November 2008 (EST)

THIS IS THE UNCROPPED VERSION of #2: [[Image:DTEDMCWUD.JPG|thumb|center|525px]]

Licensing is very important, as the Copyleft page indicates - if an image is used here without permission then we are violating the law, and no one wants to take that risk. As a result, any time there is a question as to whether content can be used on Wikivoyage, unless we are SURE that it is OK to use it under the CC-SA license then it gets deleted. The fact that you have said you took the photos and are releasing them into the public domain is good, but to eliminate any confusion it would be best to provide the additional information specified in the guidelines. To be clear, no one is accusing you of doing anything wrong, they are just asking for all available information so that anyone who sees your images will be reassured that they are OK to use here. For my part, any time I upload an image I try to be very careful to make it clear what license(s) the image can be used under, who the creator (usually me) is, what the original source of the image is (if it comes from another site) and any other relevant information so that there is no confusion when using that image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Anything else I need to do? I'd like to know so I can start changing the summaries of my images. Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:01, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Very close, but look at that image page... you say "Copyright 2008 by Edmontonenthusiast" and then the Public Domain tag says "This file is not protected by copyright". Do you see how that's a contradiction? =) Since you've released the image into the Public Domain, you can no longer claim copyright on the image, only authorship. So say something like "Photograph taken on 1 November 2008 by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast," instead of using the word "copyright". (WT-en) LtPowers 16:15, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, ok, thanks! It makes sense now:)! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 16:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)

It looks like you uploaded a new version of the file. That doesn't work for what you want to do; instead, just click Edit on the image description page on Shared and change your "Copyright 2008 by ..." text. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)

LT, I wanted to upload two just incase people preffered one version over the other. I also wanted to do it for comparison. I did it on purpose, and I know how to do a new version, but thanks. Is there any other opinions? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:52, 3 November 2008 (EST). mymy, i just realized theyre both horrible! such low-quality! keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:55, 3 November 2008 (EST).

Ok sorry. I haven't changed all of them yet. I'll check that over when I get home ;). Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:57, 3 November 2008 (EST). OH and check my userpage as I added you to something...you're in mention :)!

WAIT! It says Taken on Nov 1/08 by Edmontonenthusiast from Crestwood of the edmonton skyline. Thats' the current version. Or am I supposed to change it somewhere else? Because I changed the summary where that information is and it just shows the copyright thing as the previous version. Get it? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:59, 3 November 2008 (EST).

Yes, but under the image, in the "Summary" section, it says "Copyright". What you did was click "Upload a new version of this file" and put your "Taken on Nov 1/08" text in the box on the upload page. That doesn't do what we want. See, these image description pages work just like an article; you can click the "edit" tab at the top of the page and change the text on the page. What you need to do is click "edit" and change the copyright notice. Please let me know if you still aren't sure what I mean. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I get it, so, like, I have to re-edit both the summaries and the information thing I already started? Yes? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Let me explain on your talk page. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:28, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Bringing this back...is there anymore opinions? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 12:27, 4 November 2008 (EST).

heyyyy

Hiya, how're ya? I'm gonta start ripping apart the Edmonton article so it matches the districts more. Expect it to be totally different. This'll surely be fun! But anyways, if you see something tht belongs in a district, please add it quick beforei ts' bulldozed. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 22:27, 5 November 2008 (EST).

Just for fun?

Under do, I believe, if not, see there's a section of JUST FOR FUN. My question is that is it really that interesting and if you haven't read it it's not that logn couldya just read it a little? So basicially is it all that fun? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 16:10, 6 November 2008 (EST).

Ok really wondering about this. It is a concept and if the general opinion is ok, then, I want to implent it into toehr cities. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:12, 19 November 2008 (EST).

I've never really liked this section because a) the section title doesn't sound very wikivoyage-like, and b) it sounds like you're really stretching to fill up the section. I don't think anyone would travel all the way to Edmonton and then pass the day blindly searching for statues, riding the commuter line for 'relaxation', and 'admiring' poorly maintained buildings. (WT-en) Texugo 00:21, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I guess I'm looking at a different demographic than most. I am trying to broaden the types of stuff for all people. Edmonton has a lot of statues, and it can be quite neat trying to search for them-or it could piss ya off-depending the mood;). Maybe I'll get rid of that one. For people who like urban planning, infrastructure, vehicles, transit, architecture, even to an extent fashion, or even people who admire just looking or want a calming break-the LRT line is very good. That one has many levels. I know I'd like to ride the Skytrain in Vancouver. Grit can be very neat to some people, you'd be surprised. Anything else? Thank you. Keep smiling, Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:24, 19 November 2008 (EST).

It sounds to me like the demographic you have in mind is bored people who live in or near the city and don't like it very much, and you're trying to remind them that Edmonton can still be an entertaining place if you use a little imagination. If some of these suggestions do have merit I'd like to see them split up and put in district articles. Putting them all together here just seems like stretching. (WT-en) Texugo 00:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Be careful what you say, alright Texugo, thats really offensive to me. I like looking at grit. To me it's interesting looking at how much neglect has been put into it and what it formerly was. And you know what-I'm not putting a dollar in the jar for this-IT IS INTERESTING FOR SOME PEOPLE. Please open your mind, just a smidge. Don't take this the wrong way, but you made me a little bit mad. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:43, 19 November 2008 (EST).

I'm not saying that they aren't interesting for anybody. What I'm saying is that you have collected the most mundane-sounding activities all in one place under a unique heading that I don't find to be very wikivoyage-like, and I'd rather you broke them up and inserted them in more appropriate, less conspicuous places. (WT-en) Texugo 01:06, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Psst, EE, you asked for opinions. Don't complain when you get one. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:31, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I asked for opinions, but doesn't mean you need to make me feel angry. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 10:38, 19 November 2008 (EST).

It's hard to say what might make you angry, EE. None of the criticism Texugo wrote was directed at you personally. For the record, I kind of like the sort of information you have there, but it may be less jarring as an infobox. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, some of the most popular and useful have gone in the district articles. What I will do, thanks to you, is rethink what should go on there, and I'll see an info box maybe, when I do, i'll give you a message to check out. Oh by the way, "like the demographic you have in mind is bored people who live in or near the city and don't like it very much" ticks me off because he's basically saying stuff I like (and I know others like) is boring and well, dull. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 16:33, 19 November 2008 (EST).

I ressurected Just for fun as Off beat stuff to see. Check it out. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:19, 22 November 2008 (EST).

: eat :

Does the eat section seem a little bit stupid in the main article? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 16:34, 6 November 2008 (EST).

No, the eat section should contain an overview of the restaurant options in the city, mention the best districts for good restaurants, name a few of the best restaurants, and discuss any unique cuisines. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

LT, look at what I'm doing! Do you see the first part? It shows the cuisine and some of the best part? See the mention to the Canadian chaines best in Edmonton or the downtown Edmonton dining? After that it clearly says I'm leaving all those listings tillI'm sure theyre in the district articles. "Waht I am asking is the part about the cuisine, NOT THE LISTINGS. Sorry, and thansk! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 16:51, 6 November 2008 (EST).

There, the eat version doesn't have the listings nymore! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:49, 6 November 2008 (EST).

I didn't say anything about listings. You asked whether the eat section seemed "stupid" in the main article. I assumed you were proposing eliminating it. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

But aren't I doing an overview? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 10:24, 7 November 2008 (EST).

I don't know, I haven't been watching. I apologize if I misunderstood your question. What did you think might be "stupid"? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:21, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Like the wording, the stuff I talked about... Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 15:33, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Okayyy...favour!

Hi, I was wondering if someone familiar with mos could tell me what I stil need to work on in the Edmonton article and the district artcles. Jus list it here. Thanks! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:18, 6 November 2008 (EST).

Just bumping because I usually get a response quicker. Makin' sure people saw it. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:20, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Guide Article

I made the main article a guide status. If you have opposition, please state here! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:00, 6 November 2008 (EST).

East Central and Mill Woods are borderline "usable" articles, but as you say there's not much to those areas, so I'm willing to let it slide. I believe having the districts at "usable" was the last barrier to "guide" status so I have no strong objection. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:14, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, not to mention i've fixed to fit the huge city :)! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 10:22, 7 November 2008 (EST).

You say "Strong opposition" does that mean that you still don't really like the idea? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:23, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Do my pictures look low grade?

Hey, do my pictures look low grade compared to the others or is it just me? Keep smiling ,(WT-en) ee ^talk 19:48, 7 November 2008 (EST).

I'd really like to know. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:35, 9 November 2008 (EST).

important question

Why isn't Edmonton listed in Guide articles? It's guide status-whereas I just added Perth and it's already there. Explain? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:14, 7 November 2008 (EST).

It's there now. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:44, 7 November 2008 (EST).

104 STREET

Sorry for there being like four of them but I want to know the general opinion of which shows 104th Street best (as a growing shopping area with lots of historical buildings and a bustling farmers' market ,etc.)...I just don't know. The best will go on the main page under BUY.

[[Image:104edmonton.JPG|thumb|center|300px]]

[[Image:Marke1.JPG|thumb|300px|center]]

So....?

Keep smiling,

(WT-en) ee ^talk 11:31, 8 November 2008 (EST).

bump-I'd really like to see some results. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 19:27, 8 November 2008 (EST).

Sorry for my impatience, but is there ANY opinions? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:15, 9 November 2008 (EST).

None of them particularly grab my attention. The first one is the only one with both good color and good composition, but it only shows one store on an apparently deserted street. The others either have weird color, were photographed in shadow, or have a slightly wonky composition (the last one). I guess I'd vote for the first one if I have to choose. (WT-en) Texugo 01:26, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I don't get the problem with the last one. The one of 29 isn't deserted it's just nobodies there at the time .Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:30, 9 November 2008 (EST).

There's also this one.

I like the aerial shot best. (WT-en) Texugo 19:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)

[[Image:One Hundred and Fourth Street North West.JPG|thumb|380px|center]]

Two more to add morre variety:

[[Image:104stair.JPG|thumb|593px|center]]

[[Image:Bustlingmarket.JPG|thumb|483px|center]]

Maybe I should add my opinion? I don;t know. I like the first and last ones the best. The one from the air is pretty good. But I don't know. Any more thoughts? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:38, 10 November 2008 (EST).

I like the aerial shot best. (WT-en) Texugo 19:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 19:22, 10 November 2008 (EST).

I have to agree with Texugo, none of them really grab me. The aerial shot is probably the best, but I'm not sure that it adds anything to the page (there are already lots of photos!). It wouldn't get me excited about 104 St, if that's what it was supposed to do. Of the original four photos, I'd say the last one would be preferred. The first looks overexposed on my screen, the second's colours are flat and the third also looks a bit overexposed. I don't know EE, there's lots of good photos on the page already, I'd be inclined to leave these off. We don't need a photo of everything! (WT-en) Shaund 22:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)

There is reasoning behind me doing this. This place aint no Whyte Ave, West Edmonton Mall, South Edmonton Common, posh hotel, scenic park-it's 104th Street. The first picture I uploaded was of this street! Do you know why? You probably don't. Well it is because I really love this street and it doesn't get showcased much but I'd really like it to get some attention. A picture would be lovely, I think the one on Central is fine, no? But I still want one in the Edmonton page. Do you get it? I just really care about this area and really want it to go far. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 22:54, 10 November 2008 (EST).

That's cool. The photo in Central is a good shot. My opinion (since you're asking :) ) is to use it in both the Central and Edmonton pages. (WT-en) Shaund 12:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the kind words! Sigh, it's just, to the average traveller the most exciting time would be in summertime on a Saturday market. Other than that there is only one block to really shop but even that-there isn't too much, luckily two things: 1) all of the current ones are good, 2) the place is expanding like crazy-a coffee shop, tanning salon, fast food joint, and a hair salon are all opening in February 2009 due to the ICON I condo's streetfront! I am really positive about this area and the reason why I include the part between 102 and 103 avenue is because recently, a new restaurant opened there, and there is a condo proposed on that block that may go ahead in 2009 which'll bring more streetfront not to mention the historical buildings which in a recent meeting about the street said the offices that are streetfront in that block need to go-retail needs to come, which means come this time next year those might all be cool clothing shops, eclectic restaurants, funky café's, or absolutely fantastic interior design shops. I am just really positive and it's because I know in 1-2 years it'll have the capacity of awesome shops that 124 Street and Whyte Avenue have (10-25 stores that are really good). But for now, it is mediocre, except hte block of Jasper and 102 Avenue on 104. Sigh...hopeful for it though! Anyways, thanks, happy first day of snow in Edmonton!, (WT-en) ee ^talk 12:25, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Alright so I added the new image:but I am still carrying on the voting process-if people think there is a better image then ok. Or you can comment on the one I put (in buy). Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee ^talk 12:28, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Case you were wondering, Market1 image got an update. It may look better, so lets see some dicussion! Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee ^talk 14:24, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Last image of Edmonton

I renamed it Edmonton skyscrapers from an aerial view i think it makes more sense than just "Edmonton" anyway you can change it back if you want just trying to help out. --71.254.104.10 22:37, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Images

I know I probably won't get any responses like everything else :->, but mind as well stir up some discussion in case people actually comment. I recently added a lot of images to Edmonton article and Edmonton district articles. Check them out, and tell me what you think? Also the older ones, are they any good? I think they're low-quality. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:55, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Learn section

I removed the following from the Learn section because it offers nothing for the traveller. If these institutions do offer some kind of course that a tourist might take, let's revise this and re-insert it. Otherwise, it is unnecessary. (WT-en) Texugo 01:25, 10 November 2008 (EST)

[[Image:University of Alberta Summer 2008.JPG|thumb|right|200px|As you can see, the University of Alberta is doing major expansions.]] [[Image:Grant-MacEwan-College-Campus-Entryway-02.jpg|thumb|200px|A feature of the downtown Grant MacEwan.]] Edmonton is home to the University of Alberta, which has consistently ranked in the top five universities in Canada. Annual attendance exceeds 30,000 students, and the campus sprawls over a number of blocks on the south bank of the North Saskatchewan river, a few minutes drive from downtown.

There are a number of major colleges as well:

Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT)
Grant MacEwan College
Concordia University College
King's University College
Alberta College (now part of MacEwan, mostly ESL and upgrading)

Excuse me? It was in the COPE section for a reason-for it being for a person coming to the city for a longer period of time. I am re- adding it! Again-you should not have done that.

Golf listings and internet café's

Hey I just wanted to know the consensus on if we should keep golf and internet café listings in the main article or move them to their apporpriate districts. I'd rathere see them in the main article ,but thats me. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:40, 10 November 2008 (EST).

Hey EE, my understanding is both should be in the districts. For example, the main Edmonton article would say something like "Edmonton is home to many challenging and beautiful golf courses. A number are spread along the river valleys in the Southwest and East districts. Public courses that are cheaper can be found in the North district." If a course is world famous and people come to Edmonton specifically to play it, you could add another line, something along the lines of "World Famous Golf & Country Club in Southwest draws tourists from around the world to take in its unique tundra links setting." (that last bit might be a bit over the top, but you get the idea :-) ) (WT-en) Shaund 22:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, or do the thing where you list a few example,s eh? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 22:35, 10 November 2008 (EST).

Yeah, a list as described in Project:Huge city article template works as well. But just in case you're thinking of Vancouver as a guide, I'd advise against it. It doesn't follow the template very well at all, so it's in the midst of a long, drawn out transition. One day (sooner rather than later I hope!) it's either going to look like Chicago or have just a few bullet point lists with five or so main attractions. (WT-en) Shaund 02:28, 11 November 2008 (EST)

economy

I recently added an economy section to Understand. I think it would just be another great way to learn about cities. This is a concept and if people like it, they should add it to their city. I may add it to a few cities (ie: Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Portland (Oregon), Boise, and Toronto). I dunno. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:42, 10 November 2008 (EST).

I would urge you to keep this kind of stuff short or it becomes the kind of Wikipedia-style information that amounts to fluff when put in a travel article. Most of the History section you already have focuses heavily on economic and demographical information. (WT-en) Texugo 20:49, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah I am going to keep it short. So do you think I should keep it or put it down tha drain? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:53, 10 November 2008 (EST).

We should hear some other opinions maybe, but I could definitely do without at least the list of companies, most of which I've never heard of anyway. (WT-en) Texugo 21:11, 10 November 2008 (EST)

They're major companies. Lets see-American terms...it'd be like listing Microsoft, BP, Exxon, Comcast, TMobile, Bank of America, HSBC, WaMu, JPMorgan, Sear's, Dell, etc.

I don't see the value in including that kind of stuff unless there is something for the traveller to visit. (WT-en) Texugo 21:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)

It's learning about the city, same idea as history *sigh*. Keep smiling ,(WT-en) ee ^talk 21:25, 10 November 2008 (EST).

I realize that, but that's also why we provide a link to Wikipedia. Providing historical background makes sense for Wikivoyage too, given that history and historical sites are often the reason we want to travel somewhere, but a lot of other kinds of information we give only a short overview if anything, so as not to dilute the traveller-oriented good stuff too much. (WT-en) Texugo 21:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Where's the link to Wikipedia? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 22:36, 10 November 2008 (EST).

It's in the last box on the left-hand side of the page. On the topic of the "Economy" section, I would suggest trimming it and incorporating it into a discussion of the city's culture and current state, at the top level of the "Understand" section. Knowing what industries power the city's economy can be interesting information for the traveler; we just don't need that much detail. Accompanied with a broader discussion of the city's culture, I think it'd fit right in. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:12, 11 November 2008 (EST)

So basically maybe combining it with some background info of the cultural background and how is the economy holding up, it's position in government, etc.? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 11:27, 11 November 2008 (EST).

Sorry...tiny question

Can someone please check the Edmonton section, and can you tell me why there are two pictures (which are not mine) that aren't showing up (Royal Alberta Museum and Science Centre)? They're just red.... (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:44, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Can someone help? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I see them both fine – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 21:59, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, they're there now. Beautiful! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:00, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

How Much Longer?

Hi there! I was wondering if you could check the Edmonton section a little bit, maybe just skim/read a bit? And could you tell me how much longer Edmonton will need to go before it gets "huge city". I know aboyt the 32,000 thing, but can't it get that beforehand? I was just wondering how much longer and how muchmor information and how much is already used of space? 22,000? 32,000? What? thank-you! Also am I doing a good job?

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:43, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Hey - great work! - if you are meaning to districtify it, it's pretty much there i think, but I have to warn you - it's a huge pile of work! :o) Someone did it to Copenhagen before I arrived here, and it's sort of an endless struggle getting them all up to guide status. And in a lot of cities the districts have become half arsed work, which sucks - personally i'd rather prefer a well written large one-page article like Stockholm to something like the current state of Rome (no offense anyone) (WT-en) Sertmann 20:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Thankyou for such a nice comment! You're right, it is hard work! I could probably get some other help, though, but as I am doing already, I'll probably have to do it mostly myself. I think what I will do is start writting down information in Microsoft Word and then after I get enough information, I'll start districtifying/huge citying it. Hmm...thankyou, you're points are well-taken!:) Any other comments? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 20:21, 22 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Any opposition? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 18:49, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I have a problem

I have a bit of a problem. I believe its Texugo, but I'm not sure, so I'm putting it here. Someone keeps "right aligning" and listing all the pictures atop! I'm fine with right align. But will whoever is doing the part where in the edit all the pictures are LISTED ABOVE! It is extremely anoying when you have to change them back. Oh...it's in here Edmonton/Central. Why DO I need to change them back? Because I don't know about you, but, well, the pictures should be near/beside the topic. So a picture of West Edmonton Mall should be beside a listing of West Edmonton Mall. But with that edit, it's not. It's in the incorrect place and I have to keep changing it back so it's in the proper place. I don't care much about right align, but will you stop putting the pictures in that location! It is really annoying. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:23, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Dammit Texugo, get your act together – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 22:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Hahahaahhahaahhahaahahahha! Yeah, it's annoying trying to REEDIT all the time ARGHH! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:46, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

It's not official policy, but I (and several other long-timers) always put them at the top of the relevant section for the same reason that they always go on the right-- so the margin doesn't waggle back and forth throughout the section. I don't see any reason that a photo needs to be right next to the listing-- we won't (and shouldn't) have a photo for every listing anyway, so with only a photo or two per section, I don't believe it becomes in any way confusing to the reader if the photos are neatly lined up at the top of each section. It looks a lot nicer in print. Besides, when you have two consecutive listings both with a photo, it is sometimes impossible to keep them side-by-side anyway. (WT-en) Texugo 01:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree if they're side by side, fine. But when it's not beside, i think it doesn't compliment very well. I don;t tthink we should have them like that, it doesn't look "together". Sorry for disagreeing with you, really. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 01:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Edmonton

How come I never get replies to what I ask in the Talk:Edmonton (discussion page)? I really did want to know what people think. I see other locations get quick replies. I just don't get it. Maybe someone could help. Thank-you:). —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2008 October 21

Heya, It all mostly depends whether there are other regular contributors to the destination you're writing about, and then a lot of these discussions and comments starts somewhere else, like people asking a question on another users talk page - so if you just write a comment on a talk page, you'd just have to wait to someone pops by. So don't feel bad, it's nothing personal ;-) If there is something needing attention, it's best to ask here, or on the appropriate project page. Wikivoyage is a very large place, with a lot less users than say wikipedia. A Canadian should know everything about thinly populated, large places.

That being said, this was exactly the type of thing i was writing about, in my rant above - this place does need more of a community. (WT-en) Sertmann 23:12, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

In my experience editing the Vancouver, British Columbia, and Calgary pages, there aren't many others actively involved in these parts of Wikivoyage. Look at Talk:Calgary: I proposed some changes months ago, and didn't get replies either. Posting here, or in Talk:Alberta, might collect some fellow travellers. I tell you what, I'll start watching Edmonton, so that you'll have someone to talk to. (By the way, when you post here or to a talk page, end with four tildes ~~~~, and the system will substitute your name and the date.) (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 03:05, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi guys, thank you very much for your comments.

Sertman: Thankyou very much, I mean, you were very helpful. Although it does kindof suck that it takes so long. Yeah, I know about thin pop. and large places, heh, I mean it is wierd to Americans but in Canada it's mostly large populations concetrated in the 10 largest and then everything else is in tiny remote places (for the most part, exceptions like Southern Ont., Edm-Cal Corridor, and Ottawa-Montréal are some examples). But anyways, yeah, thanks for your help.

JimDeLaHunt: Oh that must suck, Calgary's a beautiful metropolis, you've probably seen me edit a bit there, too:). I will start looking at the Calgary talk page more often too, asd you will for Edmonton.

Thanks guys! -Edmontonenthusiast!

This is really annoying...I have put multiple ideas and offered help in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa...yet, I get 0-1 comments. I hate it. Its not very encouraging to continue working, no offense. We need to get more people talking.(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 18:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

I agree that this place could use some more active participation of more people (see my community posting elsewhere here in the pub), but I also think you look at it the wrong way. Wikivoyage has an amazingly high google ranking - your very own Edmonton article is on the first page of google results, if you search for "travel edmonton" or "edmonton travel guide" for example. so it's not that your work won't get noticed. But most people will just read through it, and use your contributions for their trip to Edmonton - not participate in the discussions. But if you think about it, isn't that what you would do? and isn't that why you are spending the time writing all of the stuff that you are?

Just calm down a bit, plunge forward, do things in your own pace, and once you think you have a really good article (which takes time, patience, and for a city the size of Edmonton maybe months of work to do), then you can nominate it for Destination of the month or a Star candidate and get comments and acclamations on your complete piece of work. This is what most of the regulars here do and strive for, without making much notice of themselves in the meantime. Just do what you feel is right for your article to make it good, and don't care quite so much about the opinion of others, as long as you follow the guidelines. (WT-en) Sertmann 19:17, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

THanks, Sertmann, see your talk page...:) (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

Well, I am kind of getting the same problem again! I've posted numorous questions in Talk Edmonton but there are little-to-no responses. I have like 5 different things unanswered. It's kind of a pain. You know, I'd really like some feedback. I'm sorry. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 23:42, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Can't I get any help?

Why can't I get any help with the new Edmonton districts? I've asked a couple times...and...well...nothing! Do you have any idea how hard it will be if I have to edit those 8 articles to make them usable, all by myself. As much as I'd want it, it'd be too hard. I really need some help, but no one seems up for it. I especially need it in Edmonton/East Central, and Edmonton/Mill Woods. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 20:01, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Am I just not appreciated here? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:43, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Dude, chill out a bit, you've received way more attention than the norm... things move a little slower here than on Wikipedia, people are around if you have questions, etc, but it's pretty common to work mostly alone on a project, unless it's a really popular city that several users take an interest in. It's also quite normal for questions to take days or weeks to get answered, be happy that several people here are responding to you relatively quickly ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 22:49, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry. It is just that it feels like you don't get appreciated. Maybe that ain't true, but it feels like that, so ,sorry! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:01, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

One thing, I notice every other city that's been districtifyed has at least 2 consistent(ly) contributers. It is so hard doing it all by myself, I can't get ANY help. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Nah, usually the bulk of the work is done by one person who's enthusiastic about it, and a few people chip in here and there if they have time and are familiar with the city. If you're

referring to Chicago, there's 2 users who live there who took it on as part of Wikivoyage Press, same with San Francisco. Edmonton is off the radar I think for a lot of people, but believe it or not, you're getting a lot more attention than most new users do. Maybe because you demand it every 1/2 hour or so :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 22:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean that nobody looks at the Edmonton page(s), or that they just cannot edit it? Sorry it seems like more people edit Chicago. I probably get a lot of attention more because I'm talkative and I like asking a lot of questions! ;)(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:45, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

To take your line of questioning in a different direction, why do you need to 'receive attention' or 'feel appreciated'. If you continuously rely on others to feel content, then you are constantly going to feel unstable. It's like leaning on a broken chair. It wobbles. You wobble. Nobody gets appreciation or pats on the back at Wikivoyage. There's no medal or prize for our efforts. The journey is the goal. I suggest that you just edit the Edmonton article slowly, piece by piece - like doing a jig saw puzzle. If you see it as one huge project, it can be overwhelming. Anyway, that's my honest suggestion. Hope it is helpful. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:16, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Your first part was a little bit harsh, doncha think? I am sorry I am not anti-social (not saying you are, or others)! Does that mean that nobody looks at the Edmonton page(s), or that they just cannot edit it? CAn sOmeone please answer that question. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:20, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

To add to what I say...Would you rather me just not ask questions and end up consistently screwing up? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm saying there probably aren't a lot of people that pay attention to that page. But anyone can edit any article, yes. Chicago is bigger and sees a lot more travelers than Edmonton, which is why you probably see more frequent edits to it. And WindHorse means no harm, of course you should ask questions, but they should mostly be about the articles, not on you personally, and you shouldn't get so upset if someone disagrees with you or if you don't get quite as much attention as you would like. Things take time around here. Sometimes it takes weeks before someone answers one of my questions on a talk page – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 23:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Thansk, points well taken! Now, let me ask you personally, is doing all this work on Edmonton really worth it for travellers? I mean, will enough people (not members really) look at it do you think? I'm not looking at Chicago or Barcelona numbers, but at least on par with Seattle or Vancouver. What do you think, sorry I'm new. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it useful? Of course. And keep in mind that there are always more users than contributors. If it makes you happy to work on something others will use quietly, then enjoy. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I am just glad that people will still look at it (not necc. users which is fine)!!! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 01:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Apologies if my earlier comments sounded harsh. That was not the intention. It was just that I saw someone continuously screaming out for assistance and getting frustrated when none was forth coming. My aim was just to try to get you to focus on the job and learn from mistakes. There are pages of instructions for beginners and also you can learn from others' edits. As for the articles, yes, of course, your edits are useful. Some people have put in huge amounts of energy and time on articles on very insignificant places. Still, that effort will be helpful to anyone who visits those places. Personally, I would not worry about numbers of people who look at the Edmonton article, but just do it for your own personal satisfaction. If every contributor based their edits only on the number of tourists who visit a city, then we would have no articles beyond those on the major world cities. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any other regular contributor. My earlier comments were just for your own piece of mind, and apologies again if they appeared harsh. Cheers. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey, WindHorse! Thanks for your appologies and thanks for your tips, they will be used! And thanks for the offer about any questions, heh! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 18:22, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

DUDE...CHILL OUT This is not Wikipedia, there aren't a thousands of contributers here on Wikivoyage. Just look at the number of Wikivoyagers who have posted here in the Traveller's Pub (the number of users, not posts). Not just that, but there aren't millions of people who even know about this site. So just sit back and relax. You won't get a pat on the back for every contribution you make, there's no popularity contest to be won. We're all just a bunch of people who will take a little spare time here and there and make edits or read about distant lands. We don't scour all the newest edits to say "Wow" or "well done". I'm trying not to be too harsh, but the point is that you edit just for the sake of editing and sharing your knowledge with others. Read the license before you hit save page when editing. "If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!" (and I added the italics not the exclamation point!). The point is that this is a wiki and everyone is free to edit. You aren't here to create a masterpiece for someone to congratulate you on...you are here to share your knowledge with others, whether it's about your hometown you care about or someplace you've traveled to and really want others to go as well. If you care about Edmonton so much, edit knowing that what you share may draw a reader to visit your city. Isn't that what you want to do...portray your city in a good way to attract visitors. I honestly didn't think there were any cities between Toronto and Vancouver (I though places like Winnipeg, Calgary, & Edmonton were just large towns of a couple hundred thousand or so)...that is, until I read the Edmonton article (which is, honestly, quite good). I know what it's like trying to edit an article by myself...I've nearly doubled the article on Florida in the past month(you'd think a state of 18 million would have a decent article created by lot's of Wikivoyagers, right?). I've also contributed quite a bit to Orlando, especially cleaning up a lot of touting...before I started working on the Orlando article, half of it was hotel listings many of which had long, drawn out descriptions!!! So just be patient. You've drawn far more attention on this page than anyone else. So again, do this to share your knowledge, not in hopes of some award or lots of "well done"s! (P.S. There are headers on several sections of the Edmonton article telling editors to move listing into the neighborhood articles. That's great to reduce clutter, but from a user's point of view, you NEED some listing under each. Edmonton is a city of 1 million...not 20. The "see" and "do" sections are fine!! A user shouldn't be beleaguered by having to go to neighborhood articles for those. Those are sections where you can't just have a paragraph describing things. The "buy" and "drink" sections are also just fine! You NEED some listings for "sleep" and "eat" is the only section (I think) which needs to be chopped down a bit. I see most of it list ethnic food. If there are particular ethnic restaurants clustered in a certain neighborhood, then maybe list some restaurants(cheap, modest, splurge) and then type a paragraph noting which neighborhoods to visit for ethnic fare. I think you need to see some of these articles for similar sized cities: Cincinnati(nice "see" and "do" sections), Portland (Oregon) (nice "see", "do", and especially "eat" sections), even a large city like Boston has lengthy "see" and "do" sections.) (WT-en) AHeneen 01:50, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Well I should comment on all your things. 1) You were harsh. But ask five more people, four wouldn't agree...I'm just sensative. 2)I am not aiming for the "perfect" "masterpiece" travel guide necessarily. I am basically trying to get a damn good travel guide like maybe Vancouver or Toronto or Montréal or Seattle or Chicago. 3) I am not calm...I am usually very upbeat and joyfull!!!! Any problem in that? 4) I applaud your work in Floridan articles! Very good, I'll hafta check that out! 5)Glad you are learning about Edmonton. We definately ain't no city of 124,500 or something! We have a large mall, largest parkland system in North America, a larger skyline than cities that are American of compareable size, the Edmonton Indy, the Edmonton Fringe and countless others! What else are 'yeh' learnin'? Sorry I felt like talking like a redneck for a minute ;)!!!! 6) I disagree that Edmonton should have been districtifyed, plus its too late. I do think the See & Do should be in the seperate articles. When I am done filling up the sub-articles (DISTRICTS) enough, I'll start deleting/summarizing/putting a few summarized listings, etc. This will be great upon completion! Not completed like a masterpiece, just the stuff I said WHEN IT'S DONE! 7) Have a good day :)!!!:>! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 11:04, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

First of all, I wasn't trying to be rude...you're right, you are "just sensative". Second of all, you must be confusing Florida with Alabama and Georgia...we (almost) don't have rednecks here! But anyways, mild flaming aside, the point I was making about the "see" and "do" sections was that there needs to be things listed in them! You can put some places in both the main Edmonton article and the neighborhood article. The point is that you need such sections for the city as a whole...a "damn good article" needs things to see and do. What kind of article refers you to other articles for content? New York has lengthy "see" and "do" sections, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottowa as well...yet all have district articles as well! Sure a few of the things in the "see" and "do" sections in the Edmonton article should have shorter descriptions, but the things listed sound good. Sorry if I came across as rude, but it certainly wasn't intentional...and the comments about just a bunch of large towns was facetious, not meant to be arrogant or insulting...I can say the same for several parts of the US. I didn't realize how large and interesting Portland is until I looked at its article to reference in my first comment. (WT-en) AHeneen 20:53, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi, AHeneen! You have been most helpful. Though probably not as sensitive as the others towards me, I sincerely appreciate it and will add you to my good people on wikivoyage here: User:(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast. Anyways, that aside lets get into some of the things you said. Heh, I was flaming? How so, so I won't do it next time:P. You said Florida, I naturally assume Florida. We don't really have redneck's here, but some people like to act like one...with big gas guzzling vehicles and idea of a pretty place is a power centre off the highway. Ugh. Anyways...OTTAWA! I know I need more info in see and do sections, I really do know. You need to give me some breathing room, I have a life, and I can't do multiple edits within a few minutes because my brain can't handle it...my brain will get too tired and so sorry I may be a little bit slow on it. I will be adding descriptions, just gimme some time. I am trying to get all of them up to useable, then fill up empty spaces, then fix up the main article. I was not insulted about you thinking edmonton greater only had like 100,000 people, heck, I am glad you knew about it. In Berlin, Germany you'd prrobably need to HOARD five hundred people to get one person who even knew. Anyways thanks for all you're help, I know you mean good intentions! Portland, is a beautiful city actually, never been but from what I'm seen of it ,its' fantastico! Anyways, thanks! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 21:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The "flaming" was in reference to the two of us going back and forth with rebuttals...at least that's what I think it means. I think there may have been a misunderstanding here, though. I noted the "this is a huge city" header under both sections and was trying to imply that the sections are fine thinking that you wanted to eliminate the lengthy listings by putting all the info into the neighborhood articles. Someday I want to drive to Alaska, so I'll make time to stop in Edmonton...how does that sound?(WT-en) AHeneen 03:09, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

AHeneen!! Hi, yeah, I don't consider that flaming. I consider flaming when you bash someones work (on this site it would be edits most likely) just because you think it sucks and make them feel the worst they could (about it). Oh? Yes, you should go to Alaska, and do stop in E-town! Where are you coming from? You should start in Banff, drive to Calgary, then go north to Edmonton, then take the long drive to the NorthWest Territories, then go west to the Yukon, then go further west to like Alaska-Anchorage? Anyways, I could tell you the best places to go for Edmonton, prob. Call toooo! Of course, you could just look at the article-but you could get my honest opinion on things that I personally think that suck but are "very popular" because the people don't know better I guess. A very good example is West Edmonton Mall, such a hole! I really don't like it, but you wouldn't know that looking at the article. It is practically manditory to have it in there, but it isn't that great really. Stuff like that, get it? My god are we gettin' off topic! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:26, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

TV and Radio

I'm going to stick this here, because detailing television and radio stations is not something we typically do here.

TV Stations

These following TV stations have their filming & production, offices in Edmonton.

CBC Edmonton. The first television station in Edmonton and is best known for it's Canadian-only shows and "Hockey-Night-In-Canada" along with a refurbished newsteam. Channel 15.

CTV Edmonton. Hosts a very clean newsroom with a good newsteam with fantastic weather updates. They also show a wide variety of popular shows.But lacks many full time reporters. Channel 2.

Global Edmonton. Studio is a little outdated, but it's news crew offers a lot of "on-the-scene" reports. Aside from that it hosts a lot of American shows. Channel 8.

CityTV EDMONTON. Has the applauded Breakfast Television with news and information and a jolly newscrew at night compared to other news crews. It also has a showcase of more edgier, different shows like 30 Rock and Secret Life of the American Teenager. Similarities to NBC in America. Channel 7.

Access Alberta. This is the place home to a lot of educational shows. Channel 9.

OMNI.

Radio Stations

SO things can't change? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 02:05, 15 November 2008 (EST).

If you started a discussion and somehow managed to build consensus for it things could change, but when have you ever wished your travel guide had blurbs about the tv stations you're already flipping through on your hotel tv? (WT-en) Texugo 02:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Good point...I guess. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 02:26, 15 November 2008 (EST).

Am I doin' good?

How's the article(s) turning out? Am I doing good? Just wondering. A small progress report is all. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 02:32, 15 November 2008 (EST).

Image new

I uploaded a new version of the main image.

[[Image:GallagherParkedmab.JPG|thumb|center|400px]]

Does it look more realistic? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 17:55, 16 November 2008 (EST).

Click it and then go down to the info and click the original version to compare. Keep smiling ,(WT-en) ee ^talk 12:40, 17 November 2008 (EST).

sorry if i seem rude, i'd just like an answer. keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:55, 17 November 2008 (EST).
- A lot of the detail in the clouds has been lost. It looks washed-out. It can be a very delicate balancing act to enhance part of an image without losing information in the rest of it. What program are you using to edit the photos? What method did you use to create the latest version? (WT-en) LtPowers 15:44, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I used two programs: Photoshop Elements 3.0 and Microsoft Image Manager. Although thank you for that. Just a second. I will darken it some and make a third version to compare. ThankyouLT. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:23, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Here is another version: [[Image:GallagherParkedmab copy version twom.jpg|thumb|center|400px]]

Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:31, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Oh and LT, I used the "screen" option in PS, and Brighten/Contrast in ImageManager. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:33, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Oh does it look HIGH QUALITY now? Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:34, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Well, here's the problem -- if you just darkened the previous image, then the clouds don't magically gain their detail back. =) You've still lost a lot of detail in the clouds; it's just darker. You need to go back to your original photo and use that when you want to try something new. It's like making a photocopy of a photocopy; you lose detail with every revision unless you go back to the original.

That said, I fired up Microsoft Photo Editor, a very basic program, and used its "AutoBalance" feature on your original photo. It upped the contrast slightly and the brightness even more slightly, and I think it came out nicely. You might want to try that in ImageManager -- just a small amount. Or I can upload my attempt if you like.

It's a nice photo; I don't want you to lose any of those nice details, but just enhance the photo just enough to make it pop out.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 19:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

upload yours on the shared. if i like it, i'll keep it:)! Thank you! Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:38, 17 November 2008 (EST).

OK, it's here: wts:Image:GallagherPark LtPowers.JPG. Unfortunately, the clouds still get a little washed out, and the dark areas of the trees have a similar problem, but more detail is kept than in the above versions. I don't know enough about image manipulation to figure out how to improve the contrast without running into those problems.

By the way, I'd like to encourage you to use the Imagecredit template on Shared. You can see it in use on the image I linked.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 09:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Really like it. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:57, 18 November 2008 (EST) (PS Its going in the article!-Too bad I didn't do it) !

You photographed it; that's the important part. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:02, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Haha I'm gonna go this weekend and try and get some other angles and see what you guys think, except it's an akward time to take pics-No snow, no falling leaves, no lush green - - but it's supposed to snow on Sat. Hmmm. Well anyways thank you and you did fantastic, even if that pic is replaced, I'll probably use it in a different article-that's a really good pic. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 10:16, 20 November 2008 (EST).

Hello Edmonton

Hi, I recently changed the introduction and was wondering if the new is better. Wondering if it does a good hello from Edmonton.

Old:

Edmonton is the capital city of Alberta and home to a good deal of the province's industry. It is the largest city in the Edmonton Capital Region with a metro population of 1.1 million, and is a hub for north and central Alberta. Edmonton has a well-publicized reputation as the cultural center of Alberta, and has been nicknamed Festival City of Canada for its large number of weekend or week-long arts and culture festivals during the summer. Attractions like The Edmonton Fringe Festival (North America's largest), West Edmonton Mall (North America's largest), the river valley parks system (North America's largest), and Fort Edmonton Park make Edmonton the largest tourist destination in the province of Alberta.

Edmonton is the most northern city in North America with a population exceeding one million people (1,081,329 citizens in 2007). Its location makes for long winters, but the compensating rewards include sunny comfortable summers with daylight and dusk stretching as late as 11pm in June and July.

New:

Edmonton is the capital city of Alberta and is home to 1.1 million people and is the northernmost metro area with a million people in North America. It is home to North America's largest mall: West Edmonton Mall, Canada's largest historic park: Fort Edmonton, North America's largest urban parkland network, brilliant spectator sports, and is Canada's Festival City, home to a growing and established retail market, bustling nightlife, fast growing population, diversifying economy, and a large amount of high end golf courses.

Edmonton is currently presenting a bit to hold the World's Fair 2017. It is also home to the Edmonton Indy, the only indy race in Canada. Despite it's repuatation as a low rise city, Edmonton has quite the urban core.

SO? KEep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:16, 16 November 2008 (EST).

Looks OK to me. I broke up a couple of the super long sentences and fixed a couple of spelling errors. (WT-en) Texugo 22:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks love! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 23:32, 16 November 2008 (EST).

Improve : : Main Article

Where can the main article improve? Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 22:25, 17 November 2008 (EST).

Here's what I see offhand:

Understand

Climate and Architecture sections are a bit on the verbose side and could be condensed.
With the exception of the templated one at the top of the article, italicized disclaimers at the beginnings of sections should be removed.

See

Some of the See listings have no write-up
Some of the Just for fun listings probably belong in the do section, and some lack specific information on where to find them (Edmonton Queen, etc.). Others belong as summaries in the Get out section and should be fully written up in the Edmonton Capital Region article.

Do

If it's called the "Vegas of the North", I think something more should be done with the casinos, i.e. make specific listings for them to be placed in the respective districts, and replace the current short write-up to tell what areas to look in.
A near the city listing (golf) should probably be in the Get out section
Where are the Spectator sports venues to be found?

Buy

Are there no local or typical products or things that people buy in Edmonton?

Eat

The coffeeshops section, as written, looks like it belongs in the Drink section.

Drink

Wine stores need to be districtified
Are there any locally produced beers, wines, or other beverages a tourist might want to try?

Get out

Listings in the metro area need to be moved there (and expanded) and then only summarized here

Hope that helps! (WT-en) Texugo 23:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the responses! I will work on the understand. I wil lget a write up for some of the See. Ill work on that just for fun. Edmonton really isnt the vegas of the north, I've heard it some times-but we dont have too many casinos. Ok I'll get addresses for the sports places. For buy, I dont really get watcha talking about. You mean, is there like a must have thing in Edmonton you can't really get eanywhere else? If so, I dont think there really is in Edmonton, hmm I will look inta that. I'll move COFFEE SHOPS to drink section. Wine Stores are in districts. I'll work on the metro area stuff. Thankyou very much!!!!!! ¡Graciás! Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:01, 18 November 2008 (EST).

What the hell is this?

Okay, this is exactly Wikivoyage-granted an old version but why is this an utter copy of this page!? Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:30, 19 November 2008 (EST).

Because that's what we do. We create travel guides that people can republish anywhere they want, so long as they include the attribution and licensing information. If you look at the bottom of the the page you linked, you'll find just that -- they even credited you! (WT-en) LtPowers 09:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)

That is SO odd. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 09:58, 20 November 2008 (EST).

Why? (WT-en) LtPowers 20:01, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Because it's a complete copy of this. Unoriginal. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:04, 22 November 2008 (EST).

Welcome to the World Wide Web. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 09:55, 23 November 2008 (EST)

edm skyline guide

I was really fascinated by the Chicago skyline guide and I was thinking, why can't we have this for more cities? So I was thinking, why don't we have something like it for Edmonton, I am leaning more towards a seperate article but if not, where would you suggest we put it? I know there's a skyline views thing, but it'd be nice to talk about a large mass of buildings and be specific to the skyline views like that, perhaps. So, what do you think, could Edmonton "handle it" ? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:24, 22 November 2008 (EST).

I could have it as an infobox (oh boy that'd be too long) in Central Edmonton or just a subsection of "see" in Central Edmonton. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:26, 22 November 2008 (EST)/.

Since an Edmonton skyline guide would probably be short in comparison with Chicago, I'd recommend making it a subsection of See in the Central district article. We used such a subsection here as well. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:13, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Wait...since most of the "skyline views" are outside Central, despite everything else being in Central, I am thinking it should go in the main article, eh? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:15, 22 November 2008 (EST).

You could do that, although I'd still wager that just putting them in the district where they stand would be best. Especially since you can simply link to the Central#skyline section from the See section of the main article. If you do put them in the main article, I'd advise you to do it in prose, rather than a listings format, because the main article looks best when its almost entirely prose, and because that discourages contributors from erroneously adding listings to it. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:20, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I think what I will do is have it all in Central, but if the skyline view is in a different district, I will give a link to that district, despite the listing being in Central. Thoughts? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:34, 22 November 2008 (EST).

I would also prefer it as Peter suggested, not all crammed up in here. (WT-en) Texugo 02:09, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Tats what I'm doing.

New Img's

I recently uploaded a bunch of new photos. Some of them I already added (go check!!!!) but some I am undecided. What I am wondering is if you would like any of them in this article or the district articles (you dont need to say where) and if you want it to replace a picture lreaddyy there. Thank you!

[[Image:Winspear.jpg|thumb|300px|center]] Kind of a nice angle.

This is the former Toronto Dominion office. Neat utilitarian building. Really like this building, the only flaw it has is there is no retail on the main level (though there are plans to retrofit that level to suit retail).

I love the Gibson Block. [[Image:Gallaghernov.jpg|thumb|300px|center]] Maybe replace the current one of this?

Cool angle, could replace the one of Gallagher 1st Image. [[Image:Dtgrit.JPG|thumb|center|300px]] Gritty, somewhat.

Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:31, 23 November 2008 (EST).

Your pictures would be a lot better if you took them during the daytime. Lighting is important. Not one of these pictures has enough. (WT-en) Texugo 02:13, 24 November 2008 (EST)

There is some artistic value in low lighting. The skyline picture, for example, is striking in the low light. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

One, gee thanks Tex, glad you put it so damn harsh. Thanks LT. It's hard because it starts getting dark at 4pm in Edmonton after like Oct 15 until midish march. So I got one for the skyline, none of the rest are any good? I'd like to know cause I'd like to use some. I'll go back next weekend probably and try n go earlier and get some different angles, but I would like some of the ones here to be used, I think I could use em all, just depends how much it is wanted. I will add that skyline one as the one in Edmonton/Central. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 10:36, 24 November 2008 (EST).

So is there seriously no other ones that're any good? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 14:26, 24 November 2008 (EST).

Hi EE, I have to say I generally agree with Texugo on this one. The photos are composed well, but the lighting isn't great :( Maybe try taking them 1/2 hr to an hour earlier. It's hard to tell. I can sympathize with the difficulty, Vancouver isn't any better at this time of the year. Personally, I like the second shot of the Gibson Block most. If it had a bit more light and less noise, it has the potential to be a pretty stellar picture. (WT-en) Shaund 00:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Is that Gibson worht putting in an article-that good? what about the CIBC one? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:31, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Also, do you agree about that skyline is it good? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:32, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Also, some of them WERE taken at an earlier time like the 104 st one. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:38, 25 November 2008 (EST).

No, I don't think the Gibson shot above should be put in an article (and apologies in advance if I sound harsh, I'm just really fussy about photos). I think it's a very interesting photo to look at (the building shapes, the pink glass, the way the sunlight falls), but it's too grainy and a bit dark. The CIBC one is OK -- it's much sharper and provides a nice contrast between old and new -- but it's also a bit dark and lacks the interestingness of the Gibson Block. If it was me (but remember I'm fussy!), I wouldn't put up either picture right now. I'd rather wait and try to capture them again with better lighting and less noise.

My thoughts on the skyline photo are pretty similar. It's an interesting photo and the low light works well, but again, it's got a lot of noise (e.g., the trees in the foreground). (WT-en) Shaund 01:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Shaund, I will try and go out this weekend but I could try and work on some effects with those two. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 10:36, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Trees in the background, eh? It's the river valley, it is true parkland. Just like the summertime one (oh I miss the picturesqueness of summertime and fall). I think the trees add to what it is supposed to be, I don't see it as noise. For CIBC, I tried a few things and will upload it. The Gibson one I've tried so so many things with it but it still looks undetailed and grainy (Sometimes that works, but not so in this picture). I am going to do more warehouse district, skyline angles, Oliver images next weekend if I can, mostly for stuff I missed last time, for the architecture of Edmonton, and for the brightness. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:54, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Hi.Image:Cibc - v2.JPG I think I totally messed up this image. Also, do you think the ones I've already added are good (History, Hotels)? Thoughts. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:19, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Sorry, I should have explained what I meant by noise in the photograph. The trees in the park would be fine, but if you look at the photo they don't quite look like the right colour and then if you look at the picture up close, there are a number of red and green dots. All of that stuff is considered "noise" and it's pretty common with digital cameras in low light conditions. I think in the case of the river valley, it did that because the flash was used (at least that's what the photo info says) and the flash usually aggravates camera noise in low-light landscape photos.

Re CIBC v2, yeah, the original looks better. I think maybe the saturation and brightness are a bit too high now. But don't worry about it, you have plenty of good photos there already. You've done a good job illustrating what Edmonton looks like, it looks much better than what I remember from years ago! (WT-en) Shaund 00:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, Shaund. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:39, 26 November 2008 (EST).

I added the CIBC one, but I will get a better one this weekend. I got rid of the TELUS one because I am debating one which one to use. CN is more appealing but Telus photograph is wayyy better. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:45, 26 November 2008 (EST).

Images

I know this is really dumb and so pathetic, but, after comments about my photos I really think I need to ask-could ya look at all the Edmonton article(s) briefly [yes, districts] and just tell me which ones [constructive criticism ] have low quality, are unneeded, or are just plain blah? Also which ones are really good (could use them as references). Thank you. I know-so lame. Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 22:04, 25 November 2008 (EST).

You shouldn't give me an invitation to wield a knife... you do realize over the past few months I've cut the Vancouver article from about 82K to 65K?? But since you insist on asking :)

Best photos (to me)

the city hall photo with the fountains
104th market
E town yeah

Ones that could be cut

Recent growth and Newspaper stands on the main Edm page (not stuff that a traveller would be interested in)
one of the two brutalist tower photos in Central (we only need one example to give an idea) -- I'd keep the Telus one because I think the perspective is more interesting (and despite my earlier complaints about brutalist buildings, I think that Telus photo is pretty good)
most of the photos of restaurants and hotels -- I think we have a policy on not including pictures of restaurants, bars and hotels, although I'm pretty sure I've seen exceptions to this around the site
other photos of everyday items such as mansions in the West End, South Edm Common and the IKEA (while it gives an idea of those parts of Edm, it's not going to get someone exciting about going there)

Most of my comments above come down to my philosophy on adding photos, which is does it show off something unique or an attraction of the city, or otherwise make someone excited to go there? If it meets at least one of those conditions, then it's a candidate for me to post it. I'm sure everyone has their own ideas, but that's the general reasoning behind my comments.

And finally, one last comment, which I think you might not like :-) -- there really should be a picture of the West Edmonton Mall. I know you don't like it, and I fully 100% agree, *but* I've read in a couple of spots that it is the most visited attraction in all of Alberta. On those grounds, it really should be featured somewhere, possibly the lead photo for the West district. (WT-en) Shaund 00:58, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Shaund, you are very excellent! So aside from the ones you are against, the others are good? I haeve seen ones OF newspaper stands on the site, so I thought it would be okay. I could cut a few of the restaurant and hotel ones, for sure. Well the mansions are to show the uniqueness of the neighbourhood-the one your talking about is Crestwood. Some people like going through genuine neighbourhoods and that photograph is to give them "sneek peaks". I could get rid of SEC IKEA and those disasters (I photographed them as a presentation against Suburbia) but there won't be anything "gettin dem excited about it" as that thing is a cookie-cutter vortex of yuck (metaphor). I liked the aerial of Edmonton too, you really like it? That's awesome ( i thought people'd hate it! ). I am glad you like the farmers market ones. I need to get some good Whyte Ave and 124 St ones and some of those regular attractioins. You are lucky, Vancouver has it's land within urban interesting areas and all it's suburbs their own municipality. Yet Edmonton has a lot of it within citylimits and that needs to be showcased as a district. Oh well. Our city population is higher. Thanks for the comments Shaund. Regarding Wem, isn't the photographs supposed to get people revved for coming to Edmonton? Would a tacky, disatrous mall really give that image ;)? Yeah it is Alb's largest touristic centre but that thing is just crap. It killed our downtown for 15 years, only in the past 5 years has it been on the rebound. Thanks for everything I will think about WEM. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 11:07, 26 November 2008 (EST).

North Saskatchewan River Parks Guide/festivals

I was thinking perhaps that we have a article dedicated to Edmonton's river valley which is a beauty and the largest in north america. Could talk about the different parks what there is to do, etc. Thoughts? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:52, 26 November 2008 (EST).

Also we could do one on Festivals. Again just a thought, ee.

Yeah, I don't know. You know Edmonton best, so if you think there is enough stuff to do/see that it warrants an article, you can give it shot. Perhaps an itinerary would be best? If it doesn't work, the info can always be pared back and merged into Edmonton and its districts. (WT-en) Shaund 00:51, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Well Edmonton has over 1500 festivals, but the most worth mention ing is probably 15-25 of them. That could make a travel topic. For the river valley one, well I am just not fond of the whole itinerary platform because to me it seems like then they'll have to by what it says and do nothing elss.e I am just not font of it. But it could have a travel topic. Then again Van could prob have a few too! Keep smiles, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:06, 28 November 2008 (EST).

New

i went out today and took some new photos. i would like to know if any of them are travel material (are they good quality?).

Image:Jasper103104edm.JPG Jasper Avenue

Image:Edm-101.JPG 101 St

Image:Place.JPG Another 1

Image:Edmonlicious.JPG Edmonton skyline

Image:Edmonton-Canada-Yum-CN.JPG cn

Image:EdmontonSkyline-Whyte.JPG Edmonton skyline from about mill creek.

Image:Millcreek.JPG another 1

Image:Oliver-rise.JPG Oliver

Image:Yh-level.JPG High Level

Image:River-EDMONTON.JPG river

Also, lemme know if they are good but need to be worked on in a editing program (n how). Thank you so much! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:41, 29 November 2008 (EST).

Image:Jasper103104edm.JPG - Odd composition, with wires taking a prominent position. Camera angle is a bit high.

Image:Edm-101.JPG - All the light is in the background, foreground has little. Background light is very strong and the reflection from the window on the left is a distraction.

Image:Place.JPG - Not too bad. Not exciting either.

Image:Edmonlicious.JPG - I would hope to see the same view when the trees aren't bare. The parking lot doesn't add much either.

Image:Edmonton-Canada-Yum-CN.JPG - I don't find the subject interesting really. People won't miss seeing this landmark anyway, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Image:EdmontonSkyline-Whyte.JPG - All in shadow.

Image:Millcreek.JPG All in shadow. Nothing seems to have direct light.

Image:Oliver-rise.JPG - Lacks balance somehow. I dunno.

Image:Yh-level.JPG - Lacks color. It almost looks like a black and white photo.

Image:River-EDMONTON.JPG - Also very grayscale.

(WT-en) Texugo 00:23, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Wow-so basically I spent 3 hours wasted? Great. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:48, 30 November 2008 (EST).

Only if you learn nothing from it. (WT-en) Texugo 01:04, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not an expert photograph analyst, but here's what I think:

Jasper103104edm - I like the building in the back, but the wires are kind of annyoing.

Edm-101 - looks sweet.

Place - looks better than the previous.

Edmonlicious - I agree with Texugo on this one. Maybe you could crop the bottom?

Edmonton-Canada-Yum-CN - I didn't really like this one.

EdmontonSkyline-Whyte - not enough light.

Millcreek - same thing.

Oliver-rise - I like this one.

Yh-level - very dark.

River-EDMONTON - I also like this one.

--(WT-en) Local hero 01:02, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I can see what I can do with a few (edit) and yeah. If there are any more comments lemme know. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 01:39, 30 November 2008 (EST).

donno if this is what you guys are looking for:

Image:Edmonton-skyline-mc-v2.JPG

Image:Jasper-v2.JPG

Image:EdmSkyl.JPG

also

Image:Ccm.JPG

KEEP SMILING, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 02:09, 30 November 2008 (EST).

I'd say no for the first two-- you just succeeded in making the sky too bright. The third is acceptable to me now, though a bit crooked (fixable). I'd like to see it replace the current Edmonton/Central lead image, if anything. That last picture has a hell of a shadow across the main subject. (WT-en) Texugo 02:22, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Well I don't know what to do. It seems I am very good at making crappy photos. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 12:00, 30 November 2008 (EST).

Image:Skyline-Edmonton.JPG

Image:Skyline-Downtown-High-level.JPG (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 12:55, 30 November 2008 (EST).

Hi EE, I have to say I agree with Texugo on these pics. The only one I think that stands out is the skyline-downtown-high-level one above -- it's good, but it should have the sky cropped quite a bit. A couple of words of advice:

While it's easy to take a photograph, it's hard to get a really good photo. I've gone out many times before for 2-3 hours and come away with nothing or maybe one good picture. So don't take it hard if Texugo or me or anyone else doesn't think the photos are great, it's just difficult to do sometimes.
Watch the digital zoom (optical zoom is fine). Digital zoom degrades picture quality quickly and I noticed a couple of the photos had it. (WT-en) Shaund 17:19, 30 November 2008 (EST)

I rarely use dig zoom, though. Thanks, Shaund. I really try, but like you said, it is hard during winter. Even now, it isn't dark, but it isn't too bright and taking a photograph would end up dark. I will see if I can further edit that skyline one. I was really hoping the mill creek one would be liked as I really liked that one-but, guess not. Maybe I will try again in a couple weeks because I am thinking about going shopping downtown then I think. Thank you all three. Tex, LH, and ShD, thank you. What about the one of Oliver? Sigh, thanks! Keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:25, 30 November 2008 (EST).

Okay, so these are the good ones: Skyline-Downtown-High-level.JPG; Oliver-rise.JPG; Place.JPG; River-EDMONTON.JPG? Or is it less? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:01, 30 November 2008 (EST).

merge

I am thinking to make a more lush district, merge MillWoods and East? Or if you think, go further and merge in Southwest as well. If we merge the two it can be named Southeast or if merge 3 then south. What do you think? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 14:03, 2 December 2008 (EST).

Judging from the content currently in these articles, it looks like a merge would be a good idea—they're all quite small articles. And the general rule of thumb is that having fewer districts is desirable, content allowing. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, but how far? Just two of em or three? I am leening to 2. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:31, 2 December 2008 (EST).

Well, again I don't know anything about the area, but if you don't intend to add much more content to these articles, I'd merge all three. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)

alright keep smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:52, 2 December 2008 (EST).

Yes....I know...crazy...another image discussion

What I am wondering is between this and the districts...is there any ugly photos that need to be removed? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:23, 3 December 2008 (EST).

Is this one just a sunset over a carpark? I can't figure out what it is. --(WT-en) Inas 20:58, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Alright. It is a power centre. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:48, 7 December 2008 (EST).

A shopping centre and carpark at sunset! I've never heard the term power centre, used before, and I really had no idea what it was from the photo. Perhaps there is a better one for that area? --(WT-en) Inas 23:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks Inas - its a North american term - - basically a huge big box place. That area is verry ccookie cutter maybe i could get a photo. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:20, 8 December 2008 (EST).

You make the second person who had to look up the term power centre, Inas. I support changing the description because although there is a wikipedia entry that explains what a power centre is, I don't think the terminology has really caught on enough for the average reader. (WT-en) Texugo 00:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Well, I can change them if I see them. What do we call them - shopping centres of doom? ugly cookie cutter thing with a bigger parking lot than the downtown core total? the boring oblivion of suburban life? what? that was a joke, btw. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:51, 8 December 2008 (EST).

is it a travel destination? if not the question becomes academic. --(WT-en) Inas 14:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)

not everything is a travel destination - but stuff is of interest to the traveller. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:05, 8 December 2008 (EST).

winter light

I am wonderign what to do about this new festival, Winter light, , but it will be in South Central, Central, and Southwest Districts. How are we going to have it in the distrcit articles? It shoudln't be in the main. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 16:24, 11 December 2008 (EST).

I would mention it in all four places, honestly, as long as there are significant events in each of the three districts. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:41, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, its basically a big festival that is collaborative of like 10 mini festivals. Kindof like the Carnaval de Quebec. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 16:50, 11 December 2008 (EST).

itinerary

I have an idea of doing an itinerary "A Weekend in Edmonton", and it would have one for Winter and Summer (as they vary). I am wondering if there is support? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:07, 11 December 2008 (EST).

Edmonton Itinerary - Overview -Would comprise 2 sections- Winter (October to April) and Summer (April to October)

Winter

Skiing (places to ski)
Nice places to get coffee
Skating
Winter fests
Hotels with warmness
Best places to shop for gifts
Indoor activities
Snow activities

Summer

Festivals
Shopping outdoor
Outdoor activities
Boating in the river
Swimming
Indoor places with air conditioning worthwhile
Trails
Parks
Hotels near the action

Sorry if that is a bad overview, I hope you really get what I am saying. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:32, 15 December 2008 (EST).

Where-to-Put?

Where do you think this should go - I don't know and I am thinking it is outgrowing Get out. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:01, 17 December 2008 (EST).

Improvement of Edmonton main article, districts, suburb municipalities, and metro area

Hi, I know this has been asked but things have changed since this was last brought up. Where can the Main article, districts, suburbs municipalities (like Sherwood Park), and the metro area (ECR) improve? Right it all down in a list. Just list them out. That's all. They can be small ... or not. Why am I bringing this up? Because I want a list for moi and others to work on for next montsh COTM. If you want to add more to a point already said, put it in brackets beside the alrerady done point and sign your name) Here, I'll start:

Improved images
Finish cleaning main article
Make sure listings have addresses, websites
Create full entries
More feedback on things that we may want to be changed
Update to maps; couple new ones

(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:57, 18 December 2008 (EST).

Leduc or Edmonton? Edmonton International.

Should we have the information for Edmonton International in Leduc, 11km s, where it actually is, or in Edmonton? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:40, 18 December 2008 (EST).

I'd say Edmonton.

If someone is flying into Edmonton, they're there to see Edmonton and not Leduc.
I think it would be more confusing and add an unnecessary extra article to print if the airport was listed in Leduc.
Some other major cities that have their major airport outside of town -- Vancouver, Toronto, Auckland and Vienna, to name a few -- all list the airport in their article and not the actual town/suburb it is located in. (WT-en) Shaund 23:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I agree with Shaund. That is really Edmonton's airport, not Leduc's. It certainly wouldn't have been built there if Edmonton wasn't right next to it. (WT-en) Texugo 23:22, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, what I was thinking. But Leduc should have mention that it actually holds the airport. It is essentially of Edmonton and Leduc is a suburb. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:43, 19 December 2008 (EST).

routebox qeii

What I am wondering is if you think in QEII in the routebox, the first (MNR) destination in S bound should be Red Deer or Edmonton International Airport which is already technically apart of Edmonton but still really in a different city in the metro area, kind of like Toronto in Mississauga. What do you think? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 12:47, 19 December 2008 (EST).

Red Deer is halfway to Calgary! Leduc should definitely be first. (WT-en) LtPowers 15:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Okay :). (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:42, 19 December 2008 (EST).

Leduc - a district of Edmonton

In light of Leduc County holding Edmonton International Airport, and anyone visiting Edmonton via EIA would think Leduc is just a small truck stop/place with hotels near the airport and that EIA is in Edmonton technically - although the farmland between might change that. I don't know. I think it would be more convinient, but I don't really know if a traveller thinks that way - I am just guessing if I were in the situation. Kinda like UBC in Vancouver, BC is actually not apart of BC or Vat City in Rome, thats the thing i was after. what do you think? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:55, 19 December 2008 (EST).

Or what we could do is just have Edmonton International Airport as a seperate page like Heathrow or O Hare - but I don't know much as to fill an article on the airport - I could do some research but still. I don't know. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:20, 19 December 2008 (EST).

EIA

I am proposing we do an article on Edmonton International Airport just to solve this whole debatacle - I know it is mostly with me, as everyone has been really really helpful. Anyways, the official website has most of the information I'd need (of course I won't copy, but I will get an idea of the stuff in there). I really hope I can do this okay. I guess what the point of this post is, is there support for such a thing? I could do a lot of it, probably, but, it would be perfect with a cotm for others to do so aswell. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 19:54, 22 December 2008 (EST).

Hi EE, I don't support a separate article for EIA. We only make separate articles for airports if they're huge airports the size of small cities (to quote Project:What is an article?) -- like O'Hare in Chicago and Heathrow in London. No offense, but I really doubt Edmonton's airport is on that scale. Many cities have their airport outside of town and I think the Edmonton article handles it fine. It might not hurt to wiki-link the reference to Leduc or maybe add one line saying food and lodging can be gotten in the nearby towns of Leduc and Nisku (provided there is some). Anything further (I think) is making this more complicated than it needs to be. (WT-en) Shaund 21:42, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Oliver?

In the see Section Oliver has no description. --72.73.121.80 12:35, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Yes I know, I'm workin on it. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 12:42, 20 December 2008 (EST).

Districts New

Lately, I feel we need to rework the districts per my original thought - each had a different personality. Some of them may have different personalities but need to be merged because there just isn't enough information. What we would see:

West End taking entirely south of Yellowhead
Partof Central and Highlands create North Central
South Central is trimmed and renamed Old Strathcona and Area or Old Strathcona-University of Alberta
Central is trimmed
SE and SW merge to South

to put into perspective: I have a map. Shaund I'd love your opinion cause you'd be doing this. I won't change anything until there is a consensus.

Current districts format and names:

Image:Curent D.PNG

New format and names:

Image:Newdistrict.PNG

I am open to other names and other changes. But I'd like some opinions. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 14:08, 21 December 2008 (EST).

I haven't looked at the districts closely to see if it would work, but my initial thoughts are positive. A few things that come to mind:

- The map shows East is also merged in with SE and SW. Is that your intention or a typo on the map? If you are going to merge the three districts, I'd suggest calling it SE rather than South.
- For the Strathcona district, I'd go with Old Strathcona-University (it's a bit shorter, and generally, we try to stay away from "and Area" in a name, although it does happen from time to time)
- Is there a name for the area around the airport, so we could get away from the "North Central" moniker? Highlands-Airport or something similar?

I'll try to take a closer look and add some additional comments over the next few days. No promises though, since I'm going to be occupied with family duties for the next week. (WT-en) Shaund 15:40, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks Shaund. East and Mill Woods have been merged to SE already. Anyways, yeah that whole area would be South because there isn't enough information. Ok, thanks for the name. Ugh I hate that City Centre Airport and am glad this site has like no coverage of it. Anyways, in 2009 it is supposed to get closed down. The areas around CCA are Queen Mary Park, Inglewood, MCDougall, slightly east: Alberta Avenue, Delton. Alberta Avenue is more wide known and is large so I'd be in favour of Alberta Avenue-Highlands I guess. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:47, 21 December 2008 (EST).

Sorry, late response, but this is what I get for the new names:

Central
Old Strathcona-University
Highlands-Alberta Avenue
West
North
South (seems maybe a SE/SW is still wanted)

(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:29, 22 December 2008 (EST).

I am terribly sorry, as this is extremely rude, but I am quite anxious to start this bad boy up (as the opinion is yes). I know there has only been one opinion, but this is really holding me back from editing Edmonton articles further because I dont wanna have to change around more stuff/. Anyways, I am not gonna close discussion now, I mean perhaps this is just way too impatient - actually it probably is. I shall leave it open till tomorrow as maybe it being in recent changes will get people to look. I feel really bad and I know it is incredibly selfish and impatient. Anyways, thank you all. Not to mention, I know people dont respond rightaway on wikis, but I just kind of want to get this started - I dont want to force anyone to mke an opinion. I hope you see where I am coming from. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:40, 23 December 2008 (EST).

Personally, I'm confident that you know the city well, and you will consider the options, and make the best call. Nothing is cast in stone, if it needs changing later.. --(WT-en) Inas 18:51, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks Inas, that is very helpful. I am sorry if it was rude. Happy Holidays, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:54, 23 December 2008 (EST).

I totally agree with Inas. I also think that Southeast and Southwest should be separate articles. --(WT-en) Local hero 03:04, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Map Removal

Are maps created only a month or so ago are so outdated now as to warrant removal? --(WT-en) Inas 20:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Hi Inas. I made some mistakes on them/asked Perry to put stuff that isn't needed (i.e Chains) and some names need an update and some need more stuff added and whatnot. Regardless when it was made, it is outdated. Eg, the Oliver one should say Oliver-Old Glenora, it was my fault but it warrants an update. The Downtown one has a bunch of chains which only clog up the map with unneccessary stuff. the Old Strathcona one is too small, and I have new listings to add but the size needs to be changed. Not to mention, Perry has yet to respond to any of my responses about it (i.e. tips, if PerryPlanet even started, how far along , that sort of stuff) so unless he can say something, I am going to assume he doesn't want to do them at all which means they'll sit outdated which I don't want so I am removing them until they are either updated or someone creates a different one. I know it sounds really picky and most of the stuff that needs changes are my fault. Anyways, thanks for asking instead of just bringing them back or anything, I hope my information was clear and shows my point which I find very valid. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:46, 13 January 2009 (EST).

Do not delete the maps, please. A map with a few bits of outdated info is much better than no map at all. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)

If you have a list of what needs changing I can probably make the changes fairly easily. So could you if you install Inkscape -- it's much easier to modify an existing map than to make one from scratch. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:09, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks Lt, I can get you that stuff pretty quick . (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 16:53, 14 January 2009 (EST).

Comment from 192.197.128.19

This article has some good information in it, but really needs editing for style (ie, the profusion of the word 'stuff' and the phrase 'lots of stuff'), and spellchecking. Remember: it's = it is ONLY. —The preceding comment was added by 192.197.128.19 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to edit it yourself. =) (WT-en) LtPowers 18:58, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Districting - was it truly necessary?

I'm looking at how we've "districted" Edmonton, Alberta. Many of these districts are quite light in information, sadly. I was wondering if it was neccessary to even do it in the first place. Just wondering some feedback, as I'm doubting it. If there is no discussion, then I am going to assume I'm write and perhaps undistrict it. Is it too fluffy? I find that a lot of the information is useless, do you think so? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:59, 23 May 2009 (EDT).

I wouldn't be too rash. Edmonton is a good-sized city and it's not unreasonable to district it, and you certainly put a lot of work into it. If you want to consolidate, I'd start with combining districts that have less information; perhaps the article will work better with fewer districts. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:18, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I think there's plenty of content to warrant doing districts. The ones that seem a little slim are Alberta Avenue-Highlands, Southwest, Southeast, and North. I don't know anything about Edmonton, but maybe if you combine Southwest and Southeast (into a "South"?) and Alberta Avenue-Highlands with North ("North"?), then they should be fine. The other districts look like they've got plenty of content ("Central" is just as long as the Loop!). (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 16:21, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks you two for the quick responses. Yeah, combining a few districts actually would make more sense. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 16:27, 23 May 2009 (EDT).

Changes that are being made:

Merging Alb Ave-High with North to create north
Putting together SW and SE to make South
Extending Central W to 142 st and N to 118 ave.
Rewritting of certain Central, West, South, and North disticts

(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:08, 24 May 2009 (EDT).

Districting - traveler's views

I use WikiTravel to find entertainment and dining when I'm on the road. I like to try different things every time I visit, and I really like to know what the locals have found to be the local "best". I could never figure out why WikiTravel Edmonton decided to go for the "district" approach. A couple of years ago I could crack the Edmonton page and pretty quickly find an interesting restaurant, and maybe good place to grab a drink or hang out for the evening. The "districted" version split up the useful information and put it all over the place, based on some location scheme (perhaps) of interest to Edmonton residents. Edmonton just isn't that big. When I'm staying downtown, most of the interesting places in town are within a twenty-minute drive - about half of what my daily commute is at home. Edmonton is not a "huge city", except perhaps to its residents (?) - it's a nice-sized Canadian city with a couple dozen good-to-excellent restaurants and maybe eight or ten clubs worth spending a night at. Shopping there's not really distinctive from what I've seen, but on the other hand the theatrical arts seem to be a real strong point. I can't see much point in stretching Edmonton's article across multiple web pages like it was New York or London England. As some of the others have written above, there isn't that much "best"-type material to write up. Accept this and try to get the Edmonton article back to the useful, focused approach you had in the past.

What I want here is what I want from a Frommers' or Lonely Planet travel book - the city's best stuff (restaurants and clubs for me, but also recreation and shopping for others) in a single place. In Los Angeles, the list of really hot spots might be too long for one web page - so maybe there's an argument to break it up by districts. But not Edmonton. if you've got too many items for one web page (not too likely) just check whether they're all really the best in town. A travel guide doesn't have to be encyclopedic (that's why we've got WikiPedia), it's got to help a traveler enjoy the town as much as a local person can. Highlight the "best" of everything. I'm only in town for two or three days at a time. There's almost no use to knowing the tenth-best of anything - focus on the top items. Put the encyclopedic knowledge in Wikipedia, not in WikiTravel - maybe the Wikipedia Edmonton article should be districted instead. (Speaking of Wikipedia, why do they have all the good-looking Edmonton photos while WikiTravel has those muddy midwinter amateur-looking snapshots? Don't all wiki people have access to the same pictures?) But for WikiTravel, see if you can get Edmonton's best stuff back onto one page where it's easy to find. (WT-en) JakeAustin 21:45, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Strip out the filler

Perhaps in somewhat the same line, can I suggest an editor take a run at this Edmonton material and cut out the unnecessary / uninteresting / useless material? That step alone might get everything to fit back on one page. What I'm talking about is the vast numbers of "filler"-looking sentences that either provide the traveler no useful information whatsoever or could equally describe almost any city in WikiTravel:

"Edmonton is home to a wide range of alcohol places."
"Edmonton has a lot of good smoothies."
"There is such a wide range of the mid range hotels in every part of town."
"Edmonton is definitely world class when it comes to dining."
"Edmonton's downtown is fairly eclectic, home to numerous Government of Alberta buildings as well as modern office towers, including the CN Tower near City Hall and the impressive, white marble-clad Bank of Montreal on 101 Street." (And this is in the "Getting Around" section - why?)
"Edmonton is served by a variety of taxi services both small and large."
"Edmonton also has some nice modern architecture, but it isn't as pronounced and is often buried between some (not a lot) ugly modern styles (and no, not just in the suburbs)."
"It is a very artsy, trendy, and edgy area."
"Whyte Ave. - this trendy dining spot is south of the river, with trendy, unique restaurants that offer gourmet food of every variety."
"This area is definitely the artsy, hipster, liberal, vibrant, and educated hub of the city."

If the filler-like material was removed, the whole Edmonton article would be more informative and might even be a good length to fit back on a single page - which I still think is the best format for it. (WT-en) JakeAustin 21:45, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Clean up the grammar

And one last thought: please clean up the grammar too - there must be some literate Edmonton-er with a few hours to spare to polish the Edmonton article. There are some real clunkers in there now:

"The quality differs, as does difficulty, and are not necessarily linked."
"The city is home to plenty of stuff for travelers to check out whether you're into tourist traps or not."
"A sprawly area of the city home to the famous West Edmonton Mall."
"South Central pertains to the area south of the river, but still very urban and centralized in Edmonton."
"There are many brutalist architecture styles in office buildings, apartments, and other reflecting early modernism."
"Shiny office towers luring over the downtown core and beautiful old homes in McCauley."
"Some areas of Jasper Avenue can seem a little dangerous [by perception] and dirty (between 103 and 99 St. in the spotlight) although it is safe to walk by them without getting hurt or begged at."
"The Peter Hemmingway Pool has excellent curves and beautiful glass you'd be surprised it was built before the advent of the quick and easy modern computer."

I should say that the quality of writing varies a lot over the various Edmonton articles, with the main page being pretty shaky and some of the district-y pages looking more polished. Maybe some of the better writers could help out the others. (WT-en) JakeAustin 21:45, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I think you're correct in your assessments with regard to filler and grammar. (I don't know the city well enough to say whether it's over-districted.) I'd definitely encourage you to plunge forward and edit the examples you've given above.

Some of the licenses used for photos on Wikipedia are not compatible with our version of the Creative Commons license, which is a situation that we hope to resolve in the future. Some Wikipedia images may be usable here, though. Check our copyleft to get an idea of what we can and can't use. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:21, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

OK - I hear you. I plunged forward on the grammar / clarity front for about half the first page, occupying a quiet evening in Regina. I'll try to continue at my next stop and see if I can live up the the WikiTravel "don't fuss, just fix" standards. I don't know what to suggest with regards to the photos - I didn't know there license incompatibilities with Wikipedia, and I probably wouldn't understand the details, so I'll leave that aspect for the experts.(WT-en) JakeAustin 20:27, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I should also note that the problem of not having "the good stuff" in the main article shouldn't generally be a problem. In an "ideal" districted article, the highlights still need to be mentioned in the main article, though you do have to drill down to the districts for contact details. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:37, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Edmonton undistricting

I understand your point, but respectfully disagree. I can only re-state my original observation, which is that -- to me -- Edmonton does not need "huge city" status in WikiTravel. I'm just an occasional visitor, and by extension I am ignorant of Edmonton's hidden charms, but I have not yet been convinced that there is such a wealth of traveler-related interest in Edmonton that the article couldn't be compacted back to a single page.

I would recommend review of the Edmonton material and organization in Frommer's or similar travel guides: none that I use have pumped Edmonton up to the scope of one of the world's huge cities. Skipping the trip to the library, I would also call your attention to the difficulty other contributors have had in building interesting "district" articles, once the hot spots are broken out (that is, downtown, Whyte Avenue, and that huge shopping mall in the west end).

Edmonton is a nice city, don't get me wrong, but I can't buy the WikiTravel "huge city" designation for it. I think taking this approach has made the Edmonton article user-unfriendly. At the risk of glorifying a rival city, look at the excellent Calgary article: everything I need is right there on one page, no filler, no need to understand Calgary's "districts". Calgary's just one of many good examples, but I think it's worth reconsidering the current "districtification" of Canada's northernmost big city. The observation that the main page doesn't have the "good stuff" is in fact the general problem - at least to this traveler. (WT-en) JakeAustin 20:27, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a hard call. Edmonton isn't the only districted city with these problems. I often think that it would be better to have the main article of a districted article covering the downtown area of a city and the main famous attractions, and have the secondary district articles covering the less visited parts of a city as separate articles for people who happen to be visiting a district for business, or who want to delve deeper into the suburbs of a large city. However this certainly isn't the way we do things at the moment. Sometimes I think we make things worse by building up the top level city article, with all the Get in and around info, so a person just interested in visiting the main areas has to look in two articles.

We shouldn't become too concerned with articles seeming a bit bare, as long as they cover a decent slice of geography. After all we have many small town articles which essential say there is nothing there to see, if you read between the lines.

The risk of undistricting is that entire suburban geographies get no coverage. Do you think that the suburban areas are covered in the Calgary article?

Do you think the districts of other Canadian cities like Montreal work better, or do you see the same problems there? --(WT-en) inas 00:55, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Aren't Calgary's suburbs covered in the Calgary Region article and its destinations? (WT-en) LtPowers 08:59, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for the feedback. I thought I might be goring someone's favorite ox when I made my first comments, and now I don't feel that I was overly harsh. I'm just going to make a couple of quick observations before heading to the airport, again from the traveler's point of view, re: districts in general and the Edmonton article specifically.

Encyclopedic descriptions for Wikipedia, traveler's wisdom for WikiTravel. When you write for WikiTravel, I imagine you put yourself in the traveler's shoes and make a note of one or two of your favorite items that you know will work out really well for someone coming into town for a few days. This is "traveler's wisdom", because it allows travelers to home in on the city's "best stuff" the way a local person would naturally do. I also imagine that as a writer you may find that your neighborhood needs some more lines about it to match the detail level for another neighborhood, or the detailed history of some part of the downtown railway yards hasn't been given enough loving attention. This is no longer "traveler wisdom", this is "encyclopedic description of the geographic area". Which does belong on the web, and which has a home in the infinitely detailed pages of Wikipedia. Some travelers will actually have an interest in the names of old towns that made up the city a hundred years ago, or what decade the sewer plant got built. In any given year, all of Edmonton's travelers together probably represent every interest in the known universe, from kinky sex researchers to big game hunters to race car drivers to anything you can imagine. If they want to research their peculiar area of interest, I suggest they consult Wikipedia. If a traveler needs to know some of the things of interest to all travelers, I suggest that WikiTravel should meet their needs. The common elements of traveler's wisdom (off the to of my head - I'm sure there are more items that I haven't thought of here) are:

great local places to stay for a few days - most travelers need lodgings
great local places to eat and drink
great local places to buy necessities and luxuries
great local entertainment opportunities, including sports, theater, live music, clubs, and so on
concise safety information
concise getting-in, getting-out, and getting-around details

Recognize and communicate local "best" for the traveler. People who have lived for years or for a lifetime in one community immediately know things travelers cannot pick up on during a brief visit, such as "the best sandwich for cheap is at the Italian Center Shop" (as I found out a couple of years ago) or such-and-such is "the best club for GBL women to relax" (no direct knowledge on my part).

I can give you a kind of shaggy-dog anecdote from just a couple of days ago. I was in Winnipeg, where I haven't stayed for nearly ten years. I had to host two breakfast meetings with some other out-of-towners and went to WikiTravel to check out breakfast spots. I hope I hurt no-one's feelings in saying the WikiTravel article was craptastic in regard to breakfasts, and I can prove it here. I persevered, because I didn't to end up having the hundredth hotel-restaurant breakfast this year. With Google, I found a website by some local characters called [Winnipeg] in which the town's breakfast spots were reviewed. I got all the local "best" knowledge I needed and booked the two breakfast meetings based on that site's advice, which turned out to be excellent. I note that neither of the top-ranked breakfast places I picked were even mentioned in the WikiTravel article - FAIL. For a travel page to be useful, it has to capture and concentrate that local "best" information. I could go now to the Winnipeg WikiTravel article and at least put in the names of the two places I tried out. But it makes a lot more sense for knowledgeable locals to do that - they can put in more than two places, for one thing, and they can keep it current (which I can't). Just to differentiate the "Breakfast Winnipeg" mission from the WikiTravel mission, there's no need in WikiTravel to have the long reviews that are in "Breakfast Winnipeg", and there's no need to even mention in WikiTravel any place that doesn't rank right at the top of the quality pyramid. In short, focus on the local "best" and you will serve travelers well.

In Edmonton's case, I would suggest moving all the universally traveler-useful information back onto one page, moving all the remaining local color and historical badinage into the appropriate Wikipedia articles (there certainly are enough of them), and delete from the lodging / nourishment / shopping sections anything that is not among the best of its type in town. WikiTravel does not need the list of all Chinese restaurants in Edmonton - every hotel room has a Yellow Pages. But the top two or three, that would impress a traveler from Hong Kong or San Francisco - those are golden! Keep them in! Do the same for every category and the article will certainly fit on one page, but it will be stuffed with useful information for travelers.

I terms of what WT should be, I think you are right. We don't want the encyclopaedic stuff here, as you say, people know where WP is if they want to read up that, and we link to it from here.

But people travel for different reasons, and not every traveller is there on business looking for a breakfast meeting location. Other travellers are there to spend a week or two, and really get to know the city. As you point out, there are so many restaurant review sites, and accommodation review sites it is difficult to see WT ever excelling in this area. As you say, you found what you wanted easily enough without using WT. We can hope that locals from every town on earth drop by to add their local favorites, but I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, and even if it did, we don't really know if they are working for the restaurant, or have a vested interest. A review site will probably always give you a better result. I can see a day where we just pull accommodation and restaurants from a "partner" review site. The wiki model doesn't suit it very well. I've lost count of the amount of times a restaurant has gone from being a star to being a joke overnight and vice-versa. Who to believe?

I have to say that I would never rely on WT for a restaurant or accommodation recommendation. I go to tripadvisor before staying anywhere, and find the local restaurant review site before eating. But I wouldn't rely on Frommers or Lonely Planet either. Get a listing, price goes up and service goes down. WT also suffers in those areas that you don't know whether the listing came from an owner, and employee, a traveller or a local. You don't know whether it was written 5 years ago or yesterday.

My anecdote is about a trip to Chicago. I had a published guide at the time. I got of the Greyhound from Cincinnati, got into Chicago late, found a recommended hotel inside the Loop, they quoted me twice the price of the guide, but it was too late to argue. Went for a bit of a walk to some of the attractions close to downtown the next day. Tried to walk away from the loop a couple of times, and ran into areas I just wasn't comfortable in, tried to get the 'L' and the bus to the science and tech museum according to the routes in the guide and ended up somewhere I also didn't want to be, and decided to just keeping going to O'Hare, and got the next cheap flight out of there.

After more recently reading the WT Chicago guide, I think I both misunderstood the city, and missed seeing it.

So, how does WT become a travel guide for all travellers? It has to suit you, who just wants high level info on getting in and around, and need a good restaurant and place to stay, and it has to suit a traveller who wants to see the neighbourhoods, and who needs specific and detailed information on staying safe, and getting around, and how to save a couple of bucks on the trip from the airport by taking the local bus or train rather than the posh express service.

So, yes, the detailed encyclopaedic history doesn't have to be here. Listing every Chinese in Edmonton is pointless.

But I do think we need to preserve the travel information related to neighborhoods and districts, rather than just the prime area, somehow. --(WT-en) inas 20:45, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Edmonton definitely has a lot of problems. I don't think it's necessary to have the list of districts on each page, particularly when many are just residential areas, and yes, the grammar and writing style need a lot of tender love and care, but I think some of your points come from the failings of the articles more than Wikivoyage. For "Eat" and "Sleep", they should list the best in respect to each price range.

The ideal districted city would list the main attractions on the front page with links to their districts so that a traveller who only wants to see the top 5 attractions can go there, see'em, and leave (although they would still have to have each district article, if the sites were spread out), but I think it is one of Wikivoyage's great strengths that we can list more than just the same 2 places every guide raves about. With a fully-developed Wikivoyage page, travellers can see all of their options for sightseeing in a particular city, without being limited to choosing only the things the guidebook tells them to see. The traveller can make up his/her own mind based on their own interests rather than the interest of the book's author. Currently, Wikivoyage has a wide range of destination coverage from what I've described to cities that still do not even have pages, so every page has its own set of problems based on how previous contributors have organized the area as well as the city itself. In general, I think Wikivoyage's "Get in", "Get around", "See", and "Do" sections are the first to receive contributions and the "Eat", "Sleep", "Drink", and "Buy" sections often come later.

After looking over the current content on each of the Edmonton district pages, I am actually leaning towards agreeing that this city could probably be a single article, as far as the "See" and "Do" sections are concerned. I don't know the city, though, so I wouldn't know if there were missing attractions. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the comments. Back at ya':

I agree with Inas that I represent only a part of the traveler spectrum and I don't want to advocate taking away elements that others want or need, such as the local history and neighborhood details. I still think Wikipedia is a better place for them (looking at the Wikipedia Edmonton article, I can see that WP has taken neighborhood descriptions to a whole new level of exhaustive detail, with links from every "neighborhood" - already about a tenth or twentieth the geographic size of the WikiTravel Edmonton article's "districts" - to the eight remaining points of the compass). The travelers I (think that I) represent are probably the faster movers, looking for quick wins and the local "best" rather than exhaustive details. The great thing about the web is that it can accommodate both kinds of information with no stretching. Perhaps a compromise can be outlined (see following notes.)

Usability. I think my usability complaint for Edmonton's material could be addressed by rebuilding some form of the regular-sized city layout for "Get in", "Get around", "See", "Do", "Eat", "Sleep", "Drink", and "Buy", all on the main page. My initial point was that Edmonton is too small and has too few "best" items to support the district pages - Calgary's page is a much, much better model than Tokyo's for describing Edmonton's charms. I still stand by that observation. Getting the basics back onto one page would restore usability.

Districts for those who love districts. I think that those who want to see additional district details could place them in some form of the current district-ified Edmonton pages. (If not in Wikipedia, where I still think those details would be better organized and more useful to the world in general.) If the details were really traveler-oriented rather than encyclopedia material - like "next-best" items traveler information on "Get in", "Get around", "See", "Do", "Eat", "Sleep", "Drink", and "Buy" - they could be located in the WT district pages. I think there would be challenges splitting the "best" from the "next-best", but that could be a whole new set of arguments for a fresh new day.

Other guides. With regards to Inas' and ChubbyWimbus' comments on the relative merits of local review sites and printed travel guides versus WikiTravel, I definitely come down on the side of WikiTravel. I believe that the whole "wisdom of crowds" process and the kind of content it creates, which have made Wikipedia such a useful resource, can also generate the world's most effective travel guide. Because publication and distribution costs are so low for WT, it has no need for cash and can generate observations and recommendations that are not paid for, and not beholden to commercial interests. Because pages are (near as need be) free, as many details as necessary can be captured for each WT location. Because publication is instantaneous, WT can be far more up-to-date than the printed guides. Because it can be written by local people with current knowledge of the "best", it can be rich and definitive. I know that there are counter-arguments for all of these points, but I am sure that time will raise the web solution above any of the printed alternatives. Our responsibility is to ensure that web content and organization meet traveler's needs the best way possible, and this discussion is part of that longer-term goal. That is why WikiTravel is organized differently than the many review pages - review pages can reveal local wisdom, but compressing and organizing the most valuable review conclusions is better left to the "meta"-approach of WikiTravel.

To wrap up my contribution here, I'll finish running through the main page for grammar and clarity. The overall organization of the Edmonton material I leave for those who actually maintain it. I have enjoyed the discussion and I think I understand the "districtifier" point of view a little better. I still think Edmonton is not the city on which to exercise district-ification, but that decision is best left to the Edmonton-ers who know the city and can weigh all the pros and cons we've walked through. (WT-en) JakeAustin 02:22, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Yep, I can't agree with Inas on review sites. They are mostly populated by morons (excuse the condescension) with little knowledge or expertise on their subject, leaving snap judgments based on one visit and zero research (to determine if their experience was unusual, or even things like what the restaurant/bar/shop's specialty is). I feel quite confident that the Wikivoyage Chicago guide is the best quick guide to eating out in Chicago. There are a few other excellent sites (like Centerstage ), but they don't come close to the convenient format WT offers travelers. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:05, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't want to get into specifics, for confidentiality purposes, but I've taken sales calls from review sites at my day job...and, after taking said calls, I would not encourage people to put a whole lot of stock in review sites. That is a shady industry with bills to pay. TripAdvisor is not one of the sites I'm referring to, but there's this recent story to consider with them. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:40, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

WT is not immune. There is, no doubt, people being paid to put info on this site. Although we sometimes coordinate to remove the most touting entries, the reality is much of the accommodation and restaurant content here is written by someone with a vested interest, and we are certainly not immune to the "moron" factor either.

I'd like to believe that consensus from a wide range of views could build a good restaurant or accommodation guide, but I'm not convinced. Consensus is hard to achieve at the best of times, and to achieve it between a business owner and a patron may be near impossible with the commercial interests at stake - unless we strike a balance at bland.

The Wiki model can be really good at prose for accommodation and restaurants. Which neighborhoods have what, the good "eat streets", the style of accommodation or restaurants in which area.

However, the tripadvisor style of accommodation listing is better than WT listings. You get a choice of all accommodation in an area with a summary, a reasonably accurate guide to price, high level ratings - and reviews from people where you can quickly check their credentials in terms of the reviews they have previously written - easy to weed out the morons. --(WT-en) inas 19:35, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Wikivoyage and sites likes TripAdvisor and Virtual Tourist have different goals, so all have their place. In my opinion, accommodations can easily be reviewed by oneself at the hotel website, but sometimes there is information worth giving that isn't on the site (or no website). (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:43, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to bring this up (again it seems). As the original person who started that whole "districting", I can see now there just isn't enough information to spread out for a city of 1.1 million inhabitants. Much of it just seems filler and there just so the articles don't seem bare. The Calgary system is a lot better. I think de-districting or un-districting might be a good idea, as much of the info is unneccessary. Many restaurant listings aren't needed, especially for a city as small as Edmonton is. From the central article: ride the bus, Festival of Trees, so much detail on a dinky strip like 124 St, random businesses that don't really need to be noted like Aligator's, Java Express, Harvey's (uhh...chain!!), Ricky's (again), Boston Pizza (yup, another chain), such length for "perception". From south central: really why so much history for such a small area - we have Wikipedia, Mural tour, Mill Creek "Architecture Walk", 103-104 St, Etzio, Julios, Boston Pizza, etc. And this is just a sampling from two districts. It seems like a lot of fluff, and stuff like the sports venues in Central and the theatres in South Central could easily be accomodated (although in less detail) in one main Edmonton article. Thoughts? PS - yes, I know I did a lot of those stupid listings. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 22:47, 16 April 2010 (EDT).

Hospital`s dead link

The links for Edmonton`s hospitals are dead. This is the proper link now for some of them, but I don`t know how to change the link: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/

Drop "dress warm when it's cold" section?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Would anyone object to dropping the text box under Climate with advice on dressing warmly when it's cold? It seems unique to Edmonton, not showing up in (say) Moscow or Stockholm or Anchorage, possibly because it is not useful to the independent adult traveler. If it belongs anywhere, it may be in a universal WV resource on how to dress for unfamiliar climates, because if it's needed for Edmonton, it's needed for a few hundred other articles. I may be imperceptive to others' needs in this area from long habit living in Canada, so please advise. WinterCity473 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see no arguments against this cleanup, so will go ahead and remove the text box under discussion. WinterCity473 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alternative banner for this article?

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I find it hard to favor one of these images over the other. Why do you think the new one is better? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The images are similar, but the original gives a better definition of the city. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agree the original shows the city building better --Traveler100 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like the new suggestion better. The composition is more pleasant - with the greenery all around - and also the quality is better. I think there is some chromatic aberration in the current banner. Danapit (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you want to assess new views of the city I have a few in my collection that could be made into banners where the old power-station is less dominant. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a strong preference, but I find the lighting and framing of the current banner a little more dramatic, so I'd prefer to keep the existing one. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Current Syced (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have a slight preference for the new one. I agree with Danapit that the quality and composition are superior. Powers ^(talk) 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the current banner. I agree with Danapit that the image quality of the new banner is better, but I find the lighting and composition of the current banner more appealing. -Shaundd (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

My problem with the composition of the current banner is that it doesn't show any context; it's just buildings. Could be any city. Powers ^(talk) 15:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the new one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply