Talk:Edmonton/Central

This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.

HALP!!!!!!

Am I adding good information, or does it look silly or something? Please just look over it, it's simple, I really need someones oppinioN! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:17, 23 October 2008 (EDT) HALP!

Also, what do you think of the pics? Please comment :)! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 22:25, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for the impatience, but I really nieed some comments:)! Hello? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 23:49, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

For crying out loud, you create a new district article that people haven't seen before at 16:54, then post a comment at 22:17, then 8 minutes later you're saying "Please comment", then 24 minutes after that you are being impatient? I think your expectations are unrealistic. Chill out. Slow down. Enthusiasm is great, but "HALP" in all caps with six exclamation points should be saved for when the building is burning down, not for a volunteer wiki. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:10, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

My overall comment on Edmonton/Central is that, having created the district article, you should move listings out of the main Edmonton article into the appropriate district article. That will give the district article more flesh. Also, consider taking a couple of afternoons off to read the Project:Manual of Style. That should give you more clarity on what is desireable. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:13, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I second Jim's assessment, and having done a number of corrections here and on the Edmonton page, I too would like it if you became more familiar with the style manual. Overall, I think your writing style is pretty good-- your descriptions are fairly objective sounding and non-first-person descriptions, but specifically these things come to mind:

Consistent spelling problems:

definitely, not definately
particularly, not particularily
amount has only one m
neighborhood, not neighbourhood and center, not centre -- We use American standard spelling here.

Images go at the top of the section they are in, and always on the right side.
Colloquial spellings like goin' or keepin' should be avoided unless there is a specific reason for them.
Restaurant listings should be organized into Budget, Mid-range, and Splurge sections, not by cuisine type.
Sections like See and Do should not be subdivided further unless there are a lot of listings. Especially avoid creating idiosyncratic headers with no content.

Hope that helps! (WT-en) Texugo 08:24, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Jim: Thank you, I am sorry for my impatience, I will try and stop that. What I was going to do, was today put more info in the district artcles, the nstart summarizign the main one then:).

Texugo: Hey, ok well with some of those errors, I understand, but whats the big deal if I spell center centre, hmm? It's the proper Canadian way, and afterall, this is a Canadian artcle. I just don't get it, care to explain. I will stop with the goin'/keepin'. I was going to do Budget/Midrange/Splurge on the main page, and then use cuisine type on the districts because it would better seperate it, it think. Thanks (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:18, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Looking at it now, have I improved the article drastically? (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:15, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Considering that there was no article before you started, it is definitely much better. As others have pointed out, moving details such as addresses, web sites, hours of operation, etc for hotels, restaurants, etc. from the main Edmonton article into this article (rather than just listing places) would improve it greatly. I would suggest, however, that rather than posting general requests for immediate help all over the site that it would be more constructive if you ask specific questions. Most editors will not respond to "Help Me! Is this article OK?" but will quickly respond to specific questions. A caveat, however, is that there is already TONS of help information available (as others have pointed out) - Project:District article template provides guidelines for districts, and you can follow examples of other cities with good district articles by looking at Chicago, Paris and San Francisco. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

With regards to "center" and "centre", see Project:Spelling. To be consistent the official policy used to be to use American spelling in all articles, but enough people disagree about spelling that unless there is an edit war no one will complain loudly when British spelling is used. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:02, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Ryan is mistaken -- that policy has been updated. Centre is preferred for Canada. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Ryan! Yes, as I have already said, once I move most of the listings from Edmonton, I will summarize/delete on the main article. You just need to give me some time. Thanks for the kind words. I am glad I am progressing well. I am sorry for all the disturbances, it's just I'm curious, and very talkative, and to me, I don't get much help. Yeah, Chicago is a good example. I am using the Vancouver adnd Chicago articles as guides. I want to aim for at least one of them. Theyre both bpretty dang good! Thanks, and although small differences, you could say a lot of British SPELLING is Canadian, too. Heh. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:11, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

pictures in the article

Why can't we have them on the left side too? It's much more eye pleasing and unique! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:27, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

If anyone has opposition, please tell me, because I am putting A FEW on the left. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 17:28, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

There isn't a rule against left aligned images, but you have to use them selectively, they often mess up the flow of the text in a strange way. See how this page looks in my browser? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 22:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Looks similar to mine, but i'ts not that bad. It's just ncie for some variety, yes, I will have most right alighned (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 00:06, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

[[Image:Leftpic081025.png|thumb|350px|Looks like a mess.]] I'm pretty strongly against this because a) the left side is where you scan for that listing you read about and left-aligning picture moves some titles and headers away from the left, making it harder to index, and b) different browsers break the flow in different places, so even if it looks fine on your browser, it doesn't necessarily look fine on mine. I think 99.99% of all the pictures on Wikivoyage are already on the right, and I don't see any good reason for us to make an exception just for variety. If the pictures are getting crowded up on the right side, then it's a sign that the article has too many pictures. (WT-en) Texugo 04:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Texugo: 1) Nice computer, Ubuntu? 2) I think I will only fit the images on the LEFT now if it doesnt fit properly on the right with it's listing. But that should be pretty rare. I don't think there should be too many picutres unless it's like really cramped, so I think some, and ONLY SOME need to be left aligned. I am pretty sure I'll only need to do that mmmm...1 or 2 times...maybe 3, thats it! Thanks, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Listings

Since I'm pretty much doing this all by myself, I wanted some feedback, could'ya look at a few listings from each section and tell me if they're good enoguh for travellers? Thanks, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Overall, I think your your listings are pretty informative. Your writing is pretty good, although I think you unconsciously tend to overuse the words "definitely" (usually you misspell it too), "neat", and sometimes "funky". I also think you occasionally use exclamation marks where none are necessary, which can give your writing a rather overzealous tone. Otherwise, I generally like your descriptions. (WT-en) Texugo 06:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are two waay to spell definatey...we went through this already. Definately-Can/Brit; definitely-america. (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 10:56, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. 'Definately' is a spelling mistake. The word is derived from the Latin root 'finire' - its family includes 'infinite', 'infinity', and 'finish'. It's not a British/American difference like center/centre. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:08, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, my bad, heh. Comments on my listing --back to topci! (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Edmonton/Central Guide

Edmonton/Central is now a guide and I'd like to see some discussion on that-as in-what do you think? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:50, 6 November 2008 (EST).

Hi EE, it looks good content-wise -- plenty of listings, nice photos, generally good tone and style to the writing. We're a picky bunch around here though, and some things I think that will hold it back from DoTM or Star status are:

- a number of empty listings in the Eat and Drink sections

- many of the listings are incomplete (i.e., missing an address, or phone # or website) and not consistent with the Manual of Style (this is tedious to deal with but important!)

- a couple of non-standard headings -- typically we use Get in not Get around for a district and Neighbourhoods should be a subheading within Get in

- are there more Budget or Midrange hotels? I'm not familiar with accommodation in downtown Edmonton, so I don't know, but the listings are heavily weighted to Splurge. If there are more decent cheaper hotels we should get them listed to help balance the Sleep section.

Your effort to get all this content in has been fantastic and the Edmonton articles are a lot better for it. Now, it's just a case of getting the details in so a visitor can use the guide to consistently find the place, contact it, know when it's open, how much it will cost, etc. (WT-en) Shaund 23:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

for those particular details, thanks for the list! i know theres a few listings i need to fill. there is not really any budget hotels that are any good in central Edmonton unless listed, and in downtown specifically, there is NONE. there is also not a high ammount of midrange. but yeah. THANKS. keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:19, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Downtown Edmonton, AB Map

Hey! I would like to make a request for a map of downtown Edmonton (maybe Peterfizgerald or Shaund?)! I would like you to know that I would personally give you ALL the information all you'd need to do is apply it to a map. It shouldn't be TOO bad. Keep smilig (and also those who I gave a message I;d like in here please;)), (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:52, 6 November 2008 (EST).

Sorry, I'm not up for city maps at this point (I haven't even done them for Vancouver yet!). Also not sure that the article is ready for a map yet. There are a number of See, Do, Eat and Drink listings that don't have address info yet. These should be pretty much complete before a map is done. (WT-en) Shaund 23:59, 6 November 2008 (EST)

That's fine. I'll add more info soon! :) Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:03, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Downtown Edmonton is only one neighbourhood in the district, and 99% of it for downtown is filled. 'Workin on it... Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 15:55, 7 November 2008 (EST).

For those who don't know, User:(WT-en) PerryPlanet took the job. Thank you everyone. But if you still want to do a map, there are a few more I'd like to get done (Old Strathcona, Edmonton LRT, and I'm sure i can think of some more)...Thank-you! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 19:33, 7 November 2008 (EST).

Coast Sports?

I tried looking it up but i found nothing? Do you ever go here maybe you know more about than i do. --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

i see your working hard on the listings so please take your time... --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:47, 9 November 2008 (EST) you'll probably add info onto it anyway silly me. --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Hey Hayfield-yeah I looked on GoogleMaps (they list addresses, etc.) for some reason it isn't listed. But, if you go to the Edmonton City Centre website , you'll see there is Coast Mountain Sports. I don't get it- I even have ap icutre of Coast...Idk. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:33, 10 November 2008 (EST).

Star?

Man this travel guide has it all man oh man should be a star in my eyes. --(WT-en) Hayfield 00:49, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I was thinking the same myself. I'd like to see some more opinions. Of course we do need to go through the nomination process. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:54, 9 November 2008 (EST).

It's not quite there yet. Many of the listings are missing an address, phone number or description. A map of the district as a whole would be good to show where the other neighborhoods are in relationship to Downtown. The Buy section is probably too long; it needs to at least have the chain stores weeded out. (I wouldn't go all the way to Edmonton to buy printer cartridges at Staples) Also, I'm surprised there is no Contact section with some internet cafes. That's always important to me when I travel. (WT-en) Texugo 01:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)

'Tex, sometimes people don't think of it-but they end up needing to go to an office store or a grocery store. What I'll do is organise it into mid range, splurge, etc. The contact thing, well internet café's are in the main article. I'd rather not change that. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:03, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Ee, we all know how to use the phone book if we need to buy office supplies or eggs. What a travel guide should do is recommend a finite selection of places, unique places that make a destination what it is. (WT-en) Texugo 01:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, but that Sobey's one is useful despite it being a chain. Some like Aldo and yeah should stay. Save On Foods is pretty good too. Any other thoughts? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:07, 9 November 2008 (EST).

I do think this section is too long. For one thing, it lists some areas like 104th and 124th street under shopping areas, and then under the "specific stores" section there a lot of listings in those same areas. Could they not be combined somehow with just a mention of 3 or 4 stores within the street listing? Also, grocery stores should be listed in the Eat section, not here. (WT-en) Texugo 01:17, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I think the specific listings are much better, note: I am not using all the stores on 124 or 104. I am adding images to get rid of the planeness. Hmm well I think it will be better when I organise it bettter-tomorow. I think the more listings, the better it'd be for the traveller because they'd have lots of options. keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:24, 9 November 2008 (EST).

It is an issue that comes up over and over again on Wikivoyage: There is such a thing as too much information. 39 listings are far too many for only two categories; it overwhelms the user with too many options, making the user return to the question "which places are the best?", which rather defeats the point of a travel guide. As for images, this article probably already has too many (16). See our image policy. (WT-en) Texugo 01:39, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, I really don't know what to do. I worked really hard on all those listings and now I'm putting in too many images...UGH! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Don't be disheartened. Of course your hard work is appreciated. It's just part of the normal process; articles get bloated and then pared down over and over until they are just right. (WT-en) Texugo 01:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Sigh...so how many should I get rid of? How many images should I get rid of...ugh. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2008 (EST).

I'd say just leave it as is for now and see if we get any more comments. But I don't really think you should keep adding more. (WT-en) Texugo 01:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

How about if I add more, I'll delete another? Also could you check the Talk:Edmonton (eat, Just for fun, my images, 104th Street) I really would like some responses. I usually ask questions and then have to wait because I dont want to change it until I get some responses. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 01:52, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Buy section

So I am thinking of three approaches to the Buy section in the part about particular store listings. Please vote on which you prefer the most.

Get rid of all the listings and just add them to the map.

Add all of them to the map. And then have categories where you mention sertain stores: EG: Furniture and Décor - Edmonton is home to a wide variety of good quality home stores. If you're looking for cutting edges, 29 Armstrong would be very good. Dwell has a good selection of ultra modern pieces...youd have this for clothing, shoes, electronics, grocery.........etc.....................

Shrink the listings down to 15-20.

So?

WHAT-do-you-think!¡?¿

Keep smiling,

(WT-en) ee ^talk 03:16, 9 November 2008 (EST).

I think the second one. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:13, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Ok, no offense, I am sick of waiting and I'd like to see some action. I will be going with the only one with a vote. If anyone else wants to contribute any, please vote, we can always change it again. OK? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 14:13, 9 November 2008 (EST).

To add, I am sorry for my unreasonableness, I just really would've liked 1-2 comments. I guess it goes back to "Where is the community?" I mean it's not hard to click recent changes and see. I raid that page (R.C.). Not a difficult concept. Also, a lot of people were asleep when I asked, so that doesn't help, but some people I've noticed have been online that could have contributed. Of course, they don't have to. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 14:15, 9 November 2008 (EST).

EE - I can't speak for others, but in regards to your "where is the community" comment, while I read many of your postings via Special:Recentchanges, the reason why I don't personally respond to more of your comments is that doing so is time consuming and I'm not sure you're taking the time to read the guidelines and example articles that others have already pointed you to. You posted a comment on Talk:United States of America#Midwestern Cities? asking about changing the city list, but the discussion right above your posting was on exactly the same topic. With respect to the Edmonton "Buy" section, others have already pointed to the Project:Huge city article template guidelines, as well as the existing examples of star articles in Chicago and Singapore that can be followed - I don't have much else to add to that advice. You've done a lot of great work here, and while it's completely reasonable to expect the community to help out when you have questions, bear in mind that the wiki process is by definition a slow one, and sometimes you just have to do what you think is best with the understanding that someone will probably come along and change it later. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Ryan! I kind of wanted to talk specifically about the thing I was talking about in the USA Discuss, I knew there was something similar above. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 14:57, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Before I go any further, check out About the types of stores in Central Edmonton and tell me if you like it, if you do, I'll continue. THOUGHTS?

I don't know if a traveler needs to know about every kind of store in a city - beauty, souvenir, etc. I think you basically just want to hit the highlights such as major shopping malls, unique stores (such as those that are locally popular or have been in business a long time) and unique areas. See Chicago/Near North#Buy and Singapore/Orchard#Buy for good examples. Remember that the idea is to guide the traveler to places that are interesting/useful rather than list every single establishment. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)

So maybe do something like this: 104th Street: ....29 Armstrong is a major interior design store on the street that combines good furniture with originality. Also, there is Ces't Sera Chemistry Clothing which is a men's/woman's clothing store with stylish pieces for casual and formal. Among that, there is much more including the nice stationary store, Scroll Shop and the nice bridal store, Pure Bridal. Like that? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 16:00, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Bear in mind that since this is a travel guide, it's probably not necessary to list places like bridal shops. As to the others, I don't know Edmonton well enough to know if there is anything special about the stationary, furniture or clothing shops. Using my own town as an example, the Culver City article lists a furniture shopping mall and a gourmet food store under the "Buy" section because they are both unique within Los Angeles; beyond that there are pointers given to the arts district and major shopping mall, but a traveler wouldn't need to know about the OfficeMax off of the highway or the video rental stores that line Jefferson Boulevard. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I understand about the bridal. For furniture shops, sometimes people like looking around in them, they could buy small accessories (candles, clocks, frames, ornaments, lighting, mirrors), and if they liked the furniture enough, they could ship it. I am not going to list IKEA or The Brick, but 29 Armstrong, Dwell, Inspired, and Lightform deserve mention because they have really good quality items that look awesome. For clothing, well a lot of people buy clothing on trips. I remember my gramma when we went down to the states-always had to go to the chain's-Victoria's Secret and Bath&Body works. Of course Bath&Body now is in Canada and Victoria sells products in LaSenza. Anyways, the clothing stores I will most likely list are the unique, independant one's like Ces't Sera and Red Ribbon. I would love to like list Strada...but it's out of business. Hehe. I think I got it, no? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 16:15, 9 November 2008 (EST).

Oliver Map

Office Depot, Wendy's, and Safeway on the map?? I find that lame in the extreme. They shouldn't be in the article, much less on the map. (WT-en) Texugo 00:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I'll give you Wendy's, but the other two are useful. I told Perry to put those two on because Safeway is a grocer and it's nice knowing where those are-now listings for them aren't really correct but listing them on a map's ok. Office Depot is similar. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 00:45, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Once again, it's not about useful. Gas stations are far more useful to a traveler than chain grocers and office supply stores, but we don't list gas stations either. Why? Because they are commonplace, they don't represent the destination in any special way, and they add no value to the article, especially in a Buy section already as convoluted as this one. Please axe them. (WT-en) Texugo 00:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)

FINE. Sigh, tonight I'll make a list of stuff to update and give it to PerryPlanet. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:32, 10 November 2008 (EST).

Also, what about Aldo, Holt Renfrew, Henry Singer, Shopper's Drug Mart listed in the downtown map? Those are all chains-more of a destination than Wendys or Safeway, but still. I find those stores in the downtown one useful, except perhaps Shoppers which is a megachain. Aldo, Holts, and HS are useful though, among others. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:07, 10 November 2008 (EST).

I believe chains like that might be best listed in the article for the region or country in which they exist. I am not familiar with those establishments, however, but I would definitely avoid anything that might be characterized as a mega-chain. I don't want to see Wal-marts, Targets, Home Depots or the like start popping up in every destination article of North America. (WT-en) Texugo 20:15, 10 November 2008 (EST)

The only time I'd put Home Depot is if it is urban format-which is a little more unique like the one in Vancouver and Chicago. Aldo is like Payless Shoesource, but higher end, I guess. Holt's and HS would be like combining Luis Vuitton, Prada and those designers into one. Make sense? Now you can make an educated response! KEep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 20:26, 10 November 2008 (EST).

article maps

Hi there! I was wondering about the maps that lovely PerryPlanet provided, I mean, did I set them up ok or should the maps be in a different location, smaller, right aligned, or are they pretty good just how they are. I just don't know. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 14:13, 12 November 2008 (EST).

skyline guide

Recently made a Skyline guide for Edmonton on the different skyline views and architecturally best buildings. I'd like for some feedback on it. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:42, 22 November 2008 (EST).

I removed two listings because encouraging people to enter a residential building where they really shouldn't be strikes me as a bad idea. If people actually started following the guide and it became noticeable to the building owners or residents, those people would not appreciate it, and that would be a pretty crap first experience with Wikivoyage. Here is what I removed:

Sask. Dr. residential towers if you don't mind trying to get in a residential high rise and looking out a north window, then this is great for you. It has the most unbeliveable skyline view as you can practically see the entire skyline.

West Jasper basically means getting in a residential tower and looking out a west face window west of 109 St NW and looking out. Very cool view and shows a lot of density.

(WT-en) Texugo 02:01, 23 November 2008 (EST)

See where you are coming from. I may add one for views from office towers, they can be more lenient-or not, I will look into that. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 11:57, 23 November 2008 (EST).

Why the hell did you delete the under construction thing - look at Chicago skyline guide - that's why I put it and if you are going to want me to get rid of it, then you gotta delete the Chicago one other wise it is unfair. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 12:19, 23 November 2008 (EST).

With Chicago, it doesn't take up space in the main article. Chicago has (and should) a separate skyline guide. I'm not sure that Edmonton needs one, but the level of detail in the main article is starting to make it much too long. (WT-en) Texugo 02:28, 24 November 2008 (EST)

So your' thinkin'? Dont be surprised on Edmonton it's much better than youd think. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 10:36, 24 November 2008 (EST).

Image

Does it look funny or does it look really good?

[[Image:Jmacdon.JPG|thumb|250px]] Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:18, 23 November 2008 (EST).

too much light i think and blurry

Funky. I like it artistically, but I don't think it'll work in a travel guide. (WT-en) Shaund 22:38, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Hey thanks, I already replaced it :)! Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 22:39, 24 November 2008 (EST).

Skyline Guide

The Architecture and Skyline guide in this article is getting quite lenghly-probably due to it's fantastic historic and utilitarian buildings. I was wondering , because it is getting very big, if we should split it off, and give some of the best a mention in here, and link it to the seperate page, similar to Chicago. If we do, should we include buildings of architectural beauty outside of Central? The University and West End are hopping with that kind of stuff. Also, should it include architectural walks (I.e. Mill Creek, Heritage, Church St., Top of the valley-bear in mind I haven't added most). Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:16, 24 November 2008 (EST).

To recap, Edmonton's Architecutre/Skyline guide has 2,487 words and 11,742 characters, whilst Chicago has 3,550 words and 17,498 characters. I must say, for a city six times smaller than Chicago, that is A LOT. That's really because Edmonton has a lot of hidden gems (depending on the style[s] you like) and I am sure Chicago could have 5,000 ish words and 26,000 characters if that guide listed all (or near) Chicagos architectural hidden gems along with a lot of lesser known skyline angles. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:28, 24 November 2008 (EST).

I'd recommend that you cull the list dramatically. I left out the vast majority of the Chicago skyline to highlight only the most interesting—too much information crowds out the most important info, and lessens the impact of the writing. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:41, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Why does it need to be cut so much? I don't see why. But, even with a cutback, could it use it's own article? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 23:43, 24 November 2008 (EST).

To recap Edmonton has circa 40 listings and Chicago circa 50. Why should it be cut back if it is less than Chicago-I could see 10 less or so, but why a bunch? I just think it needs an article!! Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 00:30, 25 November 2008 (EST).

It looks to me like it would be easy to cut many of these listings. There are plenty of buildings with unappealing sounding descriptions like "tacky", "plain" and "just regular," and some listings still have no description at all. Are "Family Worship Centre", "Low-level Bridge" and the other churches and bridges actually unique architecturally? I also have to agree with whoever said it before: I think very very few people can get as excited about brutalist concrete-box architecture as you seem to. (WT-en) Texugo 01:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

EE, Chicago is practically synonymous with the word "skyscraper". Edmonton's skyline is impressive for a city of that size, but it simply doesn't have anywhere near the number of iconic, well-known buildings as Chicago has. I'm not saying a skyline guide is out of order, but it really needs to focus on the most notable buildings. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:33, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Texugo, Low Level Bridge is kind of "meh" to me, but it is a truss bridge basically. The churches I chose have architectural appeal. ~~Which one's seem tacky, ordinary, and despite you not saying it basically...blah?~~ Plain can be a good thing, depending on how it is used. Another thing, a building doesn't have to be entirely unique to be any good or listed here, Sear's Tower isn't that unique, it has a more different shape and is a bit taller than a black box. What about the Empire State Buidling, it has uniqueness yet still takers a lot of ideas from buildings already built in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and New York. ~~That kind of makes me a touch mad as these styles are very interesting it~~ just so happens so many people don't appreciate it, not unlike the whole city of edmonton, and they are really neat. You gotta realise the 1947-1969 era and the 1980-1990 era were times when Edmonton's architectre was leading the country. Edmonton has Canada's first planetarium and first curtain wall building and the 80s architecture was 10 years easily ahead of it is time. Yes I know, Chicago, NY, Tokyo, Dubai, Toronto, Frankfurt, Miami, Shanghai all have that "skyscraper" idea going on. So, in that, how many should I drop it to? I was thinking around 25 (excl skyline views)? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 10:34, 25 November 2008 (EST).

'Ok-I deleted 12 listings, I think it is a good compromise. What do you think? AND-should it still be it's own article-keep in mind I might add a couple more if it does :). Realise that some of the buildings you may find as ugly are quite beautiful to others liek the brutalist. Also ones like AGT and Milner-though may not appeal to your and you self, it has architectural appeal and historical significance. AGT was the furst curtain wall bdlg in Canada and Milner is the first tower in Edmonton after WorldWar II. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:53, 25 November 2008 (EST).

This still strikes me as a good deal too much. If I were visiting Edmonton, I'd look at the skyline section and feel overwhelmed, and would want to simply identify the most interesting tall buildings. If you think it would be worthwhile to highlight a lot more of Edmonton's architecture, I'd recommend writing an itinerary, which would walk a visitor through downtown and give background on the architecture they are seeing. As it is, the skyline/architecture section is too overwhelming on this page. If you're looking for a good example of how to do this, I'm a big fan of (WT-en) Marc's Along the Magnificent Mile. Loop Art Tour is another good example. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:45, 25 November 2008 (EST)

What I seriously don't get is why you can't realise that Edmonton has a lot more architecutally signifigant buildings outside the "ten tallest". I will give the itinerary a thought. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 16:48, 25 November 2008 (EST).

A problem I have is how do you incorperate skyline and architecture into one article...the skyline ones are a little "off to the distance" from all the architecture stuff. They can't really fit into an itinerary and I don't want to create two. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:00, 25 November 2008 (EST).

New York (city) arguably has thousands of architecturally significant buildings; highlighting even just 1% of them in that article would make for a terrible travel guide article, and the same holds true for Edmonton. The goal of a travel guide is to provide an overview of a destination with highlights - if you want to write an architecture guide that's totally fine, but don't be upset when the opinions people give you are that an architecture guide won't be as useful to most travelers as an article that is leaner. There will of course be some people who want to know more about Edmonton's architecture, so split the detailed info off into a separate article and go into as much detail as you like, just as Peter suggested. However, when writing a guide to a city remember that if you write about 35 of anything (buildings, museums, bookstores, whatever) then you're overwhelming your reader and not giving them any sense of what they might want to focus their potentially limited visit on. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 25 November 2008 (EST)

I think Edmonton originally had about 50 listings (exlc skyline) and now it has like 35. Not bad, I could probably drop it a touch more. I am still not really lenient towards itinerary, I don't really fit's this correctly IMO, but a Skyline/Architecture guide would be fantastic. As LtPowers said, it isn't out of the question, so I'd like to keep that idea vibrant, but I am open to itinerary. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:51, 25 November 2008 (EST).

Ryan, what do you propose I shrink it to? I think it should be treated more like Restaurants not Museums. Do you really think it would be useful for a guide like that? Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 18:03, 25 November 2008 (EST).

The reason why I am bumping this is because I don't know where to go with this and maybe someone will see it now because if I could get 1-2 comments, then I'd have an idea of what to do with this because it isn't truly working as itself. Just a suggestion, please don't get angry at me for using a talk page or if I worded it wrong, please. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:54, 26 November 2008 (EST).

Is there any more opinions as I'd like to get this started. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:34, 28 November 2008 (EST).

Though there has been no thoughts I have cut it down and lemme know what you think! (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 20:45, 1 December 2008 (EST).

Useless disclaimer

I removed this disclaimer from the skyscrapers section:

This is to describe the buildings over 80m in Edmonton that are the best in beauty, not saying others don't have it, but this is a selection of the very best.

Every section of every article is just that-- a selection of the very best. If we allowed this kind of defensive-sounding disclaimer here, what's to keep something similar being posted 5-10 times in every article we have? (WT-en) Texugo 23:50, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Well someone who isn't familiar with what we do might think there isn't anything else. That is the point. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST).

You are missing the point that your argument causes a slippery slope, because the same argument could be made to introduce the same kind of disclaimer into every section of every single article we have, and that would just cause a mess. (WT-en) Texugo 00:06, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Our edits conflicted, but my take is essentially the same as Texugo's:

General practice is to use disclaimers as seldom as possible. In this case I agree with Texugo that adding such a disclaimer creates a slippery slope which would create a precedent for putting a "this section includes only a sample of X" on every section of every article on the site. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I'm glad to see discussion of this here. No more edit warring until you come to a decision here, or I will protect the page from editing. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 1 December 2008 (EST)

No worries LT, I think we have consensus. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 15:54, 1 December 2008 (EST).

Hey guys, just because you decided to stop edit warring here doesn't mean you can go do the same thing on Edmonton over the same disclaimer. Stop it. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:46, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Chill, I wouldn't call it an edit war. We were just disagreeing and we've resolved it. No worries. :-|). Keepsmiles, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 21:51, 1 December 2008 (EST).

3 Bananas

I really am unsure about this listing. It is by far an nice pplace, but I dont know where ta put it. On one hand, it has a lot of coffees, smoothies, hot chocolates, drinks, and ice creams which are very good and gives a café mood to it, but it also has mini pizzas, cookies, muffins, paninis and other little snack or lunch food. Should it go in eat or drink? (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 13:57, 11 December 2008 (EST).

While Drink is often used for coffee shops, I'd say its primary use is for nightspots. I would put it under "Eat". (WT-en) LtPowers 14:08, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Alright thanks. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 14:09, 11 December 2008 (EST).

Does it work?

Does this work for the buy section or is it too extensive or is it good?

124th Street & Environs is a major up and coming shopping area in Oliver. It features neat cafés, boutiques, furniture places, gift places, hair salons, spas, restaurants, and galleries. 124 Street has a few sub areas that are worth mention:

124th Street (between Jasper and 111 Avenue). This part is divided into:

Block to Shop (124 between Jasper and 102 Ave NW). This area is home to a nice concentration of woman's boutiques. Most of these are catered to proffessional women and are quite stylish and lead in brands and price range (some with cheap prices). For the men, some of the stores also carry menswear. There is also a few restaurants.
Gallery 124 (124 between 102 and 104 Ave). This area isn't just full of galleries of neat art, it also has some nice stores. Cute little furniture destinations and outdoor wear places line this section, as well as a lot of hair salons and a few boutiques.
124th North (124 between 104 and 111 ave). This part of 124th is growing very fast. It is the transitional area. On one part, it has high end, good stores that cater to a varied range of people. Then, there is still the stuff from before this place had interest in boutiques, interior designers, cafés, and restaurants. It hosts interior design places that are high end and some nice clothing shops for all kinds of people. It also has a lot of gift stores and small restaurants.

High Street (102nd Avenue NW between 124 and 127 St NW). This area is host to neat café's and cute restaurants with top notch quality. It also has small gift stores, most notably, Notables. There is also a few furniture places and little pastery stops that are worth it.
124 and Jasper (Jasper Avenue between 123 and 124 St NW). This area is home to the "Gallery Walk" which is totally different from shopping, unless, of course, if you are interested in buying artwork. It also has a few neat little stores, but not too many.

(WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] ^.T.A.L.K. 17:32, 12 December 2008 (EST).