User talk:Friesguy

Welcome!

That's exactly what I meant. I wonder if the extensive discussion of potash and other natural resources belongs on the Regina page. Certainly it is relevant and useful information but I note that the page is attracting the comment that it is getting too long (despite the recent relocation of the extensive history section to a separate sub-article). Perhaps it's appropriate, if it is indeed the case that the article is starting to exceed the recommended length, that there be a link to a separate sub-article on natural resources and industry. Masalai 05:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we are at our limit as far as length of content, but I feel that the Industry and resources section was necessary to put an up to date picture on the city. Anyone that hasnt been keeping up with Regina's recent history would still think that we are totally at the beck and call of the farm economy. Reality is that Regina's economy is currently listed by the big banks as having a growth rate in the top 5 in the country, in spite of the worst farm economics in history. Friesguy 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Friesguy. I've done some modest editing and added the following comments to the discussion page for the Regina article.

I quite agree about the lists. But also with the proposal to hive off further discussion into separate, linked sub-articles. The history section being separated was a good move (although it needed a prodigious amount of editing), though others have continued adding tidbits to the main article. The issue with the quality of the prose is one that comes and goes; the article gets a thorough edit and then more material gets added here and there, not necessarily in the best place for it, not necessarily very well written (I don't mean you, Fries!). Sure, let's go for it. Masalai 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done a lot of editing down of the article, reducing unnecessary repetition, toning down the civic boosterism a tad. I reject the criticism that listing eminent Reginans is inappropriate. How else is a city known? The suggestion that there is a lack of documentary citation is entirely valid, though: too much of this article comes straight out of my own head (not that it's incorrect for that; only that it needs documentary citation) or from captions in the many pictorial histories that have been published over the years. Perhaps someone who doesn't have to travel intercontinentally to do so could pay a visit to the Regina Public Library, the University of Regina library or the legislative library to beef up the citation section. Fries, I really don't think you should be so modest -- you have added immeasurably to the article and congratulations, not criticism are due.Masalai 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is starting to look very good thanks to masalai, kmsiever and everyone that has contributed. I have to apologize for not having the time to lend a hand too much lately as I have pressing family health issues. Ps I have contacted Balfour collegiate about the unwanted additions in the Famous Reginians and students will have protocol discussed. Friesguy 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you have “family health issues,” friesguy. May I say that it is entirely in keeping with your classy style that you have discreetly said that and no more. I hope that you will soon be able to back to the project; in the meantime, rest assured that I urgently defend the Regina article from its critics. Masalai 10:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Regina's Big Dig

Hi, could you expand upon this to explain why it is notable? Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Further re: length of Regina article

We're still getting the thing of: "This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

May I suggest that the following sections be hived off into separate sub-articles with, of course, overviews retained in the main article:

• Industry and resources
• Wascana Centre (actually this perhaps merits a substantive article of its own in any event)

Masalai 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think youre right, the Wascana Centre article is pretty large and maybe that would be a better place for me to put "the Big Dig" stuff. Sorry for not being much help lately, just had eye surgery and still have family health issues, and, family always comes first. Friesguy 14:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Our friend Kmsiever has somewhat aggressively cut back the substantive content of the Regina article. I don't know if you will entirely agree with me on this, but I have put this message on his user-page: "Perhaps you might find it interesting to consult the Wikipedia articles on cities such as Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, all cities of some millions rather than hundreds of thousands. Previous drafts of the Regina article notably erred on the side of naïve civic boosterism ("impressive skyline" indeed!) but we should not go overboard in minimising the merits of this interesting city with its decidedly interesting past and continuingly lively present. The article (and the subsidiary articles) is now deficient in illustrative photos. I expect to be in Regina in July, or at least sometime this year, for a family corroborree and I can amply remedy this default without copyright issues. Let's not cut too aggressively, shall we?" What say ye? Masalai 11:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)