Talk:London, Ontario: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:02, 23 August 2005

Latest revision as of 09:08, 18 July 2025

(263 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{oldpeerreviewTalk header}}

{{ArticleHistory

== Miscellaneous ==

| action1 = PR

Hi, buddy, please sign on using a username.

| action1date = 11:28, 18 August 2005

Good to see someone representing London Ontario in wikipedia.

| action1link = Wikipedia:Peer review/London, Ontario/archive1

Any news of political activism from that area? [[User:Qianli|<H1><strong>&#22235;&#20154;&#24110;&#19975;&#23681; &#27611;&#20027;&#24109;&#19975;&#23681;</strong></H1>]]

| action1result =

| action1oldid = 21258750

| action2 = PR

From London? The populace of London must be the most docile in Canada, and that's saying something. What's the deal about signing in with a username, by the way? What benefits does one receive by doing that?

| action2date = 06:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

| action2link = Wikipedia:Peer review/London, Ontario/archive2

| action2result =

| action2oldid = 89170525

| action3 = GAN

It's not POV that VIA Rail costs more than the bus. The VIA fare to London from Toronto is about 50% more than the bus fare. That is a substantial difference and it seems fair to me to say that that may drive passengers to the bus for a two-hour trip. I'll leave it to others to decide whether the comment should go back, though. And although VIA's reliability is a laughingstock round the world, I'll look for some public evidence of the public's disdain for it. [[User:Jfitzg|Jfitzg]]

| action3date = 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

| action3link = Talk:London, Ontario/GA1

| action3result = listed

| action3oldid = 321873515

| topic = geography

:I changed my mind. Whether it's POV or not, it's unnecessary. [[User:Jfitzg|Jfitzg]]

|action4 = GAR

I may be able to dispell some myths about VIA vs. Greyhound because I use either one every weekend. But I don't know the full story, because I pay student fares! Here's the deal for me: $11.?? for Greyhoud from Kitchener to London. $11 for VIA from Kitchener to London WITH a 6-pack (it's called a student GO-pack). So if you don't get the GO-pack, VIA is more, and it might be 50% more, Jfitzg, so you're probably right there. I suspect this is like adult fares as well, 50% more. I don't know if 6-pack are available for adults. The tardiness of the trains is a problem, however, curiously it is only in one direction. From Kitchener to London, it is 15-45 minutes late for me to arrive because it sometimes has to wait will a different train passes it. From London to Kitchener it is usually on time and it is on an EXTREMELY comfortable Amtrak train which has TONS of leg room, and comes up from Detroit I think. I took the train exclusively for a long time, but I had to walk from the city bus stop to the train, whereas Greyhound left directly from the city bus stop. And it does arrive about 15 minutes earlier. But as a whole, for someone going from London to a further distance, like Toronto or Ottawa, I'm not sure which one is better, and I don't think it would be much different. I took the train to Ottawa once, and seemed a bit faster. Although that would depend on which train as well, since they do have some faster ones now. Anyways, enough of my rant.

|action4date = 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

|action4link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/London, Ontario/1

It is appropriate to quote the prices and some statistic about tardiness in the encyclopedia article, but it's not appropriate to give personal opinions, or present a stereotypical view about something. It's been a while since I read the wikipedia policy, but whatever... [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 02:39 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

|action4result = delisted

|action4oldid = 1220697029

:Kitchener does not seem to me to get good intercity bus service. Lots of local stops and diversions. The last time I checked the train fare from Toronto to London it was over $90 return; the bus at the time was less than $65. It's $65 now. I travel the route a lot so it makes a big difference to me. VIA Rail is starved for cash. They have no replacement stock, so their service pretty well has to be bad. [[User:Jfitzg|Jfitzg]]

|currentstatus = DGA

}}

:Toronto-London VIA economy return is $96.30. Bus is $65.70 (both with tax). Difference of 46%. The VIA fare is Friday-Sunday. Both have cheaper fares, but Friday and Sunday are the most heavily travelled days.

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Cities}}

In terms of London-Montreal, VIA economy return is around $225, whereas Greyhound is around $250. VIA is cheaper for longer distances. Regardless, these matters should be discussed on Wikitravel: [[wikitravel:London (Ontario)|London (Ontario)]] -- [[User:Robojames|Robojames]]

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=Mid|on=yes|community=yes}}

}}

Looking at the list, "Arts and Culture" might be a better heading than "Sports and Recreation" since it is a big enough umbrella to cover sports & recreation, and the list seems heavy with museums, theatres etc.<br>

{{User:MiszaBot/config

[[User:Moss Hart|Moss Hart]]

|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}

|algo = old(365d)

:That makes sense...are you from London, by the way? If so, there seems to be a lot of London/western Ontario people around here :) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 00:43 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

|maxarchivesize = 50K

|minthreadsleft = 5

I am indeed from London (Ontario as we must continually add!) I will make the change.<br>

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

[[User:Moss Hart|Moss Hart]]

|counter = 3

|archive = Talk:London, Ontario/Archive %(counter)d

Jfitzg: is it really all that inappropriate to include crops? I guess they would fit better on the Western Ontario page, although there is still a bit of farmland within the city (I can often smell manure from my house :)). Also, the surrounding cropland does affect the city, since there are lots of people who take jobs picking crops in the summer (well...maybe just students picking tobacco...). [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 00:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

}}

== "[[:New London, Canada]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==

:I'm not sure that it's inappropriate, but I'm leaning that way. I think they're mentioned in [[Western Ontario]]. If you think they should be put back in, I won't revert the article.

[[File:Information.svg|30px]]

The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_London,_Canada&redirect=no New London, Canada]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 18#New London, Canada}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Thepharoah17|Thepharoah17]] ([[User talk:Thepharoah17|talk]]) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps you can confirm or disconfirm something for me. Since you are a recent Western grad I guess it's likely you don't remember the tobacco harvests of the 60s, when people came from all over North America. That really was a major source of employment for Londoners. I've been told that most of the picking now is done by poor Mexicans who are imported for the duration of the harvest and paid considerably less than used to be paid -- a strange thing for all those anti-tobacco governments to allow. But perhaps I've been misinformed.

:I was out in the Western Ontario countryside last weekend and it's looking lush. [[User:Jfitzg|Jfitzg]]

::Yeah, I wasn't born in the 60s, and I didn't even move to London until the 90s :) I don't know about Mexican workers, but when I was in high school I remember some students having summer jobs picking tobacco, and there was some discussion about whether or not they should be allowed to miss the first few weeks of school in September. But I really don't recall what the situation is now...and since the crops on the Western Ontario page, it's fine that way. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

== London as a test market ==

I've noticed some back-and-forth with describing London as a "test market". While it is true that London, along with many other similar medium-sized cities, is popular for test-marketing new products (I remember Macdonalds testing its pizza there back in the early 1980s), I don't think that information is especially noteworthy -- we could add the same thing to many, many other city articles. I recommend removing it. [[User:Dpm64|Dpm64]] 12:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:As far as I understand it is notable in Canada (or at least Ontario) for being a test market, but it's not that important I guess. I thought you were disputing whether it was factual, sorry :) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 17:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I made sure to remove the line, mainly because someone vandalized it saying London was a testing ground for [[Viagra]]--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 17:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

*London had the first Canadian McDonalds restaurant. Located at the interesection of Wonderland Rd. and Oxford St. it opened in 1969. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 06:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

==sports teams==

I dont know about other city aticles, but might it make sense to at least reference to the University sports teams? I know Western has some pretty good teams. This may just be standard not to include throught wikipedia, but oh well, just my thoughts. [[User:Say1988|say1988]] 17:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

:Well, they are sort of mentioned under the Sports section at the moment. Logically, it points to the university article, where that information would be more relevant. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 17:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how I could have missed that. sorry for wasting anybody's time[[User:Say1988|say1988]]

== Bill Brady ==

Someone just removed Bill Brady from the "Notable Londoners" section saying he's not notable. Not True! He's actually notable for myriad reasons,as shown here [http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/personalities/personalities.php?id=258]

. I didn't make his entry here, but hopefully someone else will follow this link and restore him in the appropriate section. Actually I changed my mind, I just read the link again and decided to make the re-addition myself. See ya 'round the wiki! [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill Brady is removed because by no objective measure is he notable. This is not about him having a well rounded life, that is all good and fine, however there is nothing of significance about him or his career. He is not well known and from the point of view of an encyclopedia there is a reason for not including him on those grounds. I think if you were honest by the standards of saying Bill Brady is notable there would be hundreds more that qualify for inclusion in this category. I'm not disputing that he's a good person, but he has not had any impact outside of London, and is only known within London, by a few because they were around while his broadcast was on or have read his column in the LFP. Many many Canadian's have received the order of Canada, often it merely recognizes a life well lived, but that is not sufficient grounds for inclusion as notable in an encyclopedia. Please Hamster Sandwich I plead of you remove your London bias on this and consider it from the point of view of a global interactive encyclopedia, how significant really is Bill Brady? He's not, he's pretty insignificant and therefore should be left off of a list that includes Suzuki, Banting etc. [[unknown contributor]] 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well have you read any biographical material on the man? Not only is he an Order of Canada recipient (canadas highest civilian honor), and a member of the Canadian Broadcast Hall of Fame, he had the first call in talk show in the country. That in itself should secure his notabilty. I think you should do a little research before you dismiss him. There are a lot of entries in this wiki of people who are not globally important. The point of an entry here in notable Londoners is that it is about London, not the world. Does Brady deserve his own separate stand alone entry here in Wikipedia? Probably not

but if someone wrote one, I probably wouldn't tag it for VfD either. [[Wikipedia is not paper]]. So thats my reasoning for his inclusion. I think I've addressed all of your arguements from the statement you made above. Feel free to continue this corespondence in this space. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 17:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Hamster Sandwich. It is not troublesome to create a short entry on an individual under his own community. I could understand the other individual's opinions if there was an entry on Bill Brady separate from London. Bill Brady is notable, and not just the city, but the whole CFPL broadcast area; his first "Breakfast with Brady" was in Clandeboye near Lucan, some 10 miles out of the city. Brady was long associated with the Open Line, with Bunny Bundle, and continued to host talk programs for many years, staying on the air when blizzards tied up the city, tirelessly talking on the phone and taking cancellation notices. Um, what rank does Bill Brady hold in the Order of Canada? Member, Officer or Companion? I'd hope he's at least an Officer. [[User:Gcapp1959|GBC]] 02:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:Look it would be great if he was more than he is, but he is not, he has led a decent life, and may be a nice person, I am not disputing that, but he has done nothing of significance. He was one of the first to do call in shows in Canada, but not the first unless you have evidence to the contrary, and he did do broadcasts about school closures but that is not grounds for inclusion as notable. I will continue to remove him because he does not deserve to be listed here, not forever, but for the rest of my life, which I estimate at being the next 60 years. He is a member of the order of canada, the lowest ranking for the order, and that award is given out to a fairly large number of people. A lot of Londoners have had involvement with charity and so forth, if we were being fair many more people would have to be included. Merely because he is a familar voice to some because he was a broadcaster does not make him notable.

:I do however remain open minded, if there is something of significance that he has done I am ready to hear what that is.

:I don't even know why I'm disagreeing with you about this...but why are you picking on him specifically? Out of all the other people listed here? [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 17:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

::Adam I am a very proud Londoner and think despite the fact London is modest in some respects it has produced surprisingly many varied and impressive people. Therefore on a list of who is notable from London to include people with very weak notability degrades the quality of London notables. Again Brady may be a respectable person but it is wrong to confuse or conflate that with notability.

*Re: Comment of the above anon user who has the agenda of removing Brady's entry, I have provided the proof, I did it when your removal started to go against the concensus here that he should be included. You did follow the link I provided, right? I mean its right there on that page, where it says he had the first radio call in show in Canada. So I have provided evidence. I have further shown that he was a president of the organ transplant service in Canada, Director of the Multi-Organ Retrieval Exchange Program of Ontario, the organizer behind a London centre for juvenile diabetes research and past National Director of the Canadian Heart Foundation. You seem to have an agenda for his removal from this list and quite frankly there are others on that list far less notable than Brady. I won't point them out to you though, because this has taken up too much of my time already. It might be that an RfC is appropriate in this instance, but I will guage the matter after advisement of some of the WP administration. Thank you in advance for your consideration. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 18:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

William J. Brady, C.M., LL.D.

Full Name Honour Received City and Prov. or Terr. Brady, William J. C.M. London, Ontario Honour Appointment Investiture C.M. (Member) April 19, 1991 October 30, 1991

Founding President of Transplant International (Canada), this London broadcasting executive is largely responsible for educating the public in the field of organ retrieval and is a spokesman for organ retrieval programmes across Canada and in many other countries. He is also a Director of the Multi-Organ Retrieval Exchange Program of Ontario, the organizer behind a London centre for juvenile diabetes research and past National Director of the Canadian Heart Foundation.

For your consideration. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 03:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich you are welcome for the consideration. However you are not reading carefully at least with that one page you cite that refers to Brady, it says he was an early "innovator," and "developed" it, that is not the same as the first. In fact there is a critical difference. I'm not sure what RfC refers to but I will interpret it as an extremely hostile act and accordingly dig in for the Brady battle.

If there has to be some middle ground I would like a warning label over the entry for Brady noting that his inclusion is controversial as he is not worth including. I don't think you can cite the "consensus" as being representative of more than yourself and two other users who are by no means the final arbiters of whether Brady is worthy of inclusion. He is not.

Moreover if you think that there are other unworthy people listed as notable then they should also be removed, but I know Brady should be so that's why I will remove him, and continue to do so until I die

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Here is a tip: don't say you will "revert until you die". There is always a better way, don't be idiotic. Now, clearly this guy is on the border of notability; I don't know what the solution is, but whatever it is, the current war is stupid and we will all stop reverting each other. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

*An RfC is a Request for comment. Its not a hostile act as it gives the Wikipedia community an opportunity to comment on the behaviour of particular users or situations. Your last statement proves that you are pushing a personal point of view concerning this entry and this is unacceptable by community standards. Thus the request for RfC. A warning label over the entry for your own personal reason seems on the surface to be a completely unresonable and ridiculous demand. The proof has been provided that he has achieved a certain modicum of notability. Further your challenge that you will continue to remove this material seems to me to be overtly hostile. I suggest you get over your personal bias against Brady and move on to more productive editing. Also I would suggest that if you are going to be a long term contributer to the Wikipedia project that you establish a User account. This makes dialogue between yourself and other wikipedia users possible and also holds you to certain level of accountability and credibility for your edits and actions herein. Food for thought perhaps. I would hate to see this page protected against further editing merely because of one user pushing point of view concerning the removal of a clearly credible addition to this article. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 21:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statement that the addition of Brady is "clearly credible" is incorrect. If it was so there would be no dispute over his inclusion. Unless you provide compelling evidence, which you have failed to do so to this point, I strongly disagree with his inclusion. Having some modicum of notability, which he may or may not have, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being listed as notable. He does not meet the threshold, and to include him does a disservice to others that really are worthy of being listed as notable.

===Outside view===

If I might offer an outside view on this? I'd like to offer a message to the anonymous editor first. You evidently interpret hostility in the situation. From reading this talk page, I do not see hostility from other editors &mdash; you have attracted some irritation certainly, but much of that would no doubt vanish if you were to consider a more conciliatory approach. Suggesting that you will fight to the death (almost literally) is hardly likely to help things out. On a more procedural note, I'd remind ''all'' involved not to revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, per the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]. Note that this applies to a person not an IP address, and editors are expected to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the rule. It would be a pity if it came to placing blocks on users over such a minor issue. Thus, I would not expect the anonymous editor to revert again until at least 24 hours after your most recent edit, which is already your 4th revert.

The anonymous editor's last comment is intriguing: what would be a sufficient condition? Also, since the list can be expanded at will, I wonder what the disservice a possible inclusion does to others is?

I think this, fundamentally, is a fairly minor issue. ''We are only talking about a name next to a bullet point in one sentence of one section of the article''. I also think that it is a [[binary]] one since there is no precedent for including someone's name in an article and saying "shouldn't really be here" &mdash; it would certainly ruin any chance of making this a [[Wikipedia:Featured article]].

It is worth remembering that the standards for notability are usually set rather lower for a simple mention in an article than they are for a ''standalone'' article. We include mentions for all kinds of random cartoon and movie characters in their articles, but, where an article on such a character is created, there is usually a consensus to merge it back into the original article. For a more human example, CEOs of companies are often simply mentioned in the company's article unless they have some independent notability. Also, of course, we have tens of thousands of articles on people who are (in my personal opinion) of really rather little interest but have done something that means they are not completely 'ordinary'.

'''''However''''', I note that [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]]'s reference above says ''"A native of Windsor, Ontario..."'' and calls London, Ontario ''"...the site of an earlier conquest."'' This is cause for concern &mdash; does he, or has he had, a ''significant'' attachment to London, Ontario while collecting his achievements? Has he spent a significant period of his life there? He's been there since 1983, but how long did he stay? Why does he come to be associated with London rather than Windsor?

On the presumption that we can discuss his (non-)inclusion with respect to either or both articles, I would observe the following:

This particular person (in no particular order):

#Is a Member of the [[Order of Canada]] &mdash; the junior rank in the Order;

#Is (or has been) a Director of the Multi-Organ Retrieval Exchange Program of Ontario;

#Is a past National Director of the Canadian Heart Foundation;

#Has served as a president of the Central Canada Broadcasters Association;

#Has served as a chairman of the board of University Hospital and London Health Association;

#Has been CFPL-Radio general manager;

#Has a collection of less important involvements.

<nowiki>#</nowiki>1 is troublesome: it is not something that the majority of people have, but an approximate equivalent in the UK (the MBE, [[Member of the Order of the British Empire]]) is handed out to a variety of people that I do not think warrant either articles or mentions in articles. #7 is not useful here: very many people collect minor engagements without collecting any notability for them.

<nowiki>#</nowiki>2 &ndash; #6, however, are activities that provide for the individual having held positions of considerable responsibility in organisations known by and affecting many people. Objectively and hypothetically speaking, if an article were written on [[Bill Brady]], and it were taken to [[Votes for Deletion]], I would expect it to be kept by near-unanimous vote. It would not be unanimous I am sure, and I imagine the anonymous editor in particular would vote strongly to delete the article, but I am certain that it would still be retained. Given that I would expect an article to survive, it is entirely reasonable to expect a mention in the relevant geographical article.

If there is a good answer to the "'''However'''" paragraph, then Bill Brady should have a mention here. If there is not a good answer to the above, he should probably get a mention in [[London, Ontario]] instead.

If people simply cannot agree to that at all, then perhaps in experiment is in order (without wanting to make a [[WP:POINT]]). Someone write a decent article on Bill Brady, someone else take it to VfD and see if it survives. If he does, he gets a mention, if he doesn't, he doesn't get a mention. That sets the bar rather higher than the usual level for a simple mention in article, and should be a rigorous enough process to satisfy both sides. I would urge the avoidance of experimental inclusion if at all possible, however, since it will lead to further heartache over what should or should not be in the test article. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

====Comments====

we are living on different planets if #6 is notable. If that merits notability and there is any consistency here then I think all CFPL-Radio managers should be listed. That I think would lead to an absurd result and therefore discount #6 has having any objective notability whatsoever. As for the other posts, often people can sit on boards but that is entirely different than contributing. The mere fact he has held some potentially figurehead only positions says nothing of what he actually contributed or accomplished. Provide evidence of his direction or creativity as responsible for something unique and I'm all ears, otherwise he has not provided any function that merits the label notable.

:You make a good point about #6, and generally I would vote to delete an article if that were the persons only 'claim' to 'fame'. You make other good points about 'figurehead' positions; these sorts of opinions would make for an interesting debate over at [[WP:VFD|VFD]] (you should get an account and call by; I think you'll be horrified at the kind of stuff that goes through there). Nevertheless, from experience, I would still think that the article would be kept for at least most of the reasons in the list: Wikipedia is, at its heart, quite an inclusionist place.

:Since we're only talking about a passing reference in a bullet point in a list in one part of a much longer article, I don't think it's much of a problem to include or to exclude; given that I hypothesise (quite strongly) that the hypothetical article would be kept, we can probably stretch to a bulleted mention. No? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 01:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

::Splash I’m glad you agree that there are good reasons to not include Brady. I am all for inclusiveness but not to the extent that it degrades the quality of the main article. Including Brady and his lack of accomplishing or being anything significant places London Ontario below where it rightfully should be, and that matters to me. I don’t think the onus should lie on why someone should be excluded but rather why they should be included in the first place, and to date I have not heard anything convincing about why he should be listed as notable. Furthermore you mention that there are far more egregious inclusions in Wikipedia that are in the process of being deleted. That’s too bad that people put so many extraneous entries on here and its great that there are those such as yourself that are committed to cutting those out and making an excellent and comprehensive public resource, but that doesn’t make it any more legitimate to include Brady in fact I think it militates in favour of leaving him off until he does or is part of something significant. And to answer your question directly: at this point he has not done anything that warrants including his name under notable Londoners.

:::A Londoner who is a member of the Order of Canada is pretty notable, it seems the University of Western Ontario felt he was notable enough to be bestowed with an honourary degree, and I'm sure the amount of influence he had on London media was notable (though it may seem transparent). I fail to see any reason to consider him not notable enough to be considered a notable Londoner. I believe his name should be included in the list. --[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 19:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

::::One chief reason would be that the world and specifically London would not be any different had Bill Brady never existed. Brady was involved with media, but his style or substance of what he contributed was nothing more than generic. Any schmo could have filled his place and it wouldn't have made a difference, that is the hard truth, and that is why he shouldn't be included. Western may have at the time had a derth of people to give awards to so they gave an honorary degree to a good local citizen. I find your reasoning specious that because he has recieved 2 honors that qualifies him as notable. There are 20 Londoners that have received the Order of Canada, 13 share the lowest designation with Brady only one of which is listed as notbale, but the other 7 have acheived higher status, and yet none of them are on the notable list. The list of notbales should be determined on merit not on proxy indicators that may not mean the same thing as notable.

:::::You are welcome to add those people to the list. And now that Brady actually has an article, as unnecessary as it may be, you have no justification for removing him from the list. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::Adam I respectfully disagree with you wholeheartedly on this matter, I think the fact that he is mentioned somewhere else ''obviates'' the need for his name to be listed under notable Londoners, the inclusion of which sullies and denigrates the notableness of the others listed. Please address my arguments, one of which is that qualifying for the order of canada is not synonymous with being a notable Londoner. In your mind it is maybe but not necessarily to me and I would like an explanation as to why you think so. To cut to the chase, something convincing needs to be said as to why Brady should be added or I will continue to remove him, until I am no longer physically able to do so.

:::::::He's got an article now, and he's from London, therefore he will be included in the list. It's pretty simple now. I don't think he needs an article and I don't think he needs to be on the list, but he has one, and so he is here. Are you Bill Brady and you are trying to be humble or something? I don't understand this completely irrational aversion...and I don't really care either, you are wrong, and you cannot win this battle. I suggest you move on to the [[Bill Brady]] article itself if you want to effect a change of some sort. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 16:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Talk about obtuse rhetoric! You've come down to my level, but this is a game you don't usually play, I assure you of that Adam Bishop, and contrary to your bold statements: YOU WILL LOSE. If you really don't care, why not let it go? I think you have an irrational affinity for Brady that is not merited by the facts. I think that you should make a convincing case for why Brady should be included if you really believe he should be included, but to be fair that simply may not be possible because what has been mentioned to date does not justify including him. He is probably a good person, but that is not the same as notable. Convince me otherwise or he will continue to get removed. Is this significant enough to devote time every day to defending Bill Brady's inclusion on this entry when he doesn't deserve to be included? You will lose this war of attrition, because for me I definitely think its worth it. Recognize this situation Adam: it’s analogous to you being a soft American GI who thinks Betty Crocker is what you deserve to eat, whereas I am like the Viet Cong and I can subsist off of rice and grass, a little rat meat is like a feast for me. In light of that think about how much longer you want to persist with this misplaced defence of Brady being on a list he does not deserve to be on.

:::::::::Odd to see such passion regarding something so trivial. You may present some truth, but then your reasoning could apply to other individuals on the list, yet you make no mention of them. Why is Bill Brady on Wikipedia such an issue for you? Sounds like someone else might have an "irrational affinity" with Bill Brady. Unfortunately, you will have to realize that wikipedia is driven by popular opinion and not the percieved truth of one individual. You are free to believe that he should not be included here, but you will have to learn to accept it. I also recommend being cautious with your language. Anonymous users who do not follow Wikipedia [[Three revert rule|procedure]] for [[dispute resolution|disagreement]] and who make bold statements against users in good standings such as "obtuse rhetoric", "YOU WILL LOSE", or "irrational affinity" is an easy target for blocking. If you want to get him removed, I recommend you register and put up a vote for deletion on the [[Bill Brady]] page. If that passes and does get deleted, we can certainly come back to this discussion. Until then, please do not hinder the development procedure. It is hard to get the article to Featured Article status when the page is locked. (Let me also note that it is a slap in the face of all Wikipedians who work hard to resolve disputes properly to just edit the article in direct defiance of the talk page discussion.)--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 03:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't object to him having his own entry, on the contrary I see that as a solution. Now that he has his own page maybe HS will relent and permit his name to be dropped from the notbale Londoners list, that way he still gets his place on wikipedia but doesn't simultaneously sully the list of notables. Obviously this isn't a trivial issue because if it was you think either side would relent. I'm mostly not serious with the oh so "bold" language but I do strongly object to his inclusion, (you even acknowledge that I might be right), but I will be dogged in my pursuit of justice in this matter. Wikipedia, and London's entry specifically, will be strenghtened for not having Brady on the list of notable Londoners. In response to your point: 'you're right but then why not go after less notables that are listed,' I'm all for that, I didn't see anyone that stuck out as much as Brady and therefore object to him, but this is not to say others couldn't be removed, I wouldn't oppose that if good arguments were made. However for the moment I see Brady's name on the list as a significant mistake and will remove it accordingly.

:::::::::::'''However for the moment I see Brady's name on the list as a significant mistake and will remove it accordingly.''' I will comment no further on the matter except to say that this is the biggest problem of all. Say whatever you like but you are the only one who clearly argues in favour of removing it. In accordance with wikipedia policy, this is to be removed only after a consensus has been agreed upon by all participants. You are NOT to remove the entry because YOU think it's the right move. You are to remove the entry ONLY if WE think it's the right move. Since consensus is to leave his name up there, it will stay up there.--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 04:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wil I take that to mean that in your opinion majority rules no matter what. Therefore if get enough contributors to support the Brady stays off the list then you will agree he stays off correct?

''<carriage return>''

The anonymous editor has suggested on [[User talk:Splash#London, Ontario|my talk page]] a compromise: since Brady has his own article, his entry should now be removed from the list in this article, and, in exchange, the [[Bill Brady]] article will be "free from interference or deletion". My personal opinion is that this is unlikely to be a good compromise rout. Two main reasons: 1)it effectively holds the [[Bill Brady]] article to ransom: a ransom that is easily dealt with if executed and 2)having an article makes a stronger case for keeping the name in the list. Nevertheless, I would ask the editors here to consider the suggestion for themselves. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 13:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Entirely agree. A poor compromise. Since an obvious agreement is to keep the name in the list, there should be no change whatsoever to what is currently in place.--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 17:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with anon user, Brady is unworthy of being listed. -[[User:terminousbandage|terminousbandage]] 01:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:You agree with yourself don't you.--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 18:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

::Easy there. My talk page indicates that the anon has now registered an account. In fact, it would seem to be the account below, which has a name that could be be improved. I've suggested s/he stick to the [[User:terminousbandage|terminousbandage]] account. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree Brady should be removed.--[[User:Consensusbuilder|Consensusbuilder]] 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

== ''Ad-hoc'' peer-review ==

While reading the article, I spotted a few things that ought perhaps to be fixed before going to [[WP:FAC]]. I should {{tl|sofixit}}, but I thought I'd leave to the present editors. Overall I think this is a good article. Things that might want fixing include:

*The lead-in &mdash; the article doesn't justify the claim ''"..a leader in education, health care, tourism, and economic prosperity."''

*In [[#Geography]] : can you provide a reference for the weather/seasonal claims, or a comparative Wikipedia article or something?

*In [[#Racial make-up]]

*#What exactly is meant by ''"racial makeup"'' in the first sentence: immigration, or descent, or both?

*#''"the population is predominantly Christian"'' &mdash; is that the whole population or only those expressing a religion? Same question applies to the raw percentages.

*#The section generally needs refactoring a bit. It goes from origins to religions, to origins to religions.

*[[#Crime]] asserts many facts but does not give a reference for any of them. The bit about EoA is ok, since that's a local phenomenon, but the other claims do need some backing. This is particularly true of the final sentence in the section!

*[[#Arts and culture]]:

*#To which geography's tourism does it provide a boost?

*#What's a rib festival?

*#The X-Prize team bullet needs cutting down to the facts.

*[[#Notable Londoners]] needs the first sentence excising as POV. The list should also be checked carefully to make sure that each entry has some clear attachment to London, Ontario. I'm not saying there are some that don't, but it's worth checking, independently of the Bill Brady discussion.

*I personally am not a fan of external links, and would suggest a consideration of whether each entry in the list adds something of encyclopedic interest to the article or serves to provide references to the article (in particular the 'zines one).

I've decided not to action those myself so that the regular editors can see to what I am referring. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

*I am amienable to all the suggestions you have discussed here. I should mention that my involvement with this article is only the most cursory and minor of edits. I would ask you to look at the previous edit of the religion section, I was just trying to clean up the grammer and clarify the issue somewhat. It should read "The religious community in London..." or "the church going population.." although the latter, is less than satisfactory on many levels. I'll try to get some of the things you've noted taken care of. As for the independant Bill Brady article, how long would you consider that it exists before an inclusion as a bullet in the notable Londoners section of this article could be made. Presuming it survives a VfD (again presuming it would be nominated for VfD). I thank you for the consideration you have given to these issues and the balanced and impartial approach you have taken. [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]] 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

**Yes, I noticed your username isn't a major part of the article's history. I did also look at the diff for the religion/ethnicity section (because I was looking to see what you'd done in your edits), and it was certainly better after your edit. My comments above aren't a criticism, they're just a review. I did read the peer-review, but figured that, since there wasn't much in it, I wouldn't be totally out-of-line to offer another one without actually fixing it myself.

**If it survived a VfD, I would say immediately. If it were not nominated for VfD within a day (new pages patrol is quite efficient), it could be added then. Even without the article, I think a redlink should be allowed to stand. I think, give this discussion another day and then decide what to do. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 01:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:Did some editing to meet requests. I wish to argue the following points:

:# Ribfest - A rib festival is common enough to pass on an explanation. See [http://www.google.ca/search?q=rib+festival Google]

:# I don't see how Notable Londoners lacks NPOV

:# ''To which geography's tourism does it provide a boost?'' - ??? To the tourism of London. I don't get this question.

:--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 18:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

::A rib festival is common enough, but this is a pretty big festival, probably the biggest in southwestern Ontario anyway (and I have no idea but I would imagine only something like A Taste of the Danforth in Toronto would be bigger). It is definitely one of the most important annual festivals in London. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I meant the article doesn't have to describe what a "rib festival" is as suggested by Splash. Not that we should remove "London Ribfest" altogether.--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 04:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

::::I guess I just revealed my ignorance of what a rib-festival is! Pity there's not even a bluelink for [[rib festival]]; I'm not sure the term is in common use in the UK. Or I could just be spending too much time indoors. Calling Notable Londoners 'POV' was wrong; I meant that it used so-called [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Avoid peacock and weasel terms (disputed)|peacock language]]. You'll have spotted by now that I did some editing along the lines of my own comments and removed that sort of thing for the most part. I think the section that still needs work is Crime, and the lead-in still needs to have some reason to claim a "strong focus". If you're going for FAC, I would wonder about those lists, too. They might either want pruning heavily or spinning out into separate articles with just the ''really'' important entries left behind. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 05:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

== London Skating Club ==

I'd like to see the London Skating Club added to the Sports section of the London, Ontario page. The club is about to begin its 99th season in September. The webpage is www.londonskatingclub.com.

:{{sofixit}}--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 16:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

::But the page is protected, remember? :) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 17:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Oh yeah. <small>*grumble*</small>--[[User:Will2k|Will2k]] 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)