Talk:Greater Sudbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeGreater Sudbury was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
November 23, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
July 14, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Good work Bearcat, I couldn't have done it better myself :-D. It's nice to see people use my version rather than that other horrid one floating around. -- Flag of Canada.svg Earl Andrew - talk 19:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I just copied and pasted it off Hamilton and made the necessary changes. Not all that hard. Bearcat 23:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Population figures[edit]

To the person/people who keep editing this article to guess at 2004 or 2005 population figures: Wikipedia should only reflect actual census data, not rough yearly estimates (especially not ones that can't be sourced). Please do not alter the population figure until the 2006 census results are released. Bearcat 23:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Radio stations[edit]

CHNO called itself "Daryl 103" for exactly one freaking day as a show of support for Canadian Idol competitor Daryl Brunt. It is not to be noted as the station's primary brand name in place of Z103. Bearcat 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


The homelessness and food bank figures that were added to the article require a source. Also, regarding the assertion about Ontario Works rates not adequately meeting housing costs, that's a pretty standard Ontario-wide problem. Sudbury is far from unique in that regard; it doesn't merit special mention here. Though, come to think of it, Kimberly Rogers probably does. Bearcat 05:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the line about it being the largest city in area in Canada outside quebec. even the link that that line leads to shows that wood buffalo in alberta, and halifax in nova scotia are larger than sudbury.

Wood Buffalo and Halifax are both regional municipalities, not cities. Greater Sudbury is, areawise, the largest municipal entity in English Canada to be designated as a city. Bearcat 06:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A 'regional municipality' is a 'municipal entity' - it's very title, and your use of it show this to be true-this statement: 'it is now the largest city in Ontario, and the largest city in Canada outside of Quebec' is NOT true, at all. Halifax is a city-the mayor attends the meetings of the 'largest cities in canada' ( ), and i don't think it is possible to find a map of the country which would not list Halifax as a city. I see what you're trying to say-and I know where you're going with it, but the way you keep stating it in the article is misleading. Perhaps you could discount Wood Buffalo as a city, but I really don't think that you can say that Halifax isn't one.

Perhaps it could be changed to say that Sudbury is the second largest in Canada outside of Quebec? I think this would be more accurate-it's a great entry otherwise by the way-good work. :)

Well, it's not really about how I wrote it; it wasn't originally my addition. Thing is, we really can't let popular understanding trump accuracy; while "regional municipality" and "city" are often effectively the same thing in practice, they're not the same thing in law, and Wikipedia cannot say they are. But I'll try to find a way to rephrase the sentence so that it addresses your concern without actually presenting an inaccurate picture of the situation. Bearcat 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's better Bearcat, now that you put in the bit about 'legally designated as a city'. I just think that before there might have been confusion between the legal definition of city, and how it applies here, and the common usage of the word. Good revision. :)

Possible Things to Add[edit]

As a resident of the Valley area, I've heard a few things about our city (Sudbury): -recently CBC radio mentioned Sudbury as being in the top 21 most intelligent cities in the world (has something to with use of technology) - and would it be notable enough to mention our technology sector as an industry (there's that company that's developing the drill that may be used in future space missions to Mars)

Could someone with better knowledge of these things adress them please? I too will try digging up some info. - T. Desloges (6 January 2006)


What an excellent article on Sudbury. Well researched.

However, some information is rather dated in the "communities within the city" area:

- Milnet & Sellwood are ghost towns. As far as I know, nobody lives that far north of the city.

- ditto for "Happy Valley."

All of their articles acknowledge that.

- where's "Nickeldale"? I've lived in Sudbury for 28 yrs and I've never heard of it.

It's the neighbourhood south of Lasalle Blvd between Montrose and the Data Centre: Apollo Terrace, Sunnybrae Ave., etc. It is more commonly grouped within "New Sudbury", but the general consensus on Wikipedia has been that any named community or neighbourhood in a city merits an article. Certainly it's no less valid a listing than Adamsdale.

- Robinson, Lo-Ellen, Lockerby and McFarlane Lake are usually called by their collective name "The South End"

Again, the general consensus on Wikipedia has been that any named community or neighbourhood in a city merits an article.

- where's Milate?

Frankly, I'm not even entirely sure Milate actually exists, but it appears on the map on the CN line east of Creighton, in the former town of Walden. Doesn't even have road access. I can neither vouch for it nor find any references to figure out what the hell it is, but it's mapped and was added here by someone else.

Also, the Greater Sudbury airport now has non-stop flights to Varadaro, Cuba.

I'll add that.

Other than that, awesome article. I was very surprised at the amount of detail.

Glad you appreciate. Bearcat 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

--> Has anyone ever considered adding "Average Household Income" to the demographics section? I know that this is commonly listed in that catagory on many other Canadian cities. Just something me and my wife have always wondered. Census data should be a good source for this data.

Gay community and culture[edit]

Until Zig's gets its own wikipedia article, I feel that this information isn't necessary in an article for Sudbury.

I like the idea of including information about things like gay sporting leagues, teams or organizations however, regarding the hockey league statement, the reference doesn't mention anything about the hockey league being gay or that members are part of the gay community. I've contacted someone currently in charge of Sudbury’s pride festivities to provide more insight.

I should mention that I'm the one who had originally included this information in the article so if anyone disagrees with me you can go ahead and put it back in.

Here's the piece I removed:

In their 8 years of business, Zig's has raised approximately $10,000 in various fundraisers for the gay community, as well as sponsoring a women's hockey league with a number of teams throughout Northern Ontario. The bar offers a sitting room, a dance floor, pool tables, and a pinball machine. They play mostly upbeat dance music and host a weekly karaoke night. Pdelongchamp 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The gay community and culture info is neither distinctive or relevant. Could it be better positioned under articles for à la Gay Ontario or Gay Canada, while leaving behind a "See XXX" sentence? CJ Withers 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I dunno...I think it's perfectly valid for this article to note that Sudbury has both the only gay bar and the only gay pride parade in the entire Northern Ontario region. A "Gay Ontario" or "Gay Canada" article could really only be a basic overview; if such an article were to actually list every individual gay bar in every Canadian city, it would be entirely too long and detailed to actually be very useful. Though I personally think it's fine, I wouldn't necessarily object to shortening the section either, but I think at least one sentence noting that it's the only city in the region with a gay bar and a Pride parade is perfectly valid. Bearcat 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Football in Sudbury[edit]

I've added a tiny paragraph about football in Sudbury. I thought it should be mentioned. Albertkoholic 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


in response to this, we dont want to scare people away... :)Anung Mwka 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the issue; climate is a regional thing and individual cities rarely, if ever, have their own individual microclimates separately from the larger climactic region they're a part of. It's just a typical Central/Northern Ontario (warm summers, cold winters) climate with some urban heat island effects. Bearcat 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I just added a Climate Section, stuck it in the middle before Notables, I had no clue where to put it. It contains Temperature and Precipitation Data. Yes, I know the data doesnt add up in some areas, but dont change it, as that is official. All data came from Environment Canada, and I put a direct link to that weather section under External Links called "Full Weather Data". Enjoy... Anung Mwka 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, because the data is only valid up to 2000 for the Record Highs and Lows and all other records, the records area is not 100% accurate so I dont see the point in adding that. ie, I know for a fact Sudbury set the highest record October temperature in 2005. Anung Mwka 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Climate section is begrudgingly updated with record highs, lows and what not, also is now using the proper table. And indeed, those colors make Sudbury look like one heck of an ice spot... Anung Mwka (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

New categories[edit]

I thought educaiton and healthcare warranted their own categories, instead of being part of education & culture. Moved demographics up to below the geography - thought they should go together. Also added a small section on emergency services. Blotto adrift 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


This bit was recently added to the history section:

"The city's economic growth has also been hindered at times by taxation issues: because of federal corporate taxation rules pertaining to natural resources companies, Sudbury is one of the largest cities in Canada that does not have the power to directly levy municipal taxes on its own largest employers, a fact which has sometimes left the city without a sufficient tax base to adequately maintain or improve municipal services. "

Is this accurate? My understanding that is that the municipality can levy property taxes on the surface buildings of mining operations, but not the underground facilities. Consequently, INCO & Falconbridge (whose new names escape me at the moment) have been moving more & more things underground. Corporate taxes and other taxes are definitely out of reach of the city. Blotto adrift 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's necessarily incompatible with the statement at hand, but I've rephrased it to be clearer nonetheless. Bearcat 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it incompatible because of the "does not have the power to directly levy municipal taxes" part. They do have the power to do that, but the new wording is fine. Wording or not, there's no question that the City does need access to new revenue sources. There was some sort of ruling a couple of years back to the effect that INCO was overcharged on property taxes over several years. INCO didn't make the City pay them back, but it did make a dent in subsequent revenue. Blotto adrift 03:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to admit that I phrased that part badly. I didn't think that's what I'd written, because what I meant to say was something closer to your point...but it came out wrong and I didn't realize that because I was seeing what I meant to say rather than what I actually said. Duh. Bearcat 04:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


I have started to convert the in-line-links to refrences (just adding the <ref></ref> to them). I will be back to put in proper citations to the respective websites.--Kelapstick 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I removed a statement "much of the remaining population is bilingual", the wording (and the source) is flawed. It suggested that ~62% of the population only spoke English, and ~28% only spoke French, much of the remaining were bilingual (about 2000). There are far more than 2000 bilingual people in Sudbury. Also the table in the section is flawed too, it shows 49% being of Canadian origin, 39% being of French origin, and 20% being of English origin. I know it isn't the case but it looks like one of two things:

  1. 49% is Native Canadian, 39% are French Canadian, 20% are English Canadian
  2. 49% were born in Canada, 39% are immigrants who were born in France, 20% are immigrants who were born in England

I find the table confusing and don't think it really shows any good information. Suggestions, alternative sources for demographics that might make more sense?--Kelapstick 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sudbury vs. Greater Sudbury[edit]

I don't have really strong feelings about this, but thought I would put it out there. Since the Cities of Sudbury and Greater Sudbury are separate entities, should there be a separate article for Sudbury as a "community" of Greater Sudbury? This article would consist mainly of the history old city - most of the remainder could remain where it is. I know that to most people it's still Sudbury regardless of the new name, but it seems to do a bit of a disservice to the other towns in the old region when most of the history of the amalgamated city is that of the old city - and the histories of the old towns are under those articles. The same would apply, I suppose, to Greater Napanee. Thoughts? Blotto adrift 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The two main problems I foresee with this are (a) separating the history cleanly, and (b) the fact that a lot of people would simply continue to link to the former Sudbury's article as if nothing had changed. As it is, there's already a constant need to clean up after people who don't understand what the amalgamation implies, a constant need to clean up after people who write as if Sudbury was still a separate political entity which things like Lively, Hanmer, the Sudbury Airport, Lake Wanapitei and Sudbury Downs are near but not in. For example, just a few days ago I cleaned up a round of "near Sudbury" edits to an article on something in the city, and I already had to go in and clean up a whole new round of the very same inaccuracy in the very same article again today. (And I double-checked the history — I didn't miss anything last time. These were new bad edits added by a different user after my last fixup.)
In a nutshell, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of making it easier for people to make false or inaccurate contributions to Wikipedia, and harder for the rest of us to clean up the crap, than it already is. Unless you're actually volunteering to keep a constant watch on the old city's article to make sure that people aren't linking to it when they should be linking here instead, I think it would be best to leave well enough alone — IMO, we should really focus our efforts on improving the neighbourhood articles (Falconbridge, Garson, Copper Cliff, Flour Mill, Val Caron, Donovan, etc.) rather than overemphasizing arbitrary municipal divisions that people were never really all that attached to until after they were gone. In fact, I'm almost convinced that we should actually go the other way, and merge the histories (which are all basically boilerplate permastubs with virtually no possibility of any real expansion) of the former municipalities into this article, or into Regional Municipality of Sudbury, instead.
When I lived in Sudbury, nobody ever said they were from Rayside-Balfour or Walden — when specificity wasn't necessary, they just said Sudbury, and when it was, they said Chelmsford or Azilda or Lively. The municipalities were just meaningless lines on a map which people more or less ignored. Now people care about Walden or Rayside-Balfour or Valley East, but when they actually existed, they meant about as much to people as the distinction between Toronto and East York, Ottawa and Vanier or Kitchener and Waterloo. Don't know what you got 'til it's gone, eh? Bearcat 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
After some thought, I decided to go the other way instead; since almost all of the Val Caron/Lively/Chelmsford-level articles were short permastubs, I opted instead to redirect those to the pre-2001 municipalities, so that instead of 40 or 50 five-line stubs, we now have six longer articles that should hopefully be a lot easier to develop and improve. Many of them already look like much better and more detailed articles just from the cutting and pasting and redirecting, in fact — even with the relatively limited content that they still have right now, having it compiled into one article instead of spread out over seven or eight makes a big difference. That said, I still don't think there's any easy way to separate an "Old Sudbury" article from this one without dragging this one back down to stub quality in the process. Bearcat (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. Saw your work earlier with the Regional Municipality article and thought it looked good, but I like this even better. If an article on Sudbury were separated, it could still be fairly substantial with the pre-amalgamation history alone, but I see your earlier usability / findability point. For that matter, there's probably enough material out there for a whole separate history of Sudbury article. Like I said, I don't have strong feelings about the idea. It's too bad they didn't just name the new city "Sudbury," since that's what everyone calls it anyway.
A question - given this new format, what do you think is the best way to add info on the old old pre-1973 municipalities like Waters and Neelon, or, going back further, McKim? Some had the same names as the communities (Hanmer, Dowling), so I guess some mention could go in those articles. Trouble is, any article would likely be a permastub - dates and maybe the origin of the name. Still, the information is useful - genealogists and others sometimes have reason to try to track down names of old municipalities. I guess articles on geographic townships is a possibility. I've done a few, but I've also seen basic township lists/summaries in articles on old counties that no longer exist (Kent, Ontario). In those cases though, there is usually 100+ years of history instead of the quarter-century of Rayside and Nickel Centre. Blotto adrift (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm really starting to move away from the "stub article" approach to topics, particularly if they're actually subtopics of other topics which also have stub articles. What I've actually started doing for most smaller municipalities in Ontario (including Markstay-Warren, French River and St. Charles) is that if the municipality's main article and the smaller communities' articles are all stubs, then I redirect and merge the smaller communities back into the municipality's article in order to expand that. They can always be spun back out again at a later date when the main article is long enough, but in the meantime it's better to have the information all in one place than to make the reader click back and forth between five or six different stubs that really don't say anything more than "Stinson is a community in the town of Markstay-Warren." So for old geographic townships, in most cases I'd probably just redirect them to the appropriate municipality, where they can be expanded upon in the history section.
Yeah, the whole "Greater" thing is kind of stupid — I can understand why some people wanted it, but it is pretty pointless, poorly understood (there used to be an anon editor who repeatedly edited the infobox on this article to read "Greater Sudbury Area", as if this were analogous to Greater Toronto Area rather than Greater Napanee), and doesn't get used much. And don't even get me started on people who say "Greater City of Sudbury" instead!
But at any rate, I think I might have hit upon a potential solution to balance your idea against the naming problem. Instead of splitting out a separate article on the whole old city, how about spinning off the pre-2001 history section of this article into a new History of Sudbury, Ontario piece, and this article could then contain just the stuff about the amalgamated city? It would enable us to put your proposal into practice, while still leaving the actual title Sudbury, Ontario as a redirect to this article instead of a misleading target for incorrect links. You seem to have already been leaning in that direction in your comment, and I've just confirmed that several other Canadian cities have already done that very thing (e.g. History of Toronto, History of Vancouver, History of Quebec City.) So let's go for it — god knows there's a lot more that can be said about the city's history. (And while we're at it, Sudbury Strike of 1978 could use some expansion — it's a pretty major piece of Canadian labour history, and yet I haven't been able to find all that much information on the web.) Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Blotto adrift 23:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

école secondaire macdonald cartier[edit]

i added a paragraph under theater for ESMC because there was nothing there even though the school's theater program has seen a lot of great actors/writers go through it, and is consistently representing the city well at out of town fetivals. I was a member of the theater group, and something like, 18 times out of the past 20 years, macdonald-cartier has ben provincially recognized, and I don't think other schools can say the same. I don't have a source for that so I didn't write that specifically, but I'm working on finding a source.

I dunno, I felt it would be important to mention a school that is consistently pumping out amazing cultural material for franco-ontarians, if you include all of the alumni. Swiffer (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions are welcomed. Please provide a source or external link to verify your edits. Flibirigit (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

music section[edit]

I was just wondering if it would be ok to do a little write up of the sudbury underground music scene? I'm a member of the scene and a lot of bands from the city have had a lot of success in the canadian scene, some bands even being signed to labels in europe. Just a suggestion?Swiffer (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions are welcomed. Please provide a source or external link to verify your edits. Flibirigit (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities[edit]

I find it interesting for Greater Sudbury having sister cities, however I cannot find any sources to list those two cities. All I found was council meeting transcripts about the possibility of having sister cities, however none of these two were named and if it was eventually, then it is not easy to find. Could someone possibly clarify this, and find a reliable source for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm trying to decide whether, in light of last week's fire, the Sudbury Steelworkers Hall could be considered sufficiently notable for its own article. I'm a bit ambivalent about it, because I'm not sure whether my own born-and-bred-in-the-Sudz familiarity with the building is colouring my judgement regarding its actual encyclopedia-worthiness, so I'd like to ask if anybody else has an opinion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My coloured judgement on this too, but i found out about the fire from browsing google earth. It is one of the most well known buildings in Southtown. Picture maybe. From the happier years. delirious & lost~hugs~ 06:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good Article?[edit]

I'd like to nominate this as a good article. It seems to meet the criteria as I understand them. It is also (in my opinion) one of the best, most comprehensive and best referenced articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone with more Wikipedia experience can give their opinion of whether this article meets the criteria for being selected as a good article.Bulshoy (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there are probably still some small improvements that can be made (I'm adding additional references and expanding the content whenever I can), but I'm glad that the work that we've done so far is appreciated. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How about now? I've went through most of the article and cleaned it up as best I could. Think it meets good article criteria? I'll be willing to make edits during the review process... anybody else in? Agree/Disagree? Mattximus (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

English Canada?[edit]

The sentence where it says "largest municipality in English Canada legally designated as a city." strikes me as odd. First off, "English Canada" is not a geographical region. If "English Canada", you mean "the part of Canada that isn't Quebec" then I'd encourage a change to that. "English Canada" refers to the english speaking community of Canada, its anglophone speakers and their institutions. These are not limited to provinces in which the official language is english, as there is a significant anglophone community in Quebec and a significant francophone population in Ontario (and New Brunswick, and Manitoba, etc), especially in Sudbury, which has the highest percentage of francophones for large cities in Ontario, along with a rich community history for the wider area of Northeastern Ontario. Also, using "English Canada" as the name of a physically finite area throws New Brunswick into a grey area, as the province is officially bilingual.

My beef with "English Canada" is that it is an outdated, politically loaded word. It recalls the divisions that existed in the early days of British North America, and therefore suggests some antagonism between the french and the english. Sudbury is a great example of both communities living in synergy and I think it would be best for the article to reflect that. It also suggest that every province but Quebec is English Canada, while French Canada is limited to the province of Quebec. This is not true at all, as there are communities and regions, mainly in Ontario and the Maritimes (but also in the west) that identify more readily to the francophone label.

On a slightly related note, it would be interesting to mention what (if anything) is in the way of Greater Sudbury being the largest in ALL of Canada. Is there a city in Quebec which is larger geographically? If so, which one? The only cities I could think of as possible candidates would be some of the megacities that were formed when the entire province went through municipal mergers, but even then, if Sudbury can be one of the largest in North America, it would be interesting to know which Canadian city beats it out. My entire argument is moot if there is not bigger city in Quebec, as we could simply remove the "English" qualifier from the sentence.

Swiffer (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The cities of Val-d'Or, Rouyn-Noranda, Senneterre and La Tuque in Quebec are all larger geographically than the (Greater) Sudz, as are the regional municipalities (not cities) of Halifax in Nova Scotia and Wood Buffalo in Alberta. And according to List of United States cities by area, the only American cities larger in area than Sudbury are Yakutat, Sitka, Juneau and Anchorage — and yes, those are all in Alaska (and they're all "consolidated city-boroughs", too.) The largest city in the Lower 48 is Jacksonville, Florida, which is slightly more than half Sudbury's area. Bearcat (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sudbury is in England[edit]

Sudbury, Suffolk  ? -- (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Suffolk is a county in England; if you pay attention to the UK naming convention, places in England which require disambiguation are disambiguated by the individual county or shire they're in, not just as "Place, England" — just like how we disambiguate Canadian places as "Place, Province" rather than "Place, Canada". And even if the standard convention were "Place, England", there are two other Sudburys in England anyway (a neighbourhood in London and a village in Derbyshire.) But what's your question, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


I think the Economy section needs to be substantially rewritten. Not that it's poorly done or sourced, it's that it doesn't really talk about the economy. Much of the section is historical labour issues, followed by several paragraphs on taxation issues. Only near the bottom do they mention some major employers. Followed by a random section on a building fire (again, not sure what this has to do with the economy of Greater Sudbury). The last paragraph has much more relevant content (though again mentions labour history). I'm wondering if anyone knows of sources for where people in Sudbury actually work (what % in mining, education, etc...) and what the city actually produces (nickel, copper... etc). Also perhaps a paragraph on businesses founded/headquartered in Sudbury (Topper's Pizza)?

I don't want to delete the content for labour history, perhaps it deserves it's own article "Labour History of Greater Sudbury".

Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greater Sudbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick look[edit]

I'm going to be out of town for Thanksgiving, so I wanted to give you something to look at if you want to this week. I tried to fix some of the stuff I noticed on the first time through.


Most of the prose seemed pretty good. Here are some things that should be fixed:

  • The first sentence of the last paragraph under "Early History" is long and probably a run-on. Done
  • "The city's former mayor William Marr Brodie had himself been appointed to..." Did he appoint himself? It's not really clear. Done
  • The World War II heading might need changed.  Done
  • The "Municipal Structure" section should probably be moved. Maybe to the Government section where it talks about annexing towns. Done
  • For the list of top employers, give the year that these stats are from.  Done
  • The sentence about the SNO detector in the seismic activity section probably needs removed. I don't know if it is needed in this particular article. It would be better in the "Science and Technology" section where the SNO experiment is mentioned.  Done


The references are pretty good in most of the article, but there are some areas that are completely lacking sources. To become a good article, all quotes, statistics, controversial or counter-intuitive statements, and statements about living people must have a reference. Here are locations in the article that need references:

  • In WWII - "eigth deadliest tornado" (statistic) Done
  • In Topography - "330 [lakes] within city limits" and "largest lake in the world completely contained within the boundaries of a single city" (statistics)  Done
  • In Seismic Activity - The first paragraph needs a source or two. (Earthquakes caused by mining activity is counter-intuitive.) Done
    • I deleted whole section on seismic activity, I don't think earthquakes of 3-4 on the Richter Scale are noteworthy as there was no damage or injuries and these earthquakes occur ~130,000 times on earth every year. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Retail section - Last two sentences need citations (counter-intuitive) Done
  • In Science and Technology - "lowest background radiation particle detector in the world." (statistic) Done
  • In Franco-Ontarian community - "40 percent," "largest proportion," and "second largest francophone community" need citations. (statistics) Done
  • In Franco-Ontarian community - "Sudbury is thus a very important centre in Franco-Ontarian cultural history" (opinion) Done
  • In Attractions - "northern Ontario's most popular tourist attraction" and "The Inco Superstack is the tallest freestanding chimney" - (statistics) Done
  • In Government - Voting tendencies need cited. (statistics)  Done
    • Voting tendencies can be found in the respective linked articles for each electoral district (found within this section).
  • In Communities - Populations need cited. (statistics) Done
  • In Transportation - Public transit numbers need cited. (statistics) Done
  • In City and Emergency Services - Statistics need cited.  Done
  • In Education - Statistics need cited - (9000 students, numbers of French schools). Done
  • In Media - "The newspaper with the highest circulation is Northern Life" - (statistics)  Done
  • In Demographics - The population history lacks citations. I'm going to bed now, but I can do them tomorrow. Until then, here are the links I used on the Sarnia page:
Statistics Canada (2008). Canada Year Book (CYB) annual 1867-1967. Ottawa: Federal Publications (Queen of Canada).


All images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Captions are good. The only issues, which do NOT affect GA status, are the positioning of some pictures - MOS:Images. Check it out if you want.

If you have any questions, or issues, or you just think my suggestions are bogus, let me know. I have not reviewed many articles, so I might be too strict on some things. Also, after you address an issue, strike it out or mark it in some way. InTheAM 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Another Look[edit]


There are/were a lot of issues with the prose. I tried to fix as much as I could, but I am not familiar with the subject, so I was not able to fix some of the things. I noticed a lot of run-on and confusing sentences throughout. Words like "although," "however," and "thus" are used a lot and make the sentences difficult to follow in some places. The Sports section also has many problems. The layout is fine, and the lists are good.

Sentences with although, however, and thus are not run-on sentences. They might be long, but if the punctuation is correct they will be complete, proper sentences.TheKurgan (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable[edit]

The issues with references are listed above.

Broad in coverage[edit]

The article addresses the main topics, but seems to lose focus in some places. Some instances of too much detail may include:

  • sentence about parking meters
  • paragraph about Robert Carlin  Done
  • paragraph about Paul Robeson  Done
  • sentence about Peter Mansbridge  Done
  • lists of music artists Not done
    • left these in, as it seems like this may be the only article to link to those pages, and if they have individual pages they should qualify as notable. Mattximus (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • list of people from Sudbury Not done
    • list is small and a good summary of the separate page on notable people from Sudbury, I think this section is sufficiently broad in coverage. Mattximus (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • For the record, the point of having the separate list was to prevent the accumulation of too much trivia in this article; for example, there's no discernible reason why "NHL players who've played in at least 1,000 games" are so uniquely notable that we would need them to simultaneously appear on the list and as a special classification of people to be singled out for a second mention in the city's primary article. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed, this section should have just a few of the most notable people from Sudbury, I thought a small sample of NHL players would be good to include, so picked an arbitrary cut off. Definitely open to suggestions. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • paragraph about Nortario Films  Done
  • government history section


The article seems to have neutral point of view.


The article is stable.


The articles images and captions are adequate.

The article did not pass.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greater Sudbury/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have just failed the article, but as I have conducted a full review, we'll proceed. I have some very serious issues with the article, which need to be dealt with first:

  • Large portions are unreferenced: all content needs to be sourced
  • A large portion of the references are not properly formatted. Specifically, they all need at minimum an author or publisher and an accessdate. Dates should be added where applicable. A title and url is not acceptable as it must be evident who has published the material.
  • The lead needs a rework, as it does not summarize the article and is concerned more with trivialities such as rankings. Don't worry if it gets longer, it can easily be one more paragraph in length. Issues that need to be included are: when the town was established, its original name and Jesuit background; the forest and mining industry, including the two major mining companies; its many lakes; and listing of major population centers.  Done
rewrote the entire lead, removed the original name as it was not really for the city but a nearby Jesuit parish, only tangentially related to the city in question. Also, instead of writing every population centre, added a link to them. Hope this satisfies your concerns. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The section structure needs a revamp (details below) Done
Structure has been revamped using all recommendations except the cityscape. Explanation found in reviewers talk page. Awaiting reply.Mattximus (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Pageant' is a disambiguation link  Done
  • I don't see the need for separating between "early" and "modern" history. Firstly, the section is sufficiently short that it does not need to be split, and secondly I don't see the logic in the time of the split. Normally "modern history" is roughly post-1850. Done
  • Include 'Sainte-Anne-des-Pins' in the lead in boldface.
Not done, that name was not actually used for the city, but for the parish the city later occupied, so not super-relevant for the lead.Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't use terms like "Interestingly". This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we do not determine what the reader finds interesting or not. Also, why is that piece of information relevant and why is it not referenced? Done
  • The entire second paragraph of the history section is unreferenced. I find the non-chronological explanation awkward. Done
Chronology fixed, and some references, not sure if it's perfectly sourced yet.Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How far away from the town was the mining site. What sort of improvements to transport? Railway lines?  Done
There were multiple sites, and the improvements which I think the previous editor intended was electric trams. I included this information presuming it is found in his/her source.Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that captions which are fragments (not complete sentences) do not have a period.  Done
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs. Done
  • The section discusses the rapid growth during the 1930s; numbers would be nice.
  • 'Allied' does not link to the right place.  Done
  • What or who is Inco? Explain or at minimum link.  Done
  • Avoid terms like "recent".  Done
  • Don't link countries (except, in this case, the first mention of Canada in the article)  Done
  • The existence of the two mining companies needs to be present earlier in the prose. Where they owned locally before the Swiss-Brazilian takeovers? Done
  • Note that the source says "330 lakes over 10 hectares in size are within city limits." which is not the same as the article says.  Done
  • I get the point that Sudbury covers a large area and is a city. Statements like having the most lakes in a city and the largest lake in a city get tiring and are very trivial, as they are the mere happenstance of a political and geographical interface. Mentioning for instance that Lake Wanapitei covers a third of the municipality's water area is more relevant. Done
Agreed that it is trivial, but it also gives the reader the correct impression that the city is full of lakes. Would be open to other ways of expressing this. Did add the fact about the relative size of Lake Wanapitei.Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't force image sizes, there is a reason that people can use their own size preference. It also makes the article messy.  Done
  • What does "widely (although not entirely accurately) known" imply? Be accurate.  Done
  • Fine, astronauts visited and there was a myth. Don't need to go into detail about the 2009 incident.  Done
  • There is no mention of the municipality having two main watersheds.  Done
  • Parts of the geography section should be in the history section, such as the regreening effort (which hasn't much to do with geography really) and the tornado. Done
moved the section but left the tornado bit as it is more of a climate/weather feature than significant historical event.Mattximus (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Census Metropolitan Area' is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized. Done
  • Providing information in list form as with the population centers is rather awkward. Either write a short section on each center or create a table. Done
  • I am very skeptical to tables in city articles (except the historic population table). Information should be written as prose instead of provided as raw number dumps.  Done
only 2 tables now, one for demographics, one for employment. Is this acceptable?Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A lumber camp? No mention of this in the history section. Done
  • Sectors are not proper nouns and not capitalized. Done
  • The history bit of the economics section should be placed in the history. The economics section should give a snapshop of the economic activity today. Done
Moved this info, but kept a summary just to give a very brief history of the economy.Mattximus (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Most cities have a 'cityscape' section, which I would also recommend here. For instance the retailing bit, which is really about downtown, could go in there.
  • I do not get a good understanding of the city's geography or urban scope. This information needs to be placed in a cityscape section.
  • Don't use terms like "currently", just leave them out.  Done
  • In general, the article uses too many subheaders.  Done
  • Don't mention bands without articles and don't stylize band names.  Done
  • Similarly, if a work of art is not notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia, it is not worth mentioning in an "in fiction" section. Such sections are frowned upon, and mention should only be used in the context of highly influential culture in small places, or where the work of art had a significant impact on the place in the real world (such as how Forks, Washington has become well-known for its Vampire lore). Done
  • If Sudbury has a significant film and television industry, this should be discussed as part of the economy. Avoid going into too much detail.  Done
I left this under the arts and culture section (it's really not important to the economy as a whole), but significantly reduced it's size. Mattximus (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Franco-Ontarian community" seems to repeat some information and partially contradicts part of the demographics section.  Done
section has been moved and edited, but I'm not sure if it completes your recommendation.Mattximus (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The LGBT section seems way off proportion, going into vain detail. Unless Sudbury is nationally known as a gay center (such as San Fransisco), a single sentence should suffice. Done
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide: don't include an attractions section. Relevant information can go in the culture, cityscape and economics sections.
I've been following the formatting agreed upon by the Wikiproject Canadian communities so for consistency between other Canadian city pages. Mattximus (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I would advise you to not follow the structure on that page—it does not reflect community consensus on what constitutes a good structure for a city article. Also, that page is a one-man work. Use your own imagination and look at FAs to see what it being done and find a structure that suits the place in question. Arsenikk (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The sports section needs to be rewritten to proper paragraphs. Done
  • Don't place images adjacently across from each other, as they will sandwich the text, causing problems on narrow screens. Done
  • It is redundant to write "The current mayor of Greater Sudbury...", instead state "As of" or "since" ... and leave the "of Greater Sudbury" out.  Done
  • Avoid using C$. In a topic about Canada, $ is presumed to mean Canadian dollars. If it is necessary to specify, write it out the first time and provide a link. Done
Checked out other Canadian city FA pages and they use the link format, so I changed both references to that.Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It's hardly something that would violate the GA criteria, pluss the MOS seems to have been rewritten since the last time I read it (years ago).
  • Avoid abbreviations such as "MPP" as they are highly regional. Remember that this article may just as well be read by a person from Norway or Japan as an Ontarioan. Done
  • What is meant by "city's economic growth"? The taxation base of the city government or the economic development of the city's commerce?  Done
Although this quotation is no longer in the article, there is mention of boom and bust cycles which are still abstract. Is this acceptable? Mattximus (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Are there outlying mining towns? Why hasn't this been discussed before the government section? Done
  • Please incorporate the government history into the main history section, as it covers many other issues, such as municipal amalgamation, public transit, economics etc. Done
  • "Today" (in relation to taxes), as in 15 May 2012? State teh year if you provide a number that will change over time. Done
  • The "communities" section needs to be merged into an appropriate section which discusses the various settlements in the municipality. Done
Gave it it's own section, hope that's acceptable.Mattximus (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Normally there is one transport section and public services are included in the government section and private services in the economics section. Done
  • Personally I would not have listed all the destinations of the airport, but mentioning the airlines is fine. Should include runway length and annual number of passengers. Done
Added runway length and ridership, but left the destinations in as transportation is now it's own section and there are not many destinations. Have no problem deleting them if you think they should go.Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't create bullet-points instead of prose (per the highways).
I do like the bullet-points here as it breaks up a rather large paragraph into easily viewed list. I think someone reading this wanting to know the connections would find it easier than sifting through a paragraph. Is this critical for GA? Mattximus (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is the sort of thing that will make the article fail the GAN (unlike for instance the C$ issue which was just [bad] advice). Prose should be written as such, not as a disposition of information. Placing it in bullet points makes it look messy and less professional. Arsenikk (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)  Done
  • "mid-sized" university is subjective, remove it and rely on the number of students to indicate its size.  Done
  • Reference 6 (the book) needs to be broken down by page numbers.
  • There is lots of space for additional images.
  • I would say the article is slightly too long. In an FA I would protest, but I'll let it pass as it is only a GA review Done
From the edits I've made so far based on your recommendations, the article is now 5% shorter.Mattximus (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Placing the article on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I will proceed to make as many changes as possible while the review is on hold. Mattximus (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy the past few days and have not made as many changes as I'd hoped, how long can this remain on hold? I should have time in the near future to continue with all recommendations.Mattximus (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

One week is the rule of thumb, but there is no problem going on longer than that as long as the article is being worked on. If you would be more comfortable working outside a GA review and making a new review later, that can also be done. But as long as work is progressing nicely as it is, I have no problem letting the article sit around for a while more. Arsenikk (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working on it fairly consistently, so far so good, but your call.Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The most recent edits were on June 7. Can we have a review update? It looks like most everything has been addressed: a couple of things at the top and bottom may not have been. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made most of the updates above and explained any changes that may not have perfectly satisfied the recommendation. The biggest two that remain are the lead section (needs to be expanded) and the referencing format. I will try to work on those this week if that is not too late for the GAR.Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do continue to work on the outstanding items. It's up to Arsenikk when to conclude the review, of course, but progress is important, and reviewers tend to give more time to articles that are being improved per the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the last significant edits were on June 23, with an added comma and a fixed link the only edits since. The lead was expanded on the 23rd with a new sentence in the first paragraph and a parenthetical insertion in the second. Are there still any issues remaining, or is it ready for another review pass? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
As the original submitter, I am also curious to see if this passed GAR. Mattximus (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Arsenikk added four "citation needed" templates to the article yesterday. You should probably take care of these; once you've added the necessary references, a ping would probably be in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There is just too much content lacking references to keep this review going. Overall the structure and prose is good, but still roughly a third of the article (rough guess) is unreferenced, many of the references are not formatted correctly (lacks publisher/author/date/access date) and is often bare links. Some references are also not really reliable. I am sorry if this review comes to a rough end, but it has lasted too long. I am still willing to help out with the article and I can do a copy edit before the next GA nomination, but you will have to dig up the references first. If you have questions, just ask here or on my talk page if I don't respond.

Failing review. Arsenikk (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation, Grammar, Flow, and Chronology[edit]

Began correcting flow issues, grammar inconsistencies, and chronology. Removed repetitive text, and corrected punctuation. Will continue improving over time.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Sudbury[edit]

The current image of the Flag of Sudbury is of the wrong colour. In Heraldic terms, this is wrong and must be corrected. It is Or & Vert, not Beige & Green. Beige is not a proper heraldic colour of tone. As the Coat of Arms shows the correct colours, can you please find the correct image & replace the incorrect one with it?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly the difference in colours you mention, it looks similar to the one on the official city site. Please feel free to locate and replace the incorrect image.Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Greater Sudbury[edit]

As you can see I had uploaded the correct flag & placed it ever so correctly on the Greater Sudbury page. However, the persnickety behaviour of this site & its sillyness has lead to the image being deleted altogether. It is a free image, is it not? Feel free to find the image on the external link ..3.. that is provided on the bottom of the Greater Sudbury page for the flag image. It is readily available. The correct image must display as...."Per fess sapiné Vert and Or, in dexter chief a mullet Or" not the old image of beige. Beige is not a heraldic colour, it is beyond me as to why anyone would place such a false image. Sorry if this is bothersome or seems trivial, but so is Wikipedia.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoplo78 (talkcontribs) 08:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the previous version of this flag for now, it looks similar to the one you sourced. Perhaps there are subtleties in computer monitor colours? I understand you want to be precise though, so was there a reason given that your uploaded image was deleted? Can that be rectified and uploaded to replace the current flag? Mattximus (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a monitor colour issue. It is someone, likely at the City, that doesn't understand Heraldry choosing to use beige instead of gold. The correct flag graphic is on the link I attached to the external links section of the Greater Sudbury page. External link [3] at this address: on the page of the Canadian Heraldic Authority, you will find the Greater Sudbury Heraldic graphics. It is a free image as far as I can see. At least in the terms of Civic pride & fair use educational. The one that is up now is beige. The official one is gold. There is no beige in Heraldry. This looks cheap & wrong. It is an uneducated mistake that makes it look bad. Pesky I know, but so can be Wikipedia.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So why can't you upload the correct image? What was the issue? Mattximus (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not satisfy this website's desire for a copyrights license and it was deleted. There is a magic string of words that will allow the use of the correct graphic that I do not know. I know that it is a fair use/educational image, I just do not know the magic sentence that will satisfy the hungry copyrights guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Just a reminder to all editors that external links posted to this article must pass our WP:ELNO rules. Namely, the section is not meant to be used as a directory compiling every website you can find that has any relevance to the city at all; it's meant only for the one or two most centrally important primary websites of the topic itself — i.e. only the city's official website. Anything else (books about the city, tourist information directories, etc.) might potentially be appropriate as references for article content, but may not simply be added as a direct external link. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Depression Era[edit]

Text was added to the history section that I have twice reverted. Perhaps the input of others could assist. The text in question reads: "Many of the city's social problems in the Great Depression era were not caused by unemployment or poverty, but due to the difficulty in keeping up with all of the new infrastructure demands created by rapid growth — for example, even employed mineworkers sometimes ended up living in boarding houses or makeshift shanty towns, because demand for new housing was rising faster than supply". A source was left for a Google book, though not all the pages in the book are free for preview. However, User:Bearcat has stated in an edit summary--after a portion of text was added by them to this section--that part of the sourcing comes from page 159. On page 159 of the source, the first two paragraphs are related to this discussion. In the first paragraph, there is a description of Sudbury's inflation and high prices during the Depression. In the second paragraph, there is a description of how "the most fortunate" got into company housing, and how others had to live in "shack towns". Yet the description of the shack town is not a negative one; people living in the shack town could grow their own produce and sell extra at the market. Back to the text in the Wikipedia article, my concern is the use of the term "social problem", and the subsequent text added to it. Sudbury had many people employed during the Depression, and some of them could not afford to live in the city, so they had to live in not-so-unpleasant shanty towns. How is this a social problem? Is it an infrastructure problem? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Lack of housing is an infrastructure problem, yes, but infrastructure problems cause and contribute to social problems — the rents wouldn't have been so high if the city had been able to keep up with building enough new housing to accomodate all of the new workers who were flooding into the city. (That's what causes high rent, after all: insufficient supply to match demand.) A few pages later, the book — which for the record I have a physical copy of sitting right next to me on my desk, rather than relying on the Google Books preview — also delves into an outbreak of cholera sweeping through some of the shacktowns toward the end of the decade, precisely because a disproportionately large portion of city residents (larger than any other city in all of Canada, even in the midst of an atypical economic boom) actually lived in shacks without running water or indoor toilets.
Another point, which I haven't added to the article yet only because I haven't figured out how to make it succinctly instead of taking up two or three full paragraphs, is that the provincial limitations on the city's tax revenue (it wasn't able to levy industrial taxes on Inco or Falconbridge, for reasons explained in more depth at Economy of Greater Sudbury) meant that the city didn't have the capital funds necessary to actually build all the new roads, water mains, sewer ducts, electrical infrastructure and on and so forth, that would have been needed to actually support the level of new housing construction that was demanded.
Amid all of that, the book does make clear that food banks and other social services, very much like the ones that were active in other cities in that era, were active in Sudbury during the same era, but ironically because the city was facing the opposite problem — growing faster than it could manage, because of an atypical economic boom — to almost everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to weigh in a little. The book does indicate that the "unfortunate" lived in shanty towns, so would suggest a social problem is an appropriate label. However, I cannot find reference to the cause being insufficient number of houses. It's probably true, but I can't find the specific reference for it. Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greater Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Greater Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Commonly used name in lead[edit]

There have been some attempts to clarify the name in the first line of the lead. Does anyone have any objections if I change it to: "Greater Sudbury, commonly referred to as Sudbury, is a city in Ontario, Canada." I think this should be in the first line of the lead as opposed to how it is currently mentioned at the end of the first paragraph as not everyone reads the lead and this is an important distinction as nobody really refers to this city as "Greater Sudbury" outside of special circumstances. Air.light (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the change is necessary. The opening paragraph makes it clear Sudbury is the common usage and the entire article from that point on uses Sudbury, and not Greater Sudbury, so I don't think it's very ambiguous. Mattximus (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the change is not necessary, but it seems like it would be a small improvement as some people only come for certain pieces of information and don't read far into the lead. With my observing various attempts to change it over not too long of a period of time, this shows that others are seeing the same issue I am here. Why would we not want to change it? Air.light (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to the proposal. I don't personally see a big enough difference from the existing version, in which the common name is already noted just a few words down the introductory paragraph, to feel strongly about it either way, but there's been more than enough editwarring over the common vs. official names issue over the years to suggest that somebody out there cares more about changing the current wording than I do. Although I did revert the last attempt to change the wording, I did so because the editor actually used bad wording, not because I have any fundamental objection to any wording changes at all — the proposal here is much better than the last attempt. (I grew up, for the record, in one of the "greater" outlying towns rather than the urban core — and even I think the "Greater" is stupid and unnecessary and should probably just get dropped. But as long as the city is still using it, it's not our role here to pretend they're not.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable, the change to me is neutral so I do not oppose. Mattximus (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I support Air.light's suggested revision. It is a non-controversial, simple and pragmatic improvement that could minimize the historical edit warring over the common vs. official names issue from persisting in the future. Hwy43 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I put the change in. Air.light (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Sudbury is the commonly used name, I suggest the article title be moved to Sudbury, Ontario, which is currently a redirect. Per WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Volcanoguy 09:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I would support this change. It makes perfect sense as per WP:COMMONNAME as you cite. Air.light (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have to oppose that. The name "Sudbury" is very rarely, if ever, used to mean the entire city of Greater Sudbury as a whole — when used without the "Greater" prefix, the unadorned "Sudbury" alone is virtually always intended to signify only the pre-2001 boundaries of "Old Core Sudbury" to the exclusion of Lively and Garson and Falconbridge and Chelmsford and Azilda and Hanmer and Blezard Valley and Coniston and Wanup and Dowling. It's true that a lot of people say "Sudbury" instead of "Greater Sudbury", but they're not talking about the whole city when they say that, they're only talking about the highly urbanized part of the city located south of Maley Drive, north of Highway 17, east of the Big Nickel/Kelly Lake Road/Southview Drive corridor and west of where True North Strong is going to be, and not about any of the rest of the city beyond that. People don't even use "Sudbury" to mean Copper Cliff or anything down Long Lake Road past the Highway 17 interchange, and those were inside the city limits even before the merger.
And I don't know how many times I've had to clean up garbage on Wikipedia where somebody had written that the Sudbury Airport and SNOLAB were located outside of "Sudbury" — even in Sudbury, people still use the name "Sudbury" to mean the urban core of the pre-2001 city, and use "(City of) Greater Sudbury" (or "Greater City of Sudbury", which really sets my teeth on edge!) if they actually mean the whole city in its fullness. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bearcat I grew up in Sudbury, and I can say with confidence that when someone says "Sudbury" they mean downtown Sudbury, not any of the surrounding places which together constitute Greater Sudbury. Mattximus (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective; I'm glad that we have a regular editor like you paying attention to smaller threads like this one. Air.light (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have to see a reliable source with that claim otherwise I do not believe that is true given the fact that I have seen the name Sudbury on its own to mean outside the urban area. And if that were true Greater Sudbury is not commonly refered to as Sudbury like the article claims. Volcanoguy 15:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you live in Sudbury? When I wrote that sentence I meant Greater Sudbury, as a synecdoche. If I knew you lived in Sudbury, I would say are you from Sudbury to mean are you from the downtown, or the old borders of Sudbury which excludes the many small towns which comprise of Greater Sudbury and this article. That you don't believe me is odd, since I spent almost 20 years in Sudbury so I can tell you this is the common usage.
I can do one better to show why what you propose doesn't make sense. Let's look at the population figures using census Canada terminology, Greater Sudbury has a population of 161,513, and Sudbury has a population of 88,054 people. What do you want this article to be about? Mattximus (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've already revised the wording in the article to be a little more accurate about the actual situation. To be fair, I will grant that now that I live in Toronto, if the topic of where I grew up comes up in conversation but it isn't the focus of the conversation, then I'm probably just going to say "Sudbury" and not digress into a complex five-minute explanation about how I'm really from a small town they've never heard of that was a suburb of Sudbury at the time I lived there but then got amalgamated into "Greater Sudbury" in 2001. But that's just to keep the conversation on track, and I'd do the same thing if I were from Espanola or Massey or Markstay or Hagar or Noëlville or Killarney or Cartier, which still aren't part of the smooshed megacity even now — and, in fact, I was already doing that even before the merger happened at all. (Hell, I've even met a guy who would tell people he was from Sudbury, but then when we got into the "hey, me too, which part?" thing he actually turned out to be from Britt.) And that's not a uniquely Greater Sudbury thing, either — the vast majority of people from any suburban or exurban town in the metropolitan area of a larger and more famous city are going to answer that same question by just naming the famous city instead of being more precise than the context of the conversation actually demands. And if I actually had the opportunity to go into more detail — e.g. because it was the "getting to know you better" conversation on my second or third date with a guy I really liked, or because I was talking to somebody else from Sudbury, or because I was actually writing my memoirs for publication, then I'd dig more deeply into the nuances of where I was really from.
So frankly, I would need to see a citation for the claim that people do routinely use ungreatered "Sudbury" to mean the entire "High Falls to Stinson to Capreol to Windy Lake to Wanup" city of "Greater Sudbury" in a consistent and reliably sourceable way. Because that's not my experience — as a person who grew up there, I can attest that the term is only used that way if the speaker is trying to keep a casual conversation (or a news article that has to mention Sudbury but isn't all that deeply about it as such) from derailing into an irrelevant digression, but not in serious published reliable sources that are actually attempting to be about Greater Sudbury in any non-trivial way. In actual fact, the very few times I've seen the outlying "Greater" towns come up in beyond-Sudbury media coverage at all since the merger, they're still described as if they were small towns outside of "Sudbury", not neighbourhoods in "Sudbury" as they would be if "Sudbury" was actually being used interchangeably with "Greater Sudbury". Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Not your experience because you are from there. What do people outside of Greater Sudbury call it? Greater Sudbury is not the center of the universe; there are far more people who live outside of that city rather than in it. You are only bringing up locally used terminology rather than looking at the whole picture. Volcanoguy 03:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I have now lived in Toronto for more of my life than I lived in Greater Sudbury, so I'm very aware of what people outside Greater Sudbury say: if they say "Sudbury", they still mean only the central urban core of what was the "City of Sudbury" prior to 2001, and if they have any awareness of the existence of Lively or Garson or Chelmsford at all, they still think those are separate towns outside of "Sudbury" rather than neighbourhoods inside it as they actually are. Exactly nowhere on earth do people use the name "Sudbury" to denote the entire city of "Greater Sudbury" — if they say "Sudbury", then they mean only the urbanized central cluster and not the suburban communities in the Valley or Walden or Nickel Centre. Remember what I said about "the vast majority of people from any suburban or exurban town in the metropolitan area of a larger and more famous city are going to answer that same question by just naming the famous city instead of being more precise than the context of the conversation actually demands"? That's literally the only context in which you will ever hear anybody say "Sudbury", without "Greater" in front of it, in a manner that's inclusive of Lively or Garson or Chelmsford or Val Caron or Capreol, regardless of whether the speaker is from the Sudbury area or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Greater Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greater Sudbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yallowega Bélanger Salach Architecture notability[edit]

There is a draft article Draft:Yallowega Bélanger Salach Architecture (YBSA for short) by User:TDixon16, a new contributor. I'm trying to help them, and wanted to link to it as one of the notable architecture firms in the city. User:Magnolia677 deleted the initial list of notable architectural firms in the city before there was time to flesh it out. I believe User:TDixon16 independently added a new link, and I added a reference to the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce award as a starting point. User:Magnolia677 deleted the entry again, arguing that it wasn't notable because a hair studio had won the "exact same award that year" (note: YBSA won "Company of the Year" and Changes Hair Studio won "Entrepreneur of the Year" but I get the point), and asking to discuss. So here we are!

Better examples of awards that YBSA has won are the 2017 Ontario Wood Works! Institutional Wood Design Award < $10 M and another Ontario's Wood Works! award in 2021. Would these suffice?

With the sudden onflux of new articles about buildings in Sudbury (I guarantee that nobody ever thought the Ledo was notable enough for a Wikipedia article before yesterday!), and now this, I think we can all safely assume that a prof at McEwen assigned this stuff as a class project. But at any rate, no, local business excellence awards aren't necessarily notability-clinching awards — to establish the firm's notability, what we need is media coverage about the firm. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to sidetrack this discussion too much, but I would like to remark that I absolutely consider the Ledo notable enough for an article, especially given all the coverage it's had recently, and I'm glad to see there is now an article on it. I don't think it's fair to say that "nobody ever thought this" – just that nobody went ahead and created an article until now. Julius177 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I grew up in Sudbury, and went to see bands at the Towne House in my day more often than most people have the ability to count. Seeing an article on the Ledo made my eyebrows do somersaults, and I don't mean that positively. And purely local coverage in Sudbury's local media of an as yet unrealized redevelopment proposal is not necessarily enough to make a hotel notable on "because media coverage exists" grounds, either — its coverage would have to expand well beyond just Sudbury's local media before it actually had an airtight claim to passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
You're correct, Bearcat, these are the results of an architecture class project. I was brought in late as a librarian from the university to introduce the technical and cultural aspects of contributing to Wikipedia. While I advocated for the [approach of a writing and research assignment] to focus more on expanding existing articles or collaborating to create a few new great articles, the students were instead directed to each create a new article. I have tried to set expectations accordingly. My immediate goal is to salvage what we can of their efforts by incorporating some of the content into existing articles, where appropriate, and helping review and revise the articles that do stand a chance of surviving. My longer term goal is to convince the professor to engage with Wikipedia in their future courses, but to adopt the WikiEdu Course structure and a set of objectives that maps to Wikipedia's goals--for the greater satisfaction of both the Wikipedia community and the students (who will hopefully have a more positive experience and go on to become part of the Wikipedia community). So to be clear, though, about YBSA and the Ontario Wood Works! awards, are you saying that in your opinion awards from a provincial association (where that province has a population of 14M) are "local"? Dan Scott (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, that comment was referring specifically to the notion that the firm is notable because it won an award from a local business association that also simultaneously gave an award to a hair salon. But that said, even a provincial-level council award isn't necessarily an instant notability guarantee either — the extent to which any award does or doesn't make its winners encyclopedically notable for winning it is always a question of the extent to which media do or don't pay attention to that award as a subject of journalism. There are a lot of awards that are technically provincial or even national in scope, while still being too obscure to hand their winners automatic notability freebies — so the extent to which any award counts as a notability maker doesn't have nearly as much to do with the geographic scope of the award as it has to do with the geographic scope of the media coverage that the award does or doesn't generate. An award assists notability if you can source the award win to a news story about the award presentation in a media outlet, and does not assist notability if you have to rely on the award's own self-published content about itself, on its own website or in its own press releases, to source the claim because the award just isn't getting any media coverage to establish that it's seen as a notable award. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The first reference for the Ontario Wood Works! award was from the Canadian Architect magazine site; the second reference was directly from the award's own website because it was so new, but as of today also been written about at Canadian Architect. Canadian Architect magazine has been published since 1955 and has a national scope. Dan Scott (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a difference between "genuine journalist-written news story" and "straight-up reprint of affiliated organization's own press release". The fact that something is printed in a magazine doesn't automatically make it GNG-building media coverage — the tone of the piece clearly resembles a press release more than journalism, there's no bylined author on the piece, the magazine only has two named editorial staff in its masthead, and on and so forth. So even if you can source a piece of information to a piece of magazine content, you still have to be able to distinguish genuine journalism from reprints of primary source press releases.
For example, the draft is based 10/18 on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and then six of the other eight are Sudbury's own local media — so actually getting the firm over WP:CORPDEPTH still requires more than just one specialist trade magazine reprinting a couple of press releases self-created by organizations directly associated with the claims. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)