Talk:History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Deletion per WP:NOR?

I removed the proposed deletion template because I don't find that the article violates WP:NOR. On the contrary, this looks like a very promising article, though it certainly needs:

1. References. Lots of them.
2. Some cleanup, mostly regarding structure.
3. A better title. I suggest History of the petroleum industry in Canada, after History of the petroleum industry in North America.

GregorB 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

This article has been transferred wholesale from here and, although licensed under a CCA, goes against what I perceive Wikipedia to be. Undoubtedly, it is an interesting essay, but is it encyclopaedic? Bubba hotep 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you in that the article - as it stands now - is less than perfect encyclopedic material. However, I don't think it's an essay, because I don't see that it reflects its author's personal point of view. I'd say it's more like a magazine article or a popular book, i.e. it's nothing that a bit of style editing could not fix. With that, and the points I've outlined above, this could still be a fine article. GregorB 14:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I might take a look and have a fiddle when I get a chance. Title needs changing first, might do that later. Bubba hotep 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No time like the present. Strike number three of your list! I think the whole thing needs doing quicksmart though because the person who prod'ed it did have a bit of a point. Bubba hotep 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good! The article is now no longer orphaned, and I've broken it into sections, which begins to adress point #2 (albeit feebly)... GregorB 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article, and I'd love to be involved in the editing. However, I don't have a clue how to edit it, including putting in links. I've searched the Wikipedia site, and I can't find anything that really explains this. Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmbcomm (talk • contribs).

I've added a welcome message to your talk page that provides you with a number of resources on how to edit Wikipedia pages. You can ask here too, of course - what would you like to do? One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature. Sandstein 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am now pretty well finished with my editing. I will keep an eye on this to make sure future changes are accurate. I'm quite pleased with the outcome. Thanks for your help, and your various notes and comments.Pmbcomm 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two-part article?

I think the division of our coverage on this subject is somewhat arbitrary and awkward. I would like to move the pages to more descriptive titles that reflect their content, i.e.:

• History of the petroleum industry in Canada -> Early petroleum resource and pipeline development in Canada
• History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part two -> Undeveloped or partially-developed petroleum resources in Canada

Better titles would be fine, too, if you can think of some. Any thoughts? --Merovingian ※ Talk 12:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with that idea. The history is consistent. in the industry itself, we have a consistent way of talking about them, and the history reflects that. Your second suggested title, in that context, would be particularly misleading. Rather than give them separate titles, my preference would be to put them back into a single long history. That is actually my general preference, but the story had become quite ungainly at more than 11000 words. They do fit together as a single history, with the conclusion in part 2 representing a conclusion for the combined piece.Pmbcomm 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that combining might be a good idea. The concept of having "parts" of a larger article is rather unorthodox for Wikipedia, because we don't have to have articles of any set length. That said, we could also siphon off some of the excess information into petroleum resources of Canada. This would be a good place to describe them in detail and leave this article mainly about history. --Merovingian ※ Talk 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)