Talk:Saint John, New Brunswick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
	This article is part of the New Brunswick WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents 1 Random Old stuff 2 Image for crest and flag? 3 Just out of curiosity: 4 Cruise Ship Passengers 5 william murdoch and those photos 6 Facts 7 1st/2nd largest 8 Pollution 9 Japanese 10 Photos and Size 11 External links -- unnecessary removal? 12 Old page better 13 New photos? 14 New new page 15 Info box 16 Notable Firsts 17 the refinery 18 Largest City 19 Culture subsection 20 Image clutter 21 Translation of Name of City 22 saint john grave sites plots and availability 23 elevation 24 population

[edit] Random Old stuff

"Saint John is a city of neighborhoods." What city ISN'T a city of neighborhoods?? That's what a city is. =p -Jackmont Oct 10/06

Actually does Fort Howe sit in the same location of Fort LaTour? I had thought Fort Latour was located near the present location of HMCS Brunswicker near Harbour Passage... the reconstruction of Fort Howe is up the hill from there.Plasma east 00:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I no longer live in Saint John, but I am quite certain that they are not on the same site. Fort LaTour is nearby.

http://uk.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=-7355000.47338937&Y=5635000.43378043&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=mercator&db=CA&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=25000&down.x=195&down.y=5

If that map shows up right, the green area to the south, right under the "1" in HIghway 1(The red line) is the remains of Fort Latour. the green strip north of it should be Fort Howe. It's been over a decade since I was in Saint John so if someone more familiar with Saint John can straighten this out, please let us know. I started the article on Fort Howe, but someone else added the bit about being on the site of Fort Latour. -Magu2k

Fort Latour is located in the north end of Saint John.It is just under the Harbour Bridge next to the Naval Reserve Unit HMCS Brunswicker. You can visit the site by going on Chesley Drive and take the driveway entrance into HMCS Brunswicker. Also you can walk the boardwalk from Market Square in the downtown area that runs along the harbour.Fort Howe is located on the hill over looking Main Street and the harbour. Chadon

[edit] Image for crest and flag?

Does anyone have any public domain images for the crest or the flag for ths city?

I just took a picture of a flag with the City crest on it, but the flag was kind of flapping in the wind, will that do? Magu 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll also have to fix the link to the largest metro areas in Canada. A census division is not a metro area, and Saint John is not a census division. However, Saint John County is. So is Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, but not Saint John. See census division for more info. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of curiosity:

There's absolutely no question Saint John is the industrial center of NB, but the insurance, financial, and legal center? I don't profess to know a whole lot about Saint John, but I do know that Atlantic Blue Cross, and Assumption Mutual both have their headquarters in Moncton, and they are very large insurers. As for financial, Bank of Montreal, National Bank, TD Bank and Royal Bank all have either their regional offices in Moncton, or major presences. mylesmalley 04:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cruise Ship Passengers

Is the number 140,000+ accurate? considering Saint John is not a major tourist destination, like Miami or Boston, and is realy one of the last cities along the atlantic cost (Halifax and St. John's being the others). I think that figure might be a wee bit inflated. Considering cruise ships generaly have (for arguments sake) 2,000 passengers apiece. That would mean that 70 ships pass through there annualy.

http://www.seesaintjohn.com/f_tallships.htm This number looks like it is an estimate for 2002 or 2003, wether this projection was met or not, I do not know. However, in defense of the inflation concern (although in the wiki article 140,000 is presented as fact), I quote:

"This year beginning on April 8 and ending on October 27, almost 60 cruise ships bringing 140,000 passengers are expected to arrive in Saint John. Saint John has welcomed the QE2 and this year the largest cruise ship - Voyager of the Seas is scheduled to make twelve trips."

The QE2 holds just under 2000, the Voyager holds over 3000. This may be close to accurate, and I could see the correct figure potentially being higher, but I think we can fairly say that unless we find proof, the number 140,000 is not the correct number. -Magu2k

[edit] william murdoch and those photos

The link to William Murdoch doesn't look much like a poet, but rather a Scottish chemist or industrialist who, it appears, lived his entire life in Britain.

And sorry if this offends SJ but those photos of Saint John are a bit grey and dreary. Waterloo Street? South End? Brunswick Sq? Where they meant to turn people away? There are many beautiful spots in Saint John. I'm 11,000km away so cannot take photos... surely, someone there, on a sunny day, can snap a few more livelier ones. DDD DDD 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I took the photos but am not a resident. I would have taken better ones but the few days I was in the city it wasn't very nice out. If someone takes better photos I will not be offended in the least if they're replaced. The only defence I give my photos is that they are a pretty accurate visual description of Saint John as that is how it looks a great deal of the time. --ChrisErb 06:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the new picture of Brunswick Square as I felt it was redundant as it was only the other side of the other picture. The reson I chose the photo I did was not based on the fact that the picture I left is mine but because mine shows the Brunswick Square tower (not sure of it's name) which is the one of the tallest building in New Brunswick and the tallest in the city. If there are any objections, please put them here or email me (address is in my profile). --ChrisErb

Well actually Brunswick Square is tied for the title of "the tallest" building in New Brunswick. It is tied with the Assumption Place in Moncton at 80.8 metres. Anyways, just clarifying. Theyab 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Being from Saint John i must say that they forgot some facts. One fact is that Saint John ahs the Largest municipal park in Canada. Also to answer some questions, Forte Howe and LaTour are not on the same site, you were right. Also the number of cruise ships would be accurate during summer and fall there are often a cruise ship or two in the porte. We have even had three in the porte at one time!

• There was one day about 3 years ago when there was 4 in port 3 at Pugsley and one on the west side.

[edit] 1st/2nd largest

What's this that someone keeps saying SJ is the 2nd largest city in N.B? According to the 2001 census, SJ had almost 8,000 people than Moncton. Did Moncton's increase that much in the last 5 years?

The same charade's been going on at the Moncton article. We use the results of the latest census until the new one comes out. SJ's still bigger. Kirjtc2 13:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed that someone fudged the population figures for both cities, citing the Canada 2005 Census (which didn't exist). Apparently Moncton gained exactly 18,000 people from last time. :p I've reverted to the 2001 numbers. Kirjtc2 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it the same person fudging the numbers (and on both articles)? If so, maybe we could see about banning this person. By the way, that was me about but I forgot to sign. Thanks for taking care of those reverts.DDD DDD 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No I did hear that Moncton is a little bit bigger than Saint John but not to much only by a couple of thousand here is a link http://www.serha.ca/departmets/north/cityofmoncton.htm

it says that Moncton has a population of 140,000

It's not sourced. Until we see anything official that proves otherwise, Saint John is still #1. Kirjtc2 23:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Using the StatsCan Results that were released on Tuesday have the populations as

64,128- City of Moncton 68,043- City of Saint John (although the 43 probably have already left since last may)

Although if you add the totals of the Greater Moncton Area (Moncton, Dieppe, Riverview) and the Greater Saint John Area (Saint John, Rothesay, Quispamsis, Grand Bay-Westfield) then the Moncton Area is in fact larger that the SJ area. 140,000 vs 132,000

Alright, according to this link: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=802&PR=13&S=0&O=A&RPP=25 from Stats Canada, Saint John has a population of 90,016 people, while Moncton has a population of 97,065 people. Being an elementary teacher, I know that 97,065 > 90,016, therefore Moncton is officially bigger than Saint John. Dfleming2 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The populations you referring to are the "Census Metropolitan Areas" (CMA), not the "Population of the Cities". For instance, the CMA of Moncton includes the City of Dieppe, which is technically separate. The CMA of Saint John includes a couple of outlier towns, as well. It may be splitting hairs, but the city of Saint John is still marginally larger than the city of Moncton, even if the CMA of Moncton is larger than Saint John. Geoff NoNick 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the populations I am referring to are the "Urban Areas" (UA). The CMA is at this link: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=205&RPP=50Dfleming2 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Urban area's are not by definition cities the urban area only includes the urban sections of Saint John and Neighbouring communities. There is not 90,000 people in either of the legal entities "The City of Saint John" and "City of Moncton" as in that table. This table http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=302&SR=1&S=3&O=D&RPP=25&PR=13 Has the official populations of Municipalities as proclamed by the Municipalities Act of the Province of New Brunswick. And you cannot argue that size by area Saint John of infact the largest, and on its own the most populus.Thee17 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pollution

Does anyone think their should be a page about all the pollution in Saint John. Um no, why bother? Does Montreal have a section on pollution? No. and its just as bad there

[edit] Japanese

I spent the better part of the last 90 minutes making the Japanese page for the Saint John article. Why you may ask? Well, I stumbled across a Japanese article on Acadia and clicked on the link to New Brunswick. There I saw that someone had already begun an article on Fredericton but the Saint John article was this lonely red because no Japanese speaker had yet to make it. I decided to do something about it. Take a look at it. Your browser may say that you can't see it, but try anyway.ぜひ見てください。The fact that Donald Sutherland, Cecil B. Demille and Matt Stairs already had Japanese language articles about them makes it look all the more impressive, if I may say so.

I also think we need some good photos of the campus at UNB. Alas, I am in Tokyo, so I cannot possibly take them. Would someone be so kind... and then upload them to the commons. Once done, I might get around to making a Japanese version of the UNB page. Oh. Oh. Oh. And Moosehead exports a beer to Japan. So, if someone could take photos of all/some of the lovely Moosehead products, I would be much obliged.DDD DDD 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos and Size

I've uploaded 3 new photos to replace 3 older ones (yeah that was me, but I wasn't logged in). The newer photos have colour other than grey. However, I noticed the entire article is too long. It needs to be edited. Anyone up for it? DDD DDD 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the article somewhat. There was a lot of "verbage" (verbiage and garbage) with too many words like "best", "most", and a lot of "speculation" which is hardly useful to the 'pedia user. It was not the most neutral article in wikipedia. Whatever. Done. I also deleted some photos, including one of my own. I took some good SJ skyline pics when I was in Canada a few weeks ago. I'll upload one or two in the next few days. I also got rid of most of the useless - to - most - people - red - links.DDD DDD 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well until a new skyline pic is put up, Perhaps you should of left the one that was there, instead of butchering the entire article. The whole thing should be reverted.

[edit] External links -- unnecessary removal?

I noticed that the external links were removed this morning (August 6, 2006 - the links were still in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_John%2C_New_Brunswick&diff=67985467&oldid=67984943 )

However, I think they're useful, and almost all fair-sized city pages have them, including Fredericton, Moncton, Ottawa, etc.

Kudos on the editting work though - I realize there's usually more criticism than thanks

Yes, I agree, seems like the article got worse, not better.

Re "external link - unnecessary removal". I just noticed this. Yeah, you are right. On one of my last edits from 6th Aug. the external links are edited out. That was unintentional on my part. I think they got cut here: "Revision as of 10:42, 6 August 2006; DDD DDD". Unintentional. Thanks for pointing that out and sorry for being so slow to respond. Also, thanks for the "kudos". I appreciate that. Not everyone here seems to agree with me so it's good to read that.DDD DDD 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old page better

I was suprised to visit this page tonight and see it butchered. Where are the skyline pics. These two very narrow pics are too localized. The page needs to be reverted.

Hmmm. Well, that was me who did the butchering. By butchering, you mean? Removing uninteresting photos? If we are going to advertise our city, at least put life into it. I am not sure that the old page with an unclear photo on a grey day is better than those pics I uploaded. Also, if you read above, it says that I took some great skyline shots WITH COLOUR and in a few days I will upload them. Be patient. Also, I reverted back to this page now because I do not see why we need any description of the buildings in the "buildings and structure" section. I live in a city with 50 floor buildings. I see nothing amazing with 15, 14 and 13 floor buildings. Also, why would someone put the Hilton first on the list? To advertise? The hilton in Saint John is not remarkable, not the tallest building, and not before City Hall if we alphabetise the buildings. Also, because city hall is that, the hall of the city, it should be first. Why do we need a description of the pedway system? Many other cities have much more interesting pedways? Maybe a note somewhere on this page. But... Also, while not particularly religious, much of SJ's history involves religion and there are remarkable religious buildings in SJ (Trinity, Stone, Cathedral, etc). Why is there no mention here? Finally, whoever took that photo of the smokestacks, KUDOS! What a great photo!!! We may not realise it or not, but those stacks are: appealing for their colour, industrial design, and size. And since they are the tallest structures in SJ, they deserve a photo. (Forgot to sign.)DDD DDD 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too involved in this page because I don't live in Saint John, but I have contributed in the past and I loved to see how the page grew with such pictures and interesting information. you have gt some nerve DDD DDD, I could never edit such a chunk like that, perhaps you should have thought about other people's work before you erased it hmmm? Just because you live in the "big city" with skyscrapers galore, doesn't mean Saint John's skyline isn't locally interesting. It has the largest skyline in NB, and second largest in the Maritimes (Halifax being the largest). No one is advertising except for you by removing "uninteresting pictures." For god sake's just leave them up! find better pictures and then replace them, clearly someone has put forth enough effort to try and embetter a small part of wikipedia by taking those pictures in the first place, and someone looked up several facts on these structures, and in one click of the mouse all their work is gone. Sure the pictures cloudy and dreary, but Saint John has that type of climate. you don't have to "advertise" the city, just give straight facts, try and think about other people's efforts before you click "Save Page". Theyab 09:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Theyab. I appreciate you taking the time to write. No doubt, people made efforts to make the page better. People took time to take photos. And you took time to comment here. Fair enough. We all appreciate that. When I was visiting in July, on 3 different occassions, I took time to walk around the city to snap photos. One day was grey. One day was partly grey. And one day was with a big, beautiful blue sky with a gorgeous sunset. SJ also has gorgeous weather, too. Not just grey fog. You are right that wikipedia would be nothing without everyone's contributions. Still, we have to address several issues. 1) The page on SJ was too big - beyond the recommended 32K by wikipedia itself. I wrote last week (Aug. 3rd) on this discussion page that the article was TOO long and that it needed to be edited. No one did any editing to remove info/data to make the page smaller. In fact, other people actually added MORE data to the article. So, last night, I did get out my red pen and butcher knife and away I went. 2) Few people want to read mega essays. So, I not only removed photos, I also edited every paragraph. See for yourself. 3) Again, as I have written previously (twice now), I took GOOD skyline photos with a lot of colour in them and that I will upload them in a few days. Again, be patient. 4) Even though I live in a megapolis, I am not saying that it has to be big to be interesting. Tokyo's skyling ain't all that, despite the 歟er modern skyscrapers here. But in a "buildings and structures" section, there is no need to describe in detail EVERY generic office building in the city. And did I say that SJ's skyline wasn't interesting? I think it is beautiful. Very. But let's put some photos that actually reflect that beauty. 5) As I wrote above, there are other buildings in the city that are remarkable. Some happen to be religous buildings (Trinity Church, Stone Church, the Cathedral, etc). There also happen to be a number of historical buildings: Loyalist House, the market, the Red Rose Tea building, the Red Rose Tea mansion, the musuem on Douglas Ave, the Imperial Theatre, the Admiral Beatty, etc. SJ's future lies in its past, not some generic 13 floor office building. 6) Surely city hall should be mentioned because it is the hall of the citizens as I wrote above. Also, those funky old school 3 stripes on the front of the building are actually COOL. It took several decades to achieve their iconic coolness... but, they are what they are. And maybe it would be OK to descibe the city hall in more detail: construction date, floors, number of workers, etc. I'll accept that. But why do we need to describe a hotel that is not as tall as city hall nor other taller buildings in the city? And why would the hotel be first on the list? And as for the facts on the buidlings, the most important fact would be it's height, or, for historic buildings, it's age and design. As you can see, I left the height of the buildings there for all to see. If you all can't do metric by now, well, that is not my problem. 7) I didn't just go through the page and get rid of everyone's hard work. I was very positive about the smoke stacks. I think they are great. And again KUDOS to the person who shot that photo! 8) And finally, if no one likes my edits, well... they can always revert.DDD DDD 11:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The skyline picture, that was above the info box had no grey in it at all. It was a perfect sunny day. So i dont know why you are still going on about all the greyness, and it actually showed a huge chunk of the skyline. Since your so bored and want to be the big Wikipedia HERO.... You should go edit Halifax and Monctons articles also. since they are over the 32kb.. So dont go on how Saint Johns was too large, when the other cities around here were long as well. You sure do have some nerve15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You wanted me to revert, so i did. 156.34.184.184

Wow. For my next trick, peace in the Middle East while standing on one foot. "Big"? "Wikipedia"? "HERO"? (Emphasis not mine.) And my favourite: "You sure do have some nerve"!?!?! What the ???? is that about User:156.34.184.184. Who cares about the size of the Moncton or Halifax' articles. We are on the SJ article. It was over recommended size. Point taken. Thank you. Now, do you not agree that SJ's charm lies in the historic buildings found throughout the city? I am not the enemy here. And I would appreciate you realise that. I re-reverted to my earlier edit, BUT I added/kept that older photo of the skyline in the city info box at the top of the page.DDD DDD 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars are pointless User...'184. I have given plenty of reasons above for my edits and the work I have done and believe that still needs to be done. You have only tried to throw slurs my way. If you REALLY believe your revert is just-worthy, then please explain why here in the discussion page. I trimmed the article to an appropriate size. I added the skyline shot that everyone loves. And I have made comments on what else needs to be done. Please just don't call me a hero and say what nerve I have. It's OK for adults to be critical and to take criticism now and then. I was critical. And I also met people part way by adding the skyline photo. If I were to bring an admin into this discussion, I believe I would not come out the loser. Also, the older edit has MUCH non-neutral language (as I noted above yesterday) which is not appropriate for a good quality wiki article. Thanks for your understanding. DDD DDD 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I got finished writing my comments on why I reverted and User:156.34.184.184 went and reverted for the third time. And again without justifying here why she/he did so. That is so frustrating. Please note that this user is in violation of wiki guidelines: "The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession." I am not making that up. I'll forget about the personal attacks and try not to think about the lack of neutral point of view in the article. In the meantime, I am waiting for someone else (or User ...'184) to revert to my earlier edit. It's way past my bedtime for me here. I am looking forward to reading the new and improved article in the morning. Otherwise, I will seek arbitration. Please note, that is not a threat. I am simply following wiki guidelines. If anyone is interested in reading the wiki dispute resolving guidelines, they are at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Oyasuminasai.DDD DDD 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I feel that I have to apologize to DDD DDD here. I shouldn't have jumped too conclusions, it didn't even cross my mind that the page was far too long. Perhaps we could reach an agreement, you know remove somethings and leave others. For instance we could take out some of the redundant information or duplicate pictures, maybe limiting 2 pictures per section. Just some ideas, and once again sorry DDD DDD. Theyab 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DDD DDD .... Its me the reverter, I noticed that somebody uploaded a pic titled "Downtown Saint John" I think you and i can actually agree on something, and that is, that the downtown sj pic does NOT represent the downtown, and should be removed? I truely feel the brunswick sq photo should stay because it is a large component of the uptown area in this city. But since you are so keen on keeping the article short, I think the Old west side house, picture could also be removed, since all cities have old houses somewhere. The Urban Redevelopment section to me is needed in the article to show that this city is indeed on an "upswing" as well as education should be left untouched for students from abroad can take note at what kind of facilities we have to offer. Whatever you do tomorrow, just dont chop it up so much like you did before. PS cant wait to see these new skyline pics you've been mentioning... Mike, 156.34.186.102 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 2nd downtown sj pic is nice and should stay, shows the skyline up close. its the 1st downtown sj pic that i feel needs to go 156.34.186.102 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for writing. I was just writing about some of the problems I have with the older version, but there was an editing conflict. Here are my comments below.

Thanks Theyab. I appreciate that you realise I am only trying to make the article better. Now, I've had a change of heart and I'm willing to allow just about any photos, grey or not. However, the language used in my version is better (but still could be imroved) than that in the actual version to which User:156.34.184.184 reverted three times. Here are some reasons.

1.The article is about SJ and there is much extraneous info in '.184's version. Take for example the second paragraph in the History section. Compare a(mine) with b(not mine): a."The mouth of the Saint John River was first discovered by Europeans in 1604 during a reconnaissance of the Bay of Fundy undertaken by French cartographer Samuel de Champlain. The day upon which Champlain sighted the mighty river was St. John The Baptist's Day, thus the name for the river (Fleuve Ste-Jean, or St. John River)." b."The mouth of the Saint John River was first discovered by Europeans in 1604 during a reconnaissance of the Bay of Fundy undertaken by French cartographer Samuel de Champlain. Champlain was assisting an expedition chartered by Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Monts, which resulted in a French settlement 100 kilometres (60 mi) west at ︺e-Ste-Croix and was subsequently moved across the bay to Port-Royal the following year. The day upon which Champlain sighted the mighty river emptying into Baie Fran腔is (as the Bay of Fundy was then called) was St. John The Baptist's Day, thus the name for the river (Fleuve Ste-Jean, or St. John River)." Are we talking about SJ or the history of the early Acadian settlers? We cannot possibly detail every historical event in the city's past nor the history of surrounding areas. The same is said about later Loyalist history. Are we talking about SJ or the history of Nova Scotia/New Brunswick. In a later section, the focus is on Amelia and her exploits which are unrelated to SJ. She stopped here before heading off again. That's it. And so on. Less is more.

2. In the version that is not mine, "Saint John" is written approximately 50 times. The article is about SJ. We know that. We do not need to write it that many times. Many paragraphs have "Saint John" written twice and I found one paragraph where it was written 4 times! That is simply poor writing.

3. In the article that is not mine, we can find the mighty river named after the city written as Saint John River, Saint John river, and St. John River. Not good.

4. a) The demographics section is poorly written. Four paragraphs with, again, extraneous info. Total pop., M-F ration, and age proportions. That is enough. There is no need to compare with the rest of Canada. This is an article about a city, so why compare with provincial or national figures. That's trying to compare Apples and IBMs. b) "Race"? Ick. 'nuff said.

5. a) There is much non-neutral language. Here for example: "the federal government appeared to be intentionally trying to ... There has also been speculation that federal politics through the 1990s played a role in federal policies which have hurt the city (my emphasis added). Appeared? Speculation? Are these acceptable words in a neutral discussion? b) "The city has been a leader in heritage preservation following the 1982 designation of a 20-block area of the Uptown..." A leader compared with UNESCO World Heritage locales such as Luneburg and Quebec City? Wouldn't it suffice to say: "In 1982, a 20-block area of the Uptown area was designated for historic preservation."

6. The DUH factor: "Saint John has some of the tallest office buildings in New Brunswick." Wouldn't that go without saying since it is the largest city in the province?

7. Buildings and structures? There's too much focus on the tallest buildings and not enough on what makes SJ appealing to ourselves and visitors. People coming from Boston or New York or... on tour boats do NOT care about those few tall buildings. Again, as I wrote, it's the market, old churches, etc.

8. "This campus has undergone continuous expansion over the years and is the fastest growing component of the UNB system with many new buildings constructed between the 1970s-2000s. A trend in recent years has been a noticeable growth in the number of international students. This has resulted in several new apartment buildings being constructed on University Avenue as well as new shops and services being created around the city catering to international students." Continuous? I was a student from '88-'92. I don't recall continuous growth. In fact, in those lean years, we had to fight for space in classes, the library, and so on. And while the growth in int'l students is notable, is the construction of apartment buildings worth a note on the SJ page? A UNBSJ article should be started and the construction of apt's noted there.

9. In the Radio section, is it necessary to list each radio and the specific genre of music?

10. Dead Red links. I count 28 dead links including Courtney Bay and Courtenay Bay and Lorneville (twice).

11. Blue links. It is enough to link to another article once, if at all. New Brunswick is linked NINE times!

And so on. Now, I know, my version is far from perfect, but it was a start. By the way, I think in the past few days, I have explained enough why I did what I did or why changes need to take place. For those that prefer the older version, no has given any reasons why it is better, except to say that it is better. By the way, we are BEYOND photos. That is no longer the issue.DDD DDD 03:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New photos?

I've deleted those new photos that Rangeley uploaded. I wrote to him to say that we are currently having a discussion on the SJ page about content and that the photos weren't helpful at this time. See User talk:Rangeley and his reply User talk:DDD DDD. DDD DDD 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created an article or rather gallery, of photos of Saint John. See it here at Saint John, New Brunswick photo gallery. Many are very similar images taken shortly after one another as this gorgeous sun was setting. It is NOT my intention to keep all these photos here. Also, this is NOT my gallery. But it took me a while to upload these 34 images. Help me out by sorting out the best ones. The others, we can delete. Also, please upload your photos to this gallery, too! Maybe as we develop this gallery, we could categorise the images: skyline, water, new vs. old architecture, people, etc.DDD DDD 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New new page

I've gone ahead and re-edited an older page of mine. I haven't added or deleted any photos to that page. I did however make a photo gallery page. It needs work. I've listed in great detail over the past 48 hours some of the problems with the old Saint John page. Please, do NOT revert back to that old page. If you feel that I deleted something that is necessary to the page, add that to the page and write here in the discussion why it is necessary.DDD DDD 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info box

The info box had some strange numbers I thought. Area of SJ = 130sq.km? Maximum elevation 8m? What? I went to stats can and found some numbers. I adjusted the figures. I cannot find one for elevation, however, but surely 8m is wrong. I left that out.DDD DDD 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• the lowest elevation is Sea Level.

[edit] Notable Firsts

I added the foghorn in, since there was even mentioning of it being invented in Saint John on wikipedia anyways. Also, there is a plaque at the top of the City Market that lists all (or most) of the city's firsts - a nice place to get a few more facts?

I also once heard that Saint John was where the first Time Bomb was invented - does anyone know solid information on that? --Hooligans 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the refinery

I wrote this on GPascon's talk page, but maybe this person won't see it, looks like a new user, so, I am putting it here, also.

"Your interest in the Saint John article is certainly appreciated. I'm wondering, though if it necessary to write, twice more, about the oil refinery. You added a section in the Buildings and structure section and then again in quick facts. As I am sure you are aware, the refinery was already briefly talked about in the Economy section, first paragraph.

In the Buildings section, as you see, all the buildings are discussed in terms of height, so maybe in the buildings and structures section, it is not appropriate to write about the refinery here. A refinery isn't one structure or one building, is it? But rather many. Hmmm... Also, in the quick facts, I guess the idea of quick facts is just that, quick. Maybe you have too much information here. I actually know very little about the refinery and you seem to know quite a bit so your knowledge is much appreciated. You could probably start the Irving Oil Refinery in Saint John article. And I think that would be a good challenge!

Uh-oh, just having a look now, though, I found this Iriving page [1] page and you seem to have taken the wording from this and copied it verbatim which is not really the goal of wikipedia. I've put in bold the words and phrases that appear similar.

(From the Irving page: "producing over 300,000 barrels of quality finished energy products per day. From that daily production, we export approximately 175,000 barrels of petroleum products to the US Northeast, including 100,000 barrels of reformulated gasoline (RFG)—that's about 42% of all Canadian petroleum exports and about 45.5% of US RFG imports."

From your edit: "producing over 300,000 barrels of quality finished energy products per day. From that daily production, export is approximately 175,000 barrels of petroleum products to the US Northeast, including 100,000 barrels of reformulated gasoline (RFG)ﾑthat's about 42% of all Canadian petroleum exports and about 45.5% of US RFG imports.")

One more thing, if I were writing this for wikipedia, apart from major re-wording this, I'd certainly change the that's about to the slightly more academic approximately.

Good luck with the edits. And thanks again.DDD DDD 02:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest City

That designation still belongs to the City of Saint John for two factors.

Population according to Statistics Canada the population of "The City of Saint John" is 68,043 where the population of the City of Moncton is only 64,128 according to the same census. And second is Area. Saint John is 316.31 km² (122.1 sq mi) Making it the Largest "City in Atlantic Canada (urban area)" at exactly ½ the size to Toronto. where Moncton is 142 km² (55 sq mi)

Although Moncton is larger in the census region for the greater moncton area vs the greater SJ area.Thee17 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows the score this is the breakdown:

Rank	City (type)	Population	Area
1	Saint John (city)	68,043	316.31 km²
2	Moncton (city)	64,128	142 km²
1	Moncton (metro)	126,424	2,405.91 km²
2	Saint John (metro)	122,389	3,359.61 km²
1	Moncton (urban area)	97,065	146.26 km²
2	Saint John (urban area)	90,016	212.45 km²
1	Moncton (economic region)	191,860
2	Saint John (economic region)	167,343

So notice that Moncton has more people in every definition besides the "city proper".

--But this article is about city proper. And the City of Dieppe is included in alot of your numbers but is never cedited for being a base of your population numbers. And either way when it come to largest not most populated Moncton is always second. Population never makes you largest. It would be like saying Toronto (most populous) is the largest city in Ontario when Sudbury is the largest largest.Thee17 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

--Of course Saint John is largest when talking area, but who really cares about that? that is based on invisible lines drawn a few hundred years ago, they are meaningless. For example, When have you heard a statement like this: "due to the fact that Saint John takes up so much space they are now going to recieve funding for a new stadium" or "due to the fact that Saint John takes up so much space they have recently landed a large concert" etc. Never, because it doesnt matter. I find its very interesting that Moncton is still the most populated even considering that Saint John takes up such a large plot of land lol, I guess the settlers expected more people to live there. --Stu_pendousmat 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

--Oh yes and about Dieppe, the city is basically a part of "Moncton" I live there (the city of Moncton) and when I go over to champlain mall or Fox Creek golf club I never feel as though Ive left moncton, the only thing between them is a stream lol, same goes with Riverview. Both of these communities are basically suburbs of Moncton (Dieppe has developed a little beyond this recently, but for the most part it still is), and as such are very much a part of the city as a whole, the same as Quispam, Hampton etc. are part of Saint John (even though they are farther away than dieppe and riverview). --Stu_pendousmat 21:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture subsection

The culture section needs to be written up as prose. Vidioman 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image clutter

The recent explosion of images has completely ignored WP:MoS and WP:PIC. The article looks very cluttered and ugly. Suggest to regular editors that they adhere to WP:PIC guidelines and mv. images into a gallery(minus the logos which are WP:FAIR vios in their current usage) 156.34.142.110 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of Name of City

According to the laws of New Brunswick the only municipality thant has a french and english spelling in Grand Falls/Grand Sault NB. The official name of the City of Saint John in French is "Ville de Saint John" and *not* "Ville de Saint-Jean." Thee17 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] saint john grave sites plots and availability

Looking to place or buy family plots in the saint john area. Any information available?

[edit] elevation

I've changed the highest elevation from 51 m because that is way off. That may be the tallest building (Aliant) but not the high elevation point in the city limits which "elevation" suggests.

[edit] population

A few days ago the population of the city was changed from 68,043 to 1,689,043, so I just took the liberty to change it to the original. Oscar Dutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Dutra (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)