From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFort Saskatchewan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2020 Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 15, 2020 Good article nomineeListed
December 11, 2020 Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on November 4, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in his hurry to get to a fire in Fort Saskatchewan, the town's fire chief was pulled over for speeding and nearly hitting a police officer in Edmonton?
Current status: Good article


Style

This page reads like a one sided advertisement, not the quality you should find in reference material. Something should be mentioned of the pollution concerns due to the huge amount of industry or concerns about the massive planned oil up-grader expansions, inflated house prices, lack of a decent hospital... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.221.110 ( talk) 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Name

The use of "Alberta" as a disambiguating term is not necessary for the article title, since there is no other competing "Fort Saskatchewan" on WP. We don't invariably attach provincial names per the conventions. See Edmonton, Lethbridge, Calgary, and others. Snocrates 22:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It's necessary for other reasons, some of witch can be found in the WP:NC nutshell ("what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize"), other being avoiding double standards. There is a convention regarding this naming, please read before rushing in. -- Qyd ( talk) 01:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I did, and they state, "Cities which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles." I find no other "Fort Saskatchewan" in WP. Snocrates 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
It also says: "Other moves are permitted, but must be discussed on the talk page first — except in the most obvious cases, do not assume that the community can be considered a primary or sole meaning of the name without soliciting this input first;" -- Qyd ( talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
In this particular case, "fort" is a common prefix, while Saskatchewan is the name of two large rivers that cross the province of Alberta (with many forts established on their banks), and also the name of the neighboring province, Saskatchewan (which also contains many forts). Few people outside Alberta would know where, or what "Fort Saskatchewan" is, but "Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta" is obviously a community in the province of Alberta. -- Qyd ( talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Particular projects' own guidelines don't overrule general WP naming conventions. Either would be acceptable and it all depends on how ambiguous you interpret the name to be. Snocrates 02:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Personal interpretation is one of the reasons why I insist to keep the status quo. Many editors swing by and try to implement their own views, which just makes things harder for everyone else. Let's keep things as they were (and worked nicely) for years. Thanks for your understanding. -- Qyd ( talk) 02:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename page

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move.

Rename: Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta → Fort Saskatchewan This is the primary use of the term, and possibly the only use. An internet search which excludes the terms "Alberta" and "Canada" finds nearly 130,000 hits, the first dozen pages of which are related to this city. Per WP:CANSTYLE, the city should have the undisambiguated title, which currently points here anyway. Mind matrix 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Support as nominator. Mind matrix 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Both terms, Fort and Saskatchewan are ambiguous, there are many forts in both the province of Saskatchewan and along the Saskatchewan Rivers; title with ", Alberta" is more descriptive and familiar to a wider audience. -- Qyd ( talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The purpose of disambiguation is not to provide a description. It's sole purpose is to resolve conflicts between articles that qualify for the exact same title. There is no ambiguity here. Articles on forts in Saskatchewan or along the Saskatchewan river are titled by the actual names of those forts -- they are not named generically. And any potential article along the lines of List of forts in Saskatchewan can easily be accommodated through a hatnote. The fact that undisambiguated Quebec City has resulted in zero confusion and ambiguity, despite the existence of many other cities in Quebec, demonstrates that we have nothing to worry about here. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support. This is overwhelmingly the primary use of the name. Fort Saskatchewan already redirects here. This is precisely the type of move contemplated by the naming convention. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom, and per Skeezix's reasoning. No ambiguity exists, therefore no need for disambiguation. DigitalC ( talk) 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Support per CANSTYLE. The location is described in the article, exactly where it should be. - Royalguard11( T) 02:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alberta which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 117Avenue ( talk) 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Photo

Does anyone have a picture of refinery row from Ft Saskatchewan? -- Qyd ( talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fort Mall

  • Some Material on the article page has now been merged from Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/Fort Mall, which preserves the attribution history of this article as required. A link must remain here to that subpage to preserve attribution rights.-- Milowent ( talk) 17:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Infobox flag

A official from the city provided an updated image, and requested that it replace the Flag image. It looks more like a logo than a flag, and is hard to see in the infobox. I've requested more information from the person who supplied the image, but perhaps some editor has some insight.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I visited the new city hall today to see the flag, and it appears the flag has changed. The previously uploaded flag had "City of Fort Saskatchewan" circling the logo, and matches the one in this street view image from 2009. Your upload has three lines to the right of the logo, but flying in front of city hall today was a flag with three lines below the logo, "City of", "Fort Saskatchewan", and a shorter one I couldn't read. 117Avenue ( talk) 04:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fort Saskatchewan. 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.

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 {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 II Talk to my owner:Online 07:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fort Saskatchewan. 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.

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 {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fort Saskatchewan. 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 {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Fort_Saskatchewan&oldid=1207274638"