text:
Talk:Montreal

Map
The map on this article could definitely use an update. In particular it is making Villeray/Park-Ex/Saint Michel part of the west island, which is clearly nonsense.

Archive
Archived some older discussion at Talk:Montreal/Archives. --(WT-en) Dawnview 00:58, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Added to archives --- (WT-en) Maj 11:15, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Style
For consistency sake, I'd like to suggest standardizing the language used for place names to "French (English translation if needed)" For example "Vieux Ville (Old Town)" and so on. Probably don't need to do it for obvious cases like "Centre Bell (Bell Centre)." (WT-en) Maj 11:18, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Vandalism
Can someone revert changes to this article please? I would do them individually but there are quite a few so I thought it would be easier for an Admin to just revert. Thanks --(WT-en) Matt Talk 22:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
 * That doesn't require an admin; on the page history, you can select multiple revisions to view, and then "undo" them all at once. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I realized this after someone reverted the changes. Thank you for the info though...I will do it myself in the future. --(WT-en) Matt Talk 11:30, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Guide status
hmmmm, is there any compelling reasons why this city it not a guide? (WT-en) Sertmann 20:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Yes, 5 outline districts & 2 uncreated ones. Per Project:City guide status, all districts must be at least usable for the city to be called a guide. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:02, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Why? Those are seperate articles and the Montréal one is very good!  COuld use sonme more, but very good, I think it's a guide.  Definately!  Maybe someone should fill in those districts, thoough.  Keep smiling - (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

::Sugestiion¡
Hi, Montréalers, Montréal-lovers, and Montréal travellers. I was wondering if someone felt like to make a map of the districts for MTL? I was just wondering because I think it's needed. Saddly, I cannot because I don't know mucbh about Montréal, although the city is pretty:). I'm not forcing you just asking.  Waht do you think?  Maybe look at Chicago or New York for inspiration.  :)

Keep smilin',

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 13:15, 23 October 2008 (EDT)Edmontonenthusiast

montréal
Why is this article called MONTREAL? It is spelled incorrectly, it's Montréal! I just don't get it. Just because Canada is English speaking doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize it's French part. To me it is just weird. It sounds incorrect. I know it's easier for people not to remember Alt + 0233 = é on English computers, or to go into Word and click the symbol but still. I just think it's stupid. At least have Montreal as a redirect page, and then Montréal as the page itself. That ways you both win! Am I just out of my mind? Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

 * We're the English version of Wikivoyage, and Montreal is the official English name of the city. French version is over here, and they do spell it in proper French ;o) (WT-en) Sertmann 14:30, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * So I'm paranoid.Got it. (although other cities have accents in their name...)  keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:33, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * You are not referring to Seyðisfjörður are you? ;o) seriously though, we should use the English names whenever possible, I don't run around insisting we rename Copenhagen to København, or Cologne to Köln - But there are probably loads of cities that doesn't have an English name, where it's possible to use accents - just remember Montreal is a bi-lingual city. (WT-en) Sertmann 14:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * i know montréal is a biligual city etc etc. but french is the main language, once english, now french (like when montréal was canada's largest city although in quebec english was it's main language)..anyways, it's just one accent and barely changes it and thats why i think it'd be simply easy.  but again, stupid idea;).  keep smiling ,(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 14:41, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * Note: many peoples are speeking english in Montreal but officially it is not a bilingual city. Official language is not French and English but only French.

Amtrak
did the president of Amtrak write this entry? I have been shuttling back and forth between New York and Montreal for years and I have never met any one who has taken that train more than once! It can take up to 14hours! It is absolute hell and takes almost twice as long as greyhound. —The preceding comment was added by 24.90.118.151 (talk • contribs).

Parking
It would be nice if there was information on good free parking places. I would love to come to Montreal, park near a metro station and not have to worry about driving in town. 72.228.85.246

Re-added link to Coach Canada sale fare website
Hi. I re-added a second link to the Coach Canada entry in the "Get in by bus" section after someone removed it. It now looks like this: "Coach Canada (regular fares: ; sale fares to certain cities only: )". I am not affiliated with Coach Canada, nor do I make any money or benefit from promoting them. I put the link there because I found out about it from poster ads they put in Toronto, and from www.redflagdeals.com. It is a link to cheaper fares from Toronto. If you have any questions, please reply below and email me at unforgettableid at gmail.com to let me know to look at this talk page, since I check it rarely. Cheers, (WT-en) Unforgettableid 11:45, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Kosher
I removed the huge kosher restaurant listing. I dont think any listings of kosher / halal / montinac / macrobiotic / mormon church approved / catholic or any other sect who think they must distinct themselves from peasants by eatin/drinking/doing/forbidding things do not belong in wikivoyage. Of course they have their right to exist, but i suggest they create their own sites for such purposes. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.201.116.160 (talk • contribs)

 * Such information is relevant to many travelers and certainly does not merit deletion. If it's not of interest to you, don't read it.  If you wish to delete it, obtain consensus first; in the meantime, I've restored it. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:13, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes i can do that, the just dont read it part, no problem, but if all these groups start to add their content in these quantities, usefull information will soon not be found anymore and we will be better of with google.

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.201.116.160 (talk • contribs)

 * Oh and by the way, i think these lists with restaurants should go - if anywhere - in the quartiers like the rest.

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.201.116.160 (talk • contribs)
 * The list is too long, in the wrong place (should be in districts), and very Yellow Pages like. --(WT-en) inas 18:59, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Same with the ice cream section, for that matter. I'll tack on a  box at the top of that section, and we can see about moving them to their proper homes -- just seems unnecessary to wipe it completely, rather than making use of the (perhaps misplaced) information already there.  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 19:33, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I also think that it should be removed. Most other cities don't have that kind of information and I don't think religiously approved food is something relevant on that kind of general web-site. If you add one, add them all... or add none (If it was something not affiliated with religion, like vegetarian restaurants, I think it would be ok).(WT-en) Roli 19:09, 2 November 2009 (EST)

 * I agree. Create a new page Montreal/Kosher restaurant and put only the link here. I'm a hosteler and I never get jude customer so they never request me that kind of thing and the majority of Jude are now atheists so... they don't eat Kosher any more and they don't want to finance a terrorist government too! —The preceding comment was added by 24.201.41.167 (talk • contribs)

There is no policy rationale to simply delete these listings for keeping kosher. They should, however, be moved out of the existing section to the eat sections of individual district articles, as Dguillaime said above. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:55, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Francophones
Re: this edit, I would think that "second-largest French-speaking city" refers to the actual number of Francophones living there, doesn't it? Based on Democratic Republic of the Congo, my guess is that only a minority of people in Kinshasa speaks French. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:17, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Sleep
Why in english there is no best deal sleep address for backpackers? Who is vandalizing all the information that I put twice? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.201.41.167 (talk • contribs)

 * Read Apt and Project:Don't tout to understand whether your apartment listing is appropriate for this site or not. In addition, no one is "vandalizing" your listing - the reason that there are no individual businesses listed in the "Sleep" section for this article is because (as the section explains) travelers should look to the articles about the districts of Montreal for individual listings. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:52, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Contradiction
On the one hand this article says that motorists are generally respectful of pedestrians, further down it says that pedestrians should exercise care as motorists are not respectful. So which is it? (WT-en) Ivandh 00:37, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Montreal/Mile-End
Does the new page Montreal/Mile-End fit into the current district break-down? (WT-en) LtPowers 14:07, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Districts
So let me get this straight... a city of just 1.6 million people divided into 22 district articles, 11 of which go to cover only Ville-Marie borough, and the other 11 to cover all the other 31 boroughs? Is that what I'm seeing here?? (WT-en) texugo 08:05, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Yep. I was wondering about exactly the same thing yesterday. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:52, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

 * This is in Quebec, we have to do everything our own way. Maybe we need to start with the boroughs then break it down from there? Start with the map on the page, use that as the guide, then list the seperate cities and their attractions OR just use the conventional names for the various areas in the city i.e. Mile, Latin Quater, Old Montreal etc. and use the official names for the absolute information like an address or a metro station. --(WT-en) Redbear 16:06, 18 November 2011 (EST)

 * I think the conventional names should definitely be used for areas in the city centre. The outer boroughs should be merged together somehow to make sensible districts for travelers. --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 18:27, 18 November 2011 (EST)

 * Here is something I put together very quickly, a new Districts section without all the divisions User:(WT-en) Redbear/Sandbox Scroll all the way down to see what I've done. The other cities section needs work with the various attractions added to the correct pages. --(WT-en) Redbear 23:59, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Speaking of districts, Verdun/Ile-des-Soeurs is not represented in a district article. Should I make a new separate district article, or just merge it with the Sud-Ouest article, which is geographically the closest? (WT-en) Dextery 01:18, 31 December 2011 (EST)

 * I would just merge it with Sud-Ouest for the time being, since that article is still fairly small. It can always be split later if it becomes too big. (WT-en) Eco84 09:32, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Districts anyone?
By chance I spotted the district tag, and I can see that the district discussion has come to a standstill two years ago. Is it something here in the article that needs to be done about them or is the tag obsolete? AFAIU there are quite a few active Wikivoyagers living within a couple hundred km from the city who might have some knowledge of Montreal. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:K7L, User:AndreCarrotflower, User:Pashley, User:Eco84 someone else maybe? (Disclaimer: I can unfortunately not really help as I've never been to Montreal or anywhere else in Canada) ϒpsilon (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some thoughts, but it's been so crazy at work that I haven't had time to compose them properly. Give me a few hours and I'll weigh in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I do not really know Montreal. I'm from Ottawa which is 200 km away but I have not spent any significant time in Montreal in decades. Pashley (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 * The city article is districtified, but perhaps there is something wrong with the district division? Someone familiar with Montreal could take a look and if nothing is remarkably wrong with it, it's probably safe to remove the district tag. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this took me so long. In my opinion, I agree with (WT-en) Redbear's contention that we should follow the city government's official arrondissement boundaries, as the arrondissement names are heavily used in waymarking signs, official tourist literature, etc.

However, all of Montreal's arrondissements are not of equal interest to tourists, so we should feel free to lump together more off-the-beaten-path arrondissements (for example, I probably wouldn't mess with the current boundaries of the multiple-arrondissement districts Montreal/West Island or Montreal/North Island too much) or subdivide heavily-touristed ones like Ville-Marie and Le Plateau-Mont-Royal (the end result for those districts would likely resemble Chicago's districting scheme in which the "list of nine" don't have articles of their own, but each item is followed by a parenthetical list of smaller districts that do). Middle-of-the-road arrondissements like Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve or Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie might indeed coincide with the district articles.

As well, I would treat the several independent cities that are enclaves of Montreal (such as Westmount) as districts of the city, or parts of districts, for the purposes of our coverage (c.f. Detroit/Hamtramck-Highland Park).

Hope this helps.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Two more years have passed, nothing has happened... So...? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Okay, since no one else seems to want to bite on this, I will. Keep in mind that it's been a number of years since I've been to Montreal, so I'm a bit rusty. Nonetheless, here's my proposal for a simplified districts breakdown.

 * Montreal/Downtown - with the same boundaries as currently, minus Parc Mont-Royal which would be moved to the new Mount Royal district (see below). When complete, this article might be very long and a candidate for further subdivision.
 * Montreal/Old Montreal–Parc Jean-Drapeau - a merger of the current Old Montreal and Parc Jean-Drapeau district articles.
 * Montreal/The Plateau-Mile End - a merger of the current Plateau and Mile-End district articles.
 * Montreal/Mount Royal - a merger of the current district articles of Côte-des-Neiges, Outremont, and Westmount–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, plus Parc Mont-Royal which is currently covered in the Downtown district. (This is the part of my proposal that I'm least sure about - it makes sense from a geographical perspective, but these neighbourhoods are pretty distinct from each other, linguistically and otherwise. If anyone with more experience has a better idea, let's hear it.)
 * Montreal/South West - should include the district's current boundaries but also the current Verdun district.
 * Montreal/Quartier Latin-Le Village; Montreal/Rosemont-La Petite Patrie; Montreal/Hochelaga-Maisonneuve; Montreal/West Island; Montreal/North Island - all same as currently.
 * Montreal/East End - currently redlinked; let's create this article! thank you Ground Zero!

 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Pinging Hobbitschuster re: the above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't know the city, but your idea sounds good to me. I just thought the current state of a discussion that went silent years ago was anything bu desirable... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I should comment as it was me who tried to open the discussion in 2013 when trying to clean up cities that are halfway districtified or lacking maps. I've never been to Montreal either, but it's good that we at least have someone onboard who has. André's suggestion would divide the city into 7 districts (which is optimal per 7 2) so I think we should go for that. However let's wait for a week or so before implementing any major changes, to give other people a chance to comment. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ϒpsilon - you're mistaken; my schematic calls for 11 districts. There are indeed seven bullet points in my list, but look closely at the second-last of those. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Parenthetically, as regards my earlier comments about not knowing what district Parc Mont-Royal is supposed to be part of: it looks like it's currently covered in Montreal/Downtown, which is incorrect at any rate. I've slightly edited the text of my proposal above to reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, now I see ;). I guess 11 districts are OK, if there are enough listings in each of them to make them usable (so that Montreal eventually could be promoted to Guide). --ϒpsilon (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(reindent) I'd like to begin moving toward implementing this scheme, but I'd really prefer there to be some input from someone else who's perhaps more familiar with the city. Might Amqui or perhaps K7L have some insight they'd like to share? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Paging User:EvanProdromou. Pashley (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not from Montreal and I have no opinion on this matters. Sorry, Amqui (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Districts again
So in light of these edits - where are we now? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't think those edits reflect anything in particular vis-à-vis this discussion (in fact, I'd wager the user that made them isn't even aware this discussion exists). This seems to be nothing more than a routine mos edit, where the information that was already contained in Montreal was simply plugged into the appropriate template. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I should say, though, that I'm very frustrated at the continued lack of participation in this discussion, even after pretty much everyone who might possibly have any knowledge of Montreal was pinged. I'm not confident enough that the breakdown I came up with is the best solution for the traveller, and even if I were, this is a bigger project than I'm willing to tackle singlehandedly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately long stagnant region or district discussions are not limited to Montreal... And no, I don't know how to fix that, either... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 * w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Montreal? Powers (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania
Should we try and come up with some sort of resolution ahead of Wikimania or should we try and get input from the participants then and leave it open until then? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * No reason to wait on the off chance that it may become an issue again, as these discussions can always be reopened, in any case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Well the discussion has not so much reached a conclusion as fallen asleep... Maybe we should ping the people most involved above? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * If it will help speed things along: after spending a weekend in Montreal this past September, I now feel confident enough about my own proposal for redistrictification that I'd be comfortable just going with that, if that's the direction others want to go. The main stumbling block for me was the proposed Montreal/Mount Royal district, but after spending some time in the neighborhoods ringing Parc Mont-Royal I'm comfortable grouping all of them together (even despite the language differences between the traditionally Anglophone-majority Westmount and the rest of the district — the contrast remains noticeable, but it seems far from the stark, polarized situation of decades past and given that most Montréalais are functionally bilingual anyway, the impact on the traveller is limited). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. I will keep an eye on it and use your districts on de: then. Till then I will focus of the general information. Thanks -- DerFussi 10:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Redistrictification 2018
Andre, I agree with your proposal based on my limited knowledge of the city. As there has been no objection to your proposal over the last two years, and there is support for it, I think you have consensus to proceed with it. Happy Montreal Moving Day! Ground Zero (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

warning
Why the hell was the warning thingy removed, it's extremely important that people are aware about the lawlessness during demonstrations in downtown. —The preceding comment was added by 173.179.30.120 (talk • contribs)

Biodome
On an image caption:
 * File:Montreal Biodome.jpg, The Biosphere, a geodesic sphere on the grounds of the 1967 World's Fair

This doesn't look correct... isn't Biodôme the old Vélodôme cycling arena from the 1976 Owelympics, located near the Big Owe (Olympic Stadium). "Montreal Biodome, Not to be confused with Montreal Biosphère" (per Wikipedia). The image is a redlink so I'm not sure which of these two it depicted, but these are two separate venues (one from 1967, the other from 1976). K7L (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's this one. LtPowers (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the author uploaded it with the incorrect name "biodôme" and then changed the description to "biosphère" without changing the file name. The building depicted looks to be the same place illustrated in WP's biosphère article, so I've substituted that image. K7L (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if replacement was necessary; the file will likely be transferred eventually. LtPowers (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at both images and WP's appeared to be the better-quality of the pair so I used it. If you do keep the other image for transfer to commons:, the file should be renamed as "Biodome" as the name of the world fair site building is erroneous. K7L (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page banner
Any plans to give this city a page banner like DC or London? This picture might work if it were cropped a bit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montreal_Twilight_Panorama_2006.jpg --WilliamTheaker (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The long-term plan is to create a custom banner for every destination, so, yes! That image could definitely work. If you want to get in on the fun, the quickest free software to use is Gimp . Just open up that image in Gimp, hit Shift+C for the crop tool, and then set the crop tool to a fixed aspect ratio of 2100:300 (in "tool options") and crop away. Then go to Image -> Scale image and scale the cropped image to 2100:300. Then export as a jpg, upload to Commons, and voila!
 * If that was too confusing, I'm going to try and write a quick tutorial at Banner Expedition, to make it easier for more people to help out. --Peter Talk 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup ideas
I just spend a weekend here, and definitely have some thoughts to share on the state of this article.

The districts are very confusing. The tiny map is of no use, because it doesn't show any streets, so even if I know where I am I can't figure out what district it is, nor vice versa. The fact that the map is only in French certainly doesn't help. And many quartiers are not really mentioned or indicated on the map or in the description.

There are no maps! There's no map of the subway (the French version of the page has one), nor the underground city, nor the city in general. The "basic map" that someone drew in MS Paint is laughably useless.

District articles are a mixed bag. A few are usable (Montreal/Old Montreal is pretty good, Montreal/Downtown is good except for a very empty Eat section), but others are very empty.

Overall, this city could use some cleaning up. I can contribute some for things that don't require intimate knowledge of the city, but that's about it. --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The map of the metro system on the French Wikivoyage is already bilingual, why don't you add it to the article yourself? Amqui (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Third Largest Francophone City"
I have noticed that whenever Montréal is mentioned, it is either called the third-largest francophone city in the world (as on this page) or the second-largest in the world (French and English pages for Canada and Québec, and the French page for Montréal). By any measure this is inaccurate. According to the Wikipedia list of largest cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities), it is either the 4th or the 8th. Francophone cities with both a larger city population and urban or metropolitan population are: Kinshasa, Abidjan, and Paris. In addition, Douala, Yaoundé, Ouagadougou, and Brazzaville have a larger population than Montréal proper.

As I do not see the value of listing Montréal as the 4th or 8th largest francophone city in the world, I am removing this reference. --Djwhitten (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Perhaps replacing it with an unranked fact (like "Montreal is one of the largest francophone cities in the world", or even "Montreal is the largest francophone city in the Americas") would be better? I'm not that fussed, however. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I used "prominent global francophone city" in the Quebec region on the Canada page, that might fit in somewhere? --Djwhitten (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Out of curiosity, what qualifies a city as Francophone? Wikipedia says Kinshasa, for example, uses French in high business and government but Lingala is the language spoken on the streets. Powers (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I was wondering the same. However, Montreal is hardly a uniformly francophone city either, with about a quarter of the population native speakers of English. Though pretty much everywhere French is spoken outside of Europe (and even within parts of Europe), there is at least one reasonably dominant additional local language. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I think a lot of the Anglophones in Montreal are bilingual, though (as are a lot of the Francophones). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I just wanted to check the "Talk" section of Kinshasa. Unfortunately, such a section does not exist. An oversight, if you ask me. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I assume that if French is the lingua franca or official language of a city, it should be considered francophone. For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Talk section it says that French is the lingua franca of the country and that "In Kinshasa and much of the Western DRC, nearly everyone is fluent in French." Similarly, in the Côte d'Ivoire Talk page it mentions that "The official language is French, which is widely spoken and main language of most urban areas." While all cities have a wide variety of languages, especially in Africa (Côte d'Ivoire has over 60 according to the Talk section), It is only fair to consider a city francophone if it is the main shared language in which the majority of the inhabitants are fluent, no? It is an imperfect science, but I can't see including Montréal and Paris but not Kinshasa and Abidjan. --Djwhitten (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * For me, a Francophone city is one in which a majority of residents speak French natively. Montreal qualifies because the native-Anglophone community is a minority. Kinshasa does not qualify because while a majority of people speak French, they do so as a second (or third, etc.) language. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 * If French is, as Wikipedia puts it, "the language of street signs, posters, newspapers, government documents, schools; it dominates plays, television, and the press, and it is used in vertical relationships among people of different social classes", I'd say Kinshasa would qualify as a Francophone city. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We can do this together - let's make sure this article has a good region map!
{| class="wikitable" style="float: right; width: 800px;"

Ville-Marie borough
Neighbourhoods from west to east:

Elsewhere on the island
This is one of the only articles on the English Wikivoyage that is about a big important city that doesn't yet have a proper region map. As such, Ypsilon was kind enough to create the following suggested region map for the article. I have opened this discussion because I was hoping we can reach a consensus about this suggested map before we add it to this article (I will of course make any needed fixes to this map if we'll find out in this discussion that this is neccesary).
 * }

CC the main users whom have worked on this article so far + users whom previously participated in the discussion about Montreal districts: Xsobev, Juju22, AndreCarrotflower, Hobbitschuster, Ikan Kekek

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 * My stance is unchanged from January 2017, when I last commented on the issue. Please see for my proposed breakdown, which I'm pretty confident about at this point, and which no one else seemed to have a problem with. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Kudos to ויקיג'אנקי for trying to get this moving again. As I understand it, this map just presents the current districts tion, so I see no reason not to implement it right away.
 * On the separate question of whether to change the district fixation,, I do prefer Andre's 11-district proposal to the current 16 districts, which I think is too granular. My familiarity with Montreal comes from a fair number of visits, but I do not have the depth of knowledge that someone who has lived there would have. Ground Zero (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Montreal International Jazz Festival © Benoit Rousseau FIJM.jpg
 * Parc du Mont Royal © Stéphan Poulin Tourisme Montréal.jpg

 * Unfortunately, both these images are visible on the page, and unless the uploader, who hasn't made any contributions to Commons since January 6, 2020, can prove they have uploader rights, they will be deleted. So we should try to find a substitute, at least for the Parc du Mont Royal photo if not both. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I put in a good substitute for the Mont Royal photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I substituted for the other photo, too. If you prefer other photos, please go ahead and replace my choices. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Best restaurant in Montreal according to Tripadvisor does not exist
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/03/montreal-restaurant-that-never-was-online-reviews-canada —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 * That rings a bell: How to Become TripAdvisor’s #1 Fake Restaurant El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

REM
It appears that the A1 line of Montreal's new REM will open soon on the 31st – I don't know much about Montreal, so does anyone know which articles this needs to be added to? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 23:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 * And what should be added to this article? Or is the A1 line a bit too niche to be mentioned here (it does extend beyond the main island and into the suburbs, which I believe isn't covered in this article)? – if you're still around, any input would be appreciated.  SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 13:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Chinatown and Quartier des Spectacles
I'm not clear where these listings should hold. On the district map, it looks like the Plateau extends down to include these neighbourhoods to the east of Downtown, east of Rue de Bleury, which doesn't really make sense to me. The Montreal/Downtown article includes a bunch of listings to the east of the designated area, i.e., in the shaded area outside of Downtown. How should we resolve this? Should Chinatown and QDS be added to Downtown, or to Montreal/Quartier Latin-Le Village? Ground Zero (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Downtown description specifies that it cover Chinatown, so I guess the problem us with how the maps are drawn., can you help with this? Ground Zero (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I couldn't find the base layer for this map., is there any way to circumnavigate the base map issue or do we need to start again? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, do you mean there's no underlying street map (or neighbourhood map, or something) in the SVG to base the districts on? -Shaundd (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's a case that there's no underlying map and it's a small edit (like this seems like it might be), I usually estimate where the new border would be to keep it simple. Otherwise, I take a screenshot from OSM or see if there's a map in Commons that can act as a base and import it into the SVG. Starting again is the last resort. Hope this helps -Shaundd (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure how to do this – would you be able to help with this? TIA, -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 03:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you asking if I can make the edit? I can if you want, it might take a couple of days -Shaundd (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes please. Take your time :-). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure., looking at the dynamic map in Montreal/Downtown, it looks like the new border should be roughly Rue Sherbrooke, i.e., the part of the Plateau east of it would become part of Downtown. Does that sound right? -Shaundd (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. Although I think that Montrealers would say that it is the part south of Sherbrooke that is transferred to Downtown. There are a couple of listings in Downtown that I will move to the Plateau as they are east/south of Sherbrooke. The key is that Carré St-Louis remains in the Plateau. That to me is emblematic of the Plateau, and it us north/west of Sherbrooke, so your plan works. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Downtown map again, I see that the listings I mentioned are in the area bounded by Pine, Parc, University and Sherbrooke. That area should be, I think, in Downtown, not in the Plateau, and the Plateau article does not have any listings in that area now. Ground Zero (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, , the new static Montreal districts map is finally up. Sorry for taking so long with it... busy and had a number of issues with Inkscape. I'm not sure what to do about the dynamic map for Montreal/Downtown though. I'm not sure if there are different boundaries in OSM. It might be easier to just remove the mapshape since it's not accurate for our district borders. -Shaundd (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Shaundd, thanks for the new map! I agree with you that as of now it might be easier to remove the mapshapes. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, ! I agree that is better to remove the mapframe from the Downtown map. Ground Zero (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

List of taxi companies
Is there a good reason to list taxi companies? Is it hard at all to flag a cab on the street? I also can't see why we'd want to link Uber, though we could mention they operate in Montreal, if we also mention what other ridehailing apps do (Lyft?). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Montreal


text:
Talk:Montreal/Archives

Well, many of us have been wanting to do a page on Montreal. So I'm really hoping others will pitch in; I feel my Vancouver page has been a rather solo effort! In fact, I get the feeling that this is true for a number of pages here ... maybe because we're still a small group ... (WT-en) CL 12:23, 24 Oct 2003 (PDT)

I think you've hit on a good point. My guess is that that's the case because...

 * 1) We're still a small group (not yet 100 registered users).
 * 2) We have a really, really big world to cover -- chances are slim of overlap.
 * 3) We are still working out the framework for how we lay out articles, etc.
 * 4) All these other reasons make it so, and people consciously or unconsciously think that that's the way it "should" be, so they don't rock the boat.

I think as we get more articles, and more users, we'll see more of that WikiWay happening. (Making mental note: start a Project:Promoting Wikivoyage page to discuss how to get more users/views/whatever.) I think the Australasian folks have been a good example of collaborative effort, and we should continue that.

That said, I'll take a shot at working on Montreal tomorrow. -- (WT-en) Evan 18:13, 27 Oct 2003 (PST)

 * Note: there's now something in Project:ways to promote Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Evan 16:06, 29 Oct 2003 (PST)

Hi, I just met Evan at a lunch-thing and decided to stop by. I'll see if I can help with spreading the word a bit. :) Looking at the Montreal page, I noticed the "Work" section kind of, um, odd and lacking? "Illegal factory work"?? Perhaps mentioning things like the relative low cost of living, the laid-back atmosphere, "small town yet remarkably cosmopolitan" culture... These things make it an great place for freelancers, web-workers, etc... Just a thought. :) (WT-en) Bopuc

Well, slowly but surely, this page is getting somewhere, I guess. It's been the shoemaker's child of Wikivoyage too damn long! Maj, we gotta get this baby cookin', or nobody's going to come visit us! -- (WT-en) Evan 15:41, 17 Nov 2003 (PST)

Have you mates agreed on something about translating street names? I think I saw all of St. Catherine, Ste. Catherine, Ste-Catherine, but no Sainte-Catherine. My advice will obviously be to use the 'real' names, that is Sainte-Catherine. For instance.

By the way, hello, I'm new to this. :-) -- (WT-en) Valmi 01:29, 8 Jun 2004 (EDT)

 * Well changed it to the official street names anyhow. --(WT-en) Valmi 20:20, 7 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * Sounds good to me. --(WT-en) Evan 21:26, 7 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Hi everyone. I just want to say how great the page is. However, about the street names, I have something to add.

On Wikipedia, the main community who work on Montreal-related articles have decided on a very well-devised plan for street names. I think it can be adapted here.

Of course, as you know, Montreal is 20-25% anglophone. Most major streets once had English names (Saint Lawrence Blvd, etc..). The policy is to use English generics (Street, Blvd, Avenue, etc..), and to use "Saint" for both sexes, and to omit hyphens which aren't part of a proper name. The policy also encourages the use use of commonly understood English names with the French/official name given in brackets (not always, but frequently enough to remind the reader). So, for example:

Most Streets:

 * rue de la Savane = De La Savane Street
 * rue de l'Église = De L'Eglise St (accent may or may not be included)
 * chemin Queen-Mary = Queen Mary Rd.
 * chemin Lakeshore = Lakeshore Rd.

Streets named after people and saints:

 * rue Sainte-Catherine = Saint Catherine St
 * rue Saint-Denis = Saint Denis St
 * rue Paul-Émil-Lamarche = Paul-Émil Lamarche St (the hyphen in Paul-Émil is kept *since it is part of the name)
 * boul. René-Lévesque = René Lévesque Blvd.
 * rue Jeanne-Mance = Jeanne Mance St.
 * Christophe-Colomb = Christophe Colomb

Streets with common English names very different from French names:

 * rue de la Montagne = Mountain St (de la Montagne) (because Mountain is the very common English name)
 * av. du Parc = Park Ave. (du Parc)
 * av. des Pins = Pine Ave. (des Pins)

note that the French name in parenthesis need only be used in the first mention in each section
 * boul. Saint-Laurent = Saint Lawrence Boulevard (St-Laurent)

Streets with very similar names in both languages:

 * rue de la Cathédrale = Cathedral St (any traveller can easily figure this out)

Hyphenated names:

 * Ch. de la Côte-des-neiges = Côte des Neiges Rd (accents kept, hyphens omited. Since it is not a proper name, accents may be omited as well)

Please note that this is not translating the French street manes, it is just using the names as they are commonly used in English in Montreal. You will note that, by following the steps mentioned above (there is a more comprehensive document on Wikipedia) that you will end up with the names as they are common in English.

Of course, this strategy can be modified to fit with WikiTravel. Please let me know what you think here, so we can either enact the policy or modify it.

P.S.: I know that many will feel concerned that, since this is about Travel, travellers might be confused. However, the generics, hyphens, and accents are of no import, as they are very small on street signs. Most street specifics remain unchanged. The few that vary in English from French have the French name clearly pointed out for geographical/directional purposes, so any traveller will be able to know both names, and won't get lost (for example looking for a sign saying "Mountain St"). -(WT-en) Larineso 21:10, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)

By the way, I'm not just coming in here to drop this and then leave. I want to contribute to WikiTravel and will. This just happens to be my first contribution... --(WT-en) Larineso 21:17, 16 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * Larineso, thanks for your contribution! You point out quite correctly that the traveller comes first at Wikivoyage. However, I'm a Montreal anglophone and I've never heard anyone used "Pine St" or "Saint Denis Street". I don't see the advantage for travelers in including English names that don't appear on any street signs, maps, or business cards. Can you straighten me out? --(WT-en) Evan 08:32, 17 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * Some of the highway signs actually say, for example, "Rue Bonaventure St." (They may have been produced by the Department of Redundancy Department.)  I have heard people speak of "St. Catherine's Street", but they were all old enough to remember the 70's before the hardcore Francophone policy took over. (WT-en) Digamma 10:57, 18 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * All your points are valid. Firstly, it is a bit difficult because in Montreal, no one says the generic (We have just "Rene Levesque" or whatever and not "Rene Levesque Blvd"). But, for the sake of clarity (so we know when we're talking about a street), we use them in writing. Using ....St, Blvd., Rd., etc.. should be adopted because it's an English publication. I mean, if it were somewhere that never had any native anglophones, then ok. But Montreal has a huge anglo minority, so English names exist and should be used.

 * Usually, the "English" name is just the French name without hyphens and with the English generic (as in Saint Jacques St). Of course, the French names are just the old English names with hyphens and French generics. This isn't confusing to the traveller, as "Saint Jacques", "Saint-Jacques", "rue Saint-Jacques", "Saint Jacques St" is all the same. I think we can at least adopt this. I'm sure no one says "Rue St-Jacques" in English. Everyone can see that "Saint Catherine" and "Sainte-Catherine" are the same. It's not like they'll get lost or confused by a missing 'e'.

 * The only problem lies with the handful of streets that are different in English from the street sign. These are St. Lawrence Blvd., Mountain St., Park Ave., and Pine (Ave.). That's pretty much all I can think of. While it is necessary to give the name as it appears on the street sign, we must also acknowledge the other usage, which people will most likely also here (for example, asking for directions). So, it only makes sense to include both names. The thing is, since this is written in English, it only makes sense to use the English one with the French one in brackets:

 * Many of the city's trendy shops and restaurants line Saint Lawrence Blvd. (St-Laurent).

 * This is a compact way to show both names, eliminating confusion. There might be a very short paragraph (like 2-3 lines) about the anomalies to help travellers understand and be able to function in the city. It all may sound a bit complicated, but in fact it's just using the names that are already used in English.--(WT-en) Larineso 23:57, 18 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * I appreciate your dedication to this issue, but I'm having a hard time seeing why it's incumbent on us to provide these English names. The French ones are used for all official references (maps, street signs, bus routes). I've been in Montreal for quite a few years, and I've only heard a few people say "St Catherine Street" -- mostly francophones speaking to me in English and over-translating. I just don't think the effort of maintaining separate names is justified by the needs of travellers. --(WT-en) Evan 00:51, 19 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Correction
"Montreal is the second largest French-speaking city in the world, after Paris."

I don't think this is still true. I think that distinction now belongs to Kinshasa?

 * I don't know, what language do they speak in the streets on Kinshasa? --(WT-en) Valmi 00:25, 4 Aug 2004 (EDT)

They speak Lingala

Small publisher
So, I wanted to point out that Maj and I had the chance to put Wikivoyage guides into action. We have a modified version on our wedding website for our guests who are coming to Montreal. Thanks to everyone who's contributed here, we have a real good guide for our visiting family and friends. --(WT-en) Evan 12:41, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

 * Congratulations, by the way! --(WT-en) Valmi 01:08, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Many edits -- Nov. 16-17
I've gone through most of the sections and made some additions, corrections, and small copy-edits. Too numerous to list, but here are the major ones:

-- general: wherever I saw them, I removed commas between street numbers and street names in addresses. That comma is French-style, and I don't think it belongs even if you're going with French-style street names; the address itself should still be English format.

-- updated info on Mirabel airport

-- augmented notes on driving in Mtl.

-- See: added/corrected some descriptions in the existing list (but didn't add any things to see)

-- Festivals: copy-edited the list, added the short intro, added the list of other film festivals, added High Lights and Pop Montreal

-- Sports: augmented the Canadiens entry, added the Alouettes, updated the Expos entry (and editorialized a little )

-- Learn: changed the Franchophone university names: these are the names they're almost universally known by. Added a few other bits of description. This section could use a bit of fleshing out -- besides the four unis, there's some major professional schools, not to mention the Cegeps, etc.

-- Buy: basically doubled this section and started a rudimentary subdivision by budget and specialty

-- Eat: copy-edited intro, and massively augmented paragraph on public markets. Removed the reference to Duluth and Prince-Arthur as noteworthy dining streets. The latter is especially noteworthy for being a tourist trap with near-zero culinary interest. Didn't do much with the list itself, except to correct spelling of Schwartz's and augment its entry a little. Added note on tipping. It would be nice if some intrepid soul would reorganize this list by budget, specialty and/or neighbourhood and fix some glaring omissions (and perhaps weed out the one or two blatant shills?). I'm not enough of a foodie to do it quickly or well enough; just enough to see that it's lacking.

-- Drink: edited intro and added paragraph on beer. Added a couple of bars to the list (McKibbin,s, Go Go, Else's) and fixed the entry for Biftek. (College crowd? Huh? Yes, the students are there, but they're generally a minority. However, the description fit Brutopia well, IMO, so I put it there.)

Didn't touch any of the other sections, but I note that Sleep seems pretty thin, especially at the high end. Again, I'm only in a position to note the hole, not to fill it. Sorry!

Signed, an anonymous volunteer.

Rollback of drink breakup
I thought the sub-sections of the Drink section were too wordy, had capital letters, and lots of punctuation. Maybe a better set of sub-sections... "Pubs", "Clubs", etc.? --(WT-en) Evan 13:35, 7 Dec 2004 (EST)

..Yeah...needs to be classified. at least alphabetical ... better to classify by: pub, lounge, club, bar... (User= hugh, but not signed in yet)/

2-biggest Francophone city
Montreal has 3.8M people in its metro area, Dakar has 2M people. Montreal is still the 2nd-biggest francophone city in the world. --(WT-en) Evan 16:11, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)

 * According to Wikipedia, Dakar has 1.7, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.61 million people, depending upon which language you speak. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:36, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)

Cultural capital of Canada
Someone changed "cultural capital of Quebec" to "cultural capital of Canada". I think it's fairly easy to agree that Montreal is Quebec's biggest city and its heart -- no other city even comes close (although they're all great in their own ways). I think it's harder to say that Montreal edges out Toronto, Vancouver, or even Winnipeg or Ottawa as the cultural capital of Canada. There's a lot of competition there.

I think Montreal's relationship to the rest of Quebec is important to highlight, but I don't think a horserace among Canadian cities for the bestest is really productive. So, I backed out the change and made it "Quebec" again. --(WT-en) Evan 20:16, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Mining Metafilter
This URL just popped up on my del.icio.us inbox: http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/18254. Probably worth mining for some data. --(WT-en) Evan 10:15, 6 May 2005

byzantine -> many
Sorry, but I think "byzantine" is the better word. --(WT-en) Evan 22:47, 19 Jul 2005 (EDT)

SFGate
Probably worth data-mining: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/09/TRG3QF2VH71.DTL. --(WT-en) Evan 14:12, 19 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Time to split up!
I don't think anyone will disagree it is time to break this one up into districts. Anyone want to take a shot at fleshing them out? - (WT-en) bulliver 00:37, 18 March 2006 (EST)

car parking
Montreal does its bit for Quebec's perennial social welfare mandate by employing a large number of the otherwise barely employable as civil servants. A significant proportion of this municipal army serves in the parking ticket division. What this means for you: if you think it'll be OK to park in that no-parking zone or that permit parking spot for five minutes while you grab a coffee, FORGET IT. Montreal tickets start at $38.

Pay especial attention to parking on side streets, whether or not permit parking is in effect. Many streets require that you not park on a particular side for a specified one-hour period during the day. The net effect is that even if you find a no-permit spot, study the sign carefully (especially if you plan to park overnight) - you may find that parking is not permitted between, say, 7-8 a.m., which means you will be greeted with a lovely $42 ticket when you come out of your hotel after breakfast. (Ostensibly, this policy is in effect to allow street cleaning vehicles to clean alternate sides of each street every other day. Unscientific studies show that street cleaning vehicles rarely make it to any particular street more than once a week, leading to the conclusion that the municipal permit-parking policy is a thinly veneered road tax). Woe betide those residents without any driveway or private garage who need to go out of town for a few days.

Town and police do this year more for parking discipline in centre-ville. Shortly after you have to fill parking meter (early in the morning on weekend too) they start to give tickets. You should pay attention to this so that your stay in Montreal will not start with a ticket. Car parking in centre-ville cost $5 to $12 per day at parking meters and park houses. Prices and pay-times are going up as well. Expect to find that most metered areas require you to pay $2/hour between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No one knows exactly what happens to the very large amount of money collected through parking infractions, but one thing is clear: it isn't going into improvements in Montreal's municipal road system, which is a national embarassment.

some editing
I did some editing of "englishified" french throughout the article so it read more like english (hopefully).

Also, I touched up the restaurant list, namely the 2 or 3 un-notheworthy restaurants who'd put in a blurb straigth from their websites, especially the first on the list (some anonymous place in pointe-claire claiming to be amazing fine dining) and casa galicia claiming to be one of the best spanish resto in the world (it was a usually empty tourist-frequented st-denis restaurant last time I checked, wholly unremarkable, incidentally the blurb was verbatim from their web site.)

Pickpockets
The situation around Simon's on St. Catherine is acknowledged by the locals to be really bad. We just got hit, and I remember everything in retrospect, but never put it together at the time. Perhaps if I had read some of the stuff I read later, I would have been more alert. As I replay the tape in my head, my wife, daughter and I were shopping madly at Simon's as it was closing. There were at least 3 suspicious people following us, and not buying anything, including the dumpy old oriental lady 'ring' that hit us. They had to be very aggressive, since I was buzzing around being bored, and my 15 year old daughter was flitting. The dumpy ladies jostled my wife twice, since they were having trouble with her zippered bag, and I saw them. She suddenly clutched it, so they couldn't zip it up again, and things started falling out a short time later, which is how we noticed the loss of the wallet. This was at a small, fairly open and empty store, so these ladies took an enormous risk. No security cameras, and absolutely nobody cares! They must have rings falling over themselves!

I think all the locals are happy with the situation. All the spotters prevent shop lifting, and major crime, since they look like store detectives! Nobody compiles statistics, and they deny the problem. Only the credit card companies would have hard facts. Postscript: the wallet was found in the local movie theater. Only the money was missing ($80). Much like everything in Montreal, these thieves have class. (why are there no editing prompts?) ---(WT-en) Zeizmic (my talk page is over at Wikipedia).

---Allright, so a pickpocket spotted you. However, I question why this incident should be described on Wikipedia. Its academic value is very poor, as Montreal is not known at all for pickpockets. I think it sends the wrong message to the readers.

---I'm not sure individual anecdotes such as this are appropriate for a Wikivoyage page. Also, I'm a local and I've never heard of these pickpocketing "rings" that are made to sound notorious and ubiquitous. I think the safety section ought to be cleaned up.

External book review link
I've removed the link to a blog reviewing a book on walking tours of Montreal. If the walking tours in the book are good, please feel free to outline them in a separate article and link it from the Montreal page (see the Walking tour of Sydney for and example). Also, have a look at Project:External links for information on the preferred way of doing external links. --(WT-en) Dawnview 00:55, 23 September 2006 (EDT)

GLB Community links
I removed a link to a comunity guide per our Project:External links policy. Please see also Project:Information for gay and lesbian travellers. (WT-en) Maj 22:18, 23 September 2006 (EDT)

Get around by ferry
Someone who knows something about ferry travel around Montreal can perhaps write about this. Otherwise all we have are these external links: --(WT-en) Dawnview 02:53, 24 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Old Port-Longueuil
 * Old Port-Ile Sainte-Helene
 * Promenade Bellerive-Parc National des Iles de Boucherville

Stab at districts
I've taken a stab at breaking the city up into districts. I don't live there so I don't know well enough to continue. Perhaps the GLB section can be moved as a start? --(WT-en) Dawnview 16:58, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

 * I just rolledback the removal of the district links. I'm pretty sure Montreal needs districts. (WT-en) Maj 22:21, 5 February 2007 (EST)

 * I hadn't noticed this discussion and nominated Montreal for DOTM sometime this summer (we don't have that many good candidates at the moment). At the moment the article doesn't seem to have so much info that it needs districts. Would it be owrth waiting until a possible DOTM this summer (more info may be added then). -- (WT-en) DanielC 07:59, 7 February 2007 (EST)

 * You can likely split this article up into West Island, Montreal-Est, Montreal-Nord (which would include anything north of Mont-Royal) and Downtown (which would include everything south of Mont-Royal). Of course I've only been here a couple of years and I haven't bothered going around the city just yet. - 65.94.145.52 08:13, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Starting District page here. (WT-en) Maj 11:03, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Rollback
I rolled back the addition of an external link to a third-party map of the Montreal Metro. See Project:External links for details. --(WT-en) Evan 23:58, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Dunn's antique burgers
This was added to the "Antiques and furniture" section, which doesn't seem to be a very complimentary description of the world's best burgers, and is in the wrong place anywhere (just where is Montreal's "center" anyway?). (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:14, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

 * Also There is Dunn's, near the center of town. They have the best burgers in the world. Just like poutine, you can't go to montreal without eating at dunn's.

Speaking French
Does anyone else find this unnecessarily hostile? '"The first language in Quebec is French; making an attempt to use the language is a great way to show respect for the people there, whether or not they can speak English. However, many younger, bilingual Francophones in the city tend not to have much patience for French poorly spoken, and will often resort to English in reply, regardless of your intentions."'

The assumption being made here is a little offensive. People switch to English unconsciously because it's easier to conduct a conversation that way or because they see you struggling. To suggest that this demonstrates impatience is presumptuous.

The second sentence in the above paragraph is also curious -- as an Anglo from Montreal I can honestly say I've never had a second thought about another Anglo assuming I'm French-speaking. I can not imagine under what circumstances I would think such a thing was "silly at best".

It's a peculiar tone in this article that comes out now and then.

 * Well some people, like myself, try practicing the language, but when the other party starts speaking English, it's almost like they feel sorry for you for even trying.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Montreal/Archives


text:
Talk:Montreal/Districts

What is "Montreal"?
First we need to define what we're talking about. Is Montreal the island? The incorporated city (not that that's an easy thing to pin down as towns keep merging and de-merging)?

On a practice level, should this guide cover Ville St. Laurent? How about Ste-Anne-de-Belleview? Anjou?

Ideally, the guide could cover all of "central" Montreal in detail, with district articles covering one or more neighborhood (split up based on density of attractions and size) and then attractions elsewhere on the island either get a catch-all article like "Elsewhere on the Island" or "East Island" (I don't mind if there are one or two like that, at the same level as "Downtown") or, they just get a listing in the main article. I'm mostly thinking of the large parks and one-or-two sights like Grandby Zoo. They could even go under "Get Out" if we wanted to firmly separate the city from the island.

Levels?
So how many levels do we need here? I'd love to have just one, but it wouldn't be homogeneous-- i.e. some "districts" would be a single neighborhood (like Downtown or the Plateau), but others would have two or more (mostly because they're residential and/or boring). I'd rather not have a whole layer of "east island" "south-east island" "south-southwest island" because a) no one really talks about it like that and b) it would mostly be filler or lists which doesn't make for interesting content.

Here is the current district list, with some obvious groupings:
 * Vieux Montréal

 * Downtown

 * The Plateau

 * Gay Village
 * Quartier Latin

 * Mile End – Little Italy and Jean-Talon market
 * Outremont
 * Cotes-des-Neiges
 * Parc ?

 * Westmont – Anglophone neighborhood

 * Hochelaga-Maisonneuve – Olympic Park, Botanical Gardens

 * Parc Jean-Drapeau

* St Henri * Atwater
 * Little Burgundy

 * West Island - West of Westmount
 * East Island - East of Olympic Park

title: Talk:Montreal/Districts


text:
Talk:Montreal/Downtown

To do / outstanding issues

 * Chinatown -- own section? Probably not enough for it's own page, but maybe... (fyi it's about 2 square blocks, mostly restaurants)
 * The Underground City -- Infobox? Or own subsection? (fyi basically a bunch of connected malls, but interesting history/culture/trivia)

Banner
Thanks to Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikimania, we have got new banners. Would you consider a change? I absolutely like #54, although I have no clue as to what Downtown Montreal is. --Alexander (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I support a change. I guess I prefer #53 over #54 by just a hair. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pont de Victoria.jpeg

title: Talk:Montreal/Downtown


text:
Talk:Montreal/Plateau

Moved from main article:

Some of Canada's most densely populated residential neighbourhoods can be found right in the heart of the city, on the leafy and colourful Plateau Mont-Royal. The now infamous 'Horse To Water' (H2W) postal district is officially the most creative place in Canada, with 8% of the population deriving their primary income from artistic or creative work. These are the neighbourhoods where it can be the most rewarding to get lost on foot: in addition to the quiet tree-lined streets with their distinctive outside staircases, almost every block has a 'secret' inner street (or 'ruelle') which runs between the gardens and houses of the two adjacent streets. These ruelles are where Montrealers fix their cars, let their children play outside or walk their dogs. On a hot summer's afternoon, there can be few places as tranquil and relaxing to explore on foot in this city.

Miss listed
Croissant de Lune should be listed in the latin Quarter. (WT-en) Gam3

Byblos
I don't get why Byblos is considered such as great restaurant. Inside it's beautiful and the owners are very friendly. The special stew they serve Sunday evenings is a treat. But in general their food is not that good - the hummous is watery, the fish takes like meat (because it's not cooked separately) and so on, and everyone I know who's been there agrees.

title: Talk:Montreal/Plateau


text:
Talk:Montreal/Sainte-Marie

This is best spot to drop in for low budget backpackers travelers to found cheap stay, cheap food in the middle between main touristic attractions (Olympic stadium, biodome and botanic garden on East side - gay village, old Montréal and central downtown on West side and Plateau on the North.

 * We already have district articles that cover the Olympic Stadium, Gay Village, etc. - see Montreal - so the content here should be moved to those articles. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:18, 28 February 2010 (EST)
 * Ok. I remove duplicated informations. How to delete this wiki page? I did another one for Montreal/Sainte-Marie district?

 * To delete you can either nominate it for deletion at Project:Votes for deletion, or you can simply redirect it by replacing the content of the page with something such as #REDIRECT Montreal . Thanks for cleaning this up! -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 28 February 2010 (EST)

 * Ok, should be done!?

title: Talk:Montreal/Sainte-Marie


text:
Talk:Montreux

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Montreux Jazz affichage lumineux.jpg

 * The logo of the jazz festival. We should upload it locally as fair use if we want to keep it on the page. I think that's inessential, but I challenged the speedy deletion tags to buy us time to discuss what to do. I'd rather have a photo of someone performing at the jazz festival, if possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Montreux Jazz affichage lumineux.jpg

title: Talk:Montreux


text:
Talk:Montserrat

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Montserrat/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:45, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

Safety Issues
It needs to be advised that Montserrat is considered one of the top three places in the world where assault occurrs. I added mention of this for that reason. SOURCE: http://www.securityworld.com/infocenter/international-crime-statistics/

This is absolutely silly. My best guess would be that the stats on securityworld.com came from an instable year of mayham due to volcanic activity. securityworld.com does not list their sources or the years of these statistics. Given the tiny population of Montserrat crime is very low as identifing and catching the assailant would be very easy. I highly suggest this be removed, Montserrat is far safer then many of the caribbean islands that do not including such a safety mention.

I would concur that the statistic ought to be removed. The Security World site gives no reference. This site: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita has the same statistics but its source: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf does not have per capita figures. Of the assaults, only about 5 a year were "major." Nationmaster also points out that crime figures are strongly influenced by amount of police presence and reporting. A lot of simple assaults (which can include idle threats and fist-shaking) go unreported elsewhere. My guess is that assaults are mostly between acquaintances, anyway. Robbery (taking by force or threat of force, e.g, mugging--not burglary) seems very rare. (WT-en) RogerR 23:27, 3 January 2008 (EST)

The Montserrat listed in that crime statistic is probably Montserrat, Spain.

 * Montserrat, Spain appears to be a monastery site, based on its WV article. Nationmaster is regurgitating the US CIA party line, http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Montserrat/Crime finds nothing particularly dangerous (it's safer than many other Caribbean nations, because it's so small) but http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Illicit-drugs is filled with bizarre statements like one that Canada is "vulnerable to narcotics money laundering because of its mature financial services sector" which are familiar as pure propaganda from the misguided US "war on drugs". Odds are, the "CIA Factbook" may be freely reprinted with attribution as "a work of the US government" and Nationmaster, as primarily a Wikipedia mirror, is merely reprinting a mashup of whatever free content it can find. K7L (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

British Dependancy
It should be noted in the first section that this is a British Dependancy.
 * Actually it's a British Overseas Territory. Now mentioned. Invertzoo (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AIR (Associated Independent Recording) studio
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/george-martin-air-studio-montserrat-paul-mccartney-stevie-wonder has a good writeup on the "AIR" studio, now 'mouldy' and 'wasp-infested'. K7L (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Citizens of Svalbard and Jan Mayen?
The immigration text makes statement about citizens of Svalbard and Jan Mayen. These territories have no sovereignty and no citizenship. Citizens of Norway are a thing, though. /Yvwv (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Montserrat


text:
Talk:Montville (Queensland)

Has this website got a referencing template somewhere like the one at wikipedia?
 * Hi - we don't use references here in Wikivoyage. We only have information currently useful to travelers, and that information often couldn't be referenced anyway.  If you want to explore the project, start at the Project:Help, or tips for new contributors.  It would be great to have more information contributed about the Sunshine Coast.  --(WT-en) Inas 20:31, 15 January 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Montville (Queensland)


text:
Talk:Monument

I measured network speed (using c|net) at about 500kbps at It's A Grind today. <>< (WT-en) tbc 19:49, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

title: Talk:Monument


text:
Talk:Monument Valley

Separate article?
I'm not convinced this deserves a separate article. If it really is true that the nearest lodging is in Kayenta, I would incline to believe that it does not, and that a merger with Navajo Nation is indicated. However, I thought there is actually lodging in Monument Valley itself, which qualifies it under the "stay a night" criterion. Anybody? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:36, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Goulding's Lodge is in Monument Valley. In addition, since both Kayenta and Mexican Hat are so far away I would think that Monument Valley could have its own article based solely on the fact that it's a major attraction not located near anything else, kind of like Stonehenge. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:08, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Fair enough. I'd already referenced Goulding's Lodge in the Navajo Nation article, and as much as anything else, was concerned that it was closed or something.  (That would be a loss.)  OK to leave this, but somebody needs to put some flesh on the bones; I don't know Monument Valley well enough to add much myself. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:28, 26 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Hopefully the lodge is still open -- the web site lists a reservations link. I was in Monument Valley in April, but camped and didn't pay much attention to lodging, although I seem to recall signs for something.  I'll try to add a bit more to this article when I get a chance, but my memory isn't the greatest and info online is a bit patchy.  Alternatively, if you or I don't do it then someone is bound to come along and start filling out the sections. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:44, 28 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * It's looking pretty good now :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

This paragraph
I find this paragraph hard to comprehend, not because of its grammar or anything like that, but because of its perspective: "The distances are vast in the United States, and many people do not allow sufficient travel time, especially when they are used to the shorter distances in Europe or Asia. Many of Monument Valley's visitors are European and Japanese, and it is difficult for them to comprehend the distances you have to travel between destinations. If you travel from Las Vegas or Phoenix, your trip will take almost the entire day. You cannot see Monument Valley and also go further than the Grand Canyon to the south, and Moab to the north in the same day. Even staying at the Monument Valley for one night is cutting your stay extremely short relative to what there is to see in this part of the Navajo Nation." Although I used Flagstaff as a base for exploring Arizona in 2019, having left Flagstaff at 04:00 in the morning and arriving there at 08:00 (stopping for breakfast along some cafes), explored the entire day in that region (outside Monument Valley too), and left at June 29, 2024 back to Flagstaff. I know Flagstaff is only 2.75 hours from Monument, but it is only an extra 1.75 hours from Phoenix making it 4.5 hours. Do people from Europe and Asia find driving 4.5 hours one-way "too long"? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I would subtract Asia, because distances in China, India and, for example, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia are vast, too, but in Europe, if you travel 4.5 hours, you're often in another country. France is the biggest country in Europe other than ex-Soviet countries, and its area is about the same as that of Texas though the shape is very different. Australia and the U.S. are comparable in size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, except when referring to Asia, is it specifically referring to Japan (where 4.5 hours would be the travel time between Tokyo and Sendai)?
 * But I'd agree on the rest of Asia though. A drive took us eight hours in India before, mainly due to the poor roads mostly with a speed limit of  (and how people never seem to observe the damn speed limit). At least in Australia and the U.S., undivided highways are usually  in Australia while  in the U.S., much better than a  you'd find in Asia. Should we specify specifically Japan? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Only as in "or, for example, Japan". Most Asian countries are way smaller than the U.S., including much of Southeast Asia (but not huge Indonesian islands like Sumatra), Korea, Taiwan, Bangladesh... Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes... idiot me forgot about those. But for Europe, it's generally true (it's unusual how they say "three hours" is long in the UK), but I'd expect many in the Nordic countries wouldn't be surprised to do a 4.5 hour drive. When I was in Norway, I met a family and they told me that they don't find a seven hour trip to Trondheim from Oslo long at all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monument Valley


text:
Talk:Moon

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
The Moon has popped up a number of times as an article, have been redirected to various places and have probably been deleted a number of times before this incarnation. I suggest that we change this into a serious article. Most will say that it fails the Project:What is an article? can you sleep there? test, but I beg to differ; it is the largest desert campground within human technological reach, all one have to do is take your own high-tech tent. Though going to the moon is beyond most peoples budgets, there are a handful of people on earth today that can afford to go there if they so choose. The least we can do is to provide them with real tips on what they can see and do  once they get there. The added benefit of having a real article will of course be that people will stop creating garbage articles for the moon. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:49, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I'm just barely OK with creating this -- unlike Mars or any other place in space, at least somebody's been there -- but this is not an April's Fool article and it needs to be a lot more serious, so I've cut out the stuff about launching your own manned program or zero emissions rovers. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:48, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

 * FYI, some (relatively) hard data for future missions etc: (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:02, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

 * And an apparently complete list of manmade "attractions": (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't think that saying that you can pitch a tent on the moon makes the place suitable for an article; one could pitch a tent literally anywhere. But there are also other reasons why I don't think the moon qualifies for a "real" article: The moon is completely uninhabited, with no planned missions for ten years. What about redirecting Moon to Space, and adding a section about it there?

LeptonMadness (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * The article is written with a tongue in cheek, but it's a legitimate topic of inquiry, with different answers to the popular questions than the Space article would have. LtPowers (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

is this a joke page?
well i mean astronauts can live in their pod on the moon and have rations so iam not sure thanks. --(WT-en) Caharoute3 11:22, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
 * It's not a joke; everything in the article is accurate as far as we know. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:26, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

 * The Pink Floyd and golfing jokes might throw one off, but yes, this is a legit article. We'll write about any possible destination, regardless of how few people can go there! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:36, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Outline vs. usable
It looks like this article will never make it to usable status, almost by definition, as much of the infrastructure that launched Apollo was dismantled forty years ago and would need to be rebuilt pretty much from zero. That's a huge undertaking and a blueprint for doing so is not something we can fit into an individual travel guide entry. K7L (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 * As suggested above, merge into Space and make this article a redirect to the appropriate section there. Space tourism is already a real possibility for those with mounds of money, so having that article makes sense. Visiting the moon, Mars, etc. is not yet feasible so those should be redirects. If a trip to one of those later becomes feasible, we can re-open discussion. Pashley (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 * While I like this article, and like the idea of someday being able to go to the moon, I think Pashley's suggestion makes sense - this isn't a "real" travel article, so putting everything into a "space" article that talks about current and future options seems like a more realistic approach. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I believe the criteria define a wikivoyager to not be limited to just a recreational tourist - if anyone has gone there (a person, not just a robot like the Viking landers on Mars) the destination is technically valid. Difficult (multi-billion dollar, multi-year effort to rebuild everything lost at the end of Apollo) but possible... even with 1960s technology. Unless we can determine what needs to be rebuilt (with costs, timeline and resources required) it looks like we're stuck at "outline" but a destination which has been done can be done. K7L (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Agreed; the Moon is a distinct destination from simply going "into space". LtPowers (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Outdated info
It looks like there is no current US plan to put a manned mission back on the moon per and it'll be at least 2020 if one waits for another nation to do so if  is any indication. 2001:5C0:1400:A:0:0:0:A15 21:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Good to know. So since you know that, please plunge forward and make the appropriate edits, and thanks for doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Earthrise
How is it possible that no Earthrise is visible from the moon, when moonrise is visible from the Earth? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the Moon's rotation is synchronized so that the same side of the moon is always facing the Earth, if you were standing on the moon, the Earth would appear to always stay in the same place in the sky (or conversely, you'd never see it if you were on the back side). But you would see the earth go through phases from new to full and back again. Texugo (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Strictly speaking, because of Libration the Moon does wobble back and forth, so if you were standing near the eastern or western edge (as viewed from Earth) you would see the Earth move in the sky, and possibly set and rise. But it's a 27-day cycle so you'd be watching it rise for quite a while... --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Astronauts not seeing the dark side?
User:Hobbitschuster added "Only a handful of astronauts have ever seen the "backside" of the moon with their own eyes (usually those that didn't land on the surface).".

I don't think this is correct. Every Apollo mission that went to the moon had to circle it and perform both translunar and transearth injection on the far side. And it's not like they got to the moon and immediately moved to the LM and descended to the surface; there were several orbits before descending and after returning while they took care of chores.

Unless you have a source that claims otherwise, AFAIK every astronaut who made it to the moon had a chance to see the dark side, and would have had a least a few minutes to moongaze. --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Well I thought that the only thing orbiting was the command module with the third man in it (in the case of Apollo 11 that would be Michael Collins) But I don't know for sure either way. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Upon reading up on the issue: WP says that all astronauts of Apollo 8 and 10 through 17 saw the far side of the moon with their own eyes. Thus far, however nobody ever set foot there (due to obvious communication issues among other reasons) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal status of the moon
You totally ignored Outer Space Treaty this is not a joke Italic text--167.57.182.228 23:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)aka --Neurorebel (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Out of the manual
The out of the manual nature of this article can lead to hilarious situations, try not to judge it by that but by the common sense being applied, of course it is of minimal importance time to get atention when no physical help is possible but being murdered or robbed in the context of a legal void is not the same thing.

Legal status of the moon
It seems that treating that subject in article Moon is a joke, i think is relevant info, there are no laws on the moon rather than "no population", this edition was reverted when it was a SYNth from Outer Space Treaty .--Neurorebel (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I guess even though there are no legal impediments to your visit, practical transport options may categorize this as 'unlikely'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Map
I guess OSM does not support lunar maps, does it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Not as far as I can tell, but I've added a map from Commons and links to the map applications available from NASA and Google. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pure oxygen
In light of this edit, yes indeed, the praxis of using pure oxygen (often IIRC at roughly 0.2 atmospheres pressure, which has the same effect as regular air at normal pressure) was discontinued after both the Soviets and NASA lost lives to it (the Americans without knowing of the Soviet incident) the Americans of course famously in Apollo 1 Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Guide status
I've been editing this for the past few days, and it seems pretty much complete for me. Is this guide status yet? Is there anything that can be improved? If yes, what is it? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 03:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, if 2 days after I post this comment there are still no replies and the page still exists, I'll plunge forward to change it into a guide. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't see any real information about how to get to the surface of the moon, only about flybys. Unfortunately, I don't know if we have any editors with the knowledge to fix that, so IMO this article may not be able to get to guide status in the foreseeable future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * While I wouldn't want to see this article get deleted by any means, I'm personally not sure if giving it guide status sends the right message. It's hard for me to explain why I feel that way, but I must go along with Granger that, when it's extremely to get the moon and the articles doesn't even explain getting there, we should not be promoting to guide status. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 05:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I've added some info about landing on the Moon. What about now? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 06:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * If I'm a multibillionaire whose dream is to set foot on the moon, does this article provide the information I need to make that happen? I think the answer is clearly no, so I wouldn't call it guide status. You've added some interesting information to this article, which is great—thank you for that. I don't think bringing it to guide status is a particularly realistic or high-priority goal, so maybe our energy would be better spent working on destinations that are accessible to more than a small number of professionals and ultra-wealthy. Just my two cents—if you want to keep working on this article, by all means go ahead, but I'm not sure guide status is realistically achievable right now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, then I'll go to the main Space article. The next article after that is going to be Vatican City. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree with Mx. Granger again here. My advice to SmileKat40 is, focus on improving articles; don't worry too much about the status. Thanks for the work you do! --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * And if you get automatic suggestion, treat them as suggestions: if there is some reason not to work on an article, choose the next one. --LPfi (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wondering if the moon needs its own article
Why does the moon have its own article? A few people have been to space as tourists, and projects like Virgin Galactic finally seems to be able to take passengers within a reasonable timeframe, so that there will be more space tourists than just one every few years. And of course there are many space related places on earth to see.

But the only people who have been to the moon have been trained astronauts sent out on expeditions with specific goals; not someone who would actually need a travel guide. The article links two projects where there are plans to send people on a trip around the moon, but until something has actually materialized of those, I'm not sure the moon merits its own real article (but maybe an April Fools day joke article).

And unlike Next-to-impossible destinations here on earth that all are at least theoretically possible to get to as a private person, creating a working spaceship is, mildly put, a completely different kind of project. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

--Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history, this is being actively edited. In my opinion, at this point in time, removing the article from mainspace can only be disruptive. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The article has been much edited as of lately, which was what drew my attention to it already earlier this week. I was just wondering if we need an article for a place noone in practice under any circumstances can't reach as a traveler as of 2019. Ypsilon (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, but as the article states in "Get in," there are two groups planning to send men to the moon in the (relatively near) future. People may want to plan a trip based on those circumstances. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Like most of our articles on next to impossible destinations, few people read it for planning an actual trip. They read them either for pure entertainment or for planning an imaginary trip. Armchair voyages are not uncommon, and I suspect most readers also of many "real" destination articles belong to that category. Thus, whether or not people actually go there is less important (other than for keeping the line somewhere). I regard this as a borderline joke article, and I suppose most do. Suggesting repairing a moon rover as a means to get around is a symptom of that. Still, it is more interesting in mainspace than as pure joke, and having it here does not harm us. --LPfi (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * By the way, speaking of "armchair voyages," can you get the moon in virtual reality? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, as of current technologies, of course we can get the Moon in VR! Why this page is getting frequently edited is because I use an algorithm to see what article should I improve next, and now it's came to the Moon. By the way, if we are talking about the page's existence, why isn't this at VFD? The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd hate to see we delete this page, since I did most of the work. But many people read Wikivoyage for fun. Like me. When I read Wikivoyage, most of the time it's not because I'm planning travels, most Wikivoyage articles are still not complete enough to make me not use other websites. Usually when I read Wikivoyage, it's just for fun and I do not have any particular goal. So I'll say we keep this for the readers who read this for fun. And who knows, maybe one day there's a lot of Moon tourism! The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 01:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with LPfi, I think that the entertainment/armchair travel value of this article earns it its place in Wikivoyage. I would oppose its nomination at VFD. Ground Zero (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Replying to SmileKat40, I agree. Wikivoyage is a great place to find trivia or learn about a place. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 05:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(indent reset) I'm sure everyone here also spends time reading about interesting places, most of which they are never going to visit. This article certainly has entertainment value, but in my opinion the border between a real article and other articles is whether anyone at all reading will have even a remote chance of going there now (not "maybe in 30 years").

Considering how long it has taken for Virgin Galactic, which has come the furthest in the "tourist space race", to reach their goal to enable people to spend a couple hours in space (when it was founded 15 years ago they thought space tourism would be up and running in just a few years but it took until February 2019 for the first test passenger to fly), I don't think going to the moon will become possible anytime soon. That is the reason I would prefer to have content of the moon in a subsection of the Space article with space travel that might be possible in the distant future. But as there seems to be consensus to keep it as its own article here in mainspace, I'm not going to argue about this further. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Communication via satellite
We now have conflicting and confusing information on communication between a rover and Earth via a Moon-orbiting satellite:
 * Transmission from lunar rover via a Command Service Module in lunar orbit to Earth is infeasible for visitors to the lunar poles or the dark side of the Moon, as line-of-sight transmission to Earth is simply not available.
 * A 2008 NASA proposal advocates lunar-orbiting satellites as a workaround but no system has been deployed.
 * The Chinese Chang'e 4 mission, [...], uses a satellite orbiting around the Earth-Moon L2 point to relay signals between its Yutu 2 lunar rover and Earth.

I understand that orbiting satellites have to fly quite low (how low?) because of the low gravity, severing the below-the-horizon problem. I suppose that would be the reason for rely via satellite over the far side not being feasible. This can be overcome at least with several rely satellites, is that the NASA proposal? What is the L2 point? The Earth-Moon common gravitation centre? You would still not reach the farthest area of the Moon, but landing just behind the rim would still be landing on the far side.

If you don't need real-time communication, the satellite can communicate with Earth when above the near side and with the rover (or station) when above the far side (or the pole). How fast can you make a turn?

–LPfi (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 * For the lunar poles, why wouldn't line of sight be available for a CSM orbiting over the poles? Not continuous communication, of course, if you have only one. –LPfi (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * L2 is one of the Lagrange Points of a given two body system (in this case earth-moon) it's the only way to "park" something at a "fixed location" (well relative to what you care about at a given moment) in space. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. But according to the illustration, L2 is behind the Moon, seen from Earth. How can one rely communications to Earth from that point? Using low-speed photons, so that the gravitation has time to bend their course? :-)  L4 and L5 would make sense, still not reaching the farthest parts of the Moon. –LPfi (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Moon


text:
Talk:Mooré phrasebook

Removed from page
Different dialects require a new phrasebook. (WT-en) Tim 00:10, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Jula (Bobo and most of southwest)

An y sogoma! = Good morning!

An y tila! = Good day!

An y wula! = Good evening!

Heré sira wa? = How was your evening? (to be said in the a.m.)

''Heré tilena wa? ''= How is your day so far? (to be said anytime after noon)

Somogo do? = You family?

O ka kené! = They are good!

Bara da? = Your work?

Heré! = Peace/Health only! ie, Great!

''Nsé! (said by women)'' = Response used often in greeting, sort of like; uh-huh, yeah!. No real direct translation.

''Mba! (said by men)'' = see above

Mooré word for "triform"
Is there a Mooré speaker here I may ask a question? I am trying to find a Mooré word meaning "three-branched" (like a "three-branched river"), "threefold", "three-membered", "triform", "tripartite", "triple" or something similar. Thanks for any help.

Travis Henry

title: Talk:Mooré phrasebook


text:
Talk:Moorhead

Somehow Moorhead got categorized as a city in Cass county, North Dakota. Moorhead is actually in Clay county, Minnesota - across the Red River from Fargo hence not in the same state. It would be more fair and responsible to recategorize this city correctly. Since I don't know how to do this, can I get someone's assistance? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Spottacus (talk • contribs) 21 Feb 2006

title: Talk:Moorhead


text:
Talk:Morant Bay

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

request for more to be added to this article
I'd like to see this article developed more. I was there a couple of years ago. I don't remember a lot of names and places of where we went. Morant Bay is struggling. It's on the opposite end of the island from most of the resorts, and it's economy is depressed. It can be quite an adventure, though, with a ton of history most people don't know about. The Morant Bay Rebellion is important for anybody interested in the history of colonialism and the African Diaspora. I put this on the page of request for articles, if you're reading this, and you've been there, please: "plunge forward'. (WT-en) Jargas 02:54, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Morant Bay


text:
Talk:Moravia-Silesia

''The below was removed from the main article because a schedule is not the best information to have in the article due to the fact that it may change. What would be better is to have a few paragraphs explaining the possibilities along major routes.'' -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 15:17, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

selected trains

 * Os 4119 Brno hl.n. (20:50) - Brno-Zidenice - Brno-Slatina - Slapanice - Ponetovice - Blazovice - Krenovice dolni nadr - Slavkov u Brna - Krizanovice - Marefy - Bucovice - Nevojice - Nesovice - Brankovice - Nemotice - Jestrabice - Bohuslavice u Kyjova - Kyjov - Kyjov zast. - Vlkos - Vracov - Bzenec - Veseli nad Moravou (22:48)
 * Os 4141 Brno hl.n. (8:13) - Brno-Zidenice - Slapanice - Ponetovice - Blazovice - Krenovice dolni nadr - Slavkov u Brna - Krizanovice - Marefy - Bucovice - Nevojice - Nesovice - Brankovice - Nemotice (9:20)
 * Os 4143 Brno hl.n. (13:45) - Brno-Zidenice - Brno-Slatina - Slapanice - Ponetovice - Blazovice - Krenovice dolni nadr - Slavkov u Brna - Krizanovice - Marefy - Bucovice - Nevojice - Nesovice (14:42)
 * Os 4145 Brno hl.n. (15:07) - Brno-Zidenice - Brno-Slatina - Slapanice - Ponetovice - Blazovice - Krenovice dolni nadr - Slavkov u Brna - Krizanovice - Marefy - Bucovice - Nevojice - Nesovice (16:07)

title: Talk:Moravia-Silesia