Talk:List of people from Winnipeg

This section could eventually be broken down into sub-categories as well. The first step though is to consolidate the list of Winnipeggers out there on Wikipedia. jdobbin 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Is there any real reason why List of Winnipeggers and Famous Winnipeggers need to be two separate articles? Wikipedia policy doesn't typically support this sort of division, particularly given that who's famous and who isn't can be such an arbitrary and potentially POV distinction. So why the fork? Bearcat 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that there was another article. I have no objection to the Famous Winnipeggers being deleted as it is a copy of the original list. jdobbin 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104214516/http://www.mbwriter.mb.ca:80/mapindex/b_profiles/bergen_d.html to http://www.mbwriter.mb.ca/mapindex/b_profiles/bergen_d.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple entries

I would suggest that the entire section "By relation to Winnipeg" be deleted. All the names are duplicate entries of names found in the lists below. No need for multiple categorizations within the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. PKT(alk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. No need for duplicate entries as stated above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What about merging them in a tabular arrangement, with columns for name, profession/field, and relation?—Odysseus1479 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: That could work, but it would take much more work (besides it wouldn't seem to be consistent with the other "list of people from X city" articles, in Canada at least). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the amount of work, it doesn’t look like that big a deal to me; given consensus to proceed I’d be willing to have a go at it. (Famous last words!) I’d post a sample of the layout here before investing too much time in it. Regarding consistency, if this approach works out here I’d be prepared to do the same for any other Canadian cities’ articles with the same issue.—Odysseus1479 01:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Back in the old days, when such lists were just beginning to get created and there were a lot fewer articles to list, organizing them by occupation made some sense. In practice, however, it's more trouble than it's worth to keep them organized that way anymore — we have a lot more people to list, there are many multidisciplinary people who could be listed in more than one section and thus lead to either unnecessary duplication or editwarring over which one should be retained as the primary one, and many other reasons why it's just not the best way to organize such a list anymore. For a small list it's fine, but for a longer one with a lot of entries strictly alphabetical is preferable — so I'm more inclined to support Odysseus1479's suggestion. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)