Talk:Mount Royal

picture

Someone should be sure to get a picture of the purple lights on the cross, since it looks like they'll be used quite soon. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it. - Montrealais

Purple lights

Yes, they should be lit right now. However, the article has an error: the lights were purple 26 years ago last time the Pope changed (the article indicates that this is only possible since 1992 when the fibre optics were put in). I'm not that old, but a friend of mine saw them first-hand, last time. (-:

S

Does anyone know about Wallace & Van Warren from Mount Royal? I'm wondering if they are a legit company because they are supposedly doing a sweepstakes.

Article Clean-up

I tidied up the photos -- they were placed somewhat haphazardly throughout the article, and were starting to actually crowd out the text. I only removed one photo (one of the "tam-tam" shots -- I don't think two are necessary, and it wasn't obvious from the one that I removed that it was showing the Sunday Tam-Tams). I'm not wedded to the way I laid out the photos, but I do think that the photos should illustrate the text, but shouldn't be made front and centre to the detriment of the article. I also cleaned-up the Tam-Tam section -- once I removed the POV, unverifiable observations and links to after-hours clubs, it became a lot shorter. Skeezix1000 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fletchers Field

My father used to refer to Parc Jeanne-Mance as "Fletchers Field". Aparently the area which now comprises the Parc Jeanne-Mance was once part of a farm belonging to someone named "Fletcher" or so the story goes. Does anyone have the straight dope on this?

Editdroid 14:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a newspaper article that calls it "Fletcher's Field"... [1] 76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Volcano

I have removed Category:Volcanoes of Canada and Category:Hotspot volcanoes as categories from this article. As stated in the article, Mount Royal is not a volcano. - Montréalais (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount Royal is still notable as being a fictional volcano. Therefor I think Category:Volcanoes of Canada is appropiate. The volcano project above should stay also because the mountain has volcanic dikes and was formed by a volcanic hotspot. Note: none of the other Monteregian Hills arn't in the volcano category because they're arn't as notable for being fictional volcanoes. Black Tusk 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Time Capsule

There is (or was) a time capsule near The Cross. Could some one add info about it? I haven't seen it years, so I wouldn't know what to write. I think its supposed to be opened in 2100-something, though.Bob bobato (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Image in gallery

"Downtown Montreal seen from the mountain" looks real nice but its HDR edited, not actual photo.. more art than actual photo. Could we get a photo from the same location that is of what you'd actually see?Cs302b (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Royal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Mount Royal article was moved around via cut-and-paste moving, and then it was corrrected via histmerging, so now we've ended up with the original Mount Royal article situated at Mount Royal, Montreal, and the Mount Royal (disambiguation) article sitting at Mount Royal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Mount Royal as it has appeared at WP:RM ; note virtually no articles link to Mount Royal, Montreal, and virtually everything linking to Mount Royal mean the one in Montreal. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now located at Talk:Mount Royal (disambiguation)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hill or mountain

User:Poyt448 changed the lead sentence from;

Mount Royal is a mountain on the Island of Montreal to

Mount Royal is a hill on the Island of Montreal

While its description of being a hill or a mountain is entirely subjective, the rest of the article describes it as a mountain. --kelapstick (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216142717/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/news/national/story.html?id=54f55347-2231-4368-8e14-c957dfef1baf&k=57292 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=54f55347-2231-4368-8e14-c957dfef1baf&k=57292

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703070417/https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography-boundary/geographical-name/geoname-origins/5831 to http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography-boundary/geographical-name/geoname-origins/5831
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506012124/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1976/1976v2.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1976/1976v2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Royal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added Template:Tlx tag to http://www.cjecdn.qc.ca/bibliotheque/societe/12-dev/12a-a72.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410182619/http://ius.uwinnipeg.ca/WIRA/PDF/fieldtrip-manual.pdf to http://ius.uwinnipeg.ca/WIRA/PDF/fieldtrip-manual.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216142530/http://www.stm.info/English/en-bref/tramways/description/S61112_D25.htm to http://www.stm.info//English/en-bref/tramways/description/S61112_D25.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A reservoir was built

In the Mount Royal Park section, the second paragraph currently ends with “[…] and the reservoir was never built.” This is a direct quote from the referenced text (from fredericklawolmsted.com) but that text contradicts itself: before stating that the reservoir was never built, another sentence states “He wished to place a grand mountain pasture and lake, but the city decided on a reservoir instead […]”.

Therefore, the statement “the reservoir was never built” could be considered to be demonstrably false. The author was probably referring to the fact that a reservoir in the form of a lake, like the one in Central Park, was part of Olmsted’s plans but was rejected by city administrators. Instead, a giant cistern-type reservoir was built in the shape of a hill and camouflaged to match the surrounding natural hills, with trees, walking paths and benches. Near the peak of this artificial hill is a stone building that houses electric pumps (a slight buzzing noise can be heard from outside). This building is indicated on this map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.50078/-73.59179 and the peak of this fake hill (200 m altitude) is indicated approximately 50 m to the north.

This is why I removed the claim that the reservoir was never built. 96.22.66.24 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Close paraphrase

This paragraph is lifted almost directly from the source:

Circa 3000 BC, the mountain’s imposing presence in the centre of the island, views of the river and majestic forests made it a choice location for indigenous peoples travelling through the region. The mountain was also a rich source of hornfels, sharp-edged rocks used instead of flint to make tools and weapons for hunting. Over time, indigenous populations used the mountain’s wood to build villages and its fertile land to grow their main agricultural crops—corn, squash and beans—known as the Three Sisters.

Here's the relevant part of the source:

Circa 3000 B.C.

...

Its imposing presence in the centre of the island, views of the river and majestic forests made it a choice location for indigenous peoples travelling through the region thousands of years ago. The mountain was also a rich source of hornfels, sharp-edged rocks used instead of flint to make tools and weapons for hunting.

Over time, indigenous populations would have used the mountain’s wood to build villages and its fertile land to grow their main agricultural crops—corn, squash and beans—known as the Three Sisters.

— W.andrea (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

File:Copyright-problem.svg Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.lemontroyal.qc.ca/en/history-of-mount-royal. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, Template:Em it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of Template:Em, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original Template:Em plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)