Talk:Underground City, Montreal

Montreal Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Quebec / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Largest underground complex?

In the intro it's mentioned that Montreal's Underground City "is the largest underground complex in the world.". Maybe a clarification is needed? A site about Montreal here mentions it's 32 km long, covers an area of 12 km2, and has 4 square km floorspace. The Parisian Catacombs however are some 300 km long. Beijing's Underground City in contrast covers an area 85 km2; so the only claim Montreal has is most floorspace (and I can't find anything authorative on the extent of Beijing's underground area). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egregius (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above ground

Perhaps there should be something specifically mentioning that segments of city do exist above ground? While I know this, there are some people who may not fully grasp that concept. Comments anybody? --Riley 01:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I re-read the page, I see the first paragraph makes mention of this. Oops! --Riley 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

metro station photos

It would be nice to have images for all of the metro stations. Suitable ones are probably available on Flickr. Any volunteers? Djg2006 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each metro station has it's own Wiki article with picture(s). Jurjenb (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

map for the print-challenged?

the research here is excellent and thorough, but how about a map of RESO to graphically illustrate the interconnections and locations? how does one acquire permissions for an actual RESO map, or would that be public domain? -- Denstat 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESO map...

... is available under external links

Split

I think that RESO should be split off, then we can talk more about other parts of the underground city without crowding.

Error

Place-des-arts has at least one freestanding entrance (bleury south of de maisonneuve and président-kennedy). Does anyone disagree? 66.130.8.119

No. If your re-read the text, you'll see that it is correct.Djg2006 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed

Various items in this article are given as "proposed". Who is proposing them? Have they been proposed by various authorities (in which case they should be identified as such) or are simply "wishing thinking" on the part of editors? Grstain | Talk 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my only concern, as well. It sounds like wishful thinking on the part of editors. Other than that, this is an OUTSTANDING JOB! Great. Shawn in Montreal 06:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed - Grstain | Talk 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why do you consider a proposal to be valid only if it comes from the authorities?Djg2006 19:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of whether the proposal comes from the "authorities" or not. A proposal from Transport 2000 or the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, for example, which have no authority in the matter, would be valid, as long as it were indicated as such. The "proposals" in this article seemed like "wishful thinking" on the part of the author of the article. Wikipedia should describe what is, not what someone would there to be (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). - Grstain | Talk 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montmorency

I've taken out this section as I've seen no plans for Montmorency station to have interior links to any of the educational facilities mentioned, particularly the cegep. If I'm wrong, please add back with citations. - Montréalais 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

Shouldn't this be split, so that the central portion (under a title, RESO or such) be a separate article, and we'd summarize it here, along with deeper treatments of the rest of the netowrk? 70.55.86.210 06:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo du RÉSO.png

Image:Logo du RÉSO.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

It is of my opinion that this article should be moved back to Underground City, Montreal as per Wikipedia:CANSTYLE. In English, people refer to it as the Underground City. You don't hear English-speakers saying that they wandered around La Ville Souterraine... MTLskyline (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion the article is to be called RÉSO, the official name of the network. Nobody in Montreal calls it "The Underground City", they simply refer to the specific building that they've visited. "Underground City, Montreal" should still forward here, because it's what tourists actually search for. However, RESO features a few skywalks, making it more than an underground city. Jurjenb (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Old Custom House, Montreal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]