Talk:Airdrie, Alberta

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada: Alberta / Communities B‑class Mid‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cities B‑class

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Raised importance rating to 'Mid', following guidelines. PKT (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the racial and religious make-ups back because the numbers were inaccurate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They were wrong. I just don't think Airdrie needed a table to tell the story. Seems excessive for a place with 25,000 people. Also, I think "racial make-up" is a really poor term. -Tyson2k

What happened to objectivity? People who don't live here wont know that its all white people unless they can find that out somewhere. What you think shouldn't have anything to do with it. Quackgrassacrez 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dot

Someone needs to change the location of Airdrie on the map -- it's not anywhere near Oyen. You're all way off.

Yikes! I've moved the dot to a more accurate position. I would guess that that location bit was a copy/paste of a new or updated template, and just wasnt corrected for Airdrie. Resolute 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What browser are you using? with |dot_x =130 |dot_y =240 it displays correct in internet explorer7, opera and firefox. Your edit placed the dot west of alberta. --Qyd 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IE6. It appears correct on Firefox. Odd. Resolute 04:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the folks at the village pump for their opinion on this. The request is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Location map dot varies location between Firefox and IE; one correct, one not.. This is truly strange. Please feel free to add any information to that request that you feel may help. —MJCdetroit 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have solved the problem. I temporarily switched the template to Infobox City/Test to see if the fix works. Since it looks like all the pages using the "dot map" of Infobox city will have to have the placement adjusted before switching to the live template this page may stay with a "test" template for a couple of weeks.

I have tested this dot placement in the following browsers and OSs: Firefox 2 & IE7 in WinXP and Safari 2.0.4 & Firefox 1.5.0.11 in Mac OS X (10.4.9). The dot does not seem to move. Thanks for pointing this problem out. —MJCdetroit 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute, is this fixed now that the div width was forced in {{superimpose}} with this edit? --Qyd 14:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It is now showing up correct on the computer and browser where it appeared wrong in the past. Resolute 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]