Talk:Niagara Parks Commission

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo niagaraparks.gif

Image:Logo niagaraparks.gif 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) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was an outdated logo regardless. The new logo is a multi-colour leaf. Canaka (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

February 21, 2009

What could possible be wrong with adding links for: (1) The UNION of the employees of The Niagara Parks Commission, (2) Preserve Our Parks, the citizen group that works to preserve the Niagara Parks, and (3) the web site about the lawsuit against Niagara Parks Commission to declare the Maiid of the Mist lease illegal. This is the big news in Niagara Falls for months. Wikipedia is a collection of links; there are millions of links in Wikipedia. That's what External Linbks section is for. I am not affiliated with any of these web sites except the one about the lawsuit. None odf these sites promote any products or sell anything. How do I find the article's talk page? 174.34.161.64 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this in fact is the article's talk page. Now let's address your concerns. I'd strongly advise you to read the following material to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia policy relates to some of what you're talking about: WP:EL, WP:NOT (in particular WP:NOTSOAPBOX). In terms of your suggested external link to the OPSEU site, I'd like to point out that "right" or "wrong", it is not common practise for the union representing the employees of an organization to be given "equal time" in the external links section of that article, for instance, take note that an external link to the United Auto Workers site does not appear in the external links of either the Ford Motor Company or General Motors articles. That being said, I can't imagine many objections if a referenced mention of OPSEU was made within the context of the body of the Parks Commission article, with a corresponding link to the Wiki OPSEU article, in fact I believe that some local unions even have their own freestanding articles in the encyclopedia, you might consider writing one for Local 217, although take note that some editors might contend that the subject lacked "notability" according to policy. Your suggestion for an external link to the "Save Our Parks" organization in this context, in my opinion, is an attempt at advocating a particular personal position in regard to the Maid of the Mist lease "issue", which you have already acknowledged that you have an interest in. Again, "Save Our Parks" itself might be an appropriate subject for a separate article. The final suggested link directly to information regarding the lease situation itself is in my opinion self evidently promotional and non-neutral in nature. Please understand that the policies pertaining to promotional external links is not restricted to promoting specific goods or services alone, but also includes the promotion of particular ideas and positions (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX). You may want to consider posting an enquiry on the Maid of the Mist article talk page regarding a properly referenced mention of the "lease" situation in that article, don't be surprised if some editors regard your admitted involvement in the issue as grounds for claiming that your proposed addition is "non neutral" by definition. (see WP:NPOV). If you have any further questions , please feel free to contact me on my personal talk page or continue the discussion here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

February 21, 2009

Thank you for the explanation. If you just had the time to edit every page on Wikipedia, we would have consistency. I know folks try, but i see a lot of what seems to me to be inconsistency. OPSEU and Preserve Our Parks each address many issues -- some positive and some negative about The Niagara Parks Commission. Right now, it all seems to be negative because of this. A $500 million contract was awarded with no competitibe bidding. 174.34.161.64 (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Niagara Parks Commission. 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/20070401091300/http://www.niagaraparks.com/nfgg/peoplemover.php to http://www.niagaraparks.com/nfgg/peoplemover.php

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) 09:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)