User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2012.3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Template:Quebec general election, 2012

Hi. Could you explain the reason for your revert? The info I've added comes directly from the DGEQ (2012 results & 2008 results). Thanks. ABJIKLAMǁTǁC 03:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Then why doesn't it add up? Could you also please add the reference? I know I reverted to an equally unreferenced version. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like you spotted a serious mistake on the results webpage of the Chief electoral officer. I had to do the addition to believe it. I'm surprised that they let something like that happen. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's strange. Maybe the mistake will eventually be corrected. I guess the best think to do now is to keep our own calculated total. ABJIKLAMǁTǁC 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

provincial premiers

If you're determined to delete Premier of X from all the provincial premiers (past & current) articles' succession boxes? then you should first bring your proposal to the appropiate WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could remember the edits and users that convinced me that the succession boxes, and the navboxes do the same thing. You seem to be determined to fill the bottoms of articles with trivial templates and boxes, to repeat content, and list every little fact about politicians. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to delete from the succession boxes, then you should be consistent with all of them. This would include deleting deputy premiers & provinical cabinet posts. Then you'd need to do similar editrs for the prime ministers. The 3-peat (as we'll call it) is nearly in all the prime ministers & premiers articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps those aren't needed either, Ed Stelmach seems to be fine without them. 117Avenue (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If the WikiProject members agree with you deletion proposal, that'll be fine with me. I'm more interested in consistancy across all the prime ministers & premiers articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish people would stop deleting succession boxes. The infobox serves the purpose of summarising the article, serving the purpose of answering the question "So what did this guy do?" The succession boxes serve a purpose more like the other navboxes at the bottom of the article: to link to related articles. They do so in a way that lets people navigate from the first holder of an office to the last (or vice versa). This can be extremely helpful when making a series of edits to articles about holders of a given office. Having the consistency of including succession boxes for holders of an office is especially important because not all holders of a particular office will necessarily have infoboxes. If the problem, as it is often argued, is the accumulation of crap at the bottom of the article, the answer is obvious: put the succession boxes in a collapsible box entitled "Succession boxes". It's hard to see how repetition of non-prose elements hurts anything, especially when those elements are usually not visible at the same time. I think categories are basically pretty pointless, but apparently other people find them useful, so I wouldn't even think to delete them. -Rrius (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that the succession boxes are no more useful than navboxes? 117Avenue (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Just wondering if you can clarify if the most recent photo of a politician available on wikipedia, or anybody for that matter, is suppose to be the one used in the infobox? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I often see disagreement to my opinion on this. I believe that the best photo available, taken during the person's career, should be used. Most people don't realize that Wikipedia is forever, i.e. the articles will exist after the person's death, and think the photo should be kept up to date. Why not act now, and chose the best available, and keep it in the infobox? I don't mind having File:Alison Redford 2012.jpg on the top of her article, but I believe lists should have professional photos, and File:Alison Redford in 2008.jpg is used on those pages. I believe that File:Raj Sherman cropped.jpg isn't a good image, and File:Raj Sherman in 2008.jpg should be on top instead, disregarding the party strips depicted in the images. I could probably give you the story of every image change I have agreed or disagreed with, but I don't think you should look up to me here, when so many have led to fights. 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Figured your know because you are often updating politicians pages, I didn't know so many have led to fights. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to make me sound like a bad person, but I like to be honest. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode list/sublist

I was just wondering, do you understand the purpose of MainList in Template:Episode list/sublist? You mentioned it here but didn't elaborate and I can't really see the point of it. -- AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an old piece of code that cannot be removed because it is being used on a lot of pages. It is not explained in the documentation because {{{1|}}} does exactly the same thing, and is shorter to use. The MainList parameter is the title of the article where the transcluded table is, and it is necessary to hide the summary. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks. -- AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

UFA edit

Hello 117Avenue, I did not add any sources because Percival Baker is my great grandfather. That is why I am so interested in him. I edited this article on the UFA because he played a role in the UFA and Alberta. No textbooks mention him, nor do any web articles except a Wikipedia stub. That is the only way anyone outside of my family can learn a little about him. If he did not die, he would of been Alberta's 5th premier. I am sorry I did not add any sources. It is just I did not think I would need to because My family knows so much about him already. I hope you will add it soon, or at least let me add it. Thank you!

Matthew Boonstra

Sources: Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is true that he would have become premier, there should be a reference to his death. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

He only won majority 3 HOURS before DEATH. He was CRUSHED by a TREE. His SUCCESSOR became PREMIER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please can I re add it or please can you re add it. What do I need to do? I did not research on the web so what sources do I add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

When you yell, and make unfounded speculations, it makes me not want to help you. But, as it turns out, Percival Baker has an article, and there there is a reference to an Edmonton Journal article that was issued the next day. It confirms that he won the Ponoka seat, was the UFA Vice-President, and died 24 hours after his victory was announced. The Journal also speculates that he would have had a place in the UFA cabinet. It does not, however, speculate that he would become Premier. The absence of speculation is one of Wikipedia's policies, and I will not tolerate it. I hope you could imagine what would happen if unverifiable statements, and "facts", were allowed to run wide, without checks. Thank-you for understanding. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I came on here, I created a account to help spread the word about my great grandpa. But since I can;t because I apparently do not know enough about him, please tell me how to cancel my account. Right now, I am really ticked off and want nothing to do with this website. Please help me with this one thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you know about your ancestors, just like I know about my ancestors. But what if someone else came along, claiming to know more than you, and wanted to change all the facts? You would not be very happy, and bystanders would not know who to believe. This is why we try our best to be verifiable, and credible. I hope you stay and learn more about useful contributions. Unfortunately an account cannot be deleted, as all edits must be attributed to a user. By creating an account you have access to many benefits, including hiding your traceable IP address. 117Avenue (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I am sorry. I will stay and I hope that you can forgive me. It is just I am always a little mad talking about Percival because there are little to know ways to learn about him, no matter how many contributions he made to the UFA. And I can't tell what people mean on the web sometimes. So when someone corrects me, or adds on and uses quotes like "facts", I just got defensive about him. I am proud of him and I hate to think about how far he could of went in the party. His successor was premier, governor general, etc. and I just hate to think that all that could of been his, had he not have been killed. I hope that you will forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Western Canada citation

OK, what kind of citation are you looking for? Citation of the date it was released as a flag, a press release form the party announcing its new flag? Something else? I can provide, just let me know what specifically you had in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarleyKing (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was referenced. The date, the existence of an organization that uses it, the line representation, the Big Dipper representation. You were also incorrect in the number of stars in the Big Dipper, and that Polaris is on it, Alkaid is the one with four points. 117Avenue (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the citation and explanation to my talk page, lemme know what you think. HarleyKing (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it is the Little Dipper, that explains that. But is the flag your interpretation, or did you get it from some place? 117Avenue (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting back so swiftly, I've been having some technical issues on my side the last couple of weeks. The flag is not my interpretation, it is found on other documents in the University of Calgary archive that I put on my talk page (as you saw); this link here specifically shows the flag as seen on a newsletter of the WIP. http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/reform&CISOPTR=8115&REC=2 Hopefully that will be help you. HarleyKing (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not exact, but it is a copyright violation. 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Degrassi: The Next Generation

I would like to thank you for correcting my edit. I don't know how I overlooked that, but I definitely didn't think of all the other Degrassi shows made in the franchise when I read about the 400th episode note in the S12 episode. I've been overlooking things lately and it's rather making me feel dumb. - Jabrona - 18:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. But I must also revert your most recent edit to that page. Degrassi uses an ensemble cast, so it is not unusual that a cast member disappears for several episodes at a time. As a result we use the opening credits as a source for who has "star billing", this is explained at the beginning of the cast section. Just because an actor hasn't appeared in a few episodes, does not mean that he has left, that is why I wrote half of the season, to follow the credits. Your edits to the commentary on Van Wyck are also original research, and have been reverted. We will not know if he is missing from the twelfth season until the last episode has aired. And I haven't scoured all the information everywhere to see that no explanation has been given for his disappearance, have you? 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just went back and looked at the credits, he actually was taken out after the 14th episode. 117Avenue (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, K.C. Guthrie has left the show. As for Spencer Van Wyck, he's also left the show. That should be obvious by this point. He was a recurring character in Season 9 and credited in Seasons 10-11, but he's no longer part of the cast by Season 12 nor is his character seen anymore. His character was last seen in a storyline in S11 before the summer finale trying to impress some girl by taking her out for a joy ride in his father's car. That was it, so we never seen or heard from him again throughout the 2012 episodes of S11 or S12. I watched all the episodes so I know for certain and people have even asked about the character. The actor also has a Youtube channel and I've heard about a video he made confirming his leave. He's definitely gone. - Jabrona - 23:20, 15 October 2012

List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana.

Extended content

When I moved "List of Hannah Montana songs" to the above title you reverted my with the edit, " (117Avenue moved page List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana to List of Hannah Montana songs over redirect: revert, it refers to the TV show, not the artist)." I made a mistake and concurring with your page move. Now you seem hell bent on making the same mistake as I did originally. It would be nice if you could at least agree with yourself. I am reverting again, as you said above, and I said in my last edit, Hannah Montana is NOT a recording artist but a TV show. It does not belong in the category you are intent on placing it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's review my edit summaries:

1, I reverted your page move because the title "List of Hannah Montana songs" primarily refers to Hannah Montana, the TV series. 2, a subsequent edit that clarified that the article is both a list of songs used in the series, and songs sung by the artist, primarily the former and secondary the latter. If you would go through the list you would see that most songs fall in both criteria (3 & 4 indicate that you hadn't), but there are some songs that only meet one criteria. The article is therefore a merger of List of Hannah Montana songs and List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana (4 is admittedly a joke about this fact), however, one article can only have one title. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category outlines this situation exactly, and has a solution for this, place the redirect title in the category for which the target article complies, but its title does not. 5, notifying you of this guideline, and how you were somewhat correct in the original article move. 6, have you done this yet? Because you have not provided a good reason to violate the guideline, I will be reverting your edit again. I also ask that you would stop harassing me, and making edits without much explanation, because this is about a child's show please don't assume that I am a child, or that my edits are without merit. I especially did not like the speedy deletion that did not meet the criteria of WP:CSD#G7. You are a good editor, I hope that you can continue editing. 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

AS per your edit. Hannah Montana is not a recording artist. Hannah Montana is TV series and a character from that series. The main article refers to ANY song sung in the TV series, therefore would not be listed under Category:List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana. This is not the best of both worlds it is a misconception. Also the main article actually refers to songs song in the TV series, not solely Hannah Montana. There is nothing to support you here. Move on. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Montana is a recording artist, she is credited as an artist on the listed albums, just like Mark Twain and Dr. Suess are authors, and have their own lists of works (Mark Twain bibliography, Dr. Seuss bibliography). Can you not see a list of songs recorded by Hannah Montana by going to List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana? Then it should be included in the category for lists of songs by recording artists. If the article solely listed songs from the series it would not list "You and Me Together", "You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home", "The Good Life", "Spotlight", "What's Not To Like", "Just a Girl", and "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree". Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner contains content about the Road Runner, but that doesn't prevent Wile E. Coyote from inclusion in the Category:Fictional coyotes. You still have not provided a good reason to violate WP:RCAT. 117Avenue (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read the lead to List of Hannah Montana songs which does not agree with you. This issue would not have arisen if I hadn't made the original mistake. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying "sung by" is different than "recorded by"? If so, you can see that the albums, listed in the article, contains tracks recorded by the artist. 117Avenue (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The category name is Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. Everywhere I check it clearly states (on song articles as well) Miley Cyrus, performing as Hannah Montana – the alter ego of Miley Stewart or similar. The target page says specifically songs sung in the TV series. Cyrus does the singing and has has the recording contract. If there was a list of songs recorded by Cyrus that included songs sung as Montana/Stewart I would welcome that into the target category. There isn't so there is nothing, at the moment, to go in that category, whether a redirect or other. There is a difference between fictional and real people, same reason that Donald Duck is not in Category:Ducks --Richhoncho (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hannah Montana you see in the TV series is fictional. But I still disagree with you, Hannah Montana is a recording artist. She has produced recordings and albums, fictional characters don't get credited as an artist by sources like Amazon, Billboard, or iTunes. The name on the recording contract is irrelevant, because stage names can have discographies and lists of recordings. By that standard you can't have many of the articles listed in the category. (By the way Donald Duck is in Category:Ducks.) 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But Donald is listed under fictional ducks - he's not real, nor is Montana! It's a TV show! The main article says, quite clearly songs from the show, which are primarily, but not exclusively, Cyrus/Montana,Stewart. The links you gave above all clearly state Cyrus as Montana.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, they do not, the albums credit Hannah Montana as the recording artist. And I still find it ridiculous that the page cannot be in the category. She has put out albums, gone on stage, and is no more fictional than any other stage name. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, blow me, Hannah Montana, recording artist, doesn't even have a WP page. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recap

There is no article for the character “Hannah Montana”
The main article List of Hannah Montana songs relates to the TV series – not the character – and includes songs by other characters. You have continually refused to address this point.
Hanna Montana is a fictional character, NOT a stage name. As is Snow White...
Category:Lists of songs by recording artists contains real artists, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles.
If there was a Category:Lists of songs recorded by fictional recording artists then it might belong there (subject to point 2 above!)
If there was a List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus then there is a reasonable argument that List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana should redirect to that page. and the main article should be in Category:Lists of songs by recording artists
I deleted List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana as author. You recreated. Yet you quite rightly reverted my move from List of Hannah Montana songs to List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana – your position is now to support my incorrect move.
WP:RCAT is not applicable for all the reasons argued above – including some of your own arguments.
The external links you are supplied support my view of the matter.
When I re-added to back to Category:Lists of songs, where main article was before I became involved, you reverted me. This is pointy. It should be in Lists of songs until somebody creates Category:Lists of songs by TV series or similar.

In conclusion, you have not substantiated your position to include the main article, whether by direct or otherwise within Category:Lists of songs by recording artists because it is misleading, inaccurate and facetious. By all means tag the redirect as requiring input from other editors, if you so wish. Unless you do I will continue to remove Category:Lists of songs by recording artists for all the reasons stated above.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

1, Like I keep telling you, Hannah Montana is a legitimate stage name, not a character, she has been credited as a recording artist for songs, albums, and tours. 2, I have addressed this point above, the list also includes all songs recorded by Hannah Montana, and thus the redirect is correct, and can be categorized in accordance with the cited policy. 3, I don't understand your example, yes I know when I watch a movie I am watching a character, did that soundtrack credit a fictional character? 4 & 5, Hannah Montana is a real artist, she has recorded songs, performed live, at the beginning she was more famous than Destiny/Miley Cyrus, and is as real as any of the stage names listed in the category. 6, That article would have more songs that don't meet the criteria of the redirect than the current article. 7a, with my revert of your move, I created the first redirect (log), with the addition of the category I made a second edit, thus I was substantial author according to WP:CSD#G7, and you could not request deletion. 7b, You moved the page because you wanted all the articles in the category to have the correct name, I support you in this, you then changed your mind about what qualifies as a recording artist. 8, RCAT is of course applicable, if you believe Hannah Montana is a recording artist. I was educating you on it because I thought you were talking about Hannah Montana the TV series, you then clarified yourself, and explained you don't believe she is a recording artist. 9, how? I see Hannah Montana credited as a recording artist. 10, yes, I needed to revert you for you to explain your actions, that pages in the category have a naming convention. It looks like we have run out of reasons, you have no argument that she is not a recording artist, and I have no argument that she is a recording artist. Can I trust that you will obey WP:STATUSQUO, and leave the page in the category, until the matter is closed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I can only quote from one of the links YOU supplied (Amazon), Hannah Montana is a fictional character in a Disney Channel show of the same name. Having supplied that I still can't understand how you can call her "real!" There is a real difference between performer and performance. I am happy with the statusquo as before it was before I made my silly mistake. I am also happy that you have listed for RfD. Further comments will be made in the appropriate place and not here. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So to clarify, you are happy to revert to before your mistake? 117Avenue (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. T. Canens (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I violated no policy. A blockable edit war is where one edits a page more than three times in a 24 hour period, this was my first edit in six days. I also cited the policy that I was enforcing, and the consensus to make such an edit. You can find this above in the edits from 02:20, 3 October 2012 to 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC). As Timotheus Canens' notice states "during a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus", this is referring to the WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO guidelines. There is suggests that a page remains in its original state (in this case my first edit, or the target article being in the controversial category), while the proposed change (in this case being removed from the category) is being discussed, (an action User:Richhoncho did not start to explain until being reverted several times). Furthermore, the standard block for an edit war is 24 hours, a 3 day block is uncalled for, considering I received no warning. 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand our edit-warring policy. See WP:EW where it say "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear that I would have blocked you if the edit war had not stopped at the time of my writing, and you most certainly have seen it because you replied to it. And then? You went back and edit warred some more. Ergo, you get blocked. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I sustain that the edit was not to perpetuate an edit war, and that I was performing the edit that Richhoncho had agreed to above. 117Avenue (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The page is in the state it is, because I conceded to Richhoncho, and did not want to violate the 3RR. Why am I being blocked for believing in BRD and STATUSQUO? An edit war should not have to take place for the proposer to begin a discussion about the proposed changes. Richhoncho made all the same edits to this page, as well as violating these two guidelines. Why was he not blocked as well? Why was he allowed to revert me, claiming that I had made the proposal, when in reality I am trying to preserve the original state? Why, Timotheus Canens and Boing! said Zebedee, did you not address the fact that with this block you are violating these guidelines? 117Avenue (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither STATUSQUO nor BRD (and both are essays and not guidelines) mean what you seem to think they mean. STATUSQUO means that you are to leave the article in the state you find it (which is the "status quo" - "the current or existing state of affairs") until the discussion concludes. (You seem to be confusing the status quo and the status quo ante. They mean very different things.)

BRD means the same; you can be bold, but once you are reverted, you should stop and discuss; no more reverts. It does not matter whether someone else was also edit warring, whether they followed BRD or not; if you edit war you may get blocked. If someone else fails to follow BRD, don't revert them. Otherwise all you get is an edit war where both sides chant "but they didn't follow BRD!".

Finally, reverts during an ongoing discussion is extremely disfavored. Instigating a revert war while an RFC on the issue is ongoing is one sure way of getting yourself blocked, unless there's a BLP or copyright violation.

I gave Richhoncho a warning because their block log is clean and they haven't been previously warned. You got 72 hours because you have been blocked for edit warring before and you had notice that this is blockable at DRV. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yukon PC Party

The sources are http://yukonparty.ca/?page_id=89 and http://yukonparty.ca/?page_id=93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.1 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, although the Yukon Party forms the government, they are not an official source for the dates of the premierships. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't if it's an official source but, in the absence of an official source, is it a reliable source? Mountain Herb (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't follow. Neither of the links the IP has provided mention the dates for any premier's term dates. 117Avenue (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Drake Landing Solar Community

Hello, could you please expand on the reasons for your 'revert' on the Drake Landing Solar Community Page? My partner and I are from Mount Allison University and as part of a class project are enhancing this article. We do realize we had left some headlines without information and as we are new to Wikipedia we are learning to do it properly. From now on we will update this article in one edit to ensure all the information is coherent and put up at the same time. Just wondering if that was the reason for your revert or what we can do better on next time to ensure we are enhancing the article to the best of our abilities. Thank you. Caboothby (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)caboothby

Wow, congratulations on taking up this endeavour. Most of my Wikipedia time is spent on patrolling for vandalism. When I see a low key article, like this small city neighbourhood, expand massively with well written content, I assume it was just copied and pasted from a copyrighted source. I apologize. Irregularities I noticed were, its repetition of Okotoks being in Alberta, the location and history of Okotoks, a citation to Wikipedia, and empty sections. The lead section is meant to summarize the contents of the page. As this article is not that large, this becomes difficult, but there shouldn't be a reason to mention Alberta or Canada again after the first sentence. The location of Okotoks is not only false precision, but is better suited for the Okotoks article, not the neighbourhood. An encyclopaedia cannot reference itself, it should cite reliable external sources. The cite toolbar makes making cite templates easy. The creation of empty sections is just sloppy work, doesn't look good, and does not add anything to the article. I do look forward to this article being updated. Thanks for the hard work, 117Avenue (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

List of mines in Temagami

Whether you like it or not it does belong in the template. Temagami is in Ontario and that list is a sublist of List of mines in Ontario. Volcanoguy 03:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind my bad. I thought it was a template for mine lists in Canada because I clicked edit on the template in List of mines in Quebec. But for some reason I can't add List of mines in Temagami just for the mine list portion of that template. Is there some way to add the Temagami list with Ontario in that template? Volcanoguy 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Create a template for lists of mines in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Premiers

You wrote: "the Parliament of Canada is not an official source for the governments of the provinces, this reference applies a date convention that defies the previous content, and the date convention used by referenced articles"

Actually, the parl.gc.ca is produced by the Library of Parliament. The Library of Parliament is - a library. I would say that's a fairly good source, wouldn't you? Mountain Herb (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canada#Term dates, again. 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That source is unreliable, MH. The PEI premiers list prooves that instantly. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Subdivisions of Alberta

Excellent expansion of the above template – well done! This has triggered a reminder to make a revision to List of Indian reserves in Alberta that I've been meaning to do for some time now (separation of Indian reserves and settlements into different lists). you may want to follow suit with a tweak to this template so that Indian settlements are separated, located between Indian reserves and Métis settlements. Hwy43 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So it gets even more complicated, great. I think it may be time to bring up how to handle these articles again. 117Avenue (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment triggered a reminder of my growing dissatisfaction with List of communities in Alberta. All the various combinations and permutations of communities in Alberta are confusing and complicated as there are numerous entities that classify communities. Thus, I have created the following thinking they may resolve some confusion and complication.

Thoughts? They each need further refinement, but are of a sufficient state to absorb and digest for feedback. Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, from an educated stand point. With this, it is possible to begin speaking above people's heads. You are the only person on Wikipedia who understands all of this technical stuff. It keeps me learning, by the way thank you for that interesting fact on Peace River. But I worry that this may cause confusion for the casual Wikipedia browser. I don't want to stop the writing of a smart and intelligent encyclopaedia, but I think about myself using it before I got an account. I just wanted a quick list of counties in Alberta, or to compare the population of that foreign city to Edmonton. We are stuck (for now anyways) with the way things were set up, in regards to consistency between the provinces, and how things were thought to exist, by the users who came before us. I go through {{Canada topic|List of communities in}}, and all I see is a smattering of place names. Alberta, and maybe Saskatchewan, are the only ones that I think are properly written. Perhaps there is a trend, with the properly written articles at {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}, and everything or the remainder in "list of communities in". Is everything in your "List of municipalities in Alberta" page covered in "List of communities in Alberta"? In that case it doesn't make sense to split them. But if the purpose is to move away from the badly written "list of communities in" articles, to an informational explanation of the municipality system in an unfamiliar place, perhaps this is a good option. (Now speaking about all three you've listed) I feel that all provinces and territories should move ahead in progress, not a single province acting alone. A user shouldn't have to navigate from List of municipalities in Alberta to List of communities in Prince Edward Island. 117Avenue (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything in "municipalities" (sandbox) is covered in "communities" (sandbox), except the former includes and explains the groupings of urban and rural municipal status types whereas the latter does not. Some of the confusion with "communities" (article space) is inclusion of the two groupings. Urban and rural municipalities aren't communities, they are types of municipalities, where municipalities are the actual communities. The intent would be more so to provide an informational explanation of the structure and hierarchy of municipalities at "municipalities", while to not bog down the reader at "communities" with extraneous details about the structure and hierarchy of municipalities, especially since "communities" lists unincorporated entities in addition to municipalities.

You are right. All provinces and territories should move ahead in progress. An expert from each province and territory would be needed to confirm accuracy of a consistent set of municipalities articles, and then subsequent adjustments would be required at the communities articles. Each would take sometime, whereas census subdivisions articles could be very quickly established for all in a consistent format using open data tables from StatCan. Such was used to create the tables within {{Canada topic|List of designated places in}} and {{Canada topic|List of population centres in}} articles, as well as the "List of census agglomerations in" articles (no Canada topic for that yet). Hwy43 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you've thought this through, and developed a good plan. Well done. By the way {{Canada topic|List of census agglomerations in}} works. Template:Canada topic is a generic navbox, made to prevent dozens of similar ones to be created. Instead of creating Template:Lists of mines in Canada by province or territory one can use Template:Canada topic, putting the navigation identifier into the first parameter creates a navbox to that page on other provinces. Unfortunately there are down sides, you cannot add a link, articles that don't exist are red linked, and someone clicking edit may think they are fixing that specific template, not realizing the template is on over 450 pages. Such an edit was made a week ago, see List of mines in Temagami above. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

revision to BC gen election 2001

This is Skookum 1, that was me who made the change about Official Opposition status after the 2001 election; I followed that closely at the time, it was all over the Vancouver Sun and Province and Times-Colonist and Monday Magazine and Georgia Straight and more at the time, and was very controversial as the absence of an LOO technically made a violation of the constitution. Party status was used as an excuse to deny Joy MacPhail her LOO status and budget and office space, and it was scandalous and observed even by the major media as being mean-spirited. What was there before my edit was highly POV by being a whitewash and was not referenced; you are an Albertan and not as informed about BC politics as I am, but if you consulted other BC editors you'd find the same as I have said; look at coverage from the time, I don't have time or energy right now as I'm on the road abroad....but I remember this well; you can call me "original research" all you want, but with that being unreferenced (and unreferenceable) then what was there was "original research"; only by selective use of the references, i.e. POV tained referencing, would it be possible to claim that. And I don't recall the Speaker being the one doing the denying, it was Campbell; maybe via the mouthpiece of the Speaker but I don't remember it that way AT ALL. And I have a VERY GOOD memory. Spin doctor work evidence across all BC political articles, from both sides; often very subtle but among those subtle ones, like this one, some of the worst lies of all.112.209.90.167 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it had as much POV as what you wrote. It just stated the facts, a party with two seats does not get official party status. If multiple sources called this controversial, you shouldn't have a problem referencing it. You recognize that there are two sides to this story, you should also recognize that others don't want your opinion pushed down their throat, and to feel how you do now. 117Avenue (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with arguing with GoodDay, he's shown himself time and again to be a right-wing squirmer. This is Skookum1, weighing in from halfway around the world and not wanting to sign in and re-engage my old wiki-addiction, but when looking up stuff like this I expect accuracy, not partisan distortions as was the case when I found this. I followed this election coverage closely at the time and remember it all very well. GoodDay asserts in his edit comments that the Premier did not have the power to withhold official party status, by implication he did not have the power to withhold Leader of the Opposition status, but that's exactly what he did. Theoretical powers vs what was actually done are two entirely different things. It was a Liberal contention - i.e. a POV contention - that the NDP not qualifying for official party status was why Official Opposition status was conferred. But these are two constitutionally different things; one, the rules for official party status are yes a provincial matter, governed by the Speaker. But designation of the Leader of the Official Opposition is a constitutional matter and is conferred by the President of the Privy Council, i.e. the Premier, and is NOT tied (legally or constitutionally) to oficial party status; given that such a position existed in BC 1871-2003 even before there were official parties in the House is proof enough of this, but go ahead look it up. What was in this article before was a Liberal whitewash, and not even the MSM supported it, there's all kinds of op-ed from the time castigating Campbell for his mean-spiritedness. Normally the LOO gets support staff and a higher paycheque and higher expenses; instead she (or "she who should have been LOO") was made to to share a broom closet (literally, as that was the room had been used for before) and also denied the usual debate and speaking schedule due an LOO in the House of any provincial legislature. Surely you remember the case in New Brunswick when there was a complete government shut=out of all seats and the Premier appointed a member of the general public (who was a member of the opposition party, true enough, though without a seat) because it was a constitutional requirement that there BE a Leader of the Oppostion in order for the Privy Council to be properly constituted. I'm in no mood to have to backsource all the coverage of this in newspapers and magazines from teh time; but what was there was uncitable, except by way of citing government pronouncements on thier partisan logic/rationale, not in terms of actual media coverage of "verifiability". What was there was false, POV and uncited; I corrected it, and it's been washed over again now...I know, or think I recall, that you are of conservative dint somewhat yourself but are a bit more sophisticated than the others and more amenable to actual legality and constitutionality; not the whitewash thereof.......the bits about Joy McPhail not having proper office or budget or salary due an LOO are perfectly valid and totally citable (actually I met her socially through work and raised it, and her eyes widened that someone knew about this and the actual technicalities); but I'm in a beachtown in the Gulf of Thailand and in no mood to have to conduct a link war/ edit war over this....but this kind of twisted "neutrality" is one reason I left Wikipedia...and a reminder to me of how biased neutral=sounding language and cherry picking of references can produce an utter falsehood which others will take, wrongly, as encyclopedic in origin. Please reply if any to the mailme at User:Skookum1, I won't have this watchlisted.223.204.226.46 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is a poorly written article, until a couple of weeks ago there were no references on it. I certainly welcome more, and other improvements, but don't want to spend my time there. I am concerned the article on the upcoming election is going down the unreferenced path as well. Given our history, I don't feel comfortable e-mailing you, as this would give you my e-mail address. 117Avenue (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I"m staying away from Wikipedia as much as possible though have been doing stray maintenance edits of late, when spotted. Thsi one just galled me because it was so clearly partisan; just so long as there's someone aware out there of this problem, and in general I bemoaned the lack of politically astute editors capable of cutting through the admin mumbo jumbo to make sure truth asserted itself; it's a bottomless pit of spin, with so many IP and SPA editors and others "working" on such articles, typically with a partisan agenda or at leaste a neophyte adoption of media memes, that it makes Wikipedia's role as a political encyclopedia worthless; I'd much rather have spent time building the historical political bios and historical election scenarioes from the 19th Century that finding myself battled a tide of p.r. spew on all sides. One of the problem with CAnadian political articles, to a lesser degree in the US because of the more diverse spectrum of "verifiable" and "reliable" publications there, is that the mainstream media is given the weight of evidenc,e as supposed "papers of record", when their record is actually demonstrably partisan, as are their managements and their political donations; with well=informed blogs and independent sources being dismissed by the naive or the clever, whichever, as "only opinion" in the same breath as defending opinion masquerading as news in the "reliable" and "verifiable" major media.......in other words, until Wikipedia as an organism/community can address the problem of sources and keep the politically devious and/or innocent from "equalizing" all articles, it is useless as a historical document....and very much a platform for biased distortions of history, as here......BC politics in particular is so thorny and so twisted it would take a lifetime to try and address it properly, and it's impossibe to be "fair" when the respective POVs are so hostile and somewhat ruthless...I throw my hands up at it, which is why I"m not working in jounralism, or in history....so much work would be required here that the "no paid editing" thing becomes spurious, because it's clear some paid operatives are here working for p.r. agencies or even for parties and candidates, but others without the time/money to be at it full time keeping them at bay are shut out by the necessities of life......anyways this particular item is a bit of a hard core one, and bitter; the BC Rail stuff even moreso but again events have swept it aside, though the truth itself is "out there" no one has time to make sense of it all to be put on here properly; and there will be spin agents out there washing it away over time anyway, as was done wit hthe political aspects of the Olympics articles.....by people from outside claiming that because they'd never heard of somjething or didn't care, it didn't matter....anyway, back to the tropic night; thanks for replying, keep an eye on stuff like that, and it sounds like the ongoing input of spew is already underway with current articles; not surprsiing at all, and a good reason to remind me not to come back.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edmonton Tornado

I based the table off the one I saw on the Regina Cyclone article. So then is it improper to have it there as well? Thanks Kyle1278 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point. The article is on one tornado, and the list consists of one entry. 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok make sense I removed the table from the Regina Cyclone article as well. Kyle1278 04:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

118 Avenue

Stupid Canadians and their different ways of doing things. I did not know that you don't add the "st" and "th" and "rd" to your street numbers. 67.137.68.210 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe it is a Canadian thing, but a choice of every municipality. The portion of Sherwood Park inside Edmonton's ring road (Anthony Henday Drive), uses Edmonton's system of numbering most of its streets and avenues, but they do use ordinals. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office

Do you disagree with the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office to merge articles? If not, then please merge the articles properly if you do not like the way it's been done rather than delete the information. If you do disagree, then I'm afraid your desire does not overrule the conclusion of the AFD. 184.148.70.65 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that all valuable content from the articles that were up for deletion, already exists in the lists they were to be merged into, duplicating this data does not improve the articles, and all of the editors who commented in the discussion agree with me, because no edits were made to the lists during the week long discussion, or the week after. 117Avenue (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're interpretation is correct then the result of the AFD would have been Delete instead of Merge. Please cease and desist your obstruction of any attempt to implement the AFD result. 68.171.231.80 (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in, but 117Avenue, I'm seeing what you're seeing: I don't see anything in the list by time in office that isn't already in the master list. To the unregistered user: what are (were) you seeing in the list by time in office that wasn't merged in? —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Calculation of years/days in office, ranking by length of time in office. 68.171.231.86 (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Calculation of years/days in office is done, on a per-term basis. The table is not sortable by any categorization, because some PMs' terms span multiple parliaments, and some parliaments have multiple PMs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by tenure 68.171.231.85 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

IP, I have reverted your gross duplication of data. Adding of the length of time in office worked for List of premiers of Manitoba, except that it is still unreferenced original research, and there there were Premiers who had two terms. 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)