User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2014.2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:117Avenue. 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. |
Tees Alberta
- Tees Alberta
I am not going to pursue the edit for Tees, Alberta. Even going to the references for beginners, doesnt make sense to me. I can tell you that I was watching the episode Criminal Minds Season 9 Episode 23 "Angels" ChrisP218 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not only was the statement unreferenced, it was not clear how the event is notable to the place's history, or its relevance in the article. 117Avenue (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Canadian election icons
About my edits on Canadian federal election, 2008 and Canadian federal election, 2011:
All other wikipedia pages on parliamentary elections, from the UK to the US to India to Cambodia, use the 
and 
icons. Canada seems to be the only country without the icons. Why would this be an MOS:ICON violation? Llightex (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- They may be used, but they're mentioned nowhere on Template:Infobox election. They assume a reader knows what a coloured triangle means. Does it mean that number will go up? Does it mean that is the number that has already been added? Does it mean the number is currently rising? I don't think their interpretation will be clear. 117Avenue (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Did you look at the example articles that I put? I don't think that symbols that are unclear would be used so widely in almost every Infobox election. Llightex (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Libertarians? - Ontario election
I have started a discussion about the Libertarians in the candidate section of the Ontario election article, I thought you might want to join in. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to discuss opinion polling matter
Hi 117Avenue,
As a fellow regular contributor to opinion polls sections on various Canadian election pages, would you care to weigh in on this debate over whether to show "all voters" or "likely voters" results for polls in the ongoing Ontario election? Cheers. -Undermedia (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Alberta places
Hello. You recently reverted a number of page moves by CambridgeBayWeather. While I have no doubt that you had reasonable concerns and motives, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles is quite clear that if you disagree with the suitability of a page move that has already taken place, do not move the page back to the disambiguated title arbitrarily, but rather start a discussion. At a minimum, please raise the issue with CBWeather, or initiate a move discussion on the talk page. Basic courtesy would have suggested that you first contact the very approachable and reasonable CBWeather to discuss your concerns (he didn't deserve your "undiscussed move" edit summaries, which imply that his moves were inappropriate, when in fact he was acting in accordance with the applicable MOS). Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please read WP:MOVE, pages should not be moved if the move is controversial. If you or another user would like to request a move, please start a discussion, rather than starting a move war, then asking for a discussion to start. I was simply reverting the edit, so that it could be discussed properly. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No. The moves were on their face uncontroversial. There was no edit history or past discussion to suggest the move was controversial. If you know of issues or have concerns, CANSTYLE is explicit as to what you should do. You knew very well what the applicable MOS says about reverting, as well as the kind of courtesies we expect from editors. Next time please show some basic courtesy and respect and raise the issue with the editor in question. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- A move that is contested is, almost by definition, controversial. WP:BRD also applies here. Unless you can show that 117Avenue was acting in bad faith, I'm going to have to agree with him. Resolute 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. There is no policy whatsoever preventing BOLD moves and the applicable MOS here expressly permits it. It is unclear how CBW was to know that the move of a few stubs was, in 117Avenue's opinion, controversial - as best as I can tell the usual signposts for a controversial move (past discussions, past moves) did not exist here (117Avenue can let us know if I have missed something). 117Avenue specifically refers to WP:MOVE, which says "If you believe the move might be controversial..." - it does not require the mover to have ESP or predict the future. So no the move wasn't "controversial on its face" because 117Avenue subsequently disagreed with it. And WP:BRD, an essay, doesn't trump the applicable guideline (WP:CANSTYLE). CBW moved the article in accordance with WP:CANSTYLE. There was nothing wrong with what he did. 117Avenue was absolutely entitled to have concerns with the moves. Ideally he would have shown some basic courtesy and left a note on CBW's talk page to express his concerns (and CBW has recently indicated that he would have been open to such discussions). At a minimum, he ought not to have ignored the process set out in the guideline or left edit summaries which implies that CBW had done something wrong. His behaviour did not constitute bad faith, but it wasn't good. The irony here is that this probably would have been resolved in a satisfactory fashion between he and CBW if he'd simply alerted CBW to his concerns.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I notified interested users by editing Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/List of undisambiguated communities. My intention was to write disambiguation pages, and clean up links, in order to rectify some improperly named pages. Skeezix1000's edits to Template:Subdivisions of Alberta will make that more difficult, so my beef is more so with Skeezix1000, than CambridgeBayWeather, who I know is approachable (although he could have used better edit summaries). Skeezix1000, I am going to use your argument against you, if "there was no edit history or past discussion" about moving an article, how could an editor know that an article should be moved? (BTW: I have discussed it with you before.) Guidelines should not be a free licence to move pages without consequences, if WP:CANSTYLE currently reads like it is, it should be rewritten. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in responding. Your edits to WP:CANLIST aren't a substitute for following applicable guideline - unclear how that is relevant. Any edits I did were to clean up the problems you had created - if you didn't like them, you ought not to have created the problem in the first place. And I am dumbfounded by your question "how could an editor know that an article should be moved?" - we have a naming convention which clearly indicates which articles can be moved and how. You are entitled to disagree and raise concerns, but you are not entitled to revert without initiating a discussion. And I am glad that you have referred to our previous discussions, where you showed me the same lack of courtesy than you later failed to show CBW and in which you acknowledged that WP:CANSTYLE prohibited reverts but (somehow) you seemed to think that you should not have to follow such a rule. That's why I find your current claims of not having known what WP:CANSTYLE says to be so disingenuous. WP:CANSTYLE is not a "free license to move page without consequences" -- unclear how you could come to that conclusion. CANSTYLE is quite clear as to what can be moved (in fact, there is no rule on Wikipedia anywhere that says that you can never make BOLD moves) and provides direction if there is disagreement. Nobody can move pages willy nilly and leave others without recourse. If you disagree with a guideline, then propose changes (rather than violating it). Although the issue you seem to have here is not just with CANSTYLE. Anyway, you eventually did the right thing - you initiated WP:RM discussions and actually articulated your concerns. Please do the same next time, instead of reverting and leaving edit summaries that imply inappropriate behavious by others. CBW is a hard-working editor who moved those articles in good faith. Regardless of whether or not some his decisions needed to examined more closely, he deserved better than the treatment he got from you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am going to have to continue to disagree with you that the revert was wrong. At least one other user agrees with me, as well as other BRD believers. You seem to be holding onto that one sentence in CANSTYLE as if it was one powerful rule everyone must know and follow. CANSTYLE is written in a reactionary form, it is rewritten as the consensus of style amongst Canadian articles change. Rather than having a discussion on an MOS talk page about the wording of rules, before those rules go into effect on the articles. I hope Bearcat can back me up on this, as he has written much of CANSTYLE. I almost treat CANSTYLE more of an essay than a guideline. I am glad to see that you are still passionate about talking about what CANSTYLE says, and I look forward to your comments in Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities#Starting the primary topic discussion. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the rules don't apply to you, 117Avenue. Alone among all Wikipedia users, you get to deem them to whatever you want them to be, and to disregard them at will. Nice. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- CANSTYLE, for the record, is not an "essay" — rather, it's a summary of the actual state of consensus for Canadian-specific matters, as determined by a substantial volume of discussion and debate (i.e. exactly the mechanisms by which consensus is established on Wikipedia in the first place.) While it's true that I wrote a lot of what's currently in CANSTYLE, the document is not a recitation of rules that I made up myself by plucking random diktats out of a hat — WikiProject Canada as a whole established the rules through past discussions and debates and battles royale, and I just happen to be the person who often volunteers to summarize them in that document (though I'm far from the only one who does so). And, in fact, I even disagree with some of the existing consensus — I would much prefer to keep films from Quebec at their original titles, for example (I don't for one second believe that there are even five people on the planet who know Jean-Claude Lauzon's 1987 film by the English title Night Zoo instead of the original French Un zoo la nuit), but I wrote the WP:CANFRENCH section anyway, because the consensus is what it is. So it is a real guideline and not just an "essay".
- While it's true that consensus can change over time, further, that's done by proposing consensus changes for discussion and debate — it's not appropriate to just arbitrarily decree that the existing consensus doesn't apply to you just because you disagree with it. You're absolutely allowed to disagree with a page move, you're absolutely allowed to have different opinions on what the consensus should be, and you're absolutely allowed to express those opinions and try to convince other Wikipedians to join your side. But if you want the existing consensus to change, you need to follow the mechanisms and procedures that we already have in place (talk pages, etc.) for that — but until it does change, you do need to respect and follow the current consensus whether you agree with it or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, I just don't like how Skeezix1000 calls something an essay as if it means no one agrees with it. 117Avenue (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey - I said no such thing. I routinely cite essays (WP:BRD and WP:ANC jump to mind). Some of the best advice on Wikipedia is in essays. What I actually said was that one can't point to essays as an excuse to ignore guidelines, nor do essays trump guidelines. Essays always need to be read in light of the applicable policy and/or guideline. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, I just don't like how Skeezix1000 calls something an essay as if it means no one agrees with it. 117Avenue (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am going to have to continue to disagree with you that the revert was wrong. At least one other user agrees with me, as well as other BRD believers. You seem to be holding onto that one sentence in CANSTYLE as if it was one powerful rule everyone must know and follow. CANSTYLE is written in a reactionary form, it is rewritten as the consensus of style amongst Canadian articles change. Rather than having a discussion on an MOS talk page about the wording of rules, before those rules go into effect on the articles. I hope Bearcat can back me up on this, as he has written much of CANSTYLE. I almost treat CANSTYLE more of an essay than a guideline. I am glad to see that you are still passionate about talking about what CANSTYLE says, and I look forward to your comments in Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities#Starting the primary topic discussion. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in responding. Your edits to WP:CANLIST aren't a substitute for following applicable guideline - unclear how that is relevant. Any edits I did were to clean up the problems you had created - if you didn't like them, you ought not to have created the problem in the first place. And I am dumbfounded by your question "how could an editor know that an article should be moved?" - we have a naming convention which clearly indicates which articles can be moved and how. You are entitled to disagree and raise concerns, but you are not entitled to revert without initiating a discussion. And I am glad that you have referred to our previous discussions, where you showed me the same lack of courtesy than you later failed to show CBW and in which you acknowledged that WP:CANSTYLE prohibited reverts but (somehow) you seemed to think that you should not have to follow such a rule. That's why I find your current claims of not having known what WP:CANSTYLE says to be so disingenuous. WP:CANSTYLE is not a "free license to move page without consequences" -- unclear how you could come to that conclusion. CANSTYLE is quite clear as to what can be moved (in fact, there is no rule on Wikipedia anywhere that says that you can never make BOLD moves) and provides direction if there is disagreement. Nobody can move pages willy nilly and leave others without recourse. If you disagree with a guideline, then propose changes (rather than violating it). Although the issue you seem to have here is not just with CANSTYLE. Anyway, you eventually did the right thing - you initiated WP:RM discussions and actually articulated your concerns. Please do the same next time, instead of reverting and leaving edit summaries that imply inappropriate behavious by others. CBW is a hard-working editor who moved those articles in good faith. Regardless of whether or not some his decisions needed to examined more closely, he deserved better than the treatment he got from you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I notified interested users by editing Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/List of undisambiguated communities. My intention was to write disambiguation pages, and clean up links, in order to rectify some improperly named pages. Skeezix1000's edits to Template:Subdivisions of Alberta will make that more difficult, so my beef is more so with Skeezix1000, than CambridgeBayWeather, who I know is approachable (although he could have used better edit summaries). Skeezix1000, I am going to use your argument against you, if "there was no edit history or past discussion" about moving an article, how could an editor know that an article should be moved? (BTW: I have discussed it with you before.) Guidelines should not be a free licence to move pages without consequences, if WP:CANSTYLE currently reads like it is, it should be rewritten. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all. There is no policy whatsoever preventing BOLD moves and the applicable MOS here expressly permits it. It is unclear how CBW was to know that the move of a few stubs was, in 117Avenue's opinion, controversial - as best as I can tell the usual signposts for a controversial move (past discussions, past moves) did not exist here (117Avenue can let us know if I have missed something). 117Avenue specifically refers to WP:MOVE, which says "If you believe the move might be controversial..." - it does not require the mover to have ESP or predict the future. So no the move wasn't "controversial on its face" because 117Avenue subsequently disagreed with it. And WP:BRD, an essay, doesn't trump the applicable guideline (WP:CANSTYLE). CBW moved the article in accordance with WP:CANSTYLE. There was nothing wrong with what he did. 117Avenue was absolutely entitled to have concerns with the moves. Ideally he would have shown some basic courtesy and left a note on CBW's talk page to express his concerns (and CBW has recently indicated that he would have been open to such discussions). At a minimum, he ought not to have ignored the process set out in the guideline or left edit summaries which implies that CBW had done something wrong. His behaviour did not constitute bad faith, but it wasn't good. The irony here is that this probably would have been resolved in a satisfactory fashion between he and CBW if he'd simply alerted CBW to his concerns.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- A move that is contested is, almost by definition, controversial. WP:BRD also applies here. Unless you can show that 117Avenue was acting in bad faith, I'm going to have to agree with him. Resolute 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No. The moves were on their face uncontroversial. There was no edit history or past discussion to suggest the move was controversial. If you know of issues or have concerns, CANSTYLE is explicit as to what you should do. You knew very well what the applicable MOS says about reverting, as well as the kind of courtesies we expect from editors. Next time please show some basic courtesy and respect and raise the issue with the editor in question. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Karen Casey
I had meant to include a question mark after my revert to an unconfirmed editor edit as vandalism. However, I have to wonder whether a 67-year-old Canadian politician from Nova Scotia could possibly be confused with an Irish folk singer? Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't like that template either, hat notes should explain the difference in order to help users. 117Avenue (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As a fellow Alberta political articles editor, do you any thoughts on the "Controversy" section at Thomas Lukaszuk? I feel that it's quite poorly written and sourced, and possibly ripe with WP:SYNTH/WP:OR violations. I feel that it should be pruned down, but would like to hear your thoughts... Connormah (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see a number of references, so I wouldn't outright remove it. I don't think I have time to delve into every little fact. Sorry, 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Create Relief Map for southern Ontario
I see your name on the political map of southern Ontario (see Canada Southern Ontario location map 2.png at the Commons) used at {{Location map Canada Southern Ontario}} and {{Geobox locator Southern Ontario}}. Often there is a relief map counterpart to the political map. Do you have the capability to create such a map? The relief map of all Ontario is at Canada Ontario relief location map.jpg at the Commons. --papageno (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if this comment was overlooked accidentally? --papageno (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, I just haven't had the time. I guess all that's needed is to crop the image. Sigh.... 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's OK. I just wanted to know if you had the capability to do it. If you don't have the time to do so at the moment, that's fine.
--papageno (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Qui1che: Sorry, totally did not intend to wait three weeks, wow time flies sometimes. I've uploaded it, what do you think? 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I presume you mean Canada Southern Ontario relief location map.jpg at the Commons. Looks very sharp. Many thanks for your help. I see you added the map already to the code for the {{Location map Canada Southern Ontario}} template; I've now added it to the documentation as well, and to {{Geobox locator Southern Ontario}}. --papageno (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Qui1che: Sorry, totally did not intend to wait three weeks, wow time flies sometimes. I've uploaded it, what do you think? 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's OK. I just wanted to know if you had the capability to do it. If you don't have the time to do so at the moment, that's fine.
- No, I just haven't had the time. I guess all that's needed is to crop the image. Sigh.... 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy Wong
Jimmy Wong's birthdate can be found at this IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4136296/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.36.68 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- IMDb is not a reliable source, it relies on users' submissions, it probably has the wrong date because the Wikipedia article had the wrong date. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, found it. His birthday can be found on his official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/therealjimmy/info (states March 28, 1987). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.36.68 (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- And that facebook page is linked to from the YouTube page, hard to argue with that. 117Avenue (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, found it. His birthday can be found on his official Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/therealjimmy/info (states March 28, 1987). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.36.68 (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If this is the case, I'd prefer to see a consistent categorization approach to all member articles of all Alberta municipal categories. The town and village cats should be consistent with all the others, which was my biggest beef yesterday. Hwy43 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. When I instituted it in April all the municipality type categories either had all the municipalities listed in them (Ponoka in towns), or were further sub-categorized (Wetaskiwin in cities). 117Avenue (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't all cities then be redundantly listed twice at Category:Cities in Alberta then? And same for all other municipality type cats? Hwy43 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly. I don't know. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Given neither of us know, I have asked the question. Hwy43 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly. I don't know. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't all cities then be redundantly listed twice at Category:Cities in Alberta then? And same for all other municipality type cats? Hwy43 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Deadmonton
Why would someone want to further a stereotype that simply isn't true? I notice that on Toronto's page there isn't "Centre of the Universe" as a nickname. Nicknames for people, places, and things come and go as their relevance dictates. Edmonton simply isn't "Deadmonton", and why someone would want this on the go-to source for a user when looking up the city, I have no idea. Are you telling me that I could go edit Toronto's page right now to say "commonly known as 'The Centre of the Universe" and not a single person would have an issue and agree with me that "...even disparaging nicknames are acceptable on Wikipedia"? Edmonton is simply not "Deadmonton"; no self-respecting Edmontonian with any ounce of civic pride at all would ever refer to us as such. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwc.goebel (talk • contribs) 06:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deletion ETS LRT
Why did you delete the recent addition to the LRT page from Edmonton? It was backed by sources and is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are you refering to this edit? In your addition you wrote "the likely LRV is probably either a Bombardier Flexity tram, or an Alstom Citadis tram." This is original research. In such a highly contested article original research gets removed. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)