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.
No I wasn't making a test 117Avenue. There was no indication that it was a test. I thought that the reference of the Michel Calahoo Reserve should link to the Michel Band page. I reworded the sentence a bit to make it make more sense. If you don't like how the wording I used, that's fine, I just want the link to stand.
I would like to know why you reverted my edits to several pages. I spent a fair bit of time making these maps using data freely available to the public. I don't have a lot of experience on wikipedia, but I would like to learn more about the process. I like to share data so that all will benefit. These map links were added to the external links sections on Feb 24, 2016. Can you please explain why you removed the map links that I put on the following pages?
Wikipedia has an external link guideline that ensures the encyclopedic nature of its articles. It is too extensive to go through here, but the Links normally to be avoided section lists the links that are most commonly added. When a user adds links to their website from multiple articles it is seen as spamming; whether it is a conflict of interest, or promotion, it is disruptive behaviour, and will be reverted swiftly. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
---
I still don't understand after doing some reading. I am not asking you to go through Wikipedia's external link guideline, since I've already looked at it. The section "Links normally to be avoided" doesn't mention anything about maps, which the links in question are. I can't seem to find any policy regarding links to maps, which are, in my opinion, invaluable for illustration of geographical features. It is not my website that I am linking to; it is a GIS hosting website of ESRI. It is not a conflict of interest since the data is from the Government of Alberta, which is the source of the original data. It is not a promotion because no product or service is being sold. I am simply trying to help the public be aware of the geography of the areas. Please help me to understand how this may be disruptive to you or anyone else. Geographical features are of interest to both of us, so hopefully we can co-operate on this subject. Cpowiki (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it does the opposite. It checks if there is something in the suffix or 1 parameters, then outputs that (with preference to suffix). If they are both empty, or not present, it outputs the word article. What template is this for? Looking at your contributions you don't appear to be editing temple related articles or templates, did you mean template code? 117Avenue (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Prefix and suffix are odd names for parameters, but it appears they edit the words around the word "biographical". Since you are wanting to change the wording of the template, and its parameter use, I suggest you discuss your proposal on the talk page there. Maybe you can get an explanation of why the current wording was chosen, and how the use of the parameters were chosen. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Calgary 2016 Rebrand
Hello Wiki User,
I have no idea how uninformed you are about the City of Calgary but we recently went through a new rebranding that shows a simplistic version of the Calgary coat of arms in grey with the word "calgary" in red. As far as transit goes the "CT" logo has been retired since 2014. To learn more about the 2016 rebranding please visit www.calgary.ca
@HunterS117: I'm sorry, I couldn't find anything there about an official logo , and searching for "rebranding" turned up nothing. May you point me to something more specific? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for the information, I have never heard of the sandbox, but I will keep the link and experiment there. I tried to delete this once I found the reply box on the message you sent me, but I couldn't. Sorry for wasting your time. :)
Please do not delete the page Josh Blaylock I spent a lot of time creating the page. He is a well known actor and if you allow the page Johanna Braddy to remain on the site then it makes absolutely no sense that you would remove Blaylock. Please allow me time to add sources to the article and do not delete it as I spent a lot of time fixing the page. Inexpiable (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the page. I've noticed you do it multiple times now. Not sure what exactly you have against the guy but it seems as though it's personal. Eight references is more than enough for him to remain on Wikipedia as a well recognized actor who will continue to star in upcoming projects no doubt. There are plenty of other actors with pages that are allowed to remain with much less references and notability. I've put hard work into creating the relevant tables for the page. I implore you to drop this now and leave the page be.Inexpiable (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As I've tried to explain, all the references do is prove his existence, none of them meet Wikipedia's requirement for notability. It's not personal, I want a good encyclopedia written, so I will continue advocate for well written, well sourced articles. If this pushes you to find good references, and write a better article, we both get what we want. But, the article as it is currently written, does not belong in Wikipedia's main space. If you would like to save the content, and work on it without my interference, start a draft. Once you believe it is ready, you can get experienced users to review it, and bring it to the main space. Thank-you, 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean seriously how much more proof do you need? Look at this page: Warehouse 13 (season 4) and note how all the actors listed have their own Wikipedia pages. Josh Blaylock is effectively the only actor who will be listed that doesn't have his own page if you continue to delete it. I feel I could add a hundred references with news sources to the page and you'd still revert it so please stop. Based on your requirements for pages every actor on that page will have to be deleted. Inexpiable (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A fair few articles for actors existing on Wikipedia don't have news sources. You obviously feel strongly about it and must have a personal dislike to him. Maybe you knew him or something I don't know but I have better things to do than continually argue about it. Inexpiable (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I am not a "new editor" I'm a very advanced veteran editor and know how the site works, check out some of the other pages I've created based on more serious stuff relating to real crimes. There are two problems with your argument. First of all, that page was deleted in 2007, 9 years ago, seriously a lot has changed since then. Also, it appears to be a different Josh Blaylock. I understand actors need to meet certain requirements but Josh Blaylock is pretty well known. He's had 3 lead roles in Video Game High School, Warehouse 13 and Red Dead Redemption. Likely to continue to star in upcoming projects including the protagonist in Red Dead Redemption 2 (an actual page about a FICTIONAL CHARACTER that exists on Wikipedia by the way) when it's released. Constantly reverting pages is just a little petty in my opinion. Inexpiable (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It's also extremely frustrating to spend a lot of time creating tables and editing them only for someone to come along and delete all your hard work. Inexpiable (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware that you got the information from the demographics section, and I had hoped that I explained myself in the edit summary. I thought that the boundaries of designated areas for Statistics Canada's purposes was bigger than the actual hamlet. But reading the 2010 discussion again I realize that that was Industry Canada, not Statistics Canada. Hwy43 usually updates the populations for Alberta places. @Hwy43: is there a reason why you haven't been putting designated place populations in hamlet infoboxes? 117Avenue (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
OhanaUnited – Unfortunately StatCan does a poor job of delineating designated places (DPLs) that are also hamlets. While some DPLs have boundaries that match actual hamlet boundaries, most do not. The DPLs can end up being larger or smaller than actual hamlet boundaries.
117Avenue – If I recall correctly, when I updated Alberta community articles with population counts from the 2011 federal census, I did the demographics sections of municipalities first, then did their infoboxes, and then did the demographics sections of the designated places. I must not have swung back to do their infoboxes, perhaps due to some articles not having infoboxes to begin with.
I have no concern about including the DPL population count in the infobox as it is the best and latest data that we have available from a reliable source. Hwy43 (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Finally back
Hey 117Aveue, long time no-talk. How have you been doing, for the past years I was inactive. Other than fixing my mistakes. :D Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No because I have no interest in those. I assume you will be cleaning up all the venue pages that include a list of concerts. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm still wanting to know what level of notability is required for inclusion, and why only new arenas have these lists. 117Avenue (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Alberta area codes
On a technical level I like your way more. The code is cleaner and less redundant. It's just that when you put the cursor over the link instead of seeing a link for the specific area code you see a link that says "587, 825". Instead of looking like two area codes, it looks like one code that is six digits long with a comma and a space in the middle. We know what it means but I don't think it looks very tidy. To people from elsewhere in the world who are not familiar with our codes, it's not as perfectly clear as I think it could be. That being said if you would like to change it back, I won't revert it or hold it against you. Thanks for bringing it up. Air.light (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the Character Biography for Wolverine, he was born in Cold Lake, Alberta which, in turn, cites the Wolverine: Origin #1 comic book. I'm not sure how to cite this to your satisfaction but the information that Wolverine is a notable person of Cold Lake does appear to be correct.
That article is for a fictional character, so I am confused as how you can say "Wolverine is a person is correct". 117Avenue (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
On expanding the article on Jasper town in Alberta.
Hi there!
I just noticed that back in November 24 2014 you deleted a link ( *St. Mary & St. George Anglican Church, Jasper, Alberta. Provincial Historic Site ) I added to a wiki article on an officially designated historical site on the town of Jasper, Alberta .
Your argument was that -and I quote-:"not see also appropriate, why one landmark above all the others?"
So you deleted my link because the original author of the article failed to add more links to other landmarks? Because for anyone wanting to contribute to the expansion of the article has to add more than one link to more than one landmark on the same day of the contribution? So one can not just add one link? How many are the minimum?
So following your argument.. in order to expand the article... I have to add.. how many links would you like me to add? - more than one link to more than -let's say- a dozen landmarks?
Maybe you are not realizing that if you apply this criteria then you are forcing each person contributing to the expansion of an article to adjust to a specific workload.
Let me explain: Right now I am preparing a very detailed article on the architecture of the Superintendent's House there in Jasper, BUT if upon adding the link connecting to the superintendent's house to that of the Town of Jasper you are going to delete it with the argument that it is "inappropriate, because then the article would have "one landmark above all others", well, then I will not waste my time and I will let you expand the article since you (inadvertently and with no ill will from you -I am absolutely sure) are not allowing others to contribute with at least one little brick.... since you want us to contribute with no less that two bricks or three or ... how many are needed according to your criteria?
I am assuming you one day will expand the article adding links to more than ONE landmark on the same day, so if you wish I could email you the info I have on the architectural aspects of the superintendent house so you use it to expand the article. So please do not hesitate to ask for the information I have on the superintendent house; I would happily provide it to you (but then again the article would have a link to only one landmark, and you would consider it inappropriate.. etc., etc. ... but I leave it to your best judgement).
The article Jasper, Alberta is an article about the town. It is not a list of historic places in Jasper, for that we have List of historic places in Alberta's Rockies, and it is not a list of tourist attractions in Jasper, which is not encyclopedic. My first worry, when I saw that edit, is that someone was trying to promote their attraction on Wikipedia, which is why I said "why one landmark above all the others". However, the article does exist, and contains purtant information, so it should be linked to through the Jasper, Alberta article. If Jasper was a large community and had a large article, it would be split into ones about history and attractions, like what Edmonton has. But since that is not the case, we'll have to find a place to link to St. Mary & St. George Anglican Church, Jasper, Alberta within the article prose. I recommend starting an attractions section, or expanding the history section. The link is "not see also apprpriate" (appropriate) because Wikipedia's MOS on the See also section states that the links listed there might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article, to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics, and should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
New to Wikipedia and its protocols. I have uploaded an image of the Lesser Slave River gateway sign a few times, only to have it removed and overwritten with a defaced version of the photo. Upon the most recent removal, I saw a comment that said "please don't upload images of copyrighted logos." First and foremost, I am the designer of the Lesser Slave River logo that appears on the municipal gateway signage. Secondly, the logo (that keeps being defaced) and the wordmark (that is left intact on the defaced photo) are both part of the Lesser Slave River brand lockup. Lastly, no Lesser Slave River brand asset has to date been submitted for legal trademark protection. At any rate, as the artist I retain the copyright for this work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Mellis (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't get it. These are infoboxes for the purpose of navigation. If I am reading the article on Deerfoot Trail, it is not remotely detrimental to have links to 1 and 3. A technical definition of what constitutes a highway in the absolute depths of an AB Trans document shouldn't have much bearing on the ease of navigating a Wikipedia article. So I guess what I'm asking is... why those links are a detriment to somebody's understanding of the subject, or would somehow be misleading. Given that half the articles have major cleanup tags, this is nothing remotely close to a comprehensive database of Alberta highways, making it an even more ridiculous quibble... not to mention the same thing being done elsewhere in the project. It's simply not something that makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia. -- Acefitt06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Highways are numbered as such: 1, 1A, 1X, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. The previous_route and next_route parameters in the infobox are used to navigate through those numbers. It doesn't make sense to add a word, like Deerfoot, in between those numbers. Readers using these links, are navigating through the list of numbered highways. Readers on sub-articles, like Deerfoot Trail, would either not use these links, or would find them confusing. If the reader is looking for related articles, there are still the navboxes at the bottom of the article, which list every road in Calgary, every expressway in Alberta, and all the main articles for highways 1-216. 117Avenue (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no word added between the numbers on the Alberta implementation of the template, so that makes zero sense. It's just links to articles on either side. Again, a quick check shows these parameters are retained on sub-articles elsewhere in the project because it makes navigational sense. What is the flaw in their logic? Since your decision is the final verdict, some explanation as to why every other implementation is wrong might be beneficial. -- Acefitt04:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The second one is 63rd Nova Scotia general election (disambiguation) → Next Nova Scotia general election, for a different reason. Any redirect with "(disambiguation)" in the title is supposed to point to a disambiguation page that has the {{disambiguation}} template at the bottom. Those redirects are created for one specific purpose: to make deliberate links to dab pages (as in hatnotes and "see also" sections). All other links to dab pages are considered errors. When you made this redirect there was no dab page and not likely to be one. Did you have some other reason for creating it?
After poking into a few of those election articles, I figured out your system. It's pretty ingenious. You're clearly quite organized and patient.
On behalf of those of us in the WPDAB, please don't make redirects with "(disambiguation)" in the title until there are actual dab pages to redirect to. Otherwise, they show up in various error reports, and may end up getting deleted as general housekeeping. Especially any redirects to events in the future. Thanks for your explanation. — Gorthian (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! Your election redirects that aren't yet disambiguation pages keep coming up in error reports. This only applies to the redirects that have "(disambiguation)" in the title. Those are supposed to redirect to dab pages only, not to other articles. Of course, since those elections haven't happened yet, there is no dab page to redirect them to. So they need to be deleted for now.
However, because there are incoming links from article space (via your navigation template), I can't just nominate them for speedy deletion. But you, as the creator of those pages, can nominate them for CSD G7. Would you mind doing that? They would show up as red links in your template, but that should be all right until they're needed, I hope.
When it comes time to change the corresponding redirects into disambiguation pages, then the "(disambiguation)" redirect can be created. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
