This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Backspace.
Welcome!
Hello Backspace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I'm really pretty new here and am here basically to have fun with some topics of major interest, one of which is country music by female singers. Backspace08:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the album articles here (in any genre) seem to have that ugly [non-neutral point of view!] orange background color. I decided to make mine a light blue, so, for now, I guess it'll be easy to spot mine. Backspace07:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlovsk
I am not sure what your point is. Perhaps it would better to say that Pavlovsk is located on the territory of Leningrad Oblast (as opposed to "in" it), because St. Petersburg itself is located on the territory of Leningrad Oblast and is its administrative center. The Gibraltar example is irrelevant because the administrative situation there is entirely different. As for Pavlovsk being under jurisdiction of St. Petersburg (not oblast), it was already mentioned before you made your edits. I don't see why it should be repeated twice in the same paragraph.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are not correct about the "mutually exclusive" part. The majority of the autonomous districts of Russia, for example, are administratively parts of other federal subjects, which nevetheless does not prevent them from being separate federal subjects on their own. Saint Petersburg and Moscow are quite a similar story. You are putting too much faith into Russians doing things logically—they hardly ever do :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That list (and the List of federal subjects of Russia by area) has long been on my to-do list, but I never got to sorting it out (changing the lists is easy, but changing every article which links to it is quite tedious). Both lists indeed count the nested autonomous districts twice (once as a part of the federal subject they are a part of, and once on their own—e.g., Krasnoyarsk Krai's area/population is given including the area/population of Taymyria and Evenkia, as well as Krasnoyarsk Krai proper, but both Taymyria and Evenkia are included separately as well). The area/population of Moscow Oblast and Leningrad Oblast, however, do not include those of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Such approach is traditional in Russian political geography and statistics. The reason is purely economic—budgets of nested regions depend on the budgets of the federal subjects they are subordinated to, so all statistical parameters are bundled together, but since such nested regions enjoy some degree of autonomy (unlike raions), there is a need to track their stats separately as well. Moscow and St. Petersburg always enjoyed a special status (both in modern Russia and in the USSR), and their budgets are quite independent from those of the oblasts they govern.
While this works fine and dandy in practice, I can see how awfully confusing and illogical it may seem to a person reading the general overview without being aware of these intricacies. Explaining all this in the article on Russian subdivisions is another thing on my to-do list, but I long since stopped making promises about when I am actually going to do something, because I found myself breaking such promises all too often.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite wrong about me immediately reverting the change you want to make. I can quite accept an idea of being wrong every once in a while. Encyclopedic accuracy for me is way more important than a question of who was right and who was not. Please do not regard me as a hawk flying over the Russian geography-related articles jealously protecting them from intruders. I keep a close watch on them, true, but only to make sure that less informed editors do not make edits that may seem logical to them but are in fact contrary to the truth.
Returning to Pavlovsk—the differences in viewpoints there are so fine and under-defined, that it can be regarded as both being "in" Leningrad Oblast and being separate from it, depending on the aspect one is reviewing (administrative, economic, or geographical). It would perhaps be better to edit that particular sentence out of the article altogether and stick to purely geographic definitions of "where", not unlike it's done in the article on Ust-Izhora. The sentence about Pavlovsk being under the jurisdiction of St. Petersburg should, of course, stay.
If you are going to edit the article on area/population rankings of the federal subjects, please do not forget to update all the articles that link to it (infoboxes on most of federal subjects will have to be updated as the rankings are bound to shift).
Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any questions or need clarifications. I'm always glad to be of assistance. Thank you very much for your interest to this subject—due to its fairly low popularity it's not very often I get to enjoy a conversation about it with someone.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know about you, but I have a pretty big monitor :)) As for the numbers being exact to the last person, that is, of course, silliness. They are that accurate only because the census results were reported that way. Most end users would round them, but I don't think it is acceptable to do for them in an encyclopedia.
You are quite correct about the general Russia article—there was no census in 2000; only estimates are available. As a matter of fact, the 2002 Census is the first one conducted in modern Russia; the previous one was the All-Soviet Census of 1989, and the next one is planned for 2010. The article on Russia sees quite a bit of vandalism and well-intentioned but factually incorrect edits; I would guess the "2000 Census" is one that was not caught in time (I corrected that). The population figure given by the 2002 Census was 145,513,037. If you can read Russian, perepis2002.ru is the official website of the Census with all the results you may ever be interested in. Hope this helps. Feel free to start a new section if you have additional questions, because we deviated from discussing Pavlovsk quite a bit, and people with smaller monitors are probably already reading these last comments vertically :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That particular Excel spreadsheet is the one I am using to update population figures in Wikipedia, and yes, it's amazing how good of a job they did! As for the number discrepancies, the spreadsheet figure (145,166,731) includes only Russian permanent residents who were located on the territory of the Russian Federatin during the Census. The other number (145,513,037) also includes Russian citizens abroad (excluding yours truly and probably quite a few other people who did not bother to participate), as well as people who permanently reside outside of Russia, but at the time of the Census were located on its territory.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a note to that effect, but like I said before, the areas should really be listed separately.
You are correct about Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Both the population and the area should be either included with or counted separately from those of the oblasts they govern. That will need correction. As for Chechnya and Ingushetia, there is nothing puzzling here. The border is indeed still undefined, but that refers to the exact border. It is impossible to calculate exact areas of both republics without a defined border, but counting population is fairly easy, because all of these two republics' settlements are under jurisdiction of either Chechnya or Ingushetia. If a person reports that s/he is living in a Chechen settlement, s/he is included into the Chechnya's population, if s/he is living in an Ingush settlement, then, correspondingly, s/he is included with Ingushetia's population.
This is a very interesting discovery you made. All of the areas of the federal subjects came directly from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which reports the Volgograd Oblast's area to be 114,100 km². A quick search in modern sources gives the area of 113,900 km². The latter is most likely correct, although I can't tell you off the top of my head what happened to those 200 km². To say I am intrigued is an understatement. The only administrative change of that scale I am aware of is the transfer of Sokolsky District of Ivanovo Oblast to jurisdiction of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast in 1994 (this transfer, by the way, is also not accounted for in the area figures in Wikipedia).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean the population figures, I meant the areas. Sorry about the confusion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
And I also forgot about the fact that there were area figures available on the Census site. The 1994 transfer is most likely accounted for in #3. As for the Volgograd Oblast discrepancy, I couldn't find anything yet.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hi, Backspace! I just wanted to thank you for updating the population/area figures for the Russian federal subjects. It's a daunting and tedious task that I've been postponing for too long, and I am so glad that you decided to finally take care of it!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)19:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what to do with populations that were later than 2002 (all estimates), so generally I did not replace any numbers, but just added to them. For the areas, some are given as more precise than rounded to the nearest 100 km², so I did not replace those either. I did the populations of all of the cities over 50,000 that have articles also. I think I'll slow down now. There are just too many smaller towns. Backspace03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing—just leave the estimates be. They are good to have to show the population trends, and are, for the most part, pretty accurate (although, of course, it would be better if they were referenced as well). Again, thanks for all your hard work!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Backspace! Thanks for your effort of adding population figures to the administrative units, but please do not do that in other similar articles. Population numbers should go to corresponding articles (i.e., Zelenograd population should be mentioned in Zelenograd article. When new numbers become available, it is not very likely people adding them will make an effort to also find and update all the lists where the numbers are listed, which will eventually lead to an inconsistent mess. Also, I update the Administrative divisions of xxx series with new information pretty much monthly, and having to jump around redundant information is an additional inconvenience. I am sorry, I don't want you to feel that your work is unappreciated, but I hope you understand my reasoning. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(American) country music article
Regarding the note you left on my page: do you mean that other articles no longer link to this article, since the links are to "country music" which is now a disambig page? If so, then yes, I'm aware of this problem. I started going through all the articles listed on the "links here" page, but then thought I should hold off and wait: what if someone comes along and reverts the whole shebang? I don't want to do a whole lot of work for nothing. ==ILike2BeAnonymous02:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was living in Scotland in the early 70s and got a job with the Hudson's Bay Company. It was a tradition that they had been doing for about 300 years. I just stayed and never left. Cheers.
Kentucky Bend map
Hi, I found your note about the map on Kentucky Bend and corrected the map. However, the image itself was at Commons, not Wikipedia, so it would have been better (and I would have found the note sooner!) if you left your message at Commons:Image talk:Kentucky Bend.png instead of here at Wikipedia's Image talk:Kentucky Bend.png. In general, you can tell if an image is at Commons by two things: (1) the word "image" on the image tab is red instead of blue, and (2) there is a template saying "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." If you click on the words "description page there" it will take you to the Commons description page, from where you can click on "discussion" and leave a comment. Thanks! Angr11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Backspace, so you added the area reference to the Marquesas Keys article, after figuring out that the Marquesas Keys consist of Blocks 3042 and 3043, Census Tract 9725, Monroe County, Florida. Would you please tell me how you figured that out? I for example would like to figure out what blocks and in what census tract are the Farallon Islands in San Francisco County, California, and where I can download the corresponding Census Burea area figures page.--Ratzer19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] External l
Hey, this is highly interesting. I find the geographic areas, but I still have trouble to download that table that has the area figures (I get all kinds of other tables). You were right with the Farallon Islands. And, I found the Dry Tortugas (although not immediately), they are in the same block group as the Marquesas Keys. When you display the map of block 3995, which seems to be the water area of the national park, you can identify the following blocks (if you have an appropriate map beside you):
3044 East Key
3045 Middle Key
3046 Hospital Key
3047 Garden Key, Bush Key, Long Key, and obviously also Bird Key (which is submerged since 1935!)
3048 Loggerhead Key
3994 and 3996: (obviously) Territorial Waters outside of National Park
When you have made your geographic choices, either through the map or through the lists from the other tabs, click on Next at the bottom. You will then get a screen with three tabs. Under Show All Tables. I usually will pick P1. Total Population for just basic population figures, and possibly P3. Race to break down by that category, just to keep things simple, but you can pick whatever category you're interested in or is relevant, realizing that this may involve a lot of numbers which you may not really be interested in. Then click Add for each one. When you are done, click Show Result at the bottom. On the next screen click Options > Show Geographic Identifiers. This will give you a table with all the relevant geographical area figures. If you want to download the data that's on the screen you can then click Print/Download > Download. This will result in a small window asking you how you want this data downloaded. I usually pick the zipped Excel file (third from bottom) because I want my data in spreadsheet format, but you can pick any of the other format choices you want, even unzipped if the table is short enough (There is a maximum length for unzipped, but I don't know what it is.) Pick OK and your file will come to you to wherever your incoming files are defaulted to. That's it. Again, good luck! Backspace22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unpopulated land in Airway Heights of which you speak is not empty as it contains the Northern Quest Casino. As far as the area information of the land along the Pend Oreille River, I'm fairly sure that the area data is incorrect. I'll check it out. Patris Magnus23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have been more specific when I said "unpopulated," because specifically I meant that there was no permanent resident population on that territory as of the 2000 census. (I believe that the Census Bureau defines this as people who normally sleep there at night.) This of course does not mean that there is never any population on that land, just that no one had his permanent residence (home) there at that time. There is much industrial land in the United States where there is no official resident population, i.e., no one resides there permanently, yet there is a large daytime work population. As far as the area numbers, I have documented them in the References section, and they are official numbers from the Census Bureau, which means that they were accurate (officially) as of the 2000 census. Whether they are accurate today is something I'm not prepared to answer, since I have no later data than what I specifically mentioned. Backspace00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reservations
Hi, thanks for adding the population numbers to the reservation articles--it's a big help. The name of the article should match the bolded title, however, so if you change the title (I assume you are changing the names to what the census calls the reservations), then the article should also be moved. But I think some of the tribes prefer to call their reservations something other than what the census calls them, or the names have changed since the last census, so the names probably need to be sourced. Thanks for considering it! Katr6704:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the tribe calls themselves, "The Kalispel Tribe of Indians." The sign on the east side of the Usk bridge reads, "Kalispel Indian Reservation, No Hunting, Fishing, Trapping or Gathering Allowed." There is an old sign by the tribal office that reads, "Quilespe," or something very similar to that. The latter spelling being French from the trappers who were the first white folks to enter the area. Interesting stuff! Patris Magnus20:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my comment was in reference to renaming in general, though I was talking about the Siletz Reservation specifically because that is the one I saw Backspace change. Perhaps your comment was meant to go with the other Kalispel commentary, above? Katr6720:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, backspace has recently made the addition of census data to the Kalispel page. I thought that this was the page to which you were referring.
Mazapil
Hey I am sorry for stating that Mazapil is the second biggest municipality in the Mexican Republic but, it is stated so in spanish in the official website of the Governor of Zacatecas:
Tiene una extensión territorial de 12 mil 63 Km2, con una distancia de la capital de 290 Km. Colinda al norte con el estado de Coahuila y el municipio de Melchor Ocampo; al sur con Villa de Cos; al oriente con Concepción del Oro y el estado de San Luis Potosí; y al poniente con el estado de Durango. El porcentaje que representa respecto al estado es del 36 por ciento de la superficie de la entidad equivalente a 5 veces el estado de Aguascalientes; es el segundo municipio más grande de la República Mexicana.[1]--Manny18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Manny. It just goes to show you that we (and I'm including myself, with example to follow) should not rely absolutely on even apparently "official" information that we find on the internet, or perhaps anywhere else. I recently relied on this website: http://www.e-local.gob.mx/wb2/ELOCAL/ELOC_Municipios_de_mayor_y_menor_extension_territo for the largest and smallest municipios in Mexico, only to find that their listing for Carlos A. Carrillo municipality in Veracruz is completely off (It is nowhere near as big as stated. I got the clue to check up further when I realized that it was in an eastern state, and not the "normal" western and Yucatán Peninsula states where you would expect the largest muncipios to be.) You can check the areas for any particular muncipio, including Carlos A. Carrillo and Mazapil at the http://www.e-local.gob.mx/wb2/ELOCAL/ELOC_Enciclopedia Encyclopedia of the Municipalities of Mexico and see maps (where you can see that Mazapil is nowhere near as big as claimed). It is pretty tedious to look up a lot of municipalities because you have to look up each one individually. Good luck. Backspace19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating articles for settlements
Hi Backspace,
I noticed that you are creating some new articles based on some census data that you have. You may want to include {{Infobox Settlement}} (aka Infobox City) with those articles. Take a look at Sabinas, Coahuila for the difference it makes. Regards, MJCdetroit00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Thanks for the suggestion regarding the Infobox Settlement. I shall probably give it a try next time, and possibly go back and insert it into those articles that I've already done. It does make the article appear less like a stub and a little more substantial. I really haven't done a lot with anything to do with these graphical inserts though. I'm never really sure which one applies; there seem to be a lot of different formats floating about. Re: the map at Sabinas, Coahuila, the little pin appears to be somewhat north of where it should be. How accurate are these geographical coordinates anyway, and how close do they appear on the map to where they're supposed to be? On the map, Sabinas appears to be right on the Texas border, which it is not, in actuality. Backspace07:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the coordinates using google earth. I created the Location map Mexico last night and it looks like it needs some more calibrating. I'll tweak it a little and get back with you. —MJCdetroit12:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That map would have been acceptable for Ciudad Acuña, or even possibly Piedras Negras, but for Sabinas it's a stretch. I would never knowingly post anything that looked that far off. I hope you get everything to go right, because it looks like it could potentially be a very valuable resource. Backspace15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I tweaked it a little, but only improved it slightly. Therefore, I asked for some help with it. It is only used in two articles: Sabinas, Coahuila and Mexicali. The latter, more or less just to help calibrate the map. We'll see what happens. If it still doesn't seem right, there is always the image_dot_map, which is very similar but the dot is moved manually with an X & Y system but takes more time. —MJCdetroit18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I switched those two articles to a XY maps and asked that the Location map Mexico be deleted as it was not the right type of map. Regards, —MJCdetroit04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating this information. I don't understand how the land area could have changed. Are you sure you didn't add in water area? Joeldl18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My figures are straight from Statistics Canada (see included link in article). I do not know where the previous numbers came from. The Statcan numbers say "land area in square kilometres", so I would assume that they exclude water. As for changes, perhaps more accuracy in measurement (especially for the more remote northern areas), or maybe changes in jurisdiction (?). I don't know. These are official numbers from Statcan, which is probably as precise as you would expect from anyone. I have contributed a lot of population and area figures for a number of countries and always use official governmental census figures, never "estimates". Most of my contributions have been for political divisions of the United States, Mexico, France, Canada, Russia, and Italy, places for which I have been able to obtain detailed official statistics. Backspace19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned. That might be a good question to ask of Statcan. I'm sure that they must have some kind of a contact address on their website. My Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary gives a number of 1,357,811 km² for Québec, which is very close to our number, but I don't know whether that includes water either. My World Almanac gives a number of 594,860 square miles, which is even bigger than our numbers. I'm not sure of anything anymore. There should be a standard definition of area, and, in my opinion, it should not include water area. For a good example of this, check into the "areas" of Hawaii or Michigan. [2] You'll find tremendous differences between areas with and without water. Apparently, Hawaii must contain large areas of the Pacific, while Michigan has much of the Great Lakes. Backspace02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I eventually found my way to that page too. I've brought the issue up on the talk page of the article. Joeldl11:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lambersart
I appreciate your edits to this article, which you created a while ago. There much work that remains to be done which I will hopefully do in the coming weeks if someone else doesn't beat me to it.VK3520:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general interest in France, and noticed that Lambersart (and other cities in France) had no article. I have not ever been there, so I don't have any deep knowledge of the place. Please contribute what you can and I will edit it further if I feel that it needs refinement from a native speaker of English. Backspace02:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Backspace - please do not add categories to pages (or other files such as on Commons) in the way you did on Great Barrier Island. The article was already in the categories you added because it is sorted in subcategories of the (the "Great Barrier" is a subcat of "Islands of New Zealand", and is also a subcat of "Hauraki Gulf", which in turn is a subcat of "Auckland Region".
It is Wikpedia and Commons sorting policy that articles and images are ONLY to be sorted into the most specific category or categories that are appropriate, i.e. as far 'down' the category tree as possible. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. You got it; no more categories. I didn't know about the category hierarchy; I just assumed it wasn't there because I didn't see it there. Backspace (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note: going by what was already on the article, it's false precision, so I've taken the link that you have me and added it to the article to prove what you posted. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Backspace, Where did you get your information on national forest area by county? I see you were pulling it out of some table, but at least for the White Mountain National Forest, the results were incorrect. The amount of the forest in Maine, for instance, is more like 9% rather than 20%, and the order in which the counties were listed was incorrect: Grafton County, NH, has the most area of the forest, not the least. I have detailed information for the New Hampshire portion of the forest from the New Hampshire GRANIT GIS, and imputed the amount of Maine's area to be about 70,000 acres, the amount left over from the WMNF's reported total of about 800,000 acres. What were the numbers you had? Thanks,--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, those numbers I transcribed were for the Purchase Units (PU), which I got mixed up with the National Forest {NF) portion. Sorry about that. I should have been more careful. I can plug in the National Forest numbers if you want. Anyway my source is the official Forest Service web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/2007/TABLE_6.htm It was a little bit of a pain to assemble the spreadsheet for this table, necessary because everything is broken down into congressional districts. You have to add up all the congressional districts within a county to get county totals. It's quite easy to do for simple states such as Maine and New Hampshire, but gets a little more complicated in states with lots of congressional districts and forests which cross district and county lines (such as California). So I guess the real numbers were: Grafton County 345,010 acres/46 percent; Coos County 216,640 acres/28.9%; Carroll County 145,813 acres/19.4%; Oxford County 42,364 acres/5.65%; Total 749,827 acres. Backspace (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source -- I've wanted to find a table like that for a while. Your new numbers are very close to mine for the New Hampshire counties, so it looks good!--Ken Gallager (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Forest Service areas change from time to time, so just as with a population census, it depends on the date the numbers came out and how accurate they are (credibility of the source). This particular report was supposedly accurate as of September 30, 2007 (fairly recent) and is "official" from a governmental agency, so it is probably about as accurate as anything you are liable to get at this time. Backspace (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Page Tip-'O-the-Day!
Talk Page Tip-'O-the-Day!
Have you ever thought about creating a separate archive page just for all of those image notices?
I've never done it and I'm not sure that I know how. The way that things stand now, at least it does look like I'm doing more work, with all that garbage there. I certainly don't want all that garbage there; it wasn't generated by me. Backspace (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you first create a new, blank, page like this User talk:Backspace/Image-Archive and this User talk:Backspace/2005-2006 (If you use these links, move them to the very top of your talk page), then you just cut & paste from one page to the next. (I recommending opening two windows). (You can also cut & paste to a notepad file on your PC, and then cut & paste to the new page). It is that simple. If you start looking at other contributors talk pages you can get some ideas, especially those nerd-admin types. Let me know if I can help. If it is truly garbage, and you don't want it, feel free to delete it!!! WikiDon (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting References
If I ask real nicely can I get you to format your references?
Well, that is a little more work! I'll have to see whether I can remember to do it. Regarding the topic of references in general, I guess I've been remiss in that I've spent a lot more effort in being accurate than in proving that I'm accurate. Thanks for your interest and comments. Backspace (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being accurate, there are thousands of bits on Wikipedia that are not. But, you will find it easier once you get into the habit of formatting references that it saves steps down the road. Thanks again. WikiDon (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as to archiving your talk page, it's not that hard. There are bots that can do it for you; it's how I've got mine set up. Check User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for info. You'd want MiszaBot III; it's the one that does user talk pages. Setting up links to the archives isn't that difficult either. If you need any help or advice on the matter, just give a shout-out. Cheers! --Ebyabe (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that info; and I do apologize for not answering for such a long time. I'll look into it and see what I can contribute. Backspace (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! As you can see, I'm not always the swiftest on the uptake myself. :) Anyway, cheers, and keep on keepin' on. --Ebyabe (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Selawick's significance is that it is the 3rd largest in Alaska;
17th largest in U.S., according to the National Atlas.
Use of BC RDs as geographic designators
I have most BC geographic pages bookmarked, and noticed your recent hard work placing all the respective RD cats on them......just a caution, I noted this morning you'd added RD cats to Queen Charlotte Strait and other saltwater-bodies.....this is one of the reasons I don't like using RDs as geographic classifications in BC - waterbodies are federal, not provincial, jurisdiction and the RDs (as puppets/proxies of the provincial government and municipal governments, which are also provincially-derived) have NO JURISDICTION on bodies of water. The Queen Charlotte Strait, properly, isn't IN a regional district; only the lands around it are; Gardner Canal seems more eligible if only because it's encased so tightly by landmasses. Also to caution that it will not be appropriate to put either First Nations governments or their villages in RDs, as they're excluded and self-excluding from the municipal/RD government system. A reserve or government such as the Shackan First Nation near Merritt is in the Nicola Country, but it is not in the Thompson-Nicola Regional Districtin strict terms. Regional districts are also only one way the provincial government breaks down BC regionally - the Ministry of Environment has a different set of regions, the Ministry of Forests has another, and there are endless others for health, courts, and so on. I realize you're probably not from BC or even Canada and just trying to do something useful, and it's one reason I wish other editors hadn't barged ahead (from other parts of Canada) invoking the RD system as a valid way to classify places in BC geographically; it's not. Keep on doing what you're doing, just be advised on a lot of them they may get "stripped" as I've launched a debate (on sometalklpage somewhere, back with the link later if you're interested) about the inutility of RDs for a lot - a LOT - of things they're currently being placed on; they were only invented in the 1960s or 1970s, and definitely historical articles before that shouldn't have RD-based cats placed on them. All my own little bandwagon, not to worry; there's a few like Dixon Entrance (which you didn't do) that I'll be taking the RD off as a "case in point". There are those who try to equate RDs to the county system in Ontario/Maritimes or in the US, but it's very different and only one of several different provincial govenrment regionalilzation systems.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the new discussion at the WikiProject British Columbia talkpage re using RDs....further to the above, triggered off this morning by considerations about provincial parks, in teh same context as the problem with using the RD cats on First Nations-related article. RDs are only para-municipal jurisdictions and not geographic regions as such.Skookum1 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marble Canyon Provincial Park
I'm from that area, the park is outside the boundaries of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, which begins to its southeast just outside the canyon; Marble Canyon also is not even partly in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District; the boundary sign on Hwy 99 is at the southern outlet of the canyon, where the divide between Pavilion Creek and Hat Creek drainages are. I took it out of the TNRD for good reason, please don't put it back in again.Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the point that there is no Category:Northern Rockies Regional District, British Columbia, that RD ends at the spine of the Rockies and doesn't go as far west as the settlement of Liard River; yes, the Liard River as a river is partly in the NRRD but the community of Liard River is to the west of the Rocky Mountains and not in this RD; it is in the non-RD "Stikine Region". Toad River I'm not so sure about and will ref BC basemap to check; I think it's west of teh spine of the Rockies and so also not in the NRRD.....basemap (see http://maps.gov.bc.ca), like other government databases, doesn't catalogue these places as being in RDs, but as being in Land Districts (See User:Skookum1/Sandbox for a draft list-article). These are community articles and so have a place in an RD cat (the correct RD cat); geographic articles I'll be taking up the issue at the WPCanada discussion board; census divisions are not valid geographic-designators; geographic regions are (and RDs are not geogrpahic regions but governmental bodies, and as already explained there are more relevant governmental bodies/subdivisions).Skookum1 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Toad River's west of Muncho Lake and maybe is east of the designated spine of the Rockies, so maybe NRRD is correct; but Liard River definitely isn't.Skookum1 (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The community of Liard River (not the river), which is waht you've linked, is I believe in the Stikine Region along with Lower Post; I cant' find an RD map for that area in close enough detail, and as noted before the BC and Canadian geonames databases index them by Land District, NOT Regional Districts. Popped by here to tell you I'd replied, in part, to your responses at your Coast/Interior query, on Category talk:Regional Districts of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MapArt Publishing Company [1] has a halfway decent British Columbia roadmap which shows that Liard River, British Columbia (the town) is in the Northern Rockies Regional District. As you've said, Lower Post, British Columbia is in the Stikine Region to the west of Liard River. You can't access the map online, but you can buy a folding paper copy of it cheaply. Backspace (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just beat me to that one. I just noticed that I had spelt it wrong and went to correct it and saw that you had alread done so, odd coincidence. I moved it over to the correct name. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On your part in this, it's nice to see that someone is keeping better track of whether these airfields are still operational than I am. Backspace (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction
I just want to say hello as I see your name frequently on the same articles I'm working on. I am trying to expand on all California National Forest articles as well as creating new articles for the wilderness areas in California.
If you ever need an good footnote. I'm the one for that!
Cheers, Marcia
As dicsussed elsewhere, sometimes a "country" is part of an RD, sometime sand RD is part of a "country". In the case of the Cariboo Regional District, I just made the Category:Chilcotin Country and Category:Cariboo Country subcats of it; which means that the mountain/canyon articles now have a redundant parent cat, namely the RD one. Category:South Cariboo doesn't yet exist but when it does it can have the TNRD cat as a parent; it's other parent should be the Cariboo Country cat, not the CRD cat. This is why I expressed reservations about he use of RD cats for geographic articles; there's already geographic-area cats, albeit in need of coordination with the RD cats in all cases; otherwise the RD cats will be cluttered with geographic articles while their prime relevance is communities and RD-related agencies; with the geographici articles in the "country" cats, which can be subcats, this removes the perceived need (on your part) to classify everythying by RD. I'll try and make up a directory/list for you of which "countries" are in which RDs and/or vice-versa.....so in general, note that if a mountain, park or river was already in Category:Sea to Sky Country, Category:Lillooet Country, or Category:Bridge River Country, it's redundant for them to also be in the SLRD category; NB some of the Lillooet Country is in the GVRD (south of Lillooet Lake).Skookum1 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just did the same to the Lillooet and Sea to Sky Countries, ie. now as subcats of SLRD, but didnt' do the same for Brdige River Country as that would be redundant, as it's a subregion of the Lillooet Country. Note that your addition just now of the RD cat to Taseko Mountain is redundant, as it's already in the Chilcotin Country cat; likewise many other entries you've made; which is why I was trying to dissaude you from doing so; a lot of "undos" out there now due to such redundancies......Skookum1 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you find/make a bot to remove all the redundant and ill-advised cat-placements.....been enough work adding them manually, no?Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RD/region directory
As noted, sometimes RDs encompass more than one region; in other cases on region incorporates two different RDs:
NB the South Cariboo is partitioned between the CRD and TNRD, and the Lillooet Country is a subcat of the Cariboo one...
Taht's all for now, but I think you get the idea......
I am quite aware of where the RD lines fall, as you might suspect by now. I do very little if any, classification by the "regions" you speak of, so you can't say that I've made many mistakes as far as those. I generally completely ignore what "region" something is in when I classify stuff. I only care and classify by Regional District. Telling me that some RD's contain more than one "region" or that some regions contain more than on RD is interesting, but it does not help or hinder my classification, as I only do it by RD location. Backspace (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another example, and Iv'e removed the redundant cats you added. I can't stress enough, also, t hat "Strathcona" is a decidedly Vancouver Island-oriented geographic term despite the RD having mainland areas (all near-totally unpopulated, including this canyon); it's not in a "Strathcona region", which is teh assumption people make off RD names. As noted above, Category:Central Coast of British Columbia includes more than one RD, so the RDs are subcats rather than parents; but again, even though a subcat for the SRD could be here, it doesnt' make sense in terms of geographic-referencing in BC-speak....f.Skookum1 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point regarding the assertion that Great Canyon (Homathko River) was already in Category:Cariboo Regional District through its subcategory Chilcotin Country. I was not aware of the category/subcategory hierarchy at the time I classified the article. However, I am hereby launching a formal protest of your deletion of Category:Strathcona Regional District from the article. Without proof that the subject of the article does not fall within the parameters of the category, it is my contention that the category should be restored. Backspace (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protest as you wish, I stand by my position. It's complicated in teh case of Strathcona Regional District because part of it is in the Central Coast, part of it is in Category:Mid Vancouver Island. I suppose there are arguments that the South Coast includes Bute Inlet; I'll look that up, but generally the archipelago northwest of Campbell River is considered the Central Coast; I'll check on that, if you wish. The further complication is that the Central Coast Regional Ditrict is part of the Central Coast, but likewise in addition to part of Strathcona is the Mount Waddington Regional District. It's the opposite situation to Cariboo, which incorpoates several regions; it's a case where an obvious geographic region has bgeen split for reasons of political expediency/conveience; a potential subcat to Central Coast, by the way, is Category:Queen Charlotte Strait, which though a body of water also operates, like Strait of Juan de Fuca, Georgia Strait and Puget Sound, as a region-name. Strathcona Regional District is a subcat of both Central coast and a grandchil-cat of South Coast (via Mid Vancouver Island). Again, I think the geographic categories are relevant to geographic objects, and RD categories are relevant to administrative entities; the RD cats will be bloated with hundreds of mountain, lake, river and "thing" articles; the same is true of region categories, yes, but they lend themselves more rationally to "Mountains of the Chilcotin" and "Lakes of the Central Coast" and ht like. BC geography is complciated, and using �RDsalone is not an adequate way to classify things,, and as noted before somet things are never classifeied that way; and doing so, I continue to contend, is a form of original research, almost synthesis in the form "I need something with exact boundaries to classify these things with, even though they're not currently classified that way". They are, again, in actual definition/primary source terms, classified by Land District; the populace classifies them in the popular argot, the "country"/valley etc region system. Sometiems RDs are near-identical to regions, as with Comox Valley; in other cases they span them, or divide them. The thing is if you will RD cats with articles in need of subcatting, somebody will; and the relevance of Category:Mountains in the Strathcona Regional District is totally beyond me, when it's far more relevant that they're the Pacific Ranges or any number of potential range-subcats, or in the case of inlets and basins, region subcats for those as applicable. I told you before about the region cats; that RDs are subcats or some, and parents of others, is parto of hte problem; awkward naming of the RDs, like STrathcona, is part of the problem also (again, Strathcona is a Vancouver Island-association anyway). RDs tehsmelves do not make lists of bodies of water; federal Fisheries does, and the Water Branch and Fish and Wildlife Branch of BC Environment, but not using RDs as st eh defining parameters, but more geographic-based regions, as opposed to poitically-convnient ones. RDs are relevant to "political objects" and communiites with voters in them; "First Nations Reserves in the so-and-so Regional District" makes it sound, again, as though tthey're part of it (t; "First Nations Reserves inside the boundary of so-and-so- Regional District is the much more accurate way to put that; oh yes, it's true, though, that RDs make lists of IRs, they have to; so they know where not to try and pull their weight.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, I can see your point that mountains, lakes, and rivers should belong to geographically-based regions, and no one has taken them out of those categories that you so believe in (certainly not me, anyway). But can you see the other point that many people have, that these mountains, lakes, and rivers lie in Vancouver, or the East Kootenay Regional District, or the Yukon Territory, or Canada, or Yellowstone National Park, even though you yourself believe that these are merely politically expedient categories having nothing to do with the natural objects themselves? Other people do see things this way, and whether or not Parks Canada "makes lists" of these objects is irrelevant to the fact that these objects exist within such-and-such a park, and are perceived by the general public as existing within that park, for instance. Backspace (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[undent]You still don't get it; people do think in terms of park boundaries, they do not think in terms of Regional District boundaries for things like mountains, etc. In the case of mountains, they think in terms of ranges and regions or, when applicable, parks.Skookum1 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. We have this category called Strathcona Regional District, British Columbia. There are currently 94 articles under the category. You say that we should not put airports in there (13 articles out); you say that we should not put islands in there (15 articles out); you say that we should not put mountains in there (4 articles out); you say that we should not put parks in there (37 articles out); you say that we should not put canyons, icefields, inlets, channels, sounds, lakes, rivers, etc. in there (13 articles out); you say that we should not put airports in there (13 articles out). You did not say anything about cities/communities, so I will leave those in, leaving exactly 12 supposedly "legitimate" articles in the category. My question is, why is there a category in which practically nothing can be included? What is the purpose of having that category? Backspace (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RD cat/article harmonization
Just a heads-up that RD cat and article names are being harmonized to do away with the comma-British Columbia part of the title, and also the phraseing "Regional District of....". Not sure if this has been applied yet to the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District but any minute now the comma-province catlink on Blaeberry Falls, your latest edit, can be simplified.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank someone for that bit of consistency at least. I always wondered why some of the districts were backwards "Regional District of" vs. "Xxxx Regional District", and why some of them had "British Columbia" tacked at the end while others didn't. That did not make any sense at all. There's no way that I, personally, would have named the RD categories in the fashion that they have been. Backspace (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:PartonRonstadtHarrisTrioII.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:PartonRonstadtHarrisTrioII.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:TanyaTuckerGirlsLikeMe.jpg listed for deletion
Orphaned non-free media (File:JannBrowneMissedMebyaMile.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:JannBrowneMissedMebyaMile.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:JannBrowneCountMeIn.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:JannBrowneCountMeIn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Baillie&theBoysLovinEveryMinute.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Baillie&theBoysLovinEveryMinute.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regional districts are not regions
Regional districts are not suitable for regional categorization; their categories should only be used for institutions and agencies and municipalities directly connected to the jurisdiction of the regional district governments, which power plants are not. Jordan River is pretty much within range of Category:Greater Victoria, British Columbia, which is a region category; there is already Category:West Coast of Vancouver Island there; usually Greater Victoria "ends" at Sooke, but Jordan River has come within commuting range of the city and is an "outlier" area, though the usual name for that region is the Juan de Fuca region; which once made a subcat would be a subcat of both the West Coast of Vancouver Island category and the Greater Victoria cat; others within West Coast of Vancouver Island would be Barkley Sound region, Clayoquot Sound region, Nootka Sound region, Kyuquot Sound region, etc. Please don't start adding regional district categories to provincial parks, Indian Reserves, and geographic objects which are not under regional district governance and do NOT belong in RD categories....Skookum1 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, using an example another BC wikipedian came up with in a discussion of this elsewhere, classifying things that have nothing to do with RD governance in RD categories make no more sense than classifying them by provincial or federal electoral district, or by another of the other several regionalization systems used by either level of government. Additionally, determining if a mountain is in an RD, or a provincial park, and then categorizing it as such, as explicitly original research as those things are not expressed that way in cited materials (unless those cited materials are sources which ape Wikipedia content); mountains and lakes are typically described either in terms of ordinary geographic region or re the local Forests district/region, and mountains are always also classified by mountain range or equivalent (in the case of plateaus); Indian Reserves, if anything, by band government or tribal council or "ethnic"/tribal group, conceivably, the whatever regionalization system is used by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; provincial parks according to Parks regions, which are more or less the same as Ministry of Environment regions; all are indexed by government sources only by Land District, which is the one common denominator behind all items (including RDs).Skookum1 (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Backspace. You have new messages at Talk:Wabowden. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Orphaned non-free media (File:KathieBaillieLovesFunnyThatWay.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:KathieBaillieLovesFunnyThatWay.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SweetheartsoftheRodeofromSisters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight on regional districts
Regional district categories should only include items actually under regional district jurisdiction; nobody in British Columbia (except Wikipedians perpetuating the problem) use them as geographic divisions, and they are only one of several ways to subdivide the province; regional districts are no more relevant than forest districts, electoral districts,. school districts, environment regions, health regions, mines districts/divisions etc etc etc. Using them as locational references is a mistake made early on Wikipedia by people trying to transpose the notion of counties from other jurisdictions, be it eastern Canadian provinces or US or UK/Eire counties. They are only relevant to municipal governance and as census divisions (which is federal, not provincial), and are arbitrary and political in nature, not fixed geographic realities. IMO these categories should be deleted and the traditional divisions of British Columbia, upon which they and the other subdivisions of the province, be used. In this case the Portland Canal's a sub-area of Category:North Coast of British Columbia and includes the Category:Nass Country and Category:Stewart Country (though the latter has not been created yet), and has relevance in Category:Boundary Ranges (which is a subcat of Category:Coast Mountains). Regional district are especially unsuitable for the inclusion of Indian Reserves and Indian sites, as these are explicitly outside regional district jurisdiction, and in the case of geographic entities these are classified in academic and other sources by forest region/district or mountain range or sub-area of the coast or plateau; provincial parks have their own regionalization system and are also not under regional district jurisdiction, likewise schools, hospitals etc etc etc. Regional districts have little power and are, I repeat, NOT used by British Columbians to refer to their landscape; they are only used in reference to municipalities. Please stop re-adding them as they are not relevant and cause pelpe in other countries, and in other-language wikipedias, to think that they are the normal way to view/divide the British Columbia landscape, which they are anything but. Some earnest Wikipedian made this mistake a long time ago, without reference to sources or on-the-ground usages.Skookum1 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been here for a while
but if you put something, anything on your user page then your name will appear in blue in stead of red and other editors (me, for example) might not feel a need to double check your edits. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do not mind being double-checked. I don't even mind being corrected, if my posts are non-factual. However, one of the ways that I can see my contributions to an article easily is the fact that they are tagged in red (in a sea of blue). I've contributed to a lot of articles and it is just easier to scroll down and look for the red links. To me the important thing is that a contributor be accurate and factual, not whether he is a veteran or newbie, not whether he is blue-linked or red-linked. Thanks for your comments, Einar. At least, someone is paying attention to my contributions. Is there a place where I can find out the top red-linked contributors to Wikipedia? I'm probably up there somewhere. I'm nowhere close in the blue category though. Backspace (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well if you are doing it intentionally, that's fine. It's okay if you're not doing it on purpose too, I just always bring it up after double-checking a red editor. Which is different from a commie pinko editor, but the colors end up the same. It's probably too late for me to be up. Though it is nice meeting you. Carptrash (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Dunns Pond Mound, I am willing to bet anything that Russells Point is closer than Ohio|Huntsville. Just look on a map. On Portsmouth Earthworks, I entered South Shore because it is an incorporated place. It may or may not be closer than South Portsmouth, which, as far as I can tell, in not an incorporated place at all. By the way, I don't really like the designation of "nearest city" that we have here at Wikipedia. It is a very arbitrary and subjective topic, raising questions of: What is a city? (city/town/village/CDP/unincorporated place with people living there?) How close is close? Is a bigger city "close" even though it's farther away than a smaller one? You get the idea. Backspace (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For that reason, we need to go with the NRHP database. It's one thing with obvious errors — e.g. the Pisgah Christian Church in Brown County, Ohio (38°46′57″N83°52′48″W / 38.78250°N 83.88000°W / 38.78250; -83.88000), which was listed as being in Wilmington, Ohio despite there being many communities, including its county seat, that were much closer — but when we have ambiguity, we can't assume that it's an error. Take the Zimmerman Kame for another example: it might be closer to McGuffey if you only want to take state highways. You won't find anything in the NRHP database — or on its nomination form, which I have — about McGuffey or Belle Center or anywhere else except Roundhead. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My candidate (Belle Center) is incorporated; yours (McGuffey) is not. See my preceding arguments about What is a city? above. "Close" to me generally means crow-flies distance, although I can see people's argument for on-land accessibility. Also, you cannot assume that something officially listed on some database is actually the "closest" place to any particular site. By what criteria do they define a city, place, etc? How big or important must this place be? Backspace (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Disney World Resort
Greetings ... I appreciate the edits you're making to the various articles for the parks located in the Walt Disney World Resort. While they are indeed correct, the consensus on these articles is that the main parent article for the overall resort includes all the essential location information to explain exactly where these parks are located. It discusses the two "administrative cities" of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista at length, whereas the theme park articles should only discuss that they are located within Walt Disney World. The talk pages for these articles (and Walt Disney World itself) have plenty of threads on this subject, if you'd like to review them. Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments. Thanks, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinked categories
I noticed that you had added categories to airports in Saskatchewan and in at least two cases they were redlinked and the only article was the airport. Rather than doing that it would be a better idea to find all the articles that would fit in Category:Big Arm No. 251, Saskatchewan for example, create the category and add all the articles. You could then go on to the next category. That way the category would be bluelinked and have more than one article in it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the rural municipalities categories of Saskatchewan, I am not quite sure how many of them will wind up with multiple entries, being as how they are so sparsely populated and seem to generate relatively little interest with regard to Wikipedia participation. Secondly, I am not really that familiar with the process of creating new categories. However, I do plan to create categories, at least for those R.M.s that I eventually find articles for which have more than themselves as the only article.
Well, it's nice to hear from the northern reaches of the continent again, anyway. I know I've heard from you before, but it's been quite some time. Backspace (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rural municipalities
When you're categorizing things in Saskatchewan, please note that articles are not permitted to be left sitting in redlinked (i.e. non-existing) categories. If you'd like to create the appropriate categories for each rural municipality, then by all means feel free to do so — but if you're not willing to do that then you need to restrict yourself to categories that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of willingness. It is my intention to create all of the categories in which I have placed these articles. Unfortunately, my schedule and availability of access to the internet does not always allow me to do things on a regular schedule. I have not forgotten about the things that I have left hanging. Backspace (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Thank you for the message it is very helpful. Sorry about the mistakes i was rushing through creating the articles i will me more careful with the coords in the future. Thanks again Cheers! Kyle127818:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Highway101LatestandGreatest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Highway101BigSky.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Geographical coordinates for Alberta designated places
Greetings, I recall you recently added or revised geographical coordinates to various Alberta community articles using the CGNDB. I just created articles for approximately 65 communities in Alberta recognized as designated places by Statistics Canada that did not previously have articles. Can you provide me with a link to the CGNDB so that I may populate these articles with coordinates and add location maps as a result? Alternately, can you go through those I just created and add the coordinates for me? If you would prefer the latter, let me know and I can provide you with a list of the new articles. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply and the link. I will add the coordinates to those designated places that are within the CGNDB, which will enable me to add their location maps as well.
Do you happen to know if there is a DB somewhere with elevations of named locations? Nearly every Alberta community article that includes an elevation figure does so without referencing it. I'd like to validate some, and perhaps even sweep through the articles adding the proper elevation reference at some point. Hwy43 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help you on the elevations. Haven't input a single one myself and don't know where you would find an "official" database. Anyway, I'll be sure to keep an eye on your coming contributions on Alberta. Backspace (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invisibility Barnstar
The Invisible Barnstar
For all of the hard work that you are doing, while wanting to remain under the radar, I hereby award you the Invisibility Barnstar! Your efforts are appreciated! Royalbroil14:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and I found your additions because of these changes to numerous articles on my watchlist. I found the award at WP:BARN. Yea, it's harder for the Wikipedia regulars to recognize people with redlinked names because at least 95 percent of the time it means that someone is a vandal or new. Usually it means trouble. Rarely is it a seasoned person like yourself who really gets how things work around here. To me, an edit to a redlinked name on an article that I'm watching means that I for sure need to review it.
I've always identified the location as the nearest community; a place that the reader can find on a map. Larger designated areas like Recreational Areas and National Forests don't fit well. How would you change the way that things are done if you could? For Blue Mound State Park, the nearest community is named Blue Mound. The Chippewa Moraine State Recreation Area is probably best described by its location within the county. I took the photographs at the Potawatomi State Park - that's real confusing since it's located on a bay called Sturgeon Bay near the city called Sturgeon Bay. The Bay of Sturgeon Bay is a bay within a large bay called Green Bay (also not to be confused with the city of Green Bay known for the Green Bay Packers), which is a bay to Lake Michigan. Royalbroil00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the "Nearest city" designation, which can be seen on the Michigan state parks sites, among others, seems to make more sense. Location implies to me that something is actually within the named place, not just close to it. Backspace (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of its existence and I didn't completely understand your question. I had to look with up in Michigan's Fort Wilkins Historic State Park article that I visited this summer. I think you should implement the closest city were appropriate and I doubt it's controversial enough to require a cursory ask from my fellow WikiProject Wisconsin people. I think WP:BOLD is appropriate in this case. Royalbroil03:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever sleep?
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I think you have showed up on my watchlist about fifty times in the last week or so, making small but helpful improvements to Alaska-related articles. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one paying attention to a lot of these articles, it's nice to know that isn't the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I should be the one asking that question of you. By last count, it appears that you have twice as many edits as I do, even though you have not been at Wikipedia as long as I have. However, it appears that I do more direct article edits than you, since I do not have any real administrative duties, nor do I engage in much user talk and such. I just edit whenever I have free time and feel like doing it, and I don't really follow any schedule.
Most of my edits center around geographical topics, although I have done a few things with country music articles. Alaska has always fascinated me as a place that is wild, remote, and unknown, not just to people in general, but even among most Americans. I just thought I might make it easier for people to understand the place, just by locating places and seeing where they are on a map. One thing that I noticed on Wikipedia in general, with Alaska being no exception, was that those location maps that the geo-coordinates lead the reader to seem to drill down to the last tiny bit of sand in the center of whatever place the article was about. Clicking on a map did not really give one a sense of where the place was, especially in relation to other places. Sometimes you would just get a big white blot. So I decided to change the scale of maps in order that places could be seen relative to other places around it.
However, I am no expert on Wikipedia manipulation, since there are many things that I would like to do but simply don't know how to. I ran into that problem while trying to change the scale of maps where the coordinates were built into an infobox template structure, so there were plenty of instances where I saw things that I wanted to change, but didn't do so.Backspace (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when it comes to aviation accidents in specific, the articles are categorized under disasters or transportation disasters or a related category -- for example Category:Disasters in California rather than Category:California. This way we don't have crazy over-categorization.
2. Madera County. I still maintain that it happened in Madera County. First reason: Text says it occurred on Buena Vista Crest, which is in Madera County (GNIS). Second reason: Given geocoordinates (assuming they are true - I did not put them in; somebody else did), also places it in Madera County. Where do you get the indication that it lies in Mariposa County?
3. For the third point, I am usually trying to place the event / place geographically within a certain county or city (as opposed to another county or city). For more specific categories (within that county, I will generally defer to other people as to what category the articles should fall into. In other words, I am just doing geography, as opposed to anything else. Backspace (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geographic coordinates: I saw you deleted some of those from some crash articles; I had just recently the geo coordinates on the TWA 800 article as I didn't think they were accurate (or appropriate). Are they all wildly inaccurate? LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases the official accident report will give specific coordinates but not usually. For example the 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash the official report just states that it "...crashed near Aberdeen, South Dakota." I think trying to quantify that with coordinates with a high degree of precision does not make sense, but it looks like the WP:GEO people feel otherwise. Oh, I think those are added by a bot, and am concerned that if you leave the "coord missing" tag the bot will come back and put the inaccurate coordinates back in (though I don't really know). Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very leery when I see the word "near". "Near" is very subjective and not the same thing as "in", which is vastly more objective. How near is near? If I reported that a plane crashed in Windsor, "near Detroit", it would be logically deemed as factual by most people, myself included. They are as near as near can be, actually touching each other. However, if someone were to assume that it was "in" Detroit, and provide some random coordinates therein, would put the location in the wrong city, wrong county, wrong state (province), and even the wrong country. That is what relying on the word "near" will get you, to use an extreme example. Backspace (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
While the album's notability may be questioned, the notability of the artist is unassailable. That is the main reason why the article was created. I did not see the notability query that you mentioned. Backspace (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iztapalapa
Do you have a source for the claim that the population of this borough is larger than that of Ecatepec and Guadalajara? Normally, I would revert this kind of unsourced information, but I know it is quite plausible. I did put a {{cn}} tag on it though. It may be removed at a later date by someone else if it isnt cited. Thanks.Thelmadatter (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has now been corrected. I am not sure how this would affect the 83% figure that was already in the text, because I do not have previous census numbers available, and besides, the "last decades" statement is quite vague. Backspace (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naucalpan
Similar problem... I dont see a citation stating that the city extends beyond the municipality's borders. I find this dubious. All is urban area, but doesnt mean the city of Naucalpan... a political entity has any say in neighboring municipality's affairs.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the links, especially that of Huixquilucan de Degollado? Have you looked at the locality population tables from INEGI? Cities, as such, are non-existent governmental entities within municipalities anyway. All of the political power lies with the municipality. It was stated that the two parts of the city are governed separately. They are not a political unit. There is no such thing as a political city/locality in these municipalities of Mexico. Backspace (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain what you mean by "citation". I assume that it means a quotation from some source. I cannot supply you with that. However, I do have all of the population figures for all localities, municipalities, and states in Mexico, which are available from the referenced source in the article. There are over 250,000 localities in Mexico. When they are all in front of you in spreadsheet format it is a simple matter to determine which entities are the largest, etc. This is the source from which I have supplied the short tables of locality populations (in the Towns and Villages section in Tenango del Aire, among other municipalities) from the 2010 census. Backspace (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Tijuana
I've noticed your contributions on pages relating to Tijuana. We encourage you to join WikiProject Tijuana where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to Tijuana on Wikipedia. If you would like more information on what needs to and can be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:CrystalGayleCrystalGayleCD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Nice work on all the island coords... didn't know you could set that.
Wondering, is there a standard established for the 1:500000 ratio? It seems to me that 1:50000000 would be more appropriate with regard to neighboring islands. At least in Hawaii. 1:5M vs 1:500K --Travis Thurston+02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha. You said 50,000,000 and I think you meant 5,000,000 (as in your example). I don't think that there is a standard. For groups of islands it's always a compromise between showing too small a scale and showing too large a scale. For Oahu in particular, a scale of 500,000 shows the island itself quite nicely, but doesn't show much of its relationship to the other islands, since they are all so far away. However, a scale of 5,000,000 (even 2,500,000) shows off the relationship between the various islands, but doesn't show much about Oahu itself. In general, however, on maps, I never like to "drill down" so much that you don't see the relationship of a place to other places around it. Backspace (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Happened to notice after I messaged you that the scale changes depending on what service you use... of course Google and Bing keep it accurate. Thanks! --Travis Thurston+04:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
coordinate scale, dim, overprecision, and sourcing
The {{coord}} parameter scale:xxx is considered inferior to the dim:yyy parameter, which gives the size of the object by its largest dimension measured in metres. See User:EncMstr/Coord for a full explanation.
Also, your recent edit removed the GNIS ID from the source, added overprecision to the coordinate, removed the dim parameter, and added a scale: parameter, so I reverted it since it was better before. —EncMstr (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept your explanation for the reversal of my edit for the most part. I am not sure about the overprecision part, which is subjective, but is no more than that supplied by GNIS itself. I am not familiar with the dimension parameter. I do most of my scale parameters based upon a subject's relative dimensions to other geographical objects. I generally have no idea how many miles or kilometers across something is, only how large it is relative to other places or how much of the map it takes up. My recent activity has come about (as you may have noticed if you are the person or persons who review my work) because I have noticed that many map links seem to be "drilled down" (to use the colloquial expression) to such a point where one is looking at the middle drop of water in the center of the sea, with nothing but water all around. I want to see maps where a place can be related to other places around it, not this kind of stuff.
On other matters, since I respect your opinion on such things, what is the best way to display places near the north and south polar regions? I have found that most of the Mercator projection maps in general use are greatly distorted, requiring huge scale values to display them. Will the dimension parameter work better in these cases? How do you display a good map of Antarctica, for example? Backspace (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overprecision is explained here. Giving a location with precision of one second of arc (at Oregon latitudes) is 22 metres (72 ft) of precision, which suggests the city size is on the order of 250 metres (820 ft).
Your point about GNIS sourcing is a good one: We've seen enough problems with the GNIS database to not take it as gospel. Some WP:ORE members have successfully submitted corrections for GNIS entries (example). GNIS's extreme overprecision can be addressed by using decimal coordinates instead of the archaic DMS notation. GNIS decimal coordinates have seven decimal digits, probably for data processing reasons. This corresponds to a precision of 7.87 millimetres (0.310 in)! However, this is easily fixed, and address original research concerns by rounding the decimal values to fewer digits.
The first link I gave before describes dim:. There are several ways to measure a feature's size, such as using a calibrated measure on your screen and relating that to the map scale—even counting finger widths is better than nothing. Or you can use one of the mapping tools linear measure functions. For example, Google Maps has a Google Maps Labs feature named Distance Measurement Tool. When enabled, it adds a small icon at the lower left of the map display which, when clicked on, prompts for "from" and "to" locations.
When mapping an object, there are two basic goals: to see the object (like with a satellite view), or to see where the object is relative to well known landmarks. The map scale for each use is different, and I am not aware of any standard for which should be chosen for use with the scale: parameter. The dim: parameter will do something standard, so leaving the decision to it helps avoid making difficult decisions and is consistent across articles. Either way the map comes up, you can always zoom to the desired scale.
Polar region imagery sucks—so far. Even when using Google Earth, it is frustrating trying to see the research station at the South Pole since its constituent images suffer from apparent Mercator projection stitching. Since this is well discussed, hopefully, it will be resolved in the near future. —EncMstr (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that errors exist on these databases. One recent example comes from my attempt to find coordinates for the Ariake Sea in Japan, which currently has missing coordinates. My attempt resulted in an immediate self-reversal when I found out that the Geonet Names Server's coordinates were identical to (and in fact were) the coordinates for Shibushi Bay, a different body of water in Japan, for which we currently have no article, as far as I know.
Until fairly recently, as I recall, MSN Maps had some pretty good maps which were based on a conical projection. They could display any place in the world without significant distortion unless it was a huge territory such as a continent of ocean or Russia. The projection would use the given geocoordinates as the focal point of the projection, so that any place on Earth of the same magnitude would result in a map of equal distortion characteristics, which to me seemed quite good. The maps were nicely drawn but were unfortunately available only in scales at certain ratchet-points without any intervening scales. I don't know when it happened, but MSN Maps has now become Bing Maps, which also uses the Mercator projection like just about everybody else, it seems. Backspace (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3rr
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I have actually only done one revert (definied as an undo). Most of your so-called "reverts" have not been reverts at all, but have changed or added or deleted content. I shall wait at least 24 hours before I do anything more. Thanks for the warning. Backspace (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a threat to me. I have over 30,000 edits here at Wikipedia and this is the first time I have been threatened. Will the person who reverts my edits also be threatened? After all, it takes two to tango. Backspace (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Map scales
Hey, long time no see :) Regarding your question, I assume this is the kind of edit you have in mind? Just so you know, moving the coordinates out of the infobox into a {{coord}} template is completely unnecessary. The infobox code itself can easily be tweaked to change the default scale (which will automatically change it in all articles which utilize that infobox). 1:100,000 is only used because that's the scale other similar infoboxes used at the time this infobox was designed. If you think 1:500,000 is better, I have no objections. However, I would appreciate it if you moved the coordinates back to the infobox after this change has been implemented. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, of course. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 17:56 (UTC)
OK, it looks that I remembered incorrectly. The infobox template does not hardcode the scale, but it does specify region:RU_type:adm2nd, which is 1:300,000 by default. If you think that's still too detailed, you should probably bring it up on the {{coord}}'s talk page. The template simply uses the definition which, I assume, was agreed upon elsewhere. There most certainly is no need to override this manually in hundreds of articles. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 20:09 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what you mean. However, you are also right that there is no "typical" size for a district in Russia, so I think it's impossible to pick just one scale that would accommodate them all (although adm2nd already covers most of them). On the other hand, I don't really see it as much of a problem. When I need to look at one of those maps, for example, it's usually because I'm trying to pinpoint a certain place within the district (so I'll have to zoom in anyway) or to see how a district is located compared to other districts (so I'll have to zoom out). The scale of 1:300,000 is usually a good enough starting point, even if on some occasions it's an overkill or an underkill. And of course, district borders not showing on a map doesn't do much for usability regardless of the scale :)
It is actually not that difficult to add something like a "coord_scale" parameter to the infobox template (to be used for unusually large or unusually small districts), but, frankly, I just don't see it as an improvement worth making. Every district would eventually have an svg map roughly corresponding to the area you are trying to replicate in external map services, so if the external map is off by one or two zoom levels, is it really that big of a deal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 11, 2012; 13:22 (UTC)
Ah, you are quite right about that one. I've self-reverted. This district, however, is an abnormally large entity, and there aren't many more like it. Overall, I stand by my opinion that this is too isolated a problem to bother fixing (and I can't really think of a solution that's not too cumbersome :)). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 11, 2012; 20:35 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maxwell Lock & Dam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centerville, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Would you like a real challenge? The List of islands of Maine page features over 3,000 islands, many duplicating names, some which do not fall within any particular town or county (like plantations)--and it would be a great service to start adding GPS coordinates.ElijahBosley(talk ☞)13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Barnstar and your attention. I have looked at those islands with separate articles, but I am not likely to do a large database of islands, most of which have no separate article, and thus, seemingly, generate little interest. Backspace (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question. Yes. Putting something (anything) on your user page will make your name blue in edit histories. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be RED is a personal choice. There are a number of users who have chosen to do that. From the other end of the telescope, you may confuse some other editors as to who you are and what you are about. I think that some editors may be sceptical about edits from red accounts with which they are unfamiliar. Personally, I think some transparency is helpful. When reviewing an edit, I find it is useful to have some inkling who the editor is; but it all depends ultimately on the value of the edit. But that's just me. But again, there is no rule, and you get to do what you want. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leider spreche ich Deutsch nicht, aber hoffentlich will ich eines Tages erfahren. In wiki, this might even be better than an MBE. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Backspace. You have new messages at Bruin2's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This happened to pop up on my watchlist only because I created the category; otherwise no one watches category talk pages as it's not the typical place to discuss issues with the articles contained in the category. I suggest you instead post your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin and identify which articles you are talking about, and/or on the individual articles' talk pages. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. The one relative sentence for my argument is in the Town section, which states: "All areas in the state that have not been incorporated as cities or villages are parts of towns." This statement specifically excludes incorporated cities and villages from being "located in" towns. Backspace (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Campgaw Mountain Reservation
Hello, I saw your recent edits on Campgaw Mountain Reservation removing Franklin Lakes as a town which the park is located within. The Reservation, however, does extend into Franklin Lakes, even though Google Maps/Acme Mapper do not show it. I posted the details on the article's talk page, but basically part of the area at the end of Shadow Ridge Road in Franklin Lakes is reservation land.
If that is the case, then I stand corrected. I was just going by those two maps mentioned. Perhaps DeLorme's New Jersey map may have been a better source, but I do not have that one available to me at this moment. It's too bad that Bergen County saw fit to remove their maps from their website. Backspace (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
of its territory lies to the southwest and south of the city. It is named after [[Mystery Lake (Manitoba|Mystery Lake]] ({{coord|55|50|50|N|97|43|40|W|scale:100000|display=inline}}), a lake
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Division No. 17, Manitoba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dauphin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Backspace, I have a couple Manitoba and Saskatchewan communities on my watchlist. You've added some new content to them, which I believe are factual, but every addition I've seen has been unreferenced. Would you please start including the associated references as inline citations? I reverted your addition to Britannia No. 502, Saskatchewan for two reasons – it was unsourced (per edit summary) and it was redundant with sourced content in the two lead paragraphs. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovin' Every Minute until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Global account
Hi Backspace! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Backspace. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You added a population of 1467 from the 2000 census for Terminal Island[7]. Can you provide a source for this claim? Census tract 2961 which seems to be the closest thing to a tract covering Terminal Island [8] had a population of 1434 in the 2000 census [9]. I don't know that much about the area but 2971.20 has a very high population [10] so you can't add it to 2961 to get 1467. If you are adding 5756, the population of 46 [11] gives 1480 total. Also 5756 is part of a different CCD although I appreciate CCDs may not necessarily correlate with local norms. It doesn't make much sense IMO to include the areas above [12] given that they don't seem to be part of the island, but in any case I'm pretty sure they have very high populations. Is the definition of Terminal Island coming from somewhere like the government of California or of Los Angeles and then this definition then being used to get the data for census block groups or census blocks which cover the area from at least 2, at least one of which is only in part, census tracts and come up with a figure? This seems a quite involved process and would need a good source. One possibility is the census themselves have a definition of Terminal Island, but if they do I can't work out how to get it. I've looked at the block data both [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] and likewise don't see any signs of any census definition of Terminal Island. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:TanyaTuckerLiveCD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:EmmylouHarrisStumbleintoGrace.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:EmmylouHarrisCowgirlsPrayer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:EmmylouHarrisRedDirtGirl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:NanciGriffithTheLastoftheTrueBelievers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest wilderness areas in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thanks for uploading File:EmmylouHarrisLuxuryLiner.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:TanyaTuckerLiveatBillyBobsTexas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woman in the Moon (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
