This archive page includes discussions that began between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hwy43. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am looking to replace the image that is currently on the Grande Prairie article with something that is up to date, which is why I added a photo earlier today. The angle of the photo I added is generally considered to be the iconic view of downtown, similar to the view of downtown Edmonton from Cloverdale Hill. Is the angle that the current photo provides better for wiki purposes? If that is the case I can look into taking a photo from that area for the purpose of providing an up to date photo.
Hi Oreotoast, I appreciate your efforts to try to improve the Grande Prairie article. While I recognize the current image is older than yours, there is nothing notably different in the skyline between yours and whenever the current image was taken.
The current image is colourful, has texture in the sky, and is taken from an elevated viewpoint allowing view over the treetops so that we can see multiple downtown buildings and even the rural landscape in the horizon beyond the skyline. Your photo lacks colour due to the time of the year (mostly grey, white, brown, and pale blue), is mostly sky, and features little more than 214 Place due to the lower viewpoint and the trees that obscure the majority of other buildings comprising the skyline (doing so even without their leaves).
If there is something notably newer in the skyline since the current image was taken, can you take another photo in the summer possibly from the same viewpoint used in the current photo? To me, it looks like the viewpoint might be from the upper floor of city hall or the current hospital. Better yet, in two years when the new hospital is finally open, a shot from its uppermost floor or rooftop might reveal a captivating view with GPRC and Muskoseepi Park reservoir in the foreground before landing on the downtown skyline, including the Catholic church's steeple that overlooks the park. I am now salivating at the thought...
List of municipalities all complete for 2016 census?
Hi there. I've recently finished updating Saskatchewan to have 2016 census data, and although it took over a year, a quick glance shows that it now seems all lists of municipalities in Canada are now standardized and up to date for 2016. Have you noticed anything I have missed in the leads or tables? If not, I'm thinking of taking the next step and nominating PEI for featured list. Would you like to be co-nom on this one as well? I'm in no hurry I have one other list almost through promotion, but since you are a primary contributor I was wondering if you wanted to take the lead or co-nom, or if you do not have time to participate. Thanks for making that PEI map by the way, it is excellent. Mattximus (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mattximus. Terribly busy the first half of February. I'd like to lead our co-nom effort sometime in he second half of February after I have the time to do one more anal-retentive pass. In the meantime, thought I should apprise you of these 2016 census corrections. I haven't processed any yet, except for maybe Alberta. I can't recall. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've started making all the corrections... but before I continue I want to make sure about something. Should I also correct the province total to reflect the new changes? I have been, but now I'm not so sure if that would be considered OR. Mattximus (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
As StatCan does not change the provincial and territorial totals we shouldn't either. I would only change the totals by municipal status. I recall that is what we did last time with the 2011 census corrections. Hwy43 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
All done, for every province and territory. They added some new corrections a few days ago and I've incorporated those as well. Thanks for pointing me to that list. Anything else that I can do to advance this project? Mattximus (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Thanks. Not sure what else at this point. My distractions have extended longer than anticipated. I'll let you know when ready. I also need to circle back to the AB list to fix something in relation to the MD of Bonnyville No. 87, if I recall correctly. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The reliable source cited was incomplete in its information. Trust me when I say I know about the history of the province's local service districts than any reporter and anyone at the Department of Environment and Local Government than has ever answered one of my queries.
The parish of Madawaska is bisected by the parish of Saint-Jacques, which in turn was bisected by the parish of Saint-Joseph.
When local service districts were created in 1966, the parish of Madawaska was one of them, including all of the community except a much smaller city of Edmundston; the LSD thus consisted of both portions of the parish. (Regulation 66-41)
In 1967 part of the western portion was established as the local service district of Verret, isolating the southern end of the western portion of the parish. (Regulation 67-72A)
In 1973 Edmundston annexed part of the western portion, leaving that part of the LSD divided into three pieces. (Regulation 73-121)
In 1978 Verret was incorporated as a village, annexing one of the pieces of the western portion of the LSD. (Regulation 78-82)
In 1998 Edmundston expanded, annexing Verret and most of the southern part of the western portion of the LSD, leaving an area along chemin Alcide Collin in the southwestern corner and a few acres along the Iroquois River, which I'd forgotten about. (Regulation 97-85)
in 2017 Haut-Madawaska annexed the southwestern corner of the western portion of the LSD, leaving the eastern portion and a few acres of the western portion along the Iroquois River. (Regulation 2017-5)
Except for some campsite leases, the eastern portion was granted to the New Brunswick Railway Company, which did nothing with the land.
So the local service district of the parish of Madawaska still exists in Regulation 84-168 but what's left is apparently uninhabited; it's hard to tell for sure because since 1998 the population has been so small that the census rounds it up or down to the nearest five for privacy reasons. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@G. Timothy Walton: I don't doubt your expertise, but you have since added an explanatory note, which is still without a supporting reference. I don't need to tell you the importance of references, which is particularly underscored in a featured list. Surely there is a provincial order in council, letters patent, or whatever is the NB equivalent, that legislated the incorporation of Haut-Madawaska. Without, this is nothing more than your original research, which cannot be accepted. I will tag your explanatory note for now. I hope you can find the source that is needed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes I've noticed the similarities. Intersections of Canada in general and Ottawa specifically, high rise buildings and transportation. Canterbury Tailtalk12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
For catching the sockpuppet Saboteurest. Not only did you singularly detect a sock who was brazenly operating under the radar of numerous administrators and Arbcom itself, but you singularly neutralized an extraordinarily manipulative and malicious editor who subtly disrupted the project and drained the community's time and effort. Exceptional job. Swarm♠20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan City Trailer Court, Alberta 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. Madg2011 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
I fail to understand why there should be entirely duplicative lists for each type of municipality. The main municipalities list has all this information already and is not so massive that separate lists are more accessible. Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK this is an unacceptable type of forking and should be merged back (though there is nothing to merge, all being already there). Just because we don't have a physical size limit of the encyclopedia does not mean there should be duplicate articles with no unique information. Reywas92Talk06:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the info I added due to lack of reference. However, the listing of single-tier cities in the paragraph above wasn't referenced either. Besides, does it even need to be directly referenced if the articles for these municipalities are linked below? Transportfan70 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Transportfan70, the lack of references above and throughout was noted through the subsequent edit tagging the article and sections for dire need of reference attention. Not sure I understand the question, but readers should not have to click the blue links to municipality articles to verify information in this article. A reference here should do that instead. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
10,000 Challenge (Canada)
Hey, thanks for adding to the recent additions list for the challenge. I'm working through awards for the second year and knew you'd done a lot that wasn't listed. Thanks also for your note on the talk page, I was curious how you made semi-automated updates like that. Amazing work, and much appreciated! BTW, feel free to spread the word about the challenge. In a week or so I hope to distribute barnstars for everything that was added to the list before the end of this month. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The quantity added yesterday was more underwhelming than I hoped and expected. As you can see, my edit frequency has trended downward significantly since early 2015, except for a five-month blip in late 2016/early 2017, to all-time lows the past 18 months. There are more 2016 census related updates to Alberta unincorporated community articles I could add but curious if there is any challenges to my talk page response first. Same with significant fixes to Nova Scotia county articles I think, which I don't know if I have added those previously. If you send me an email using the "Email this user" tool I can send you what the Excel file looks like. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the midst of a six-month stint as lead coordinator of the WP:GOCE so I haven't created much content lately. But on the other hand, one editor I mentored has expanded 25 articles to GA, so I think there's definitely a net gain. Email sent. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Excel file sent via email. Hopefully you can reverse-engineer (i.e. understand) how I used concatenation in Excel for preparation of quick comprehensive 2016 census results wording for demographics sections for municipalities and Metis settlements, as well as updating the urban municipalities table portion of List of municipalities in Alberta. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. While StatCan is the primary and definitive source for population and demographics for Canada's census subdivisions, they aren't however for municipal statuses. The provincial ministries responsible for municipalities are the primary and definitive source for that. StatCan has a track record of being erroneous on municipal statuses. Nearly ten years ago I notified them that the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo is not a regional municipality as no such status exists in Alberta. It is a specialized municipality that branded itself as a regional municipality in its official name only. StatCan corrected it along with other errors in Alberta I notified them of (e.g. no such status as county anymore; they are municipal districts branded as counties). Northern Rockies Regional Municipality is another error that persists at StatCan. It is actually district municipality. I could go on! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. You are correct in your opening statement about the proposed merging being aggressive. I am always open to an informal discussion to explain in future, but what is done is done. Further to my comments at the discussion to date, I have skimmed Wikipedia:Categorization and have yet to find anything in that guideline discouraging categories with only one entry. If you are aware where such exists, please point me in that direction. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award (year two)
Hello, Hwy43. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hwy43. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
