User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2011.1

Template:Infobox road

I just made a request at Template:Infobox road. Is this something you could try? The template code makes me dizzy. Hwy43 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hannah Montana

Technically, the text I added was hidden but I get your point. QuasyBoy 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, My bad. Is it OK if I restored my hidden edit along with "present". QuasyBoy 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for help

I've noticed your work in some Newfoundland and Labrador related articles and was wondering if you would be interested in helping fix up the Newfoundland and Labrador article. The article is in bad shape and almost all sections need to be fixed up so I'm hoping you can work on atleast one section. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never been to Newfoundland and Labrador, so I can't help on your province's article. I have an interest in cleaning up election articles, and it has been recent news that has brought me to your end of the country. 117Avenue (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberta municipal elections, 2010

Well done on completing the Alberta municipal elections, 2010 article! It was a lot of work, especially the Municipal Districts section as each table required more particular customization compared to the urban municipality tables. Also, thanks for letting me assist! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not have been as difficult as it looked. After finding the results, I coloured in cells for each ward in a spreadsheet, played around with the placement until I found the best. Then I used that as a model for typing it in (some even had the results in table form already), and of course the spreadsheet did all the math for percentages. 117Avenue (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you happen to use Excel's concatenation formula function to prepare the WP code in these tables or the article as a whole? Do you use this function to streamline any of your edits? Hwy43 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I typed (or pasted) the names and numbers into Excel, summed and divided for percentages, then pasted the selected cell onto WP, under a header copied from a similar already written section. Then replaced all the spaces with pipes, which is a quick repetitive task. Then confirmed with the AMA list of councillors that the winners were correct, bolding them (and sometimes getting preferred names), then italicizing incumbents, for the 10,000+ I just used last election's results, but for the 10,000- I looked up archived council minutes. Accordingly rewrote the paragraph, after confirming facts with school district websites, clicked preview for a final time, then save. 117Avenue (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a process that becomes quicker and more efficient the more times you complete the process. I did something similar to what you described for those that I completed. Hwy43 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. 117Avenue (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Political conventions

Hi There: I practically single-handly wrote these articles, and they are mostly about the convention, not a leadership election, in particular the 1971 convention. The leadership election is only a fifth of the article. The term convention is also what the party and all my cited sources called it.Abebenjoe (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Literally a month ago I asked for an explanation, and I just noticed you did reply, but not on my talk page, as is customary. Anyway, you, or someone else, had already moved the pages before I had a chance to comment. These articles are really about "conventions", and separate articles can deal with the "races" or "elections".Abebenjoe (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read the move discussion, and there was no consensus, since I originated the article New Democratic Party leadership convention, 1971, and see no one else trying to move it, except you, I will be moving back to its original name. Please respond.Abebenjoe (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenwood, Alberta

Per the edit summary here, I recall noticing this on a couple occassions when I did my original sweep a year ago. Keep your eye open for others as you continue. Keep up the good work! Hwy43 (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know why the Lethbridge municipal by-election, 2011 is being held two days after the deadline? 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No clue. Is the requirement 90 calendar days or 90 working days? In some legislated deadline situations, the responsible minister can provide extensions. Maybe they received one due to the holiday season. Drumheller got an enumeration dealine extension for its unsuccessful municipal census back in 2007 or 2008.

Also, excellent eye on Alberta Beach. I have been aware of this for quite some time, just never implemented it on here. Absolute total coincidence, but I was talking to a fellow employee about exactly this mere minutes before you make this edit. Weird... Hwy43 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think there was an extension, in the letter from Minister Hector Goudreau, seen on the City website, he says 90 days. If there were an extension, then why not just one day, to put it on a Monday like all Alberta municipal and provincial elections? I have been aware of Alberta Beach since I downloaded the spreadsheets in December, it has taken me this long to get down to the villages. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed any of the material related to the by-election.

As a heads up, I'm going to elaborate on the history of the Alberta Beach official name since you added it (just not tonight). Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it. I just assumed it was dropped when it changed statuses in 1999. 117Avenue (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That was when it was dropped.[1] I've always presumed it was intentional. If so, I'd be really interested to know what the motivation was to be unique. Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking it still wants to be known as a summer village/summer vacation spot, rather than an incorporation. However, the person who wrote the main page of their website doesn't know, and uses village of. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I made the same observation. Hwy43 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read your edit summary on List of villages in Alberta, guess I didn't have my eyes that open. 117Avenue (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this, personal preference/observation or actual WP guideline? Hwy43 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I went to WP:What does 'per' mean? to look for a clear cut answer of what it means, and a suitable replacement, but I don't think it actually answers the question. I always thought it was short for 'pertaining to', but that didn't work in your sentence structure. 117Avenue (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings/usages for per. In this situation, I was using it as a short form for in accordance with. Hwy43 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Love your pics! :) Kyle1278 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NL PC Party

Would you be able to change the template colour for the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador? Their horrible website (http://www.pcparty.nf.net) shows the logo's colour and so does this link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Newfoundland_and_Labrador_Logo.svg the logo's colour on Wikipeidia is a bit lighter then the one currently used on the website Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just finished changing the colour for the Alberta PCs. I think more and more users want a colour for their province. I am not sure if I should continue this movement without discussion, or there are benefits to have consistency across the provinces, and a lighter shade than is actually used. For the Alberta PCs, the blue is so dark, whenever there was text on it, I had to also change the colour of the text. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The party's aren't related so it make sense for them to have different colours. I am able to change the colour of the NL PC's on election websites and what not but I'm unsure how to do all the template stuff and get the right colour. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. How far back should I change the colours? When were they no longer affiliated with the national PCs / when did they adopt this shade for their logo? 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the federal PC's ceased to exist in 2003, I'm unsure which party's were actually affiliated with them though. They may have all been but it may have been the same thing as the Liberals, where we have Liberal parties in all 10 provinces but only half are affiliated with the federal party. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'll do all of them then, back to 1949. 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave it at 2003 for now. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. How should it be explained on Template:Canadian politics/party colours#Newfoundland-only provincial parties, since it is the same party? 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could say from 2003 on or I could just go back to 1949 and change them. Most of the election pages are stubs and don't have much changing to do. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Your votes of delete at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 26, to clean up the mess you made in December, would be appreciated. No worries, I was a beginner at templates at one point. 117Avenue (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Thanks for adding infoboxes to elections, in particular, Alberta 1921. I'm doing research and as usual have many tabs open, you managed to add it in between my opening of two different tabs of the same page so I noticed it. Just wanted to say thanks! 174.118.61.19 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, it is a slow process, I too must have many windows open, on two monitors, to compile the information. 117Avenue (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox weather

I saw this earlier. In particular the hidden remark about needing the "°F parameters. They are here to ensure proper em dash display". If that's the case then would it be possible to fix the template so that it's not required. By the way on the demonyms thing I'm not sure how accurate that government database is. See User talk:UncivilFire#Arviat. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The dash problem has been brought up on the talk page a number of times. The problem isn't with the weather template, but with the parser functions, see my 00:13, 23 June 2010 comment. Since this is a cross Wikimedia problem, I don't want to take the initiative to remedy it, but I definitely feel that it should be done. 117Avenue (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yvonne Jones

Hi there, I see you got to the Yvonne Jones article before I had a chance to go back and fix the citations needed. It looks much better the way you edited it. Anyways, did you happen to check the references I removed? I just want to make sure I did the right thing, as I couldn't find anything in those articles that even came close to referencing the text. Random articles on health care and energy may show she has an interest in those topics, but don't appear to back up the announcement of her three priorities. Cmr08 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I just took your word for it. It got added to my watchlist when I was bypassing a redirect. She is a person I haven't heard of, in a party I don't support, in a province I haven't been to, so I don't know anything about her, and didn't want to get involved in writing the article. I just cleanup when I can. Sorry, 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check your contribution list first. I had noticed the name in several history checks of related articles, and thought you were editing them. I now see your edits in those articles were cleaning up. Thanks anyways, I appreciate you getting back to me, and the work you do in cleaning up those articles. Cmr08 (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you know about infoboxes?

In a politicians infobox is there a correct way to title in the office section which electoral distrcit they represent? For example some politicians articles are "MHA for Virginia Waters" while others have the MHA spelled out. One contributer I've noticed though is only putting "Member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly" as the office and then under the predecessor and successor section it lists the constituency. Do you know if there is a proper format for this because I haven't noticed this third way really used before? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox officeholder, an assembly member should use the assembly and constituency_AM parameters. The ones I've seen in Alberta manualy insert the title in the office parameter, because our assembly's official name doesn't end in the word Assembly. Ed Stelmach, which is a featured article, spells it out, "Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville", and this is how it would appear is you were to use the assembly member parameters. And so I would have to say the correct way would be "Member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly for Virginia Waters". This can be done by replacing office2 with |assembly2 = Newfoundland and Labrador House of |constituency_AM2 = [[Virginia Waters (electoral district)|Virginia Waters]]. 117Avenue (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought it should look like. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television episode

Hi there. I just wanted to inform you that I restored this template to this revision. The changes made today broke the transclusions for the episode list and the below= parameter, for example on Dowisetrepla. I notified the user, Headbomb (talk · contribs), who probably made the breaking changes but since you seem to keep an eye on it, I wanted to leave you a note as well. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was too late into the night to analyze Headbomb's changes. 117Avenue (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed you have the admin hopeful userbox on your userpage. Have you ever considered running for admin or is that just a general statement that you would think about it one day? Regards SoWhy 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about it more and more. My edits just broke the 20,000 mark, and when BernsteinBot ran earlier this week[2], I was on the doorstep of the top 2,000. I have the userbox to say I wouldn't say no if someone did nominated me, but I don't have the courage to nominate myself yet. 117Avenue (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not analyzed your edits in any depth so far but what I did see was quite good. If you were an admin, which areas would you want to work in?

I'd offer to analyze your edits and possibly to nominate you if I liked what I saw but (as a disclaimer) I won't nominate (or support for that matter) anyone with an edit summary usage as low as this, so you would have to agree to change that if you want to accept my offer. ;-) Regards SoWhy 07:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're saying 74% is low? I'll have to work on that, thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Imho anything below 99% is, simply because I think edit summaries are vital to make it easier for others to understand your edits and admins especially are expected to communicate in a clear and transparent fashion. It also serves to avoid misunderstandings if your reasons for an edit are not clear from the edit itself (and you can never anticipate when someone might think it's unclear). You might want to enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in My Preferences => Editing in order to avoid forgetting them. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually already have in enabled. But I guess what I am wondering is if it counts default summaries, or do I always have to enter text. When I create page, I don't type anything in, because an edit summary is automatically made, when I add a comment to a section on a talk page (like now), I let the section title be my summary of what I've done. 117Avenue (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would still add an edit summary, even if it's only a short one. For example, I use "resp" (or "resp to XXX") to indicate that my comment was in response to someone else or "cmt" when it's a non-responding comment. I admit that's not the best style as well but at least people know that I didn't just correct some typos or suchlike. On a side note, the aforementioned option prompts you as well if you try to save a section without a summary. Regards SoWhy 09:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2011

I am not sure if you're watching this article or not but I've posted a question in the discussion page I thought you'd probably be able to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still watching all the future elections, but I don't have an answer. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you have an opinion on this or not but the Liberals and PCs have started nominating candidates for the elction, I've started adding those who have been nominated but I haven't cited them. Should I cite everytime a candidate is nominated or will I just wait till Elections NL or the party releases their official lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated in my comments on WT:CANADA, I only cared about the ones not scheduled for this year, as the other eight are closer to election day, and are more likely to be what will actually happen. A reference will be required if there were any contradictions, and the number of candidates shouldn't be included until Elections NL has released its list. 117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

British Columbia general election, 2013

"Current" really seems unnecessary at this point, but if you are going to put it in, you should be consistent. Do you know that Christy Clark won't quit, die or be forced from the leadership before the election? If not, then she should be listed as the "current leader" too. Ground Zero | t 03:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean 'unnecessary at this point'? 117Avenue (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

These are people who are leaders of their parties now. One could argue that it is speculative to suggest that they won't be leading them tow years from now. If the party leaders change, the article can be updated, but otherwise it is not unreasonable to simply indicate that they are the party leaders. Ground Zero | t 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WT:CANADA#Party leaders for future elections? It is speculative to suggest that they will be leading the parties into election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

By the same argument, it is speculative to suggest that these parties will be nominating candidates in an election to be held two years from now. While it is a reasonable assumption for the Libs and NDP, who knows whether the guys behind the Nation Alliance Party and Your Political Party will still be interested in politics, or whether the BC First Party will get off the ground. These are pretty ephemeral groups. What do you think about changing the heading of the section to "Currently registered political parties" to make it clear that we are not speculating what parties will nominate candidates and who their leaders will be? And while we're at it, what do you think about changing the article title to "40th British Columbia general election" to parallel "41st Canadian federal election" and avoid the assumption that there won't be an early election call? Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the article suggests that these parties will be nominating candidates, it is a list of currently registered parties, and if there are registered parties after nomination day, without candidates, they are still going to be mentioned on the article. A slight rewording could help to make this clearer. In regards to your proposed renaming, I actually believe it should be the other way around, the naming convention for scheduled elections is to have the year in the title, however one could argue that it is a different case because it is a minority government. 117Avenue (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is a list of currently registered parties, the heading of the list should be clear that these are currently registered parties, and then it is sufficient to identify the leader without specifying "current". The list, after all, includes parties that may become deregistered in the next two years. We don't know now what parties will still be registered any more than we know who their leaders will be. Ground Zero | t 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As a side note to this why are the Green Party and the Conservative Party even included in the infobox? Shouldn't it only be parties with elected members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Same reason the Green Party is included on the next federal election article, it is included as an option in opinion polls, which is a third party source, and therefore meets the notability requirements to likely to be a significant contributor to the dynamics of the election. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CFB Edmonton

The two coordinates are different that's why I left them in. The one in the title is the base proper and the infobox is the landing area about 1.5 km southeast of the base. I've added a bit more to it now I have the reference I wanted. I also adjusted the coordinates for the helicopter pad so it is on the pad rather than on the grass and added the base coordinates back. By the way do they use the old runways for some sort of car trials? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm, I knew the coordinates were different, I remember checking once that the title coords were for the base, which is what the article is actually on. I had the coordinates to the actual helipad over a year ago, but you changed them back.[3] As for what the runways are used for, I have no clue, I don't know anyone who works there, sorry. 117Avenue (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I feel stupid. I should remember that the coordinates for airports in the Canada Flight Supplement are sometimes off. I once copied the coordinates exactly and put a water aerodrome 3 miles inland. The person on Flicker with the images had some of the base but I don't think they can be used as they have two different licences listed, one of which isn't free. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for pictures of the base? I could take some myself (after the snow is gone). But I am not too familiar with the Canada DND laws on taking pictures on/of the base. I do know that they exist. 117Avenue (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if you have the chance. I had a look around but the only thing I could find was this and it isn't clear. So I sent a message asking what restrictions there were. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That link is somewhat helpful, but it is already what I had in mind, nothing classified or threatening the security of operations or the safety of people. 117Avenue (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Red Deer, Alberta

Sorry for changing that, but the fact that it begins with the word "category", and states "Pages in category "People from Red Deer, Alberta" when its opened led me to belive it was a category. It even looks like other category pages. Just take a quick look at the link, [4] and you'll see why I got confused. Cmr08 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a category page. But Red Deer, Alberta is not being placed into Category:People from Red Deer, Alberta, as that wouldn't make sense. When a colon gets added to the beginning of a category [[]], it becomes a page link, rather than a category placement, and the See also section is a link of related pages, this category included. 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to bang my head a couple of times, it's only now that I noticed what I had done. I agree with you, it wouldn't make any sense at all for Red Deer to be listed in that category as Red Deer is not a person, so I guess it went right over my head. But thanks for letting me know about the colon in front of category, that's something I didn't know. Cmr08 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List

Tx for watching over the lists ... btw, just a point of reference -- in the normal course, an entry on such a list need not have an article as long as it has an appropriate ref. But a ref to the person's own website would not suffice. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again -- I see you claiming incorrectly in your edit summary of deletions that an article is needed. A proper ref suffices; if it has one, no article is needed. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-badlistentry, which is what I place on the users' talk page after such edits, bags to differ. 117Avenue (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I know your intention is good. And my recent effort on lists mirrors yours largely -- I have been deleting many inappropriate list entries, of late. But the guideline -- which trumps a template, especially one that has only been touched by a very few editors -- is more specific and more lenient, in that in the appropriate circumstances it makes quite clear that a proper ref suffices. See WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more things that may interest you. 1) I am exploring whether a bot can be created to help with this. Interested in more on that? 2) Sometimes I run into resistance, even with my more liberal view, from editors who maintain that it is better to keep the non-ref'd, no-article entries. Interested in more on that as well, when it occurs? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would want to keep non-ref'd, no-article entries, it violates a number of policies. 117Avenue (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• See, for example, the conversation here. Feel free to join it, of course (referencing this conversation as having brought you to it probably makes sense).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, now you've got me more involved than I wanted to be. Yes, there are the articles on other language Wikipedias, and I guess those should be kept. But a bot may not be able to detect those, maybe what should be done is link to that other language article, like what I've done on ERR (disambiguation) (coincidentally a year ago tomorrow). 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Airport codes

I was thinking back to the work you did on the weather box and wondered if you could have have a look at {{Airport codes}}? It is now being used in {{Infobox hospital}} but it always is in the parentheses, Alberta Children's Hospital. Would it be possible to add something like "p=n" that would remove the parentheses? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to add a parameter to remove the parentheses. But is it common now to place the airport code into the hospital infobox? Because I am thinking maybe it should be written into the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox seems stable, you can implement it if you don't have any other comments. 117Avenue (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I got distracted. I think the airport codes template is the best place. Then if someone thinks up another use it would be easier. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if I was clear. I didn't mean substitute the Airport code template into the Infobox hospital syntax, I meant provide code fields for the infobox, like this, so that the p=n field isn't forgotten. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian Hecox

I am sorry that you have mistaken me for vandalizing. I really like smosh and thought that they should have their own seperate pages. What was wrong with that? 74.69.189.75 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a fan of Smosh too. However, the guys do not meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability, and the Smosh article does not meet the guideline for splitting. 117Avenue (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so maybe a little in to the future? Like a year or so, when they are more famous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.189.75 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

They're already famous, but in the future they may be doing things outside Smosh, then it would be appropriate to write separate articles. 117Avenue (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BC Premiers

Though it's out of the ordinary, among the Canadian provincial leaders, British Columbia doesn't number their premiers via only individual. Many sources at Christy Clark have her as the 35th Premier of BC. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that Premiers are counted twice when they are not consecutive, even if they are the same person. Please do not change the numbers back. Various sources show this, but here is the most reliable one. This is the official website of the Premier of British Columbia. Hope that clarifies things. Nations United (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like GoodDay beat me to it. I put my comments in a new section at the same time as you. Oh well. Nations United (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that BC is different than every other city, province, and Canada? 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

All I know (from sources) is that they do it differently. For example: In the USA, some of their states number governors via individual, while others don't (chooseing to multiple number 'non-consecutive term' governors). It's up to each Canadian provinces, like it's up to each American state. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I thought that it was a Wikipedia MOS, but I guess we gotta go by the sources. 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it works out right, see List of premiers of Prince Edward Island (which used to be erroneously adding up to 33 or was that 29). GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're sitting down 117Avenue. New Brunswick & Nova Scotia also number their premiers, the way British Columbia does. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's the great thing about Canada, everyone is different, it only makes Wikipedia work more difficult. 117Avenue (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited Wikipedia standing up. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You should check the USA's governors lists. There's atleast 3 (if I remember correctly) lists, that I can't decipher, as some states even number their 'acting governors', while some states number their earlier & latter governors differently. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the numbering scheme of the US Presidents. If that scheme had been adopted to the Canadian Prime Ministers, Harper would be the 28th. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know what I prefer after this. 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been numbering office infoboxes for quite some time. Many of those times, I've had to give up & simply delete, as I couldn't decipher lists or would find conflicting sources. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For a real hair-puller: A few years ago, I had to fix the numbering of the Popes in the content of the Year articles. A fellow had Pope Benedict IX as only the 145th pope, when infact he'd been pope three times & thus counted as the 145th, 147th & 150th pope. I think it took me about 2 days to correct. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit to the Alberta list, sometimes premierships lapse. I just went through the BC list, and changed a number of dates, it looks like premiers were resigning before a new one had sworn in. 117Avenue (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed that before & somebody reverted me, due to a source they had. I'm certain Getty resigned on the morning of the day Klein took over; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's not that they're over-lapping. There's usually about 2-3hrs between when the outgoing premier resigns & the incoming premier is sworn-in & so the same date is accurate. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I know that their never over-lapping. But just as you've convinced me above, we have to go we the sources, not what we believe. Am I going to find similar problems if I go through the other premier lists? 117Avenue (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. But just be sure, when you change dates in the List of premiers... articles, to change the dates in the infoboxes & content of the premiers bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just went through Saskatchewan. The ref there has Romanow becoming premier on October 21, 1991, which is the same day as the election. 117Avenue (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem is the title

re {{Major Canadian Liberal Parties}}, "Liberal Party of Canada" is a reference to only the federal party, whether or not it's the current BC Liberal "coalition" party or the historical one or the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. They're not the "Liberal Party of Canada". "Liberal Parties in Canada" or "Liberal Parties of Canada" or something like that I could live with.Skookum1 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't realize the template title I removed and used here was a redirect to {{Liberal Party of Canada}} which is even more wrong that just the title-box of the template saying that. Seems like a TfD is in order, or a speedy at any rate, and the title ON the tempalte certainly needs changing.Skookum1 (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the navbox. It states that the British Columbia Liberal Party was formerly affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada from 1903 to the late 1980s, a fact that I don't see you refuting. I think that you need to realize Wikipedia articles aren't reports on what is current. Both the Liberal Party of Canada, and the British Columbia Liberal Party, existed before the 1990s, and that needs to be written about, just like an article on, for example, the Socialist Party of British Columbia. If you are saying that the past and present parties are completely different parties, which happen to share the same name, then the article needs to be split off to British Columbia Liberal Party (pre-1991), or whatever year you say this radical change was. 117Avenue (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Target ridings

Hey there. I see you reverted my change to the NB election in terms of target ridings. That's fair as there is clearly a standard for Canadian articles. However, I think it is worth considering the more robust model used in the Scottish article so I've started a thread if you want to contribute :) - Pictureprovince (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have any say on creating this set-up, I just know that they are all like this. 117Avenue (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Grande Prairie

Done. For the record, I think Grande Prairie is a large enough city that its city council would probably qualify for a standalone article (like many, though obviously not all, larger Canadian cities have) instead of a redirect, if you feel inspired to start one at some point — although of course that ultimately boils down to reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Being a number orianted person I would base it off of population, and do Red Deer and Medicine Hat first. Red Deer has already been in my long range plans. 117Avenue (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Canada

Sorry 'bout loosing my cool' in my edit summary, but it annoys me, when I see an error being restored. Secondary sources, are prefferd over primary soucrs, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not when those are mirrors of Wikipedia, or a possible subpub, that could have gotten its info from anywhere. I have given you over 91 hours to come up with a reliable source, and so Moxy and I are understandably loosing our cool with you. 117Avenue (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've provided a CBC news source for February 6, 2006. It prooves that the Government source is un-reliable. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I asked for every one. 117Avenue (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No offense but this is frustrating for me too. Particularly when those 2 government source are wrong & it's difficult to find other sources. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you call my source 'garbage' & then reverted it? GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, was referring to http://listology.com/blindsider/story/list-canadian-prime-ministers and http://filibustercartoons.com/primemins.php. 117Avenue (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is a stinker. I've found PM lists that correspond with what I'm arguing. Lists that correspond with what the Government sources have. Lists that have mixed dates, some like the former & other like the latter. Lists of sources with just the years. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there's a lot with just the years. 117Avenue (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry for my loud 'edit summary' at the article-in-question. It's like remembering a movie ya seen years ago, but ya can't think of the name of it & nobody else remembers the movie you're describing (thus they can't help ya remember the movie title). GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, yes. 117Avenue (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest changes. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Where the heck is everybody at the Canadian WikiProject? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Governing body official names

Saw your edit at Peace River. For my own personal interest, can you confirm the location source of the official names of municipal governing bodies in Alberta? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by the "location of the official names". 117Avenue (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"source" is the better word... are the official names published by Municipal Affairs? If so, where? Hwy43 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I got you now. I have been quoting http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/mc_municipal_officials_search.cfm as my source for the CAOs, councillors, and CEOs. But, no, it doesn't actually list the official names, I just used the same convention for all of them. If you find something, let me know, I'll look more into it tomorrow, its been a long day. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

41st Canadian federal election

Harper should've visited the Governor General today. Now we'll be fighting off IPs 'til tommorow morning. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just requested semi-protection. 117Avenue (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

42nd Canadian federal election

Oddly enough, my reason for supporting the deletion of 42nd Canadian federal election, may have influenced editors to support its existance. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bummer. 117Avenue (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is in reference to the link to 42nd Canadian federal election which you have repeatedly removed. I am aware that you have set in motion a process to delete that article. I would ask that you respect the process that you yourself have set in motion, and not make further attempts to delete this link until that process is, in good faith, completed. I will do the same, and respect a decision to remove the link/article, should the decision be to delete the article. Further discussion of this should be directed to the deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/42nd Canadian federal election. Thank you.Dash77 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Election graph

I noticed that you haven't waded into the talk page discussion on whether we need a second graph for the election period in addition to the existing graph covering the whole period since the last election. Just wondered if you have an opinion, or would like to wait and see if the existing graph gets choked up, etc? Any other suggestions? - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because I was still undecided. I am still in post-election call depression. I copied the graph into French on 4 March, with the plan to update it every month, but government didn't even last that long. (My true feelings.) 117Avenue (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I thought you might have some good ideas on it. I live in Ottawa now, picnics on Parliament Hill and all that, but I lived in Alberta for many years (yes, including in Edmonton) so I know how politics works there!! Let me see what I can do to address your remarks on the article talk page, with my limited graphing capabilities! - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Jack Layton Surrey BC 2011 election.png

Not sure what's going on, but as of your latest version of Canadian federal election, 2011, the new image of Layton (File:Jack Layton Surrey BC 2011 election.png) is not rendering. I'm getting a blue link to the image—not a blank slot like when the thumbnailing system fails.

A secondary concern is that all the other leaders have full-colour images. It would make sense to go with a slightly-older, full-colour image of Layton rather than a newer but monochrome image.

It might be worth discussing the image at Talk:Canadian federal election, 2011 and get a wider set of opinions on the image than yours, mine, and an unregistered editor's. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The image isn't working for me either, but the commons says its having software issues, and pictures aren't appearing properly. 117Avenue (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff heading

You have been adding a template that has no relevance to Michael Ignatieff. If someone comes to this article (either from the disambiguation page or by typing "Michael Ignatieff" in a searchbox, they are obviously looking for the leader of the opposition. There is no other Michael Ignatieff spelled that way. If they are Russian, looking for Mikhail Ignatyev they will be led to him anyway. They would never spell the Russian guy as Michael Ignatieff. It's that simple. There are no "other uses" for Michael Ignatieff, and your attempt to add that box indicates that you are only trying to force that link, with the Russian equivalent. I don't buy it. --Skol fir (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know they wouldn't spell it differently? They are pronounced the same. I know I have searched for many things not knowing how to spell them. 117Avenue (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also read WP:hatnote, normally they don't have any relevance to the article. 117Avenue (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone looking for the Russian persons would use the spelling "Mikhail," not "Michael." A search for "Ignatiev" redirects to "Ignatyev," the Disambig page. Trying to link Michael Ignatieff to Mikhail Ignatyev or Ignatiev, is simply nonsense. Why not do the same for other people in Wikipedia with the last name "Ignatieff?" The attempt by you and other editors to create this false link is just too obviously linked to a political agenda, and should not be tolerated in any article. This is clearly a blatant attempt to mislead people. --Skol fir (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What? It's just a hatnote, there is no political agenda or attempt to mislead. 117Avenue (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not just a "hatnote," if you misuse it. --Skol fir (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that a Russian hatnote denotes he is of Russian descent? And that could have a negative political agenda? According to the family section he is of Russian descent. 117Avenue (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying that in the case of "Michael Ignatieff" there is no confusion. If someone comes to this page, they intended to do so. Redirecting them to a totally unconnected page (deliberately steering to a Disambig page) only makes unnecessary confusion where none existed in the first place. There is nothing negative about Russian descent, but there is a something negative about pretending that Michael Ignatieff might have an alias "Mikhail Ignatyev" when no such person exists. That is all. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't believe that no one will come to the English page looking for the Russian, but I don't want to further the edit war. 117Avenue (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you search in Wikipedia (Main Page) for "Mikhail Ignatieff" (misspelling the last name, as you suggested might happen when looking for the Russians) the first choice in the results is "Mikhail Ignatyev", which is the Disambig page you were trying to link to in a round-about way. The second choice is another Disambig page, "Ignatyev," which catches "Ignatyev, Ignatiev, or Ignatieff." If you misspell the first name (search for Michael Ignatiev), the first choice is "Mikhail Ignatyev," the same Disambig page mentioned above. If you misspell both the first and the last names ("Michael Ignatieff") when you are really looking for the Russians, then I'll eat my hat! (no pun intended) :-) --Skol fir (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Silverstein discography

According to WP:DISCOGSTYLE#What should not be included, "previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases" should not be included in artist discographies. Though this is only a proposed guideline, it still reflects the discography community's current consensus. There are various discussions in the archives that elaborate on why this should be, including this quote from May 2008: "the important thing is that the track being included is original to that compilation, not just some already-released song that's been thrown onto some soundtrack CD." The Silverstein track "Bodies and Words" was released on their 2007 album Arrivals & Departures, a year and a half before the compilation album Music from Degrassi: The Next Generation was released. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it perhaps qualify as an album appearance? À la (ex-Degrassi star) Drake. 117Avenue (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the proposed guidelines, only if Music from Degrassi: The Next Generation was the original release for "Bodies and Words"—which it wasn't. For example, songs written and composed by Nine Inch Nails have been included in dozens of soundtracks and compilations (Discogs lists 106 appearances), but Nine Inch Nails discography only lists songs that were originally released on separate compilations. The rationale behind this is that: (a) for some artists, a list of songs released on third-party compilations can be rather lengthy, so only the notable appearances should be listed and (b) the subject of a discography article is a single artist's list of releases. It would be off-topic to list other works that have also included songs by said artist. If an article existed for "Bodies and Words" I'd say list it there, but I don't think the song meets WP:NSONGS criteria. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 117Avenue (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Derek Iversen

I may be missing something, but as I read the timings of things you put a G5 on the above at 00.01 on the 4th, Frantzedward.cha's last edit was at 00.11, but he/she wasn't blocked until 11.25 according to the Block Log (10.28 according to the blocking notice) - all on the 4th April. I'd appreciate a clarification if you can give one - as I say, I may be missing something. As neither the creation nor the subsequent edits seem to have been performed while blocked, I've declined the speedy. Cheers. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you declined it as well. Because a blocked user can't edit, or create pages. Their edits were malicious, and I am trying to revert them. 117Avenue (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they weren't blocked at the time. Look at WP:CSD#G5: "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block". (I am slightly confused as to the purpose of this category - unless it is for articles created by sockpuppet accounts.) I am puzzled as to why you put a G5 on 10 hours before the user was blocked. Their previous block was well expired (31 hours in April 2010). Peridon (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I was reverting this user's edits, and I would like this article deleted, unless you think Derek Iversen is actually notable. It took the admins at WP:AIV over 11 hours to block the user after I reported it, another point that makes me think admins are fighting vandalism hard enough. 117Avenue (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - whatever they did, they don't seem to have been blocked AT THE TIME they did it. The article may need to go - but I can't see G5 being a ground for deleting. I've posted for clarification at the Village Pump - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#CSD_G5. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there needs to be speedy deletion criteria for articles created by an account which is blocked within a week of the article's creation. 117Avenue (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest it at the Pump. No, not like that - in a proper proposal.... (Found you'd gone there before I saved here.) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Peridon (talk)

Moved it to a better place Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#CSD_G5. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Got an answer - looks like I was right. Over to you to find a new one for it. He may pass bio as SpongeBob's writer so you may have to prod or AfD. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try proding it. 117Avenue (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Derek Iversen (again)

I've removed the prod (and the prod2) because the author was NOT blocked at the time. His current block was imposed over 10 hours after this creation ("11:25, 4 April 2011 JamesBWatson (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Frantzedward.cha (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week"), but his previous one expired in April 2010 not April 2011 ("17:19, 2 April 2010 ESkog (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Frantzedward.cha (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31 hours "). Copied from the block log. I've got nothing to say either way on the article as such, but the author was a free agent at the time of the creation and edits. Deletion of the article will have to rest on its own merits (or lack of them...) not on the status of the author. Sorry, folks... Peridon (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dates of future election

You are mistaken in some of your recent edits (e.g. [5][6][7]). You seem to be under the impression that an election must be called on or before the fifth anniversary of the return of the writs of the previous election. That is incorrect. On that fifth anniversary the legislative assembly would expire but there is no legal requirement to call an election immediately. The government could, in theory, wait a few weeks or even a few months after that fifth anniversary before calling a new election. Mathew5000 (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a reference directly from Elections Alberta that says the election must be called the day following the fifth anniversary. 117Avenue (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that based on an Alberta statute? If so, obviously it would apply only in that province. As for the Charter, it does not require the calling of an election after five years; see the leading text on Canadian constitutional law. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It references the Alberta Election Act, which appears to be worded the same as the Canadian Charter. Section Four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that an election can be called up to a year after the expiration of the assembly, but has a citation needed tag, do you believe this? 117Avenue (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite true that an election can be called up to a year after the expiration; the assembly would have to meet within a year requiring that the election be called sooner. This comes from the leading textbook on constitutional law. Maybe Elections Alberta disagrees with it, and no court has ever pronounced on it, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Charter. If you don't have the Hogg textbook close at hand, have a look at this Library of Parliament research paper, which treats it as an open question: [8] “Some questions have arisen as to how long a government might be able to continue to operate after the five‑year life of the Parliament had expired; however, these questions have been only theoretical. ” Mathew5000 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'll have to go to the library today. 117Avenue (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly am I looking for in Constitutional Law of Canada? 117Avenue (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Read Hogg's analysis of sections 4 and 5 of the Charter. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'm having difficulty finding it, it's a big book. What is the title of the chapter or section? 117Avenue (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it close at hand, but probably "Democratic Rights" or something like that. If memory serves, he treats the substantive Charter rights in order based on the numerical section of the Charter. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking some more about the position of Elections Alberta that you adverted to. Is it a formal opinion of the province's Chief Electoral Officer? It makes for a fascinating thought-experiment: suppose that a provincial majority government is elected with the return of the writs on, say, February 15, 2013. Then in January 2018, the government still hasn't called an election, and the legislative assembly is adjourned to a date six months later. Obviously the citizens would be saying, wtf, but the premier just says, an election will be called very soon. Then on February 16, 2018, he still hasn't called an election, so the Chief Electoral Officer phones him up and says, you need to call an election today. And the premier responds, no I don't, I still have time according to my legal advisors. And the Chief Electoral Officer says, well, my legal advisors disagree. So then what would happen? Would Elections Alberta just start the elections process of its own accord? Very, very unlikely. Would the lieutenant-governor of the province go ahead and call an election, against the wishes of the premier? Perhaps, but for the purposes of this scenario let's say the lieutenant governor does not do this. So then what? Presumably a court application. Maybe by a private citizen, maybe by the leader of the opposition, or maybe by the chief electoral officer of the province. The court presumably would expedite the hearing of the matter, but even so, there's no way it would reach a decision on the same day. More likely it would be a couple of weeks at the very least, and after that of course there are appeals. I'll certainly grant the possibility that eventually the court would say, yes there is a legal requirement to call the election on the day after the five-year anniversary. I think that's unlikely though, and in any event, in this particular scenario there's no way the court would "back-date" the election call. So the precedent would be set, but for this instance, the election would be called sometime after the court's decision, and then the election timeline would proceed from there according to the legislation. —Mathew5000 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm no law student, I like dealing with facts, not interpretation. I did have to go through the Alberta Election Act to prove on List of Alberta general elections that it is the Lieutenant Governor who calls the election, not the Premier, which makes me think that the Chief Electoral Officer would never call the Premier, he would call the Lieutenant Governor, who hired him. I don't know if the Lieutenant Governor would be bound by the Alberta Election Act, or Elections Alberta interpretation of it, but he would be bound by the Canadian Charter. I haven't had time to open up the Constitutional Law of Canada again. 117Avenue (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are thinking of the Legislative Assembly Act [9], subsection 3(1), which tracks the language of section 4(1) of the Charter. It doesn't say expressly that an election must be called at the five-year mark. The provincial Election Act does not say anything on that particular matter as far as I can see. The LG is not at all bound to abide by the chief electoral officer's interpretation. On issues involving the discretion of the LG, he would have to make his own decision, and would likely retain an independent lawyer to consult. I can understand that you want something factual rather than an interpretation, but any law must be construed before a meaning is assigned to it. It isn't factual to make a statement like "the next Alberta election must legally be held by April 11, 2013" without explaining that this is based on one particular legal interpretation that a court might not accept. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

One more point, just to clarify, it isn't fully correct to say that the election is called by the Lieutenant Governor; s. 39 of the province's Election Act provides for an order of the "Lieutenant Governor in Council", which is a term of art referring to a decision made by cabinet for the approval of the LG. (See [10].) So in my hypothetical example, where the chief electoral officer believed there was a legal requirement that an election be called immediately, his first call ought to be to the premier, not the LG. —Mathew5000 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I owe you a big apology, because the point about what happens after the expiry of five years is not in Constitutional Law of Canada. I spent a couple of hours in the library today and did find a good reference for it, though: Election Law in Canada: The Law and Procedure of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Elections by J. Patrick Boyer (1987), Volume I, at pages 164-166 under the heading "Constitutional and Financial Constraints on Exceeding the Five-year Life of Legislatures". What Boyer says is this:

"Section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867 has generally been interpreted to mean that there must be an election five years after the return of the writs for the last election, but there is in fact no specific wording in the Constitution which requires this."

and later:

"Thus, in the case of a government reluctant to have an election, once the House of Commons reaches the end of its five-year life, there is no positive requirement that an election be immediately held; the only requirement is that an election be held in time to allow a sitting of Parliament to begin within 12 months from the end of the five years, so as to comply with s. 5 of the Charter. Since it takes approximately 50 days to hold a federal election, and some time after that must be allowed for the return of the writs, it is theoretically possible for an election to be delayed approximately nine months after the end of the five-year term."

I know you went to some trouble to track down the source I gave you, so I am sorry for my mistake. I will edit the Section 4 article accordingly. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time with Constitutional Law of Canada this evening, and found s.9.6.d, which states "that a House of Commons shall continue for five years unless it is sooner dissolved by the Governor General," citing 1867 s.50 and 1982 s.4. It then goes on to say "[the election] must take place within the constitutional limit of five years from the previous election" without citing anything, and so I took that as a misinterpretation, or a fact that would be explained elsewhere. The only copy of this book in the Edmonton Public Library system is an abridged student edition, which is missing chapter 42, titled "Voting", and according to the index, contains information on elections. I was going to head down to the University of Alberta tomorrow, to see if I could take a look at an unabridged version, but now you have explained why I have been having difficulty finding what you pointed me to. 117Avenue (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)