User talk:Hwy43/Archive 7

This archive page includes discussions that began between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015.

Bruce County

Where are your citations for Bruce County's historic towns, attractions, protected areas, etc? The only citations are about population... How is the rest reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: my first, last and only edit to Bruce County happened on October 12, 2014. This was the edit. I have not been involved in adding any content relating to the things you mention above. Hwy43 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but shouldn't this content be removed as it is unreliable, as there are no citations for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: pardon the delay replying to this. Mass deletion of unsourced content can often be met with some controversy (although it may be just the right push to get someone to do something about it). Placing unreferenced content notices within the article is usually the preferred first step. For articles that are entirely unreferenced, there is Template:Unreferenced. For articles that need additional sources, there is Template:Refimprove. Specifically for unreferenced sections, there is Template:Unreferenced section, while Template:Refimprove section can be used for insufficiently sourced sections. For unreferenced claims at the sentence level, there is Template:Citation needed. You can see the second and third templates in action at Airdrie, Alberta. Hwy43 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I just applied three of the five above mentioned templates at Bruce County. For your reference, this is how I applied them. Hwy43 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent AFDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowerdale, Alberta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrisville, Alberta, FYI. 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to do the same when I had the moment. Thanks for initiating. Hwy43 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, did you see this? KappaKapa's contributions are very similar to those of Hero122. If they are one in the same, do you see any evidence of "improper usage" as defined by WP:SOCK between the two? Hwy43 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Their contributions are very similar, they have to be the same person. But I can't find a case of improper usage, where they edited the same page within days of each other. 117Avenue (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Though neither have been blocked for it, they both have a track record of WP:COPYVIO. Look at their talk pages, particularly those threads that they deleted. Hwy43 (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well 117Avenue, disappointed and a tad surprised that they were not only kept but there were few others in favour of deletion. Not sure where the masses were that came out for previous Alberta-related deletions. Seems to me editors have jumped on board the brand new WP:GEOLAND guideline and forgotten about the WP:GNG prerequisite. Too much assumption that if it meets GEOLAND it must therefore automatically meet GNG.

Anyway, KappaKapa has not made a single edit since you nominated the two AfDs, and a COPYVIO warning has been placed on their talk page as the Harrisville article is significantly plagiarized. Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

They'll both have to be cleaned up. 117Avenue (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Localities in the Peace Country

Greetings, I am volunteering for the South Peace Regional Archives. I am hoping to add some history on some of the localities in the South Peace. As I am very new to this process, I am hoping that you could provide some tips on how to proceed. I look forward to your reply, Shannon Nelson PeaceofHistory (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello PeaceofHistory, welcome to Wikipedia. In my opinion, first and foremost, places need to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG) to be considered for an article. After that, they need to meet WP:GEOLAND to qualify for articles. Unfortunately, many editors seem to assume if a place meets GEOLAND, it must already meet GNG. That is not the case however. So in short, GNG is the prerequisite and is not automatic if a place meets GEOLAND.

Which localities within the southern Peace Country are you interested in? Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nechako articles

I've been "kinda preoccupied" since placing that merge tag; and had commented on it before; nobody responded; a few weeks ago I did GoogleBooks/News searches and "Nechako Country" upper and lower case both came up vs "Nechako Region", upper and lower-case; the latter can have many administrative meanings and other general usages; the former always means the same thing, so I'll get to merging them when I can ..... take a breath.

Now what's the procedure, not having done one before, move over and incorporate/condense materials to the consolidated one, and just make the merged one a redirect? No talkpage to move, I note. I made a point of not adding one when I first discovered it.Skookum1 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure the procedure. Have not done it before. Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Dustin Paxton

Re your comment on this removal, crime is covered on WP; and because of the dicey risks of saying anything about it, it's a tricky area to deal with IPs and SPAs and general BLP stuff; about the living more than the dead. Indo-Canadian organized crime and {{|Canadian organized crime groups}} and WP:WikiProject Crime and more; not sure of that template name, there's another for BC/Lower Mainland that includes the Red Scorpions, Independent Soldiers should be on there, and various others....Bindy Johal, Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson, Robert Pickton, Billy Miner and more.....not the full roster in intense detail of "American outlaws" bios (see Boone Helm about a guy who made it to BC and fed himself along the way, so to speak) but it's not like Crime isn't covered in WP; far from it.

Then there's the "suit" kind of criminal, Bonner, Vander Zalm, Mulroney, Conrad Black and more....including the guy convicted of Contempt of Parliament.

Generally crime/gang stuff I stay away from for reasons of discretion/personal safety...meaning the kind where suiting up includes putting on a gun beneath a stylish suit, instead of pulling off crimes without guns by the abuse of authority as is by far the more costly to the public; and the body count is even higher when you consider things like the missing women.

That name you deleted is familiar to me though. Oh yeah enjoy the Google News, that was the Calgary torture. Very notable; you're in Alberta no? Don't you read the paper?? Even I knew about that and I was in Atlantic Canada at the time.Skookum1 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories, other stuff exists and inappropriate sarcasm and patronizing aside, I will explain. I'm no expert on WP's criminal notability requirements. I am familiar with what I have observed however. I deleted that entry as the much more notable James Roszko, Justin Bourque and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau do not have articles. Rather, they are redirects to their criminal events. Paxton's criminal event is not (yet) covered on WP.

I suggest you leave a brief message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography asking if there is agreement that Roszko, Bourque, Zehaf-Bibeau, Paxton and others you may have since added meet WP's criminal notability requirements. Hwy43 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Such a bizarre answer; there are more than three RS and this was a highly public case, as were the others; if Magnotta and Olson and Pickton are on here, and gang criminals, and others who've killed and/or tortured or stolen are on here, why shouldn't they be? Good heavens, or as Mae West might say, "heaven has nothing to do with it". Zehaf-Bibeau, via the perp section on the Ottawa shootings article and on that article in general; like Cpl Cirillo also and others named in the article (they exist as redirects), are covered by WikiProject Terrorism; and their notability standards are....rather loose, as are also certain members' editing practices.... I think I might have tagged the Jason Bourque page (Moncton shootings) with that, if not there where does that belong if not under crime?

And you toss in the conspiracy theorist, other stuff exist mantra with some regularity, as do others, and I've heard that "I only know what I have observed however" stuff too, and I say much the same myself on certain matters. Your kind of answer is one of those matters, and yet another demonstration of pushing aside something on Wikipedia based on one's own prejudices and.....self-made authority combined with odd rationalizations and that string of derisive accusations you led off with.

And the sarcasm and patronizing bit; it's not like you haven't patronized me by condemning me for daring to write about something you don't want to read because it's too long for you; I wasn't being sarcastic, I was amazed that someone in Alberta would not know of the guy; and had no idea at all that it was you who called the shots on what's allowed to be listed here, and who decides whose more notable than who without being an expert on WP's criminal notability requirements by your own admission. Is it wrong to be amazed that somebody from a place wouldn't know about a very famous case that happened right there and got even global airtime?

Because that's what your laconic edit comment read like; that you hadn't heard of him; you asserted NN - on what point-clause of the general NN guideline did you decide that, since you say you haven't read WP:Notability (criminals) nor have I a lot but did once or twice re certain people connected to the Johal and Basi cases and others related to crime and politics in BC (often the same thing).

So, since when did notability become a requirement to be listed on the Requested articles list? And who appointed you to police it and decide who's more notable than who? How'd that happen? There some kind of new "rule" conflation at work around here that's come into operation of late?

That's not sarcasm, and it's not patronizing, it's asking direct questions and wanting to know why WPCANADA's requests board is patrolled and filtered at all.

And this is also me telling you your response was all cliches, and a gaffe/AGF against me for being patronizing and sarcastic when I wasn't; I was being direct, and had no idea there were exclusion rules operating in WPCanada noticeboards now, as you as their enforcer have indicated yourself to be.

There's lots of names that should be in many of these sections; limiting them without even looking at the guidelines in each case is.... oh never mind, you're already doing to bite me for such a long answer, and for my "tone".

But when you make an excuse like the one you did, and with your equation of the Paxton case with a conspiracy in your opening attack on me, it calls for an answer as pointed as I have just given. And underscores my growing concerns about where Wikipedia is heading.

No further comment.Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw a name I did not recognize. I had to Google this person to figure out who it was. I remembered hearing about the crime but the name didn't stick. I boldly removed the entry. You reverted it and provided a reason. I no longer question it. Certainly if I was policing as you suggested I would have reverted your revert. I am expressing above that I am having difficulty reconciling why more commonly known criminals like Bourque, Roszko and Zehab-Bibeau don't have articles yet this lesser known should have his own article. Given the Bernardo, Holmowka, Magnotta and Picktons of the world have articles, perhaps articles on these three others are also justified. Maybe someone should be bold and create articles on the three I mentioned.

Just so we are clear, I took offence to the tone behind "enjoy the Google News", "you're in Alberta no?" and "Don't you read the paper?" all come across as judgmental and patronizing slaps to the face. It is like saying "here is a ref you prick", "I can't believe an Albertan doesn't know this name", and "don't you follow the news?" When I'm confronted with that language, I'm going to be a tad cranky. In the end, I could have just ignored and not replied at all. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Banff Editathon

Hey Hwy43. hope you are well. I think you're in Edmonton, so this is probably a bit far for you, but the Banff Centre is putting on an editathon in March. I'm trying to help the librarian there get in touch with some experienced folks. Let me know if there's any chance you are interested. Best, The Interior (Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Interior, thanks for the invite, but family commitments prevail. Have fun, Hwy43 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We will! Well wishes to your family, Hwy43. Hope you're all having a good winter. The Interior (Talk) 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

List of municipalities

Congratulations on the Yukon nomination passing! Are you still interested in getting the remaining provinces up to that standard? I suspect we've both been busy in real life based on our edits, but I'm still interested and willing to wait until more time is available. I think the next course of action will be to update the Manitoba list to include the newest municipalities (I can do this next), and to maybe submit PEI for nomination? PEI is just missing a map, but I wonder if it would be hard to obtain that data? Anyway, congrats! Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for re-nominating and congrats as well. Started looking at PEI. Needs more work (more than just the map), but I've started and will be in touch when I think it is ready. I've been waiting to mass update Manitoba until StatCan publishes the "January 2, 2014 to January 1, 2015" edition of its annual Interim List of Changes to Municipal Boundaries, Status, and Names publication, but please move on that if you can find the time. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well, I will move on that this week, and if there is discrepancies in the publication I can make those changes. Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For Manitoba, I've merged all the new municipalities, calculated all the new numbers, so it should be good and align with the new source you quoted above (would be a great reference for this article once released). If it does not, we can simply revert my edits and match the latest data. Unfortunately, your awesome maps are now a little out of date, but I just added the date in brackets next to them, which I thought might be a quick fix. Thanks for your suggestions! Mattximus (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just looking for a little advice as I can see you are quite busy. Do you think it is worthwhile to have a column for incorporation dates for List of municipalities in New Brunswick. I could not find a master list, but I did find an archives page that I can crawl through for dates [[1]]. I can keep going if you think it's a worthwhile piece of information to have, just wanted to run it by you before committing too much time. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can find incorporation dates for all entries, by all means go for it. Let me know if there are gaps you can't fill. Also consider consulting with G. Timothy Walton and Hogie75 to see if they are aware of any master lists of incorporation dates or how to fill gaps. They are both quite active in New Brunswick and other Atlantic Canada articles. By the way, how do you intend to approach those municipalities with two incorporation dates? That is, if a municipality incorporated as a town first, and then later as a city, which date do you intend to add to the list? I recommend a consistent approach for all entries that fit this or similar scenarios. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe you or I have made a note somewhere stating that incorporation date was the first time it was incorporated, so if it was a village then later as town, we count the initial incorporation date. The only exception is if two or more previously incorporated municipalities merge, then this new municipality will have it's own initial incorporation date. Does that sound reasonable? And I will keep mining this source I found and hopefully fill that table up this weekend! Thanks again for working with me on these pages, it's pretty fun. Mattximus (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mattximus, I can't say for certain that we applied the former part of the approach consistently among all FLs thus far, as our sources may have only included the most recent incorporation date and not the earliest date when first incorporating under a different status. However, I'm more certain within each FL that we are internally consistent with all their entries. Definitely the right approach on the latter (i.e., amalgamated municipalities). Wish I could have been more help this year thus far, but been much too busy at work. I've got four municipal annexations on the go plus another one that may go the municipal amalgamation route instead of annexation. Hwy43 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I changed the NB list to be only incorporation year, I was having a hard time finding every single date so this is the easiest and most consistent format possible. I've also beefed up the text a bit, so I'm thinking that both PEI and NB are nearing completion. Any tips on what I can do to improve those pages prior to nomination? I know they are missing maps but it might be hard to find the data on those provinces. Otherwise I'll move on to one of the remaining provinces, not many left...! Mattximus (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have all the incorporation dates through a combination of Regulations (I have all the Municipalities Act Regulations from 1966 to present), Municipal Monthly tables, and Acts of the NB Legislature, but haven't done a unified list yet. I think the issue of incorporation dates for amalgamated municipalities is best handled by using the date of the larger municipality and having a Notes column for dates of amalgamation and dates of incorporation for the municipalities that have been folded in.G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, thank you for chipping in on New Brunswick. Rather than a "Notes" column to present the original incorporation dates of the amalgamating municipalities, I suggest we insert this info as footnotes so that they be presented in the existing "Notes" section near the bottom of the article. A "Notes" column would squish the table and also generate a bunch of null cells for those entries not requiring notes, thus making the table look a tad ghastly. Furthermore, this suggested alternate approach would achieve greater consistency with those lists already promoted to FL status.

Though it is probably obvious to both of you, we should strive for a consistent incorporation date format for all entries at List of municipalities in New Brunswick. Right now it is a mix – some with just years and others with full dates. In the event we cannot achieve full dates for all entries, I would suggest we rename the column "Incorporation year" and just present the years. This should not be a problem at the FLC stage as we have had FLCs promoted that did not have incorporation columns whatsoever. Hwy43 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Hwy43. I'm just posting to let you know that List of municipalities in Yukon – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Section vs. subsection

The main problem is where it's located — if we're going to H2 it as a standalone topic of its own, rather than H3ing it as a subtopic of the existing "city nicknames" discussion, then it also has to be moved down toward the bottom of the page. If it's at H3, then it's a continuation of the existing discussion which belongs exactly where it is — but if it's at H2, then it's a new discussion which is dated March 2 but is sitting between discussions dated January 4 and January 7, and thus has to be cut and repasted down the page between "Cougar" and "article needs overhaul in lead-up to Duffy trial" so that it's in its correct chronological place. I've no objection if you feel strongly enough that we should do the latter, but it has to be either "H2 and move" or "H3 and leave where it is", and can't be "H2 but leave where it is". Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Date

Please read MOS:DATETIES. It was decided by the Canadian editors that either format could be used. I also suggest you read the article Vancouver and the numerous discussions that have been had about date formats at the WikiProject Vancouver and the WikiProject BC for articles that fall under its purview before you unilaterally revert against consensus there. Mkdw^talk 02:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fully familiar with DATETIES and I don't doubt you are familiar with WP:DATERET that follows. Please re-review that. DMY was not present at the Victoria and Vancouver region articles yet MDY was, so DATERET dictates which of the two acceptable formats to use. Links to discussions about the BC-related discussions would be helpful if you can pass them along, though I'm not aware of a provincial consensus precedent overruling a national MOS standard. Hwy43 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if you were taking that into consideration since you reverted Edmonton and the earliest date I found was DMY where month and date was located. Mkdw^talk 03:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll review the link you provided, but note the "evolved using predominantly one format" discussed first at DATERET. Hwy43 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Policies aren't written in order or importance. Anything in a policy is generally regarded as having equal weight unless specifically numbered or stated. Mkdw^talk 03:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There are only two full dates that I could find in the version of the article linked above. The first is MDY while the second is DMY. Reading DATERET, it appears logical that the second bullet provides further direction in the event the article has evolved using both MDY and DMY about equally, thereby making direction on the implementation per the first bullet inconclusive. Hwy43 (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to open up a poll at both of those projects, again, to find a community consensus amongst Canadian editors. Agreeable? Mkdw^talk 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I will AGF that there is a past consensus within the BC project that supports your stance, but such would not apply to Alberta, so I ask that you undo your reverts to Calgary, Edmonton and Medicne Hat in the meantime as DATERET provides direction on which to use when both are present within a Canadian article. As for a poll, it should be national since you are implementing this beyond BC. Both DATETIES and DATERET are before my time, and I can only suspect DATETIES says as it does because of past discussions where there was no concrete consensus within the Canadian community. It may be a futile effort. Hwy43 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if WP:DATERET would help all that much since it offers three points. Edmonton for example first used DMY which fulfills its second point, but if the article now predominantly uses MDY, it's a contradictory instruction. Perhaps a new poll would be futile, but admittedly, all the polls I've seen date back prior to 2012 when the last major one happened at Vancouver and Toronto. Mkdw^talk 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. I assume when DATERET was crafted that best efforts would have been put forward to avoid contradiction. Rather, per my last comment above, it appears the subsequent bullets provide direction in the event there is inconclusive direction from the previous bullet(s) due to how the article has evolved. This is just like how DATERET, positioned after DATETIES, provides direction where there is inconclusive direction from DATETIES. Hwy43 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As it appears you are done for the night, I will return Calgary, Edmonton and Medicine Hat again per my DATERET elaboration above. Reviewing all others on my watchlist (excluding the BC ones for now), I'm also going to revert Brandon, Manitoba, Saint John, New Brunswick, Regional Municipality of Niagara and Saskatoon to the previous state and apply MDY consistently to those per the same as well. Likewise, there are six other non-BC articles on my watchlist (excluding seven BC articles) that go in favour of DMY, which I have no intention to revert per DATERET. If you continue to feel otherwise, I look forward to a discussion being initiated at WP:CANTALK. In the meantime, I'd prefer not to edit war with you on the seven I mention above. Instead, I'd prefer we wait until there is a definitive consensus arising out of the CANTALK discussion that dictates such. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I am a member of the BC editing community and I use DATERET not my own preference to determine the correct format. When no format is present I use MDY as it is, based on my experience, most common in Canada , and certainly in the province. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Similarly I default to MDY as it is, based on my experience, most common in Canada. In the event that an article has evolved using predominantly using DMY, I avoid unilaterally changing everything to my MDY preference out of respect of the consensus that established DATERET. Hwy43 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor question re infobox wikilinks

Hi there: I recall you had be working on linking infoboxes to the appropriate municipalities page a while back, was the conclusion reached that this was an acceptable practice? I noticed in my feed that this had been reverted, I changed it back but was reverted again. If you are interested you can check out [2]. I don't really have a strong opinion, I was just trying to keep your work consistent. Mattximus (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is my opinion this implementation of WP:EASTEREGG is extreme and beyond the intent of the true Easter egg problem trying to be solved elsewhere in Wikipedia. The infobox parameter is "settlement_type". In the case of incorporated settlements, their settlement types are their official municipal status types conferred by the province/territory/state/country/etc. These different entities may bestow same types (e.g., cities, towns, villages, district municipalities, etc.), but that does not mean they are defined exactly the same way by each. Tumbler Ridge is a district municipality in the British Columbia context. It is therefore reasonable and appropriate for it to wikilink to List of district municipalities in British Columbia, which defines the status type within the BC context, rather than the general district municipality article. If a reader truly was seeking the latter, well sure enough it is the first wikilink in the prose of the former. There is therefore really no harm in this style of wikilinks being used in this "settlement_type" parameter.

It should be noted that this is the first I've ever seen EASTEREGG being used in this way in my time on here. Further, this style of wikilink was well received in the consensus-built approach to settlement types in infoboxes of Ontario municipalities. I would suggest that if this persists, a discussion take place (maybe at CANSTYLE, the Canadian communities WikiProject or CANTALK) to confirm whether or not EASTEREGG truly should apply here. Hwy43 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

List of municipalities continued?

I'm not sure if you are active much these days but I was wondering if you thought that List of municipalities in New Brunswick would be ready to submit for featured list. I think I've done as much as I can to the article (I don't have map making software) and I've incorporated all of the references you had suggested. I'll hold off until you think it's appropriate as I would like to co-nom with you even if you are no longer active. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I probably will continue to be largely inactive until mid-July. I'll try to take a look in the meantime, but no promises. Likely not back to the mapping until mid-July. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I can even hold off on these articles until July if you would like to be part of the process. It's always more fun when there is two people anyway. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Municipalities question

Hi, I'm not sure if you are still active, but I noticed that Minburn is no longer a village. Would you like me to remove it from List of municipalities in Alberta and recalculate the appropriate totals? I know this is a page you worked on, so I didn't want to make assumptions before editing. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Anticipated to be rather inactive for another three months at least. Yes, please update the article lead, the "Urban municipalities" section lead, the "Villages" subsection lead and the "list of urban municipalities" accordingly in addition to recalculating the totals. In the meantime in BC, West Kelowna was redesignated from a DM to a city. If I missed anything in my updates, please clean it up. Back in Alberta, stay tuned for the potential dissolutions of Galahad and Strome as well. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes, I will be mostly inactive for 2 weeks, but I have time in August. I'll try to keep the all the municipal lists as accurate and updated as possible for your return. Have a nice summer! Mattximus (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that I've updated all the lists of municipalities to include the amalgamations/de-amalgamations that I am aware happened recently. Please let me know of any others and I can make those changes as well. I also made notes to not confuse changes with the 2011 statscan results. I'm wondering if you would still be interested in co-nominating List of municipalities in New Brunswick in the future? I've gone as far as I can with the article, but I am very happy to wait if it's something you would like to do in the future. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island is also ready to go if you're still be interested in co-nominating sometime in the future. Mattximus (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no plans to prepare the maps for these articles anytime soon as my other priorities outside of WP continue to persist. Hwy43 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I wanted to consult with you and get your opinion before moving forward on any of these. I think they can be nominated without a map, but do you think it would be better to wait into the future to do so? I'm in no hurry, my goal is to get the remaining provinces nominated before the next census. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Long lost page

Howdy.

I have discovered a misplaced page of yours at User:User:Hwy43/sandbox/List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton and moved it to User:Hwy43/sandbox/List of neighbourhoods in Edmonton for you.

- TB (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Topbanana. I'll have to determine if I still have a use for it. Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Onterrible

Ah yes, I understand now. I did push the revert button because I did not want to type it all again ;) I must not have noticed that you reverted two parts, my bad. No harm done, I caught the error. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

StatCan population densities question

I'm back active on the project now, and I've already started verifying all the numbers from all municipalities with the statscan numbers. I've found over a dozen errors so far and corrected them. I just want your opinion on one quick/silly matter: if the population density calculated based on the population divided by land area does not match the statscan entry for population density, but does match both the population and land area entries... do I trust the calculation or the statscan number? Thanks for your opinion. Mattximus (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I believe I recall seeing Bearcat once commenting on a talk page that we carry forward even known calculation errors from StatCan because that is what StatCan publishes. I think an acceptable alternative would be to replace StatCan's incorrectly calculated population density with the correctly calculated one, preferably relying on a formula template to do the math for us (see the formulae embedded within the main table at Alberta municipal censuses, 2015), but include a note indicating what StatCan incorrectly published the population density as. I think all of the municipality lists in the project have "Notes" sections. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I've already created my own excel spreadsheet where I plop in the table and it checks all the calculations for me, and wanted to run by you before I make the rest of the changes. I'm also checking to see if the corrections from statscan are all up to date, there is the correct number of municipalities (including amalgamations and so on), images/text (numbers within correct)/references... with the goal bringing all articles to the same high quality (minus the maps, as I don't have any GIS program). I'll wait on nominating any more for featured list status until you are less busy though, but they should all be ready for when that time comes. Mattximus (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I never said anything like that. What we're not supposed to do is perform our own independent original research calculations to separately reverify whether their figures were right or wrong — if they expressly publish a correction to their own data, then we can update our information accordingly, but it's not our role to go around second or third guessing their data in the absence of a correction from them.

Just as an example, there can be two different ways of calculating a municipality's area: it could be given as total area inclusive of any water (rivers, lakes, etc.) that exists within the boundaries, or it could be given as "land area" only since the water part isn't habitable by humans and would have no bearing on how densely populated the land part is. Accordingly, you might see two slightly different figures for the total area of the same municipality in different sources — it doesn't necessarily mean that either of them is wrong, they're just coming down on opposite sides of whether water counts or not. That's why we have to be careful about doing our own original research recalculations.

I checked Google Maps just now, and Minburn does indeed have a small parcel of lake water within its municipal boundaries — so the inclusion or exclusion of water area may very well be the culprit for any discrepancies between StatsCan and the municipal census. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bearcat, the above is helpful. Thanks. For the record, it was a recollection of a discussion I couldn't find, so my inaccurate recollection is all I had. Also, this inadvertently isn't about Minburn's population density or municipal censuses. It is a tangential question Mattximus appended to a previous discussion (so I've moved it here accordingly).

I think what this is about is what to do either if:

• StatCan publishes a municipality's population and land area as 400 and 1.0 km² respectively, but incorrectly publishes the resulting population density as 375 people/km² when it should be 400 people/km², or
• StatCan corrects a municipality's population, but falls short of correcting the municipality's population density accordingly.

Mattximus, can you confirm what this is about? One, the other, both, or something totally different? Hwy43 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, both can happen. Here [3] is one example. It's minor but it illustrates the point. Note the population is 1,412 and the land area is 2.48km^2, so the density should be 569.35... but is listed as 569.9, so it's off by 0.5. Now I don't think it's a land area vs total area issue, otherwise they would all be messed up, but it's only occasional listings that are in error. I agree with you above, I think we should stick with the stats can population and land area numbers and use the pop density based off those two numbers. Mattximus (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That helps. So here is the thing I therefore seek clarification on from Bearcat. Is changing the population density from the incorrect 569.9 to the correct 569.4 considered WP:OR? If so, what if we get WP's templates do the work for us? That is, use the template {{#expr:1412/2.48}} or {{Pop density|1412|2.48|km2}} to create 569.4/km². Hwy43 (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from Bearcat... would you be opposed if I went ahead and used the population density that is based on the population and land area when there is a conflict with the statscan density? I'm trying to get all the lists up to as good a standard as I can in anticipation of future featured list nominations. Mattximus (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattximus have you tried pinging Bearcat? He is very active and may have missed the last ping. I'm really interested in his answer because I think we are close to the line on OR and want to know if we are slightly on the good or bad side of the line. Hwy43 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I pinged him a few weeks ago (Aug 17), but no reply, I'm happy to go ahead with the change if you are. I'm back in the country and am ready to continue with the municipalities lists. Thanks for updating the Manitoba map, it looks great! Mattximus (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation of map of Manitoba

Hello,

I am wondering if you could tell me the source for the map on your page entitled "Distribution of Manitoba's 197 municipalities by type (2011)"? Or, if it is your own work, how would the map best be cited in a peer-reviewed paper?

Thank you,

ACSRC1 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi ACSRC1, it is my own work using open data from Statistics Canada. Here are the terms under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. It specifically states "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." My interpretation of this would then be as follows:

Prepared by Wikipedia user Hwy43 using open data available from Statistics Canada, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

Do you intend to adapt it? If so, you'll have to indicate changes were made and have to advise they are not endorsed by me. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I also just created a Jan-1/15 version of the same map to reflect all the amalgamations that occurred on that date. You can view it here and the pre-amalgamations version here. Hwy43 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

Please review WP:DICK. I did leave a personal message with the template. Now please leave me alone. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That was uncivil. If you are leaving a personal message, then do just that – a personal message. No template required. Hwy43 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in the County of Warner No. 5

Hi; I think that if you feel that the above category should not exist, you should nominate it for deletion (or merging), not empty it of the buildings/structures are in Raymond, Alberta. It's generally not good form to manually empty categories in this manner. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. On looking at some of your other recent edits, I'm seeing a problematic pattern. You seem to be manually emptying categories. It may be that these categories are undesirable by you, but you should not manually empty them. If you don't like them or think they should not exist, please nominate them for deletion or merging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Good Olfactory. Thanks for dropping a line. Admittedly I am being a little bold here. For the two county cats and the Stirling cat, what we have here is overcategorization. The volume of entries at all three is low, and the entries could satisfactorily sit at the parent category. If you look at Category:Buildings and structures in Alberta by county, there are only two sub cats in the entire province and they are two of the three subject to my edits. Meanwhile, it is bizarre that there is a subcat for a community as small as Stirling compared to the others at Category:Buildings and structures in Alberta by city. If you continue to feel otherwise, I'll put nominating them on my to do list. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about it all at this stage, but you make some good points that I haven't fully thought through. I suppose I'm at the position now where I'd just like to see a nomination for them before they are deleted, to see what others think. It would probably be better to do this after the nominations for the buildings in Stirling are resolved (I saw you PROD'ed some, which I have no objection to) so we can see how big that category remains. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be cleaner to nominate after the outcomes of the prods. I was eager in addition to bold last night! Glad you have no objections to the prods. They were good faith creations that simply are not notable. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alberta June 2013 flood precipitation map

Good day Hwy43,

I was wondering how you derived the June 2013 Precipitation Map for Wikipedia from the Government of Alberta map ? Did you get the original data to do an IDW and make your own or digitize the contours....was trying to do this myself as well and cannot find the Precipitation data anywhere for that past time period.

If you have any guidance I would really appreciate it.

Thank you for your time, Samantha Hussey 205.211.133.128 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samantha, what is an IDW? It was derived from this map published by AESRD. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mississauga

Hi there. Could you please take a look at the most recent edits to Mississauga by an IP editor? I reverted similar edits yesterday by a different IP editor (I see you left a talk page message too). Many of the edits were unsourced and I reverted to that last clean version. A second opinion on the new IP edits would be helpful. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Mississauga to determine if the unsourced edits are factual or not, so I'd prefer a more local expert do the scrutinization. I'm more concerning myself at this time with overall structure and presentation. Thanks for asking though. Hwy43 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category

Hi Hwy43: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

List of local service districts in New Brunswick

Thanks for the edits; I somehow missed removing my to-do list when I updated the code. I also didn't understand what the 30em operator was for, let alone why I should use it.

I did make one change, turning Given name to Unofficial sorting form (since I'm the only one that's given those names), and transferred the clause about names being shortened in press and the like to Official name, which (I hope) removes any ambiguity about what the first column is. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The 30em operator enables reference lists, note lists et al to be displayed within two or three more easily readable columns depending on your screen resolution. See my comments on the list's talk page about the first two columns. There is a solution that exists to eliminate the redundancy while still achieving alphabetical sorting. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think you've gone too far in reducing the length of this article.

I've been thinking of combining the Services column with Notes to save space. The Notes column, which you've removed, is the only source of information on many of these LSDs. My future plan was to remove information from the Notes column as each LSD's existing article was edited or new article created. As it is, you've destroyed most of the information unique to this article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi G. Timothy Walton, for the benefit of all interested editors, rather than just you and I, please post comments similar to the above on the article's talk page and we will go from there. Best to have everything in one place. I'll try to reply tonight, but it may not be until tomorrow. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion nomination of Use:Hwy43/sandbox/List of local service districts in New Brunswick

A tag has been placed on Use:Hwy43/sandbox/List of local service districts in New Brunswick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: The legacy of my typo persists. Let's get it (the deletion) done already! Thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominating List of municipalities in New Brunswick?

I know you are busy but I'm thinking of nominating this list as I have time over the holidays to reply to suggestions. Would you like to be co-nom? Even though I'm more than happy to address all concerns myself, it would be nice to have credit of your efforts on the page. Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes please to co-nom and go for it. Given the holidays are around the corner, at minimum I should be able to prepare NB's municipalities map while it is under review. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Happy holidays! Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Map is now done. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, the map is fantastic, as always. Mattximus (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Not bad for a guy with a broken right hand. More to come. Hwy43 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation of List of municipalities in Yukon in French (map)

Map I need to translate in French.

Sorry for disturbing you while you're busy. I've almost finished to translate List of municipalities in Yukon in French. The only remaining thing in English is the map, unfortunately a PNG file.

Do you think you could upload a SVG version of it so I can create a French translation by simply editing the text please ? It would be very useful for us. Thanks in advance and Happy Holidays. :) — Foldo ^(talk) 17:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldo (talk • contribs)

Hi Feldo. Created a SVG version but it won't upload for some reason. So I made a French PNG version. Let me know if that works. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I tried it in the French article and it works! Thanks you very much and Happy New Year! — Foldo ^(talk) 19:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, Feldo, and happy new year to you as well!

Say, given you are bilingual (or appear to be), do you suppose you could help us with translating Quebec government sources from French to English to help elevate List of municipalities in Quebec to the same standard as the other provincial/territorial municipality lists? We want it to eventually be nominated for featured list status. Right now, Mattximus and I have successfully achieved featured list status for five provinces (AB, BC, MB, ON & SK) and all three territories. New Brunswick is currently nominated and under review. We have NL, NS, PE & QC to go. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your new list...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, all the country lists need to be focused on notable events only. Please create a new list for the fracking-related events. Your new list could be something like: List of fracking-related earthquakes in Canada or Something similar. Please consider that if every M3 or M4 event that gets added to the list just means a more crowded and less focused "main" list. It'll be too unwieldy in no time, Dawnseeker2000 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To aid my understanding, can you provide past consensus that supports this edit summary, particularly in regard to the "death, damages or injuries" aspect?

Also, please review the references that were provided and advise how its national coverage does not make these three quakes notable? In no way is there an expectation to now include all quakes of similar magnitude on this list, or include every frack-related event; just those that get widespread coverage and are therefore notable.

We have 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes on the list. The magnitude at 4.0 was less than two of the three you deleted, with no death, damages or injuries, and was not even felt. However, it not only remains on this list but also has its own article. Also, the list only includes one entry that explicitly mentions death, damages or injuries (see the comment in the table associated with the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake).

According to the news article above, two of these three quakes "are the strongest to be connected to fracking anywhere in the world." The first 4.4 quake induced significant regulatory changes for fracturing in Alberta. I believe these three are notable enough for inclusion in this list based on the above, and that their inclusion is not precedent setting for the unwieldy inclusion of all frack-related quakes of similar magnitude moving forward unless they achieve similar widespread coverage. There is no need to split this into a second child list at this time, especially since it would only be a list of three.

I'll be transferring this discussion to the list's talk page, which is what I intended with this request. I ask that further response occur there for the benefit of all as there may be other interested watchers. Hwy43 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.