User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2017

Happy New Year 117Avenue!

Happy New Year!

117Avenue,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, 117Avenue! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Alberta municipal elections, 2017

Hello 117Avenue. Will you be creating Alberta municipal elections, 2017 at some point? If no, I will remove the redlink at Alberta municipal censuses, 2017#See also. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking it was about time to start that. 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Edmonton streetcar map

Welcome to spring! I’ve almost finished redrawing the 1938 ERR map to replace the NF version that was deleted, but I want your advice about a couple of things before I complete it. I don’t know whether or not you still have a copy of the source, but anyway you may recall it shows two former segments (“Portage Avenue (Kingsway) 1915–1916” and “106 Avenue c.1920”) in thinner or dotted lines. I’m including those. At the same site there was once a 1924 map, which (unlike the 1938 map) did make it into the Wayback Machine: see here. It shows a line running west from 124 St. on 102 Av., but unfortunately the scan is cut off before its western end. Moreover there‘s no indication of how long it was used, or when between 1924 and 1938 it was abandoned. So I’m debating whether to include it—at least a stub of the eastern end—in the same style as the other two, with only “102 Avenue” for a label, or to leave it off for lack of information. (As a practical matter, I have little room on that edge, having based my “artboard” on the 1938 map, so I’m weighing the slight value added by an incomplete or conjectural addition against the inconvenience of enlarging or shifting the viewframe.) Any thoughts?

A curiosity: on the 1924 map the Jasper Av. route crosses the Latta Ravine (just east of 92 St.) on a bridge, but the 1938 map shows the track detouring some distance above. Perhaps the bridge was being repaired or replaced at that time, but I‘m debating whether or not to show the detour. Were I sure it was a temporary situation I‘d leave it out, but if the route was permanently changed between 1924 and 1938 it would be misleading to show the older version under the latter date. What do you think?—Odysseus1479 21:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, it sounds like you have researched way more than I have. 117Avenue (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, just poring over the maps very closely as I draw up my version. I wasn‘t asking as much for factual input as for the benefit of your experience regarding best WP practices for interpretation of discrepant sources, OR/SYNTH and the like. I expect you‘ve encountered such issues with census results, elections, and so on. I should probably stick to reproducing the content of the 1938 map, but I have an impulse to make it as comprehensive as possible. One change I‘ve made, since I‘m using colour, is to do away with the fiddly text & arrows noting which side of the road had the single-track segments, instead trying to show that graphically.—Odysseus1479 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Odysseus1479 The 102 Ave line went as far as 142 St. This is the line where a car derailed on the 132 St bridge and fell into the ravine (1919). The 102 Ave line opened in 1913 and was abandoned in 1932. Source for this info is "Edmonton's Electric Transit", Colin K. Hatcher and Tom Scharzkopf, 1983. The map you linked to appears to be a scan of one of the track maps form this book. I have a copy of the book if you have nay questions. Meters (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say that the Latta Ravine diversion was not a short-term diversion. The original Latta trestle bridge was built in 1911. A coal mine associated with a nearby penitentiary resulted in soil subsidence and damage to the bridge footings. The city tried to fill the ravine to eliminate the bridge in 1928 but the coal mine tunnel under the ravine caved in, causing more damage. The streetcar tracks were permanently diverted around the bridge in 1931. The current Latta bridge was built in 1936, mostly using leftover steel from the 1931 High Level Bridge alteration and scrap streetcar rails. The streetcar tracks were NOT built over the new bridge and the system continued to use the detour route. Meters (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, @Meters, at the very least it’s great to have a better cite than a dead-link. (I thought the maps might have been drawn by an ERRS member.) Is there also a 1938 map of similar style in that book, showing the former line along Kingsway (and the above-mentioned detour? That’s what I’m recreating, but if possible I want to include the abandoned segments from the earlier map that were omitted from the later. So I think it would be worth extending my map west to include the 102 Av. line if the same details are available as given for the other two (Portage/Kingsway and the 106 Av. connector). As you can see, the ERRS scan cuts off around 135 Street. I‘ve been including the switch & crossover schematics: can you describe the 142 St. terminus? Is it double-tracked all along, west of the second ravine? Does it end in a loop, or in (a) spur(s)? Any crossovers in that westernmost stretch? Thanks so much for chiming in.—Odysseus1479 04:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The book has track maps for 1908, 1912, 1913 (Interurban Railway to St Albert), 1924, 1938, 1943 (route map only, does not show double tracking or crossovers), 1945 (trolley wiring map), 1950, 1970 (trolley wiring map), 1978 (LRT), 1981 (Clareview LRT extension), and 1982 (trolley wiring map).

The 1938 track map shows the Portage Avenue (Kingsway) line as double tracked all the way. No crossovers are shown. It is listed as 1915–1916). The southeast end shows both tracks dead ending just short of the 101 Street tracks. The northwest end has the north-side track joining the south-side track, a short stub on the south-side track alignment, and then a dead end before the 122 Street CNR line. There are no crossovers or connections to any other lines.

The 1938 track map does show thew Latta ravine detour, as a single line starting at the south side of the bridge and continuing as a single line past the bridge. It's not clear where the line divides again, but it is divided by 84 Street.

The 1924 track map shows the 102 Avenue route double tracked past the second (western) ravine. The line ends with a switch joining the south-side line to the north-side line and a short stub on the north-side alignment dead ending at 142 Street. There are no crossovers or other connections. Meters (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Latta bridge ref http://citymuseumedmonton.ca/2016/06/21/the-history-of-the-latta-bridge/

Sorry, 117Avenue. This is getting long. Do you want us to move it off your talk page? Meters (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, @Meters; I think you’ve given me all I need for the moment, unless there are any further important features in the earlier maps that were omitted from the 1938 one. (I only mentioned the Portage Av. line to help identify the map, but your detailed descriptions certainly confirm it!) I’ll let you know when I’ve uploaded the drawing, at which point I’d be most grateful if you’d check it over, and I’d welcome any criticisms. My intent is just to cover the system as of then, along with some of the preceding history: I’d rather consider the later developments a separate project, for another time, but I’d be happy to take it on if it‘s thought sufficiently interesting & informative to readers. That would probably be best discussed on the article’s Talk page.—Odysseus1479 21:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Current AfD

Hi there, you may be interested in commenting in a bulk AfD that includes a bunch of Edmonton road articles you created back in 2009. Regards, "Pepper" @ 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for your input

Hey 117Avenue, would you be able to weigh in here re: "Liberals" or "BC Liberals"? There's merit to the other user's argument and I'd like the input of some other editors who have worked on the 2017 BC Election.

Cheers, Madg2011 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

DeGrassi (franchise)

Hi,

I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team, and noticed that you recently reverted my edit on this page. I'm trying to eliminate duplications of the word "the" when it shouldn't appear, which is almost always. I'm not sure why you reverted it, but if it's because "the" is part of the title, it still shouldn't appear twice - when the definite article is followed by a title starting with "the", there should only be one "the". Even though logic suggests there should be two, that's a misconception. (Try reading your reverted version out loud, or ask yourself whether it's proper to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" or "the The Star Spangled Banner"). If there is something that I missed or don't understand, please let me know, or if you prefer to recast the sentence entirely to avoid repeating "the", that's another approach.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Even reading it out loud, I still think the sentence can make sense. Also, your example doesn't make sense because I would never put a "the" in front of a song name. I believe that the sentence in question is referring to the tagline as a whole, "The Next Generation", and if it is true that the "the" should be removed before a title, then you should have removed the one outside the quotes, not inside. 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again - I rewrote the sentence entirely to avoid the double 'the.'

Ira Leviton (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

CFL Stadiums

Hey 117Avenue,

I am a season ticket holder for the Riders. When they announce that Mosaic Stadium is sold out the attendence is 33, 350.

Heres an article: https://www.cfl.ca/games/2378/winnipeg-blue-bombers-vs-saskatchewan-roughriders/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackyriderfan14 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere on that article does it say the capacity of the stadium. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Edmonton Tornado

How else am I supposed to get the page in Category:Redirect-Class severe weather articles if I can't tag it with the WikiProject banner (which I note is done with 31 other redirects at present). The page is indeed a redirect, from Talk:Edmonton Tornado to Talk:Edmonton tornado, and it should be tagged as such for WikiProject statistical purposes. Tagging it below the redirect code preserves the redirect functionality, allowing it to be tagged without impairing the function of the redirect. This is why the messages here can be placed on redirects. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  17:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm:I believe that only different topics and alternate names should be tagged for redirect class wikiprojects (unless you can find a policy saying all redirects should have wikiprojects). Black Friday (1987) can be tagged, but Edmonton Tornado is simply a change in capitalization, which isn't needed for Wikipedia navigation. 117Avenue (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

High River Tagline

Hi 117Avenue,

You reviewed an edit of mine for a tagline and I just had a question. I cited the Town's city hall verified Google+ page as I thought it was a reliable source for the tagline. You reverted the change stating it wasn't a reliable source. Would a reliable source be their official town website? Unfortunately I am unsure they have any encyclopedic sources for their tagline. It is not the biggest deal but just wanted to ask! Thanks for your contributions. Connorbrown22 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not questioning that what is put on the page is reliable, it is the Town's page. But I question your interpretation that a tagline on their Google+ page is the Town's official adopted motto. Normally a motto comes from the Town's official website. 117Avenue (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay thank you! I will ensure I am citing more official resources in the future!!Connorbrown22 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Josh Blaylock.

Check my comment on Josh Blaylock talk page regarding the sources that I tried to add for his birthdate. I am having trouble sourcing them btw. If you can help, will be appreciated. 104.34.108.44 (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)