User talk:Hwy43/Archive 6

This archive page includes discussions that began between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Thank you

Thank you for the help and correction in Maskwacis. Is very much appreciated! --VanBuren (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hamlet

The definition of hamlet (as having no public buildings esp. a church, and as opposed to village) is in the OED. When I wrote the line, I just did not have the OED right by me to furnish the reference.

Would that be acceptable to you? Because I'd be willing to bet money that the OED does not, /itself/ have a reference. The 'hamlet' vs. 'village' distinction is one of common usage (though possibly, admittedly, more precisely so in the past than now, and probably more so in England than in the New World) -- but as all things linguistic, are essentially just that -- common usage. How does one reference common linguistic usage?

Granted that the Wikipedia was very rough, with nary a reference anywhere. It now has tens to hundreds, often, per article. Far better than the /Encyclopaedia Britannica/. It's all been turned into a religion, all the better to convince the public that Wikipedia a good product and to try to achieve some recognition in the eyes of sneering, full-of-themselves academics. Psh. Many a product is good simply because it IS - by popular acclaim. Prove to me that Coca-cola is a good product. Or the iPhone. Where's the reference? Ain't none. And more importantly, none is needed.

(Lest you mistake me - I am myself an academic, and a genetic product of two of the same. I have no problem with academics ... until they think themselves so self-important that they feel empowered to tell farmers how properly to breed their cattle and various other people how to do their jobs ... all based on their own tweed-jacket-wearing-in-a-rolling-and-rocking-armchair-sitting pontification sessions.)

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejmark (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The concern was no source was provided. If you were to re-add it with an inline citation from a reliable source, there would not be an issue. I believe the Oxford English Dictionary is a reliable source. Hwy43 (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations and next steps

Congratulations on the Alberta nomination! The sask one is moving nicely. Are you still interested in getting all the provinces up to featured list? If so, can I help on the next one? I've prepared the List of municipalities in Yukon as it was the lowest fruit. Either way, congrats! Mattximus (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, and of course you can help! I was planning to get started next on the Atlantic provinces, likely PEI, but may take a break before starting. Need to focus on catching up on a few work projects. Keep up your good work and thanks for your assistance and collaboration. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the work on List of municipalities in Saskatchewan! We've now nominated 4 featured lists, were you interested in getting another? I'm happy to collaborate if you are up for it. Perhaps List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories is ready for nomination? What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And likewise to you. Yes and yes. NWT is quite close. I'll look at it closely this weekend to confirm if it is ready to go. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mattximus, I think NWT is ready to go. There are only two minor things missing from it, based on the most recent FLCs, which I hope you could look into. It needs: 1) statement in the lead of the body which ministry/department has jurisdiction over the laws on municipalities; and 2) how the various acts are approved. I will nominate/co-nominate in the meantime. Hwy43 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great. I can get to those things this weekend, I'm moving house at the moment so internet access is sporadic at best. Thanks for the update! Mattximus (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hierarchy of places

Thanks for responding to my question about Niagara Falls on the noticeboard. I'm still not sure if there's an easy way to sort this out. Is there some census info that lists all the places within Niagara Falls? Of all the neighbourhoods listed in the article, how can I even be sure it's accurate? What's a neigbourhood and what's a community? There must be some "official" source like GNIS, no? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

2006 census lists "localities" by census subdivision (municipality) rather than official provincial or municipal designations. In 2011 census, these were presented simply as "places", still rather than their actual designations. It is a shame that there is no references at that article. Hwy43 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a source. Need to download as ESRI SHP and open the DBF in Excel. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work on Niagara. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm done and have removed the article from my watchlist. Should anything controversial come up, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Municipal government in Canada

If two provinces aren't enough to prove the case, how many would it take? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was initially confused about this post. It appeared to be random. I see now it is in response to an edit from five months ago. A few things come to mind. From recollection, elevating references from 2 of the 13 provincial/territorial jurisdictions to support lead content covering the entire country is not balanced and presumptuous that the same is the case for the remaining 11 jurisdictions. Perhaps the content would be better suited to a new "Local governments by province/territory" section, and once content for all 13 jurisdictions is entered, the overall content can be summarized for the lead section. However in hindsight this may not be appropriate as, I see your July edits changed the opening few words from "municipal government in Canada" to "local government in Canada". My understanding is there are three main types of local government in Canada – health authorities, school authorities and municipalities – among other less frequent types. Given the current name of the article, I see going up a level and adding content about two other types of local governments as being out of the article's scope. I see there is no article for Local government in Canada. It is a redirect, though it was its own article before the redirect. Hwy43 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I wrote the article is question before it was merged against my protests. I'm glad that I have sympathizer. Shall we add back in the part you deleted, then, but put in a section other than the lede until we have details for the other 11 jurisdictions? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the two talk pages and found no evidence of a merger discussion. Was there a discussion with Bearcat elsewhere after the merge? I'd like to see the Local government in Canada re-established as an article for the greater topic of local government inclusive of the other types of local government, where Municipal government in Canada is the main article for the types of local governments that are municipalities. Hwy43 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between "local government" and "municipal government" being...er, what exactly? "Health authorities" and "school authorities" are certainly public service bodies, but they're not "governments" per se. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat, Kevlar67, here is what I've found for the Alberta context. "Local authorities" provide "local government". "Local authorities" include: "municipalities", "regional health authorities" and "school district authorities". Given this information, assuming the concept applies nationwide, I think the redirect of Local government in Canada to Municipal government in Canada is appropriate. Further, information on health authorities and school boards is not within the scope of Municipal government in Canada. There is no article for Local authorities in Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In the above link, it seems the word "government" is being used to mean only "the act of governing" rather than the more common "the authority which governs". I think the article should by about both the instituions (local authorities, which in common parlance as also called "governments") as well as the functions that they perform (local government, aka governance), so a name change to "authorities" isn't warranted, though a discussion of terminology would clearly be needed in the body of the article.... What I was taught in university was that in Alberta local government (or "authories" if you rather) included municipalities, school boards, and (at one time) hospital boards. Clearly those last two are what the Americans (who are generally better at this kind of terminology) call a special-purpose district, which they classify as a type of government. These are not governments in the sense of being law-makers for given territory, but they do govern and in Canada school boards have a long history as the most local, immediate venue for the country's pratice of democracy or self-rule, broadly defined (school board elections are part of what the provinces usualy call "local government elections" or similar). At one point, Alberta also had elections for health boards, which included health governance in democratic sphere in a way which it is most certainly not at this point in AB or most anywhere else in the industrialized world, and that is certainly something interesting that WP readers should know about. Here are some sources which support my view (that local government is more than just municipalities): The book Alberta's Local Governments: Politics and Democracy (see on Google Books) has whole capters on shcool and hospital boards and treats them as just as much "governments" as municipalities are. The first paragraph of the first chapter of Agencies, Boards, and Commissions in Canadian Local Government (Google Books) makes an almost identical argument to my own, and then the entire rest of the book studies non-municipal governments as part of local democracy. Ontario's handbook for local government councilors says "A municipality may be described as an incorporated area created by the provincial government and endowed with certain powers and responsibilities. In addition to municipalities, there are a number of other locally governed boards and special-purpose bodies, such as school boards, health units, library boards and conservation authorities, with responsibility for public services at the community or regional level."click I'll admit in BC local government is synonomous with municipal government by statute, but that's the exception. The New Brunswick Royal Commission on the Future of Local Government said "In the Canadian context, local government refers primarily to municipalities, but also includes a variety of local special purpose bodies such as agencies, boards and commissions. Collectively, those institutions form a regime or system of local governance."PDF. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that they do govern, albeit have much smaller, focused mandates compared with those of municipalities. Perhaps Alberta's mindset over this has evolved, and perhaps references to "local government elections" in the Alberta context is in error as we know that those elections are conducted under the Local Authorities Election Act. Nonetheless, I'd be interested in hearing what Bearcat has to say given the above you've provided. Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Demographics of Canada

Please revert your edit of the population box back to my recent edit. Contrary to what you stated, my references were sourced to the Quarterly Estimates table from Statistics Canada which have data back to 1946 if you click on the Add Remove Data tab on the table found here: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=0510005&paSer=&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=31&tabMode=dataTable&csid= (This table was referenced in my edit). Secondly you will see that the numbers currently in the table are not Census Results but rather post-census estimates which are typically done two years after the Census is taken. For Example for the year 2001 the actual census count was 30,007,094 found here: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/popdwell/Table-PR.cfm while the number listed on the chart is an estimate and is 31,021,000. If you click on the current reference source listed in the table (or here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm) while the historical estimates are Censuses taken hundreds of years ago, you will see in the footnotes at the bottom which say "1971 to present, source: CANSIM table 051-0001." (i.e. not a Census)... "From 1971 on, the figures apply to July 1st" and this is why i chose Q3 which corresponds with July 1st of those years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classenc (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll look further into this on Thursday as I'm calling it a night and am in meetings or on the road all day Wednesday. Hwy43 (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Classenc, I now understand what was intended and have returned the content, with the exception of the 2013 figure as every interval within the table is 10 years. Note I have avoided rounding where the figures from the sources are not rounded. Hwy43 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowboy Trail

Hello Highway 43 :)

Yes, I am a WP 'beginner' as it were...

I have re-entered the info you deleted yesterday and provided the citation (which is "ME") as the person referenced in the changes (founding Marketing Director for 5 yrs, Financial Administrator for 6 yrs, BoDirectors facilitator, etc.). If you require additional verification of my background, credentials and association with The Cowboy Trail(including its founding BofD - Chuck from Pincher Creek, Linda A formerly of Black Diamond, Lynda Skene, tech. web support Kris Neilsen - Cochrane, etc., kindly contact me prior to deleting further, accurate content.

Thank you, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuStrat (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

AccuStrat, unfortunately you cannot cite your own personal accounts to support this content. You can only use published reliable sources to verify the content. I suggest you cite www.thecowboytrail.com but preferably secondary reliable sources, and if nothing can be found on the web to support some of the desired content, then don't add it. I caution about your conflict of interest, request adherence to WP:NPOV and advise that some of your desired content may simply not be encyclopedic. Also, I'll be requesting an Admin to remove your personal information above to protect your privacy. Hwy43 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've removed your personal information above to protect your privacy. Hwy43 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Whistler, British Columbia

A new user is going to town on the Whistler article. They could use some help. Bgwhite (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. No kidding. I think someone from WP:BC would be in the best position to help. I'm less familiar with BC. Perhaps a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia is in order. Hwy43 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tsuu T'ina Nation

Sorry, the reference was from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120160, but I got distraction before I could add it to the works cited. Appologies. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've completed the ref on your behalf. Hwy43 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Canadian communities question

Last August I took a holiday through the INCREDIBLE Canadian Rockies - from Montana north to Golden, BC to Holden, AB to Banff and the Bar U Ranch. I drove British Columbia Highway 95A and have some photographs of Marysville and Marysville, BC - but I see redirects to Kimberley, BC. Are these separate communities or should I place the photographs on the Kimberley article? Or are they too small to waste my time on? Do tiny unincorporated communities in Canada usually have articles? Please respond here on your talk page. Royalbroil 04:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Royalbroil: Marysville, British Columbia redirects to Kimberley, British Columbia as the former Village of Marysville dissolved and amalgamated with Kimberley on November 1, 1968.[1] Placing the photos in the Kimberley article is therefore appropriate. Unfortunately the historic fact isn't mentioned in the Kimberley article, but I will add it. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on Marysville's unusual situation. I was wondering about small communities in general. Since my post, I have looked through a bunch of the photographs and have found that article do exist for tiny communities that I have photographs - like Windermere, British Columbia. I have concluded that local consensus agrees that it is okay to add articles on tiny communities. I asked because I have found states in the US who generally merge the article into regional articles. I felt that my time was too precious to spend time on cleaning up / cropping photographs of places that locals don't feel is important enough to have articles. The Designated place article does a good job of explaining these articles should exist and difference with communities in the United States. Cheers! Royalbroil 14:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User Mpr001

I undid some major edits this user did to Edmonton. I referred him to use the talk page before large edits on article without any discussion. Please do if you have time to look over what I had undone. I do believe the Mpr001 is doing these in good faith but needs to learn more about guidelines and edits before they do major edits.Kyle1278 05:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lots and concessions

Hi there. A while back you helped fix the Niagara Falls, Ontario article, and I recall you were very good with geographic information in Ontario. I wonder if you can help me with something. I want to add geo-coordinates to the article List of cemeteries in Toronto, and some of the locations are hard to find. For example, the "Bingham Family Cemetery" is located at lot 16, concession 2, in Etobicoke. As you know, Google Maps doesn't do lots and concessions. Do you know if there is a lot and concession map available online? Or some easy way to search for this? Thanks so much. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I'm not as familiar with the various land survey systems in Ontario as I am with the Dominion Land Survey. I'd suggest posting an inquiry at the Ontario WikiProject to see if someone could help. A contributor to the Concession road article may have your answer as well. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Need input on article on Walter Veith

Hwy43, I need your help on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith As it needs work to keep it from being deleted from Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Simbagraphix (talk)

Also if could get your input on this related article for Amazing Discoveries....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Discoveries

....Thanks.Simbagraphix (talk)

Simbagraphix, please do not spam random people to solicit help. There are more appropriate ways to do so, like posting on relevant WikiProject talk pages. Hwy43 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments requested

Please see User_talk:Skookum1#Langley.2C_British_Columbia_.28city.29. Also, your comments on opposition to PRIMARYTOPIC points on Talk:Lillooet, British Columbia#Requested move and Talk:Bella Bella, British Columbia#Requested move would be helpful, I think.Skookum1 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move where in my latest reply I've pointed out Esquimalt, Chemainus, Saanich, Sechelt and others that were succesfully moved and the primarytopic agreed to be the town, not the eponymous native people who their names are derived from.Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

But also see the failed move at Talk:Comox#Requested move and note the new related (and flawed) RM at Talk:Comox people#Requested move where one of the items is to Comox (retrenched as dab page at the RM already, despite other closures of the same kind in favour of the town) to Comox (disambiguation)->Comox; Comox (disambiguation) has been made a redirect back to Comox. (I had created the disambiguation-dab title and the usual primarytopic disputes moved it back.Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank on the comment left on your page. I'll keep an eye on that discussion. Regarding the balance of the above, I don't have the energy or interest to look into or get involved in those. Sorry. Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

More Canadians are needed to speak up on PRIMARYTOPIC disputes for those RMs, that's all I can say; I wrote an extended comment on Canadian usages vs Wiki-globalization and the underlying agenda of the PRIMARYTOPIC disputes seen across dozens of RMs of those kind, including the closed-in-favour-of-town or in-favour-of-endonym one lately, as also in the Ktunaxa, St'at'imc etc RMs of last year, and in the Squamish RMs and CfDs. I don't see it as "polling" as I am not looking for "biased input", only other Canadians who are aware of our disambiguation standards and town-as-primary-topic policies; and who may be familiar with the general Canadian usage of these terms. Comox, if there is a PRIMARYTOPIC dispute at all, would be for CFB Comox, not the Comox peoples or their languages.

Important RMs have failed because of the lack of Canadian input, and not just in such cases; Category:Power stations in Canada is the imposition of a foreign term on what in Canada are most commonly - 90% of the time- named "generating stations", for example. But even the US category name, which was exempted from the original mass RM there, is now "levelled" to the British, and supposedly global usage.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Globalization" like "cultural colonialism" is sadly rife in Wikipedia; ENGVAR is being downplayed by those seeking to homogenize titles and more.Skookum1 (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Merlin

My only concern with Merlin's edits are those which deal with Saskatoon related articles. (Ancestors of mine were born there.) Thus I'll leave Merlin to you and take his page off my watchlist. But feel free to ping me if you'd like me to speak up. (No reply expected or looked for.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll also let the others to Merlin. I think I finally got to him/her by posting the ANI notice. Though there was no response, the behaviour that was causing the particular concern appears to have stopped, so he must have read the ANI posting. Everything Merlin has done appears to be good faith and will probably be more receptive once it is learned how Wikipedia works and the tools available (edit summaries, talk pages, etc.). Hwy43 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

SVG maps of regions of Alberta

Hello, I noticed the maps showing various kinds of regions of Alberta (currently in your sandbox) are in PNG only and since I'm also translator on the French Wikipedia, I was wondering if you have links to SVG versions of them so I can translate the text? Thanks. — Foldo Squirrel ^(nuts?) 17:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can upload SVG versions over the course of the weekend. I'll let you know here once they've been uploaded. Hwy43 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Foldo, I have created SVG versions. [2] [3] [4] [5] Hwy43 (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities

Congrats on the latest one! Five down, eight to go? Sorry I was not active on the latest one, I was moving house and changing jobs. I'm wondering if you have plans to bring another up to featured status? Is there anything I can do to help? I'm thinking of adding the pop density and % change to the Newfoundland list, unless you have another focus. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the NWT is now done, I was previously thinking of focusing on the two other territories before moving onto the Atlantic provinces but please by all means add those two needed columns to NL in the meantime. Also, I have started Lists of municipalities in Canada. It needs work, but at least we have a main article for the country now. Hwy43 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've got a few ideas for the main article, but I'm focusing on the individual lists first. You are correct, the territories look like quick wins. Think we can nominate those soon to get them into the queue? What needs to be done first? I'm continuing to prep Newfoundland in the meantime, but that will take some time. Thanks for the collaboration! Mattximus (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also noticed a discrepancy in the List of municipalities in Saskatchewan and Lists of municipalities in Canada. The former says 786 municipalities and the latter 782. Do you know which is correct? Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm distracted by a few things right now. I'll get to the two other territories eventually. If you want to take the lead, by all means go for it.

Four communities dissolved from village status in SK on December 31, 2013. See these edits to List of villages in Saskatchewan. I need to update List of municipalities in Saskatchewan accordingly. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, I see you are busy with other projects, but I'm wondering how close you think List of municipalities in Yukon is to nomination for featured list? It's quite a bit shorter than List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories but does contain far fewer municipality types. I have completed the table for Newfoundland, and might begin tackling Quebec, but I think you are right to focus on territories first as others lack your high quality maps! Let me know if you want to co-nom the territories. Might be efficient to nominate both at once. Mattximus (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yukon's lead requires expansion to match the extent of the content within NWT's lead. The "Cities" section also requires more content, and I think the "Towns and villages" section needs to be split. I'll have a better idea on that when I have a chance to double-check as requested. I have not had the chance to look further beyond these comments. Sure, I'd like to co-nom both, and I see we are allowed to nominate up to two at a time. As I am busy doing other things on here right now, and have to do some catch up on actual work priorities, I suggest you taking a stab at the above and start expanding the Nunavut list in similar fashion.

When it comes time for Quebec, I suggest we do that one in a sandbox environment, and that we consult with and invite P.T. Aufrette to help out. P.T. appears to be the resident expert and I believe is bilingual, which would be helpful as I believe most of Quebec's municipality-related legislation is only published in French. Unfortunately my knowledge of French has deteriorated over time. A couple initial observations at the current Quebec list is there is some unnecessary information in the tables. That is, the codes are unencyclopedic and really only relevant to the Institut de la statistique du Québec. We don't include StatCan's geographic codes in the municipality lists, nor do we include municipal codes assigned by provincial ministries responsible for overseeing municipalities (i.e., municipal codes assigned by Alberta Municipal Affairs). There is also the largely unpopulated "Metropolitan area" column that could be replaced simply with inline notes applied to the relevant municipalities with the notes published in a noteslist. Maybe I'll quickly create the municipality table as a start within a sandbox. I'll let you know once in place. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And here is the sandbox table. Hwy43 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with every one of your statements. In fact, I think the sandbox table you created should be placed into the article immediately, as the data currently there is from the 2006 census anyway. I see a few small issues (not all the same number of decimal places) but think it's a vast improvement. And I may have some time this weekend to work on the territories. I'm in no hurry whatsoever, and also have real life things to work on but just wanted to let you know I'm still interested in the project. Thanks for your reply! Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of effort has gone into the current state of List of municipalities in Quebec. I'd rather we build the refurbished page in the sandbox and notify others on Talk:List of municipalities in Quebec when we need help and/or when it is in a near-complete state to avoid/minimize controversy. Also, have you ever tried editing a page that is over 300,000 bytes in size? It is a pain in the ass. Takes forever for the edits to be committed, which is another reason why I don't want to move the table to the article yet. For more efficient editing, I've split the sandbox into two — the prose sandbox and the table sandbox. Hwy43 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I know you are occupied with other things, but I'm wondering if I have your approval to co-nominate List of municipalities in Yukon for featured list status. I just added incorporation dates, and as much information from the municipal act as I thought relevant. I could not think of what else to add to cities as you mention above, and the towns and villages could be separated, but I believe they are identical in all but name so it would be repetitious. The map you made is excellent, so I can't think of anything else to add. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it this week so we can co-nominate next weekend. I'm inclined to separate the towns and villages, but need to review the sources you provided before separating or leaving as is. Hwy43 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mattximus, I am behind my forecasted schedule but I have finally begun reviewing. More work is needed. I'll let you know when I think it is ready. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, no hurry, I'll be here if there is anything I can do. I might have some time this week, so was thinking of adding the incorporation dates to the Saskatchewan list. I believe you sent me the file before, but recall that you had no luck pulling the data in such a way that it makes it easy to add to the list. Is that correct? Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I will see if my work's IT staff can do me a solid by converting the SK muni incorporation dates PDF to Excel. If so, I'll email that to you. What would be really helpful in the meantime would be implementing consistent precision among the three last columns at List of municipalities in Quebec. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I should have time this weekend for the Quebec task. Mattximus (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mattximus, turns out I was able to convert the PDFs to Excel files using Bluebeam PDF software. I just pasted the wikicode for the urban municipality incorporation dates in your sandbox. The list should be in the same order as they are listed on List of municipalities in Saskatchewan#List of urban municipalities. If you could tackle that I will do the same for the rural municipalities, which is transcluded from List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan. Hwy43 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rural municipalities are done. Hwy43 (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'm still working on urban in my sandbox, and also almost done with the decimals in the Quebec one. Will take a bit more time though. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I've finally finished adding all the incorporation dates to the Saskatchewan article. The images on the right are a little messed up though. Next up is the Quebec decimal places (not quite finished there yet). Do you think List of municipalities in Yukon is ready for promotion? Mattximus (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mattximus, yeah, go for it. Co-nom? Also, thanks for your work on the SK article and ongoing work on the QC article. Hwy43 (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I've just finished up the Quebec decimals as well. I'm heading on vacation from the 1st to 11th. Would it still be wise to nominate now (it may well take a few weeks for featured list reviews to come in), or wait? Let me know what you think, co-nom sounds good. Also, I'm free tomorrow, where do you think we should head next in completing the municipalities project? Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No harm in nominating now. As it will be a co-nom, I will pay attention to it in your absence. Nunavut seems like the logical next effort. Hwy43 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if you are interested, but I made this to easily navigate through the project:

Lists of municipalities in Canada

13 articles

Provinces:

Alberta

British Columbia

Manitoba

New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador

Nova Scotia

Ontario

Prince Edward Island

Quebec

Saskatchewan

Territories:

Northwest Territories

Nunavut

Yukon

Cool. I've made a few changes. At some point I can make a map of Canada showing all municipalities by type and it can be used in the main article and in the above. Hwy43 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your support in the FL nomination. I have some time so I've been working on moving the content of the BC list to make it more in line with the other Featured Lists. Specifically I: corrected decimals, merged the tables, added sums for each municipal type, merged municipal subheading with the lead, added some stats to the lead, pulled descriptions of municipal types from their respective pages, changed the order of the columns to match each other, and added more images. I know this wasn't your priority but I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on it whenever you may have some time (no rush whatsoever). I won't suggest adding it to the BC page until I run it by you first, and then any others at the talk page. The only thing missing is a description of some of the more obscure municipality type and some of your very nice maps (which would frame the municipal subtype description nicely). Also since I do have some time, which list would you like to bring up to Featured next? Perhaps I can aid in some tasks? We can always have a few in the pipes if you are interested. Mattximus (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem and likewise. Hopefully others will review and support. Interested to see how it will pan out. I still don't think remodeling the FL-designated BC should be a priority over the six that aren't yet. As mentioned previously, I think Nunavut should be next, but it may be painted with the same brush as Yukon (though NWT wasn't). PEI may be the best starting point out in the Atlantic provinces. Anyway, I'm not going to be of much help over the next few months or year even. My priorities the next three weeks or less is on work followed by daughter #3 due to arrive in early September. Regardless, I'll try to look at BC in your sandbox before the end of the month. Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks for all your collaborations, it was very fun. I will still try for featured topic over the next foreseeable future and see how it goes. My original goal was to finish before next census anyway. I'm not too worried about Yukon nomination, if it does not pass, we can nominate it as the last list needed for featured topic and it will be very hard to fail it then. I will see what I can do for Nunavut/PEI. Thanks again! Great maps by the way :) Mattximus (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks (daughter and maps) and likewise and likewise (collaborations and fun). I'll continue to monitor, help and collaborate when I can and would appreciate continuing to be involved in co-nominations. I think I've already implemented the foundations to all remaining before we crossed paths anyways. As for the Yukon nomination, it is clear the differences of opinion are entrenched and I don't think we are going to change Nergaal's mind. I suggest we abandon that thread and just await comments of others to save ourselves time and our relationship with Nergaal, who has helped us and supported us on previous nominations. Hwy43 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the Acts used in Nunavut are the same as those used in NWT (they are as far as I can tell), I believe List of municipalities in Nunavut should be ready for nomination. I know you're busy so there is no hurry, but I wanted to run it by you before co-nominating it. Cheers! Mattximus (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mattximus, given the uncertainty about the Yukon nomination, I'd prefer there be an outcome to that first before nominating Nunavut. In preparation for eventual nomination however, one thing that will likely be questioned is why Nunavut uses legislation approved by its neighbouring territory. Can you find any explanation of why this is the case? I assume it has to do with transitioning from the NWT into a new territory. Hwy43 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Yukon nomination failed, and I'm a little disappointed. I'm still motivated to complete the featured topic for all municipalities since I'm having quite a bit of fun. Would you be opposed to being a co-nominator on the Nunavut one while work is done on the more challenging provinces that remain? I tried to address your question above in the Nunavut article, but I couldn't find a good source for the answer. Otherwise, since it is longer than Yukon, it should have an easier time at featured list nomination? On a positive note, thanks for the "thanks" on the Manitoba page. I guess we can merge them into the main list in a couple of months! Just a little quibble, can you think of a good way of incorporating those 2 Local government districts into their respective categories (one urban and one rural)? I find the table with only 2 items looks a bit strange and not overly useful. Anyway, thanks again for all the collaboration, I'm enjoying it! Mattximus (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Also disappointed. Thought we'd get the minimum required reviewers and the consensus would be support, but I suspect the oppose by the first reviewer must have kept others away. Yes, let's co-nom Nunavut. I just Googled "Why does Nunavut use Northwest Territories legislation" and the first two hits that came up explain it. See the first three paragraphs here and the third bullet here. I recommend incorporating the explanation within the Notes section so its tangential nature doesn't disrupt the current flow of the lead.
I suggest leaving the LGDs at Manitoba as is. Doing what you suggested creates the problem of "where does the LGD prose/lead now go?" It would be awkward to have two LGD prose sections within the same article. It is what it is. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there! Since the Nunavut nomination is going a bit slow, I decided to spruce up the PEI list to prep it for nomination. I think we are allowed 2 nominations at the same time. I'm wondering if you notice anything missing, besides a nice map that is. Although I'm focused on this project, do you need any help on other municipality tasks in the meantime? Mattximus (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a peak at PEI. Although it appears we are allowed two at a time, to keep things clean, do you want me to nominate it once ready with you as the co-nom this time? I'll prepare a map. The empty cells in the table for some of the communities will raise eyebrows during the nomination (not sure why StatCan doesn't recognize all of PEI's municipalities as census subdivisions). I'll think about what other municipality tasks I may need help on and get back to you. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, I've been busy with work in real life. I would be happy to be a co-nom for PEI once the map is complete, and no rush at all, I'm in this project for the long haul. I wonder if the empty cells will be filled in the next census? If so we can maybe use that in the nomination, or at least pro-actively address this obvious concern in the nomination itself? I'll continue to tinker away on the remaining provinces. I much prefer your maps to the ones currently in Nova Scotia by the way, and will be happy to replace those. Thanks for the team work, wikipedia is much more fun when it's collaborative!

The fact that StatCan doesn't recognize all municipalities in PEI as census subdivisions really perplexes me. I'm tempted to inquire to ask why so many are not, but I will await until I hear back from them on another inquiry. I don't want to overwhelm.

I am really busy right now with work. It is unlikely I'll be putting together any maps or undertaking any significant Wikipedia contributions in general until after Christmas Day. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on the nomination! Thanks for the collaboration, hopefully we can do another in the new year. Happy holidays! (PS. I noticed that you are missing the Ontario star for your homepage...!) Mattximus (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise and same to you. I look forward to getting back at it in January. I haven't added the Ontario star as I technically wasn't the nom or co-nom. Hwy43 (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I know you are away from wikipedia but after a very positive response from User_talk:Crisco_1492#Some_clarification_for_Featured_List_Status, I'm thinking of nominating Yukon once more, I don't think there will be many changes and I should be able to handle them, but I wanted to co-nominate yourself anyway if that's ok. Mattximus (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mattximus: that is good news and thanks. On another item, can you keep an eye on List of municipalities in Ontario? We have an IP and one registered editor (may be one in the same) replacing the "third-largest land area" rank with "second-largest land area", which is contrary to the ref provided (and the other ref provided by the registered editor as well). See [6] and [7]. I have tried to address the disconnect here. The standard among all lists within the topic is "land area" in both prose and in the tables themselves. Cherry-picking "total area" (land + freshwater) for the benefit of Ontario in prose is inconsistent among all lists within the topic and incongruent internally with the "land area" columns in the tables within the article. Help in dealing with this would be appreciated if the issue continues to persist. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your logic. I'll try to keep an eye on all the lists over the holidays. Mattximus (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mattximus: thanks. Coincidentally, as I was composing the above message to you, I was reverted a second time. I've left the editor a note in my edit summary that my last message above provides the main point behind why it must remain "land area". I've suggested the editor take it to that article's talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the strongest reason to keep the list as is would be to refer to stats can, which uses land area: [[8]]. Hard to argue against that... (I posted it on the talk page as well) Mattximus (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

North Vancouver

Now that North Vancouver is a disambiguation page, the 600+ articles that link to it need to be pointed to the correct article. This is by far the worst disambiguation problem in Wikipedia. While North Vancouver has over 600 incoming links, no other disambig on the entire site has more than 100.

Could you help with the cleanup, or help recruit other people to help out? It isn't an immediately obvious fix, and could use the help of some Canada specialists.

Thanks, --JaGa^talk 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JaGa. Yeah, I saw that. I will take care of that in the next day or two. I have a couple work commitments that I need to take care of first. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

JaGa, I am through the first 25. This will take some time as most articles wikilink as if there is only one "North Vancouver" when there is two. Some care and effort should be exerted to verify the intended municipality rather than simply removing the link all together, which I am willing to do, but may not be able to avoid on some. Admittedly I've had to remove the wikilink on some. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

North Van dabs

this has happened a few times since the North Vancouver page was stripped of its text and made pure-dab. Another such case was on Tsawwassen, British Columbia where a punk band from North Van was dabbed with the city, perhaps incorrectly. IMO the original page was made that way for a reason of such common ambiguities; probably similar happens with Langley.Skookum1 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the status with fixing disambiguation links to North Vancouver? It is currently the most linked-to page for the monthly disambiguation list. bd2412 T 01:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BD2412, it appears we are down to 190 pages, which I think is down significantly since when I left off. Thanks to whomever that helped out. Of the 190, it appears 98 are articles. I trust those are the ones of most concern. I stay away from user and talk pages. I'll get back at it. Can you point me to the monthly dab list so I can monitor as well? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the monthly list for this month is Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/May 2014 (the general project page is Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links), and you are correct that our concern is article-space links. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As you both probably realize, I've been a bit "busy elsewhere" but had been making a start at some of these before getting.....waylaid, I guess you could say. Anyways one issue with many of them, such as Gregor Robertson (politician), is that while he was born in North Van, we don't know where in North Van that is; that's one reason that the non-dab version of the title existed....because we can't be sure of city/municipality dabs unless we have the details. If he was born in Lions Gate Hospital, fine, then he was born in the city; for Joe Capilano, he died in North Van....but at hospital, or on one of the reserve (Mission 1/Esla7an is in the city, Capilano 5/Homulchesan is not; or did he die in an apartment or house off-reserve? Until such details are known there's really no way to resolve many of these; I'll try to do a few a day and bring the size of the outstanding ones down though.Skookum1 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BD2412, knocked off another 11 articles last night. Nearly all the remaining articles are BLPs, where it is unlikely there is any content readily available to confirm they are from the city or the district municipality. For those that can't be confirmed, I suggest simply unlinking them in place of following the former links with the {{clarify}} tag. For example:

"Person X was born and raised in North Vancouver."

Thoughts? Hwy43 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, was it you that brought the amount of links down from 500-ish to 98? I started when there were over 600 and took a break after I did about 100 or so. If it was you, many thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just change the links that can not be resolved from North Vancouver to North Vancouver? It's a sure thing that whatever is referenced occurred in Greater Vancouver. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed several last night, as mentions of schools or hospitals or organizations gave the necessary information. In one case Naomi Yamamoto, there were multiple (23 or more) links to "North Vancouver", all but two of them (infobox and lede) were in "cite news" templates where North Vancouver had been linked each time; and about 10 more with "North Vancouver, British Columbia". That 190 total came down to 160 just by fixing those; in her case it was cites for the North Shore News and the North Shore Outlook. Both of their offices are in the city, though it took some looking at maps to figure out the latter; the Gordon Sturtridge one was resolved by looking up the league named for him; they have only a PO Box and I know that post office location (looked it up but I recognized it) and it's to the east of the Brooksbank Ave. boundary between the city and district. Lots and lots though, say "born in North Vancouver" etc with no other information....Skookum1 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BD2412, I think that works a bit better. I'd suggest North Vancouver instead of North Vancouver however. Hwy43 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, thanks. Keep at it and let me know when you are done and I can take over what is remaining. Remember, per BD2412's comments above, we are only concerned about articles that point to the dab. Just trying to save you the trouble of doing the same for other namespace pages, if that is what you are also doing. Hwy43 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been working through "what links here"....the remaining ones are mostly "born in" and could be resolved by "assuming" that they were born in Lions Gate hospital rather than at home; there are no other maternity clinics in North Van. In the case of Jack Loutet, it says "outet served as councillor (1911–21), reeve (1923) and mayor (1945–47) for North Vancouver" suggesting that two links are needed, as reeves were "mayors" for DMs...unless by 1945 the DM had started using "mayor"..... in the case of the MMA bios, the links are to bouts/championships, my guess, knowing facilities on the Shore, that would tend to be in the district, though it's possible these were held at the main North Van rec centre on Lonsdale, i.e. in the city; I've looked up those events, no clue so far as to where they were.Skookum1 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

City articles in Alberta

Quick question about the revert from the shock at Winnipeg. Are you saying all the cities in Alberta repeat the same info 2 times in the infobox? This should be fix don't you think? Why are we saying the same thing 2 times one line after the other?-- Moxy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moxy (and ‎Nikkimaria), not sure what "shock at" means in the above, but yes all of Alberta's city, town, village, summer village and specialized municipality articles use all three parameters. The "name" parameter is intended for the municipality's "given name" and obviously the "settlement_type" parameter is intended for its status. Now almost always a municipality's official name follows the convention of "Status of Given Name". However, this is not always the case. The "Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo" in Alberta is a specialized municipality, not a regional municipality. Same with the four other Specialized municipalities of Alberta. The "Township of Langley" is a district municipality, not a township. "The Corporation of Delta" is in fact a district municipality, not a corporation. There are countless examples in Ontario with official names deviating from the naming convention we are accustomed to. So does inclusion of the "official_name" parameter appear redundant? Yes it appears redundant, but it is not. The given names, statuses, and official names of municipalities are separate and unique facts. In the absence of using the "official_name" parameter, it is not safe to assume a particular municipality's official name follows the convention for the above reasons as it may not. In the case of Winnipeg, it does not deviate, but inclusion of this is useful to confirm its official name follows the convention. Again, though it appears redundant, there is no harm in including this parameter, unless the editor is in fact incorrect. From what I saw, Merlin and his IP were by far incorrect on the majority of similar edits, but was not in the case of Winnipeg unless I am mistaken. Hope this explains for both you and ‎Nikkimaria who has since reverted my edit. And to answer your second question, no, nothing needs fixing at the above mentioned Alberta municipality articles. Hwy43 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

On the Winnipeg article, we opted to use the official name only, as it does follow the "status of given name" convention and so succinctly conveys all three pieces of information, rather than duplicating them. The use of the parameters on Alberta municipality articles need not dictate how they are used for Winnipeg, and your argument as applied to this particular case is unconvincing - there is no merit in contravening the principles outlined by MOS:INFOBOX here. For that reason, I'm going to re-revert you, though feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Winnipeg if you wish to seek consensus to restore the edits of the blocked editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unconvincing or WP:IDLI? Regardless, it doesn't matter. I understand your point. Both ways of doing things are not incorrect. Note I am not suggesting that usage of parameters for Alberta municipalities need to dictate what is going on at Winnipeg, but the key here is the IP's/Merlin's edit attempts at Winnipeg were not incorrect despite being incorrect in similar edits most everywhere else. I hope this is understood. By the way, if there is a specific principle at MOS:INFOBOX that is being contravened at Alberta municipality articles, as well as in certain BC and Ontario articles, please advise and I will review and compare that with the intent and functionality of Template:Infobox settlement. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I apologies if I made an error in taking the time to fix his mistakes. However in the future with your edit summaries try to assume good faith when dealing with an editor that has more experience then yourself. Simply upsetting to see a message like that. Have a great day!!!!!!!!!!! -- Moxy (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, I was trying to provide sufficient explanation to avoid having to enter into another discussion and was unfortunately terse at this late hour with the other recent unusual and unnecessary revert fresh in my mind. My apologies for not being more careful. Note however I am a disappointed about being dropped the "more experience than yourself" card. Yes you've been here longer and no doubt have more edits as a result, but thought my contributions and track record would have been sufficient to avoid that card. Anyway, off to bed, and shouldn't you be as well? Likewise, have a great day. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sentence case?

I guess by this you mean to lower case the second word; because this is a formal legal title I had created it that way; the same is true at Category:Indian Reserves in British Columbia. Lower-casing to me causes unnecessary ambiguity on some categories but if you insist file CFDS on them and I won't oppose; I do maintain that the title of the list page should remain the same full-capped term, however.Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's List of Indian Reserves in British Columbia I meant; I see you've already moved the list title for the Land Districts.Skookum1 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Need your help/input

I've done the best I can here to be clear, given the lack of awareness of Canadian topics and dab standards/usages, but right now I'm a lone soldier. I posted this at the CanCommunities board yesterday but don't know who even looks at that. I explain the issues there, and in the previous RM there was an exhaustive "MOSTCOMMON" set of searches, but the reality is that the "Self-identification" guidelines and also a passage in TITLE about going for names that are not the dominant use, for various reasons, apply in addition to the reasons already given in the RM.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't had time to build similar categories/lists for other groups like Category:Haida villages.Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm getting testy so will shut up until such time as someone else who works with Canadian community titles on a regular basis weighs in. Even when I bullet-point I get the complaint of "lengthy text" which to me speaks to the rise of semi-literacy, and its negative effects on what should be an encyclopedia full of informed and thoughtful content. I will refrain from further critiques of this obnoxious line of dispute.Skookum1 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in that discussion. I monitor WP:CANTALK. If there is something that engages my interest, I will participate. If there is something that does not, I will not participate. I can only assume that others that monitor CANTALK approach it the same way. Hwy43 (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a Communities dab issue, and I'm encountering resistance to do with Canadian dab standards not being relevant, that's why I came to you.Skookum1 (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

One-opposed closes, "no consensus/not moved"

Talk:Bella Coola#Requested move and Talk:Saanich#Requested move have both been closed "no consensus/not moved" with only one opposing vote each, both from Dicklyon, and all google results and view stats pointing towards the town/muni respectively. Dicklyon maintained that the heliskiiing company at Bella Coola was a potential primarytopic, and the Bella Coola Valley...... the heli skiing company? Stats didn't support that; David Leigh Ellis is also who prematurely closed Comox BC, now unofficially back on the table at Talk:Comox people#Requested move. Just goes to show and old maxim of mine from early Green Party days, "consensus often means nothing more than a veto of one".....both of these should be relisted, Bella Coola especially....I'm obviously not the person to try Move Review.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The right thing

Let's hope David Leigh Ellis doesn't decide this to close like he did Bella Coola and Saanich, ignoring all the cited stats and treating the sole 'oppose' vote in his reckonining of "no consensus". Comox remains outstanding because of the same closer though the Comox BC RM itself has closed. I'm going to go re-examine Cassiar again using view stats, I think I withdrew it prematurely given the availability of such searches and in face of the usual "FOO whatever" titles being claimed as potential PRIMARYTOPIC candidates, which as you have noted such titles are not. The case of Taku/Taku people is somewhat more complicated but as far as standalone "Taku" titles the choices are restricted considerably; no further comment on that, but have a look please; the mobbing of RMs by people claiming things that cannot be PRIMARYTOPICs as if they were PRIMARYTOPIC candidates is way too common, and admins and long-time editors posing such "votes" and disputations should know better....but don't or won't.Skookum1 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Already did the Cassiar stats, since the RM withdrawal though; wish I hadn't been so easily swayed by abstruse claims, but have a look; maybe that can just be admin-moved, there is no other standalone use of "Cassiar" than the town-name, other than the 19th C use of "the Cassiar" to refer to the gold rush and region.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Atlin was similarly "no consensus, not moved based on Vegaswikian's sole unsubstantiated objection; again there are no other standalone titles/uses for "Atlin". Please note also the still unclosed Talk:Dease Lake, British Columbia#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

CANLIST updates

Hi; despite the fracas constantly being pushed in my face, I've been proceeding on moves and article improvements......I moved everything I could (to redlinks) in Category:Settlements in British Columbia and spent some time updating and ref'ing them until I got to about "K" or so, then just didn't have the time/inclination to spend the extra time. A couple like Trapp Lake and Cluculz Lake also have lakes that don't have titles yet, but in both cases I'd say the community/settlement is better known; as with various others. Probably still a few more poking around here and there, and some of the remaining ones in this category need admin moves.Skookum1 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ottewell, Edmonton

Hi; I noticed today your message of December 2012 about removing my edits from the Ottewell, Edmonton page. I was a resident of Ottewell from 1965 to 1985 and my source would be first person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawwpg (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Dawwpg, that was quite some time ago. Unfortunately, we can not add unsourced material from personal experiences per WP:PRIMARY. Material needs to based on published, reliable sources supported with an inline citation. To learn how to cite sources, see WP:CITE. Hwy43 (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Grace Harbour

I just created this, BC Names lists it as a harbour only, though on their cite there's lots about the village that used to be here, Kahkaykay Indian Reserve No. 6 will redirect there; it's a former Indian reserve, now fee-simple per the terms of the Sliammon Treaty. I haven't added it to CANLIST yet because of its designation, but it was a community and an important one, so should it be?Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this former community would have significant enough coverage to be primary topic. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Kahkaykay certainly is; read the article. But in general we don't have native villages on CANLIST, huh?Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Lethbridge

Hi Hwy43. I'm sorry about this very late reply to your message about the change on the Lethbridge Infrastructure page. There isn't much for reference for Park Place Mall, being on the old CP yard. I've been a Lethbridge resident my entire life, and also a train fan. I've done numerous studies to find out that yes, Park Place Mall, is in fact, sitting on the old yard land. The station, which sits not far away is the only real thing left indicating that the tracks went where the mall is. If its ok with you, my only reference is a PDF on the yard redevelopment, although it does not say anything about Park Place Mall, it has the maps of the redevelopment area. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My69daytona (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My69daytona, thank you for adding the PDF as an inline citation. As it did not explicitly say the mall is now located there, I reworded and rearranged this and added a new source to confirm the location of the mall. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Metro Line edits

Why can't a response from the cities' transportation department specializing on the Metro line be proof? They are pros who can access information from a variety of sources you may not be aware of. 50.65.155.62 (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

50.65.155.62/Gingeroscar, please read WP:SOURCE. It tells you "what counts as a reliable source" and further states "unpublished materials are not considered reliable". Emails between you and a City representative are not published materials.

Also, please remember to sign in every time you edit from every computer/device you use. Three of your last four edits at Metro Line were from you while your were signed out. When you are signed out, your edits are attributed to your address rather than your account. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Valcourt (town)

Hello Hwy43. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Valcourt (town), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The city exists within the township, according to the article. Seems that (city) is where it should be, and the list updated. Either way, I don't think this is simple enough for a speedy move. Needs a proper discussion somewhere, either the city page, or wikiproject Canada perhaps? Thank you. GedUK  12:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ged UK, no worries. I proposed this based on another editor boldly moving List of cities in Quebec to List of towns in Quebec a few months ago as, according to that editor, the official municipal status in French, "ville", translates to "town" rather than "city". Despite this, it looks like most Quebec communities with "ville" status have it translated to "city" rather than "town", such as Valcourt. This suggests it may be more common to refer to "villes" as "cities" despite it being an incorrect translation. Anyway, a requested move for Valcourt is not a battle I'm interested in starting. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If a dab is needed, then why isn't Valcourt, Quebec used? And that other editor re "town" and "city" is very wrong; I speak French, though not a native speaker; the ville de Montreal and ville de Paris are not "towns", and in most dictionaries "city" is translated as "ville" and has been used as such for hundreds of years. "Ville de Quebec" is not "Quebec Town". That someone would claim otherwise and that would be the basis to be afraid of an RM is rather sad, but par for the course around Wikipedia where "controversial" has become an overused watchword for fielding bad/wrong/mistaken ideas as points of debate. Ville is so commonly translated as "city" that any suggestion otherwise is both specious and spurious and more than a bit disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, please don't jump to conclusions. You are coming off as critical. I'm not afraid. I don't have the time or energy to lead the charge on it, just like I haven't had the same to proceed to the next "List of municipalities in Province/Territory" feature list nomination (five in the past year). Further, I do not have enough information to see if such an effort is worthwhile, but will definitely provide my two cents when the (I think) inevitable conversation is initiated. Hwy43 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And by "lead the charge", I mean opening up the can of worms that this single RM could trigger. Hwy43 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell me about it....LOL. Cans of worms abound at RMs and other such discussions where the uninformed who think they know guidelines throw up obfuscations and irrelevant non sequiturs as "votes". There's quite a few items that need proper discussions, RMs do not seem to be the place for that in real-world terms as I have learned painfully, and am in fact shying away from another dubious reversion today by someone who's wrong (not the usual party) but it will be all the same names at any RM saying all the same usual things, so what's the point?\Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Redundant?

Isn't it redundant to say "delete" when you put that article up for deletion? Putting the article up for deletion is your vote for deletion is it not? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen others do the same, albeit not often. You are right. It is redundant. I will fix. Hwy43 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hamlet Whitevale

Hwy43, you have decided to remove all references to the word Hamlet since there was originally some inconsistency between whether it was a village or a hamlet. It is in fact a Hamlet and so I corrected the page to reflect this. However, you once again decided to remove references to it being a hamlet. You cited the community webpage saying that it is inconsistent in calling it a village or a hamlet...this isn't a valid reason to remove any mention of hamlet from the Wikipedia page. The City of Pickering officially refers to it as a hamlet [9] and the sign entering the hamlet says "hamlet" on it [10]. I would like to change it back to saying hamlet. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorville (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Majorville — It was a valid alternative because the inconsistency brings doubt at what it actually is. It is not Wikipedia's place to perpetuate doubt. Even if the community webpage was consistent, it would be a primary source when it would be better that the claim be based on a secondary source. You've since provided a secondary source (the city link), which now gives me the confidence it is known as a hamlet rather than a village. I will add content back in the article based on this new source. I won't re-add "... as the Village of Major or Majorville..." however until there is a reliable secondary source provided confirming it was incorporated as a village at some point before becoming part of Pickering. Also, since there does not appear to be an "official" hamlet status in Ontario (unlike in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Nunavut), the Category:Hamlets in Canada should not be applied. Hwy43 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edmonton

You have been giving false information, and incorrect edits on the 'Edmonton' Article. Your resources are old, and no longer current. Canadian Security Intelligence Service & Communications Security Establishment Canada, do not wish you further to lead the general public to misbelief and lies about their very own cities.
Thank You
-An Administrator from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service / Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité Csisscrs (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Are things a little slow at CSIS? If so, welcome to Wikipedia. I encourage you to read up on a few things to get you started before editing, such as WP:5P, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. Specifically with respect to your population edits, please review WP:CANSTYLE#Population. Thank you, Hwy43 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Shoal Lake

Thanks very much for your help on the Shoal Lake, Manitoba article. You work quickly! geordie (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Geordiex8. As a former municipality, this was a redirect I was planning to convert to a deserving article for a while. Thanks for getting it going! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadmonton

Why would someone want to further a stereotype that simply isn't true? I notice that on Toronto's page there isn't "Centre of the Universe" as a nickname. Nicknames for people, places, and things come and go as their relevance dictates. Edmonton simply isn't "Deadmonton", and why someone would want this on the go-to source for a user when looking up the city, I have no idea. Are you telling me that I could go edit Toronto's page right now to say "commonly known as 'The Centre of the Universe" and not a single person would have an issue and agree with me that "...even disparaging nicknames are acceptable on Wikipedia"? Edmonton is simply not "Deadmonton"; no self-respecting Edmontonian with any ounce of civic pride at all would ever refer to us as such. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwc.goebel (talk • contribs) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mwc.goebel. Thanks for engaging in discussion. Your above comments are the same as those you posted in reply to me on your talk page. No need to duplicate your comments here as I am watching your talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on historic population tables

Hi there. I know you are busy, so please feel free to ignore. I'm having a debate about adding the historic population table in the Winnipeg article, and I'm wondering I could get your opinion on whether I am in the right or wrong. The short exchange can be found here. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

CheckUser

Regarding this edit: checkuser results comparing an IP to an account are not reported publicly on IP addresses, due to privacy concerns, so as I understand it, only behavioural evidence is used to link IP addresses to accounts. isaacl (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Isaacl. Fiver years here and still learning. Hwy43 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Municipal amalgamations

I was reading up on Manitoba's municipal amalgamations.[11] Do you think they should be updated in the List of municipalities in Manitoba? I can get on it if you think it's appropriate. If so, could we simply add the populations and areas since they are all simply mergers? Mattximus (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The source says official, but often the media is a tad ignorant on official approval versus effective dates of official approvals when it comes to municipal amalgamations, status changes and the like. If we can find the official provincial approvals, and if the effective dates for all amalgamations have since passed, then yes, we should update the list. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Manitoba's wave of amalgamations will become officially "official" (i.e., effective) in 2015 or 2016. I'll see if I can find it again. Hwy43 (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Manitoba Historical Society has a running list of amalgamating municipalities here. That site only has pages for two of the new amalgamated municipalities thus far – Prairie Lakes and Sifton. Both pages state the amalgamations will occur on January 1, 2015. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So I've found the legislation that amalgamates 107 municipalities into 47 municipalities, all with an effective date of January 1, 2015. I'll start a temporary section on List of municipalities in Manitoba that presents the new municipalities and those existing municipalities that are about to form them. As all are simply mergers, could you then expand the list to include the 2011 and 2006 populations, percent changes, areas, and densities? Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep will get to that this weekend, thanks! Mattximus (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been reported for harassment

Please note that you have been reported for harassment. 99.224.114.253 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hwy43, I can't actually find any record of UrbanNerd (talk · contribs)'s IP sockpuppet actually reporting you for this so-called "harrassment". I guess UrbanNerd is more annoyed at me than you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Given his block, I guess I should self-report my so-called "harassment" on his behalf. Hwy43 (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Calgary demographic info

Hi Hwy43, Im not sure how to communicate with you so I'll just leave this here... I am the user who edited the Calgary demographics info... I was looking to rectify the fact that Calgary was the fourth largest metro in Canada (not the fifth), I apologize for the confusion this has caused (over actual census data vs. projected census data). Feel free to delete this message once you've read it. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.14.206 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Dawson Creek rating

Re this, the mid rating was no doubt from before WP:BC was integrated into WP:Canada. Dawson Creek is indeed a "mid-importance town" within the BC context, and is a major regional centre; problem is at the national level it's not. Too bad there can't be provincial-tier ratings; I guess the WP:British Columbia template could be added with that rating. Other relatively low population centres are "mid" importance provincially e.g. Atlin, Bella Coola at the small end of the scale, ones in teh same population range as Dawson Creek also; as the basket gets bigger, the eggs get smaller I guess.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see how Dawson Creek could be a "mid-importance town" at the provincial level. Has there ever been a discussion within the BC WikiProject to determine where the "low", "mid", "high" and "top" importances should begin and end for BC communities? Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No formal discussion, no, and there are fewer WP:BCers than there used to be. I added the WPBC template with mid after I posted this, it possibly should be done on others; New West for example is not top priority nationally but as former colonial capital and a long-time major city, though "swallowed" now, it's definitely top importance. And it wouldn't be just about raw numbers, as noted re Bella Coola et al. but regional significance or historical notability; Yale, British Columbia should be "high" for example because of its role in early history (like New West should be worked on towards FA). I'm not sure how many would weigh in if you were to start a discussion on the WP:BC talkpage or what the outcome would be.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: I see. Seems convoluted. I'm not suggesting such a discussion be initiated. I was just curious, and am satisfied with Dawson Creek being mid-important at the provincial level given a combination of things.
Did you see my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities yet? Look forward to you clarifying your position. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kincardine, ON errors

Greetings, I sent some corrections a few days ago for Kincardine, ON. Just following up. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsevans (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mbsevans: Kincardine, Ontario is not on my WP:WATCHLIST, so I haven't seen your suggested corrections until now. I think an editor from Ontario would be better suited to look into your suggestions. Consider posting a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Was getting to it

Maybe you could wait a while before immediately undoing my addition, I was in the middle of citing it: http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/2013_annual_report_en_0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harper Stephens (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Harper Stephens, but recognize I don't have a crystal ball that allows me to see what you are doing, nor am I a mind reader. Hopefully the message I just posted on your talk page will help you get there. (Note I posted on your talk page before reading your message here.) Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: September 2014

Thank-you for your contribution to list of NB Service Districts entry and noticing the changes I made. I appreciate the formality with which you police the contribution and I share generally in the wish for proper citing of origins of sources. However, despite the need for referenced information, a consensus is built during the populating of spaces such as these which calls for a valuation of policing approach so as to allow the building of consensus in a combined effort. This is detailed information that was removed from entry for Local Service District (NB) the origins of which I have inquired about with contributor User:G._Timothy_Walton who wrote he intended to to return to the entry to include citation - which he hadn't in a timely fashion - and replaced here by me where more relevent. Short and skinny, the evaluation I made was that it is easily information 'worth verifying' by viewer/user scrutiny. As you likely noticed, citations on the entire list page are lacking. Nonetheless, the value and verifiability of the information allows the list to be member defined/refined. Such is the dynamic nature of the material to which user G. Walton has pinned down, somewhere, in the public domain. Placeographer77 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Column codes?

I just tried to columnize this using templates copy-pasted from list of settlements in BC......and it didn't work. What did I do wrong? Can't spot the code-error in that last set of coords either?Skookum1 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to use three unique template tags to create the two columns, but you have to use one of them twice. See below:

{{col-begin}}

{{col-2}}

{{col-2}}

{{col-end}}

The first col-2 goes before the first entry in your bulleted list. The second goes in the middle of your list (i.e., between the fifth and sixth entries within a list of ten entries).
Are you intending to put these lists in the article? The lists are of unencyclopedic features IMO. Might be worth checking if there are notability guidelines for water bodies. In absence of such, I doubt very few would meet WP:GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Map calgary 2013 flood rainfall

I'm working on my BSc thesis and considering the floods in 2013. Your rainfall map on the wiki page associated on the floods is great for general context/explaining why the floods had such large consequences. I'd like to be able to properly give you credit (and avoid having Wikipedia as a cited source, if possible) for your map so would appreciate it if there was a way I could get in contact with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.231.161.21 (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@136.231.161.21: my reference for that map was this map published by AESRD. I suggest that crediting as 2013 Alberta floods rainfall map prepared by Wikimedia User Hwy43 based on "Precipitation Map: June 19-22, 2013" published by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development may be satisfactory. You can contact me directly by email using this link to discuss further. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected area IUCN categories

I just see that you erase the IUCN categories of some provincial parks. Just note that many provincial parks in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec are classified in the category II. The category II is a category for the protected area who protect a ecosystem that a national park stricto sensus. You can see the categoy for a sepcific park in the protectedplanet.net site (ex: [http://www.protectedplanet.net/sites/Peter_Lougheed_Provinical_Park Peter Lougheed Provinical Park]) or the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas. I forgot a map of protected areas of Canada by UICN Category [12].--Fralambert (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fralambert: thank you for clarifying. I figured if removing the IUCN categories was in error that someone would let me know otherwise. The problem was without a reference confirming their categories, and confirming that their category names included "national park" sensu stricto, they appeared counterintuitive to what they are legally recognized as within Alberta. Feel free to revert, but I ask that you include a reference to prevent others from making the same mistake again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sundre, Alberta

Hello, I do not know how to cite on Wikipedia, however Gord Miller is indeed from Sundre. I found a link http://www.city-data.com/canada/Sundre.html so if you could possibly cite it that would be great because it needs to be included. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: the link you provided was not a reliable source. It took some time, but I found a reliable source. See this link, which I added. To learn how to add citations, visit WP:CITE. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for citing it. However, I don't understand how my link was not reliable? It is from city data and had a lot of great information on age, etc, graphs charts and had great info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: in this case, the City-Data.com page for Sundre did not provide a source for this information. The only sourcing it provided was from Statistics Canada censuses, which only supports the population, dwelling counts and other demographic data and charts on that page. Due to privacy requirements, published census data does not report the locations of where people currently live or previously lived, whether they are notable or not. Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Please take a look at the articles Carolina Neurath and Karolina Olsson, much appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not interested. You should not be mass spamming random editors for help. Hwy43 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10