User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2014.3

Why did you remove "redundant" information

It was not redundant or requiring clean up. Explain to me why such a sourced addition is required? The information I added is perfectly fine. The Valley line will is a certain thing to me, and to many Edmontonians. The Metro line information is certain due to the fact it has been built. What is wrong with an addition with sources and that is relevant. Gingeroscar (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you're not being specific, I'll try to list everything.

• "A new 8 km route, of which 3.3 km is new" – unreferenced, reverted
• "The Valley Line phase one, a 13 km line running from Mill Woods Town Centre, to Downtown, is currently in procurement and is scheduled to open in Q4 2020." – excessive detail, not lead worthy
• "The maintenance, operations and storage of vehicles and the Valley line will be controlled from the new Gerry Wright OMF located at Whitemud Drive and 75 St." – irrelevant to network, moved to Valley Line section
• "Between Health Sciences/Jubilee Station and Churchill Station, inclusive, frequency will be doubled as a result of the Metro Line." – technical wording, rewrote
• "Testing and Commissioning" – as per Hwy43's previous edit summary, that is part of construction, let's not explain every step of construction
• "Three stations will open in December 2014" – unreferenced, rewrote
• "12 Stations will be build as a result of the Valley Line, with a further 30 stations are approved, but not funded." – bad wording, rewrote
• "The Metro Line will operate three–car trains until the permanent NAIT station will be build, as the temporary NAIT Station is only being built to accommodate three–cars." – bad wording, rewrote
• "Lines not directly connected to the Capital or Metro lines, or their extensions, like the Valley Line will use new low–floor cars." – bad wording, reverted
• "In 2014, a woman was fighting with another person inside an LRT car. Both were issued 500$ fines" – not as serious, and probably more common, than the other incidents listed, reverted
• "Children under and including age five ride free when accompanied by a fare–paying adult." – technical wording, rewrote
• "Passengers can also purchase books of transit tickets ... or monthly transit passes. Seniors can purchase an annual transit pass for ..." – excessive detail, found on Edmonton Transit System, reverted
• "at the time the fare is paid if requested" – technical wording, reverted
• "TVMs" – unexplained acronym
• "Capital Line expansion" section placement – order of lines has always been Capital, Metro, Valley, returned to original location
• "Capital Line expansion" section addition – duplication of information on Capital Line, removed, we split the article in order to avoid excessive detail on the main article.

Does this answer your questions? 117Avenue (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Canada House standings

I'd like to continue the discussion of Template talk:Canada House standings. I still think the current format can be improved upon and believe we can work together to do so. - Montréalais (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have responded to you on the talk page. Thanks so much! - Montréalais (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

NWT Premiers

It not worth reverting those over and over again. I've semi-protected the three of them for 3 months. If they hit any others let me know and I'll do the same there. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy knows how to change IPs, and edit inconsistently, but not to talk to users. 117Avenue (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Brad Wall

If you're going to claim that "Premier of Saskatchewan Brad Wall invited Turks and Caicos to be part of Saskatchewan", then you'd better have a source that make that claim, not a couple of sources that reprint an obviously sarcastic tweet. As a Canadian, the humour should not have gone over your head. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was sarcastic or not, that's what he said. To imply something different than what the source says is original research. 117Avenue (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're unbelievable. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to include statements clearly made in humour, then the fact that it was meant humourously needs do be explained. Otherwise, we are implying something different than what the source says. Resolute 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the source say it is humorous? 117Avenue (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Do the sources characterize it as a formal invitation? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Formal"? No. It just says an invitation, just like what I had wrote on the article. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Stripped of all context, it is presented as a formal offer. A gross distortion of what the sources say. What are you trying to accomplish with this? I don't believe for a second that you actually think it was a serious offer. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty obviously given Wall's suggestion of naming the province "Saskatchewarm". If we're going to pretend that this was anything but humourous, then my view switches to a solid oppose of any inclusion. Resolute 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Canadian party colour/name

Hi, re this revert. I came across this template because Template:Canadian party colour/name/sandbox was showing up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, due to the presence of {{pp-template}} on an unprotected page. I edited the sandbox so that the {{pp-template}} would be hidden for the sandbox (preventing it from showing in the error category), but exposed on the main template (and so displaying the padlock icon correctly). By making the same edit to the main template as I had to its sandbox, it meant that when you compared them, the difference on that particular line would be minimal; and so, when it was time for sandboxed amendments to go live, you could do a straight copy from sandbox to live. But now that you've removed my edits, and in one case removed even more, it means that when you compare them, that particular line will show as different; and so, when it is time for sandboxed amendments to go live, you then need to remember to re-add the <noinclude>{{pp-template}}</noinclude>. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In the template sandboxes I have come across, this is the case. Is there a standard for this scenario? In your edits to Template:Canadian party colour and its sandbox, you mentioned documentation takes care of it. Perhaps we could just slap documentation on it? 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that a recent change to {{pp-template}} means that its behaviour in sandboxes has changed, see Module talk:Protection banner#Use of pp-template in template sandboxes. Using {{documentation}} is suggested there, but I'm not the best person to write that documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The subtemplates aren't meant for usage, it would be the main template's documentation. 117Avenue (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Chestermere page info

I'm a representative from the Town of Chestermere and have been given permission to upload the logo and our images to the Wikipedia page. I've uploaded the images, stated that they are ours/created by us during the upload process, so I'm not sure what else is required so that they do not have "missing or false information" regarding source and copyright status. Also if you have a better way of citing the population than the Town website, please fix it to reflect the actual population instead of changing it back to far outdated numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bythelake10 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless the Town has released its copyright on its logos, (which I doubt they would ever do), they still own them. Copyrighted logos are allowed on Wikipedia under non-free use rational, but they cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I agree that the most accurate population figures should be in the easily utilized infobox, but I don't have the initiative to challenge the manual of style, WP:CANPOP, stating that only the most recent Canada census be used. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Provincial electoral divisions

These released today may be of interest to you. Hwy43 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on making more maps, yet another project I have left fall to the wayside. Sigh. 117Avenue (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to sigh. We are all volunteers here. I've been meaning to make an Edmonton area map for over a year now. I'd like to see if the snappy looking one recently uploaded can be improved. If not, I may still try to make another one to replace it (sometime in the next year or five). Hwy43 (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AFD + Twinkle

Hi 117Avenue,
When you added "(Smooth Island (Ontario))" to the AFD log you also added "NominationName" [1] - I assume you were testing ? -
Anyway you might find WP:TWINKLE a whole lot easier :)
Manually doing AFDs isn't the easiest task in the world!
Thanks & Merry Xmas! :) Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I did that, I actually accidentally removed, the South Australia one. I caught that, but didn't see the NominationName. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)