User talk:Skeezix1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note: This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads older than 14 days old are automatically archived.


Wow! An editor admitting a mistake? That deserves a...[edit]

No red/white links pls[edit]

Could i get you to see Template talk:Designation#National Historic Sites of Canada and Template talk:Infobox historic site#Red links and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Link colours

Hi, Skeezix[edit]

I am Merlin the 2nd, and you recently asked me why I added the official names for Canada's provinces and territories. After studying the states of the United States, I realized that many of the states had their official names in their infoboxes. With what I have recently done, we can see the name and official name of the province or territory in the same infobox. If you have a better way to do this, please let me know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin the 2nd (talkcontribs)

aboriginal Canada MOS[edit]

Hi; saw this. I'd tried to think of another example than QCI/Haida Gwaii but haven't yet. I made those changes there after following a link to MOS on the FLQ RM and found the French language section. For a long time I've been advocating an aboriginal MOS section, particularly for Canada where native endonyms and native names are in wide use in English; which was disputed by UK and US "votes" on the RMs to restore the indigenous RMs, claiming "global usage" and sources trumped Canadian English usage; they were wrong, though some RMs were still refused (by whom and why is a longer story); some language-titles have never been reverted back after Kwami BOLD/bulked moved them (and then in the case of the RMs on ethno/people titles fought viciously, arguing that the native preferences were "parochial" and that CANENGL/ENGVAR was irrelevant. I made a sandbox outline of what I call the "old consensus" and will dig it out and link it for you; what's in it was well thought-out in the way back when, it was swept aside and ignored and derided when I raised it again; thousands of articles were moved re WP:NCL which had been edited/changed by K, who also bitterly fought and edit-warred and obfuscated any attempt to make it conform to TITLE and other guidelines; it's still locked where he edit-warred it to, I haven't had the stomach or inclination to go back there. WP:NCET also had some argument but now more or less reads correctly though it needs a line somewhere about "when a tribal government's name for itself is different from that of another government's (e.g. Canadian or American federal/provincial/state government's) than the tribal government's preference should be the title; See the edit history at Skokomish Tribal Nation's redirect where the US name for them was reverted to as "official"; but since when is a sovereign government's usage not "official"?

Other than that there's things about "aboriginal style" and Canadian English usages of same that need spelling out, including title structure (FOO First Nation for band governments, and notes on when and when not to use nation/Nation and so on). Lots of stuff familiar to use is alien to UK and US editors. I'll draft some MOS additions but would prefer to debate them with other Canadians and IPNA editors before taking it to the naysayer/quibbler bearpit of MOSTALK. That being said, when I raised this and other matters at IPNA I got shot down by the same person who, though indigenous herself, applied the US name for the Skokomish government instead of the tribe's own, which I had moved it to per the tribe's own website, and like others there went "we have better things to do" and was among those who fought the endonym-reversion RMs...including launching one ANI and supporting another claiming I was doing "bulk undiscussed moves" as if RMs were undiscussed moves and that they were caused by someone doing thousands of undiscussed moves...then warred with me over category structures and redirects re Nevada goverments/reservations.....might be better to keep it to WPCAN folks until cohesively draftedSkookum1 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning re French usages in CANENGL, there are titles where the English pronunciation is different from what it would be in French; both IPAs are needed perhaps, with the English one going first as for Maillardville, which in English is mal-LARD-vil and in French is mai-YARD-viy. Similarly Lac La Hache is known by its English pronunciation with an English /h/ rather than the French glottal stop for the /h/. Theres's others like that, and cases where the English name even has a cedilla on it i.e. François Lake (originall lac des francais); across the Prairies and definitely in Newfoundland there's similar cases where the MOSTCOMMON pronunciation is English-style (or, er, Newfanese style).Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Port Radium[edit]

Hi, thanks for your comment about Port Radium being a National Historic Site or not. I am basing this on newspaper articles and photographs from 1978, when a delegation from Parks Canada erected a plaque. I included the one newspaper article as a reference under the Port Radium article on Wikipedia. I may have the definitions wrong, but the article talks about it being a 'Historic Site'. True, that I could find not modern day reference to it being a National Historic Site, but clearly the intent was there in 1978 and often these things get forgotten over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansilke (talkcontribs) 05:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

TfD for Inofbox NHSC[edit]

Skeezix, I don't disagree with this assessment [1], and I am sorry that the discussion has veered off into a tangential discussion about the nominator's refusal to notify template creators. My intent was to get him to acknowledge his responsibility to do so; instead, we've got 10,000+ bytes of argument with another editor who wants to defend that failure to notify. I'm going to hat those digressions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't necessarily disagree with the points you were making about notice. I wasn't trying to be judgmental, or to be dismissive of the point you are/were trying to make. It was intended to be a neutral comment that the discussion had unfortunately veered off topic, with no implied criticism of any party. Sorry if it read as a criticism (my reference to a dead horse didn't help) - that was not intended. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Skeezix, the conversation had clearly veered far off track last night, with the extended digressions about the alleged marginalization of discussion participants and the extended argument over notifying template creators. I was going to let it sit until the end of the business day, give everyone the chance to finish venting, and then hat the digressions. Your comment simply prompted me to do that four or five hours sooner -- which is probably a good thing. In any event, the notice problem is clearly going to have to be addressed in an RfC, because there is at least one regular TfD/TfM nominator who believes that such notices are not required by the TfD instructions, and there are supporters who want to defend that [non]practice. I'm a lawyer, of course my perspective is colored by the idea that proper notice of the concerned parties is fundamental to any procedurally fair decision; others apparently don't share that perspective. In any event, it needs to be brought to resolution in a forum that has the authority to impose a mandatory change and implement clarifying changes to the instructions that allow for no perceived wiggled room. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. And, frankly, the Wikiproject in question should also be notified whenever the template is used on a fair number of pages and the Wikiproject in question is active. Sometimes the creator is no longer active/no longer cares. It's the template users who sometimes are left in the dark - the notice that gets added to the top of templates is easy to miss. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir on all chapters and verses, Reverend Skeezix. In fact, the current TfD instructions suggest notifying major contributors and concerned WikiProjects that have tagged the template talk page. I would love to see those suggestions made mandatory, although it would obviously remain a subjective judgment call as to who constitutes a "major contributor." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

NHS total number, Delistings[edit]

Hi Skeezix. I've reverted a recent edit on National Historic Sites to reflect the number of NHSs identified by the citation given (957). If you have information that shows there are 965 NHSs (or more), please share that. I'm all for upping the number, but it needs to be verified. You may have solid evidence for a higher number, and I'm interested in that, even if it's a hand count of those sites listed, plus other sources. I did review some of the Talk regarding numbers and delistings, and would be fascinated to learn which have been delisted. That would be a valuable addition to a page.

Related to that, I'm searching for a complete list of all national park system units which show their dates of creation, amalgamation with other park units, re-designations (to other names), and, if abolished, the dates. That would make a very interesting table. So far, I have not seen such lists in any park system histories.

I just learned of a former national park at Brereton Lake, Manitoba, created in 1922. If you or any readers have information about that, I'm interested--particularly in a map showing the extent of the former park. It, along with Vidal's Point Park, Sask., was an experiment in creating a 'national recreation area' or 'national recreation park'. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make that change again without first discussing it. As I have explained to you, that number at the top of the DFHD can be unreliable. Listings disappear off the DFHD occasionally, seemingly always to return. I don't know if it's a technical issue, or if they simply remove listings for purposes of editing/updating. We had this issue a year or two ago - no sites were ultimately delisted. Honestly, it appeared to me, for example, that McLean Mill in B.C. was delisted, which wasn't the case at all. The "missing" sites reappeared a few weeks later. This isn't a case of "upping the number". All the NHSCs on the various lists have been verified and sourced through a number of sources. We are not going to assume that eight sites have suddenly been delisted based on a number that we know to be have been unreliable, when the listed sites have all otherwise been properly sourced. We do need to rely on sources, and here we have done so here. Sometimes NHSCs do get transferred over to Events or Persons, although that hasn't happened in a long time, and it only ever seems to happen when new NHSCs are announced. As far as I know, no new designations of any kind were announced in 2014 - presumably being saved for spring 2015 so that cabinet ministers and local MPs have a number of photo opportunities in advance of the Oct 2015 election. Care to bet on whether new designations all end up in swing ridings or election battleground areas?

Having said all that, I have no idea if 965 is correct either. Fralambert counted at one point to verify, and the provincial/terriorial tallies do add up to 965. If it's demonstrably wrong, I'd love to know and let's discuss. But changing it based on a number that at times is unreliable is not a good reason to alter it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any of that park information - sorry. Is there nothing about the Brereton Lake park online? Although it sounds like it was federal, if I recall Manitoba has a good selection of historical and archival documents online. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My (very brief) Google searches for Brereton Lake national park provided a lot of hits for Whiteshell Provincial Park. Might it have become part of that provincial park? Maybe histories of that park would shed light on the former park?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Yoho2001: Are you sure Brereton Lake was not a forest park? If it was a forest park, it would be normal to be reverted to province land with the 1930's national park act. For Vidal Point, I found someting here the 5 ha (it was really small) was transfered to the province in 1931 and became Katepwa Point Provincial Park. --Fralambert (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)