Jump to content

User talk:Hwy43: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Trfs (talk | contribs)
441 edits
Line 719: Line 719:


:Does the above match what you have?<p>Before we start using it, I'd like to consult with some further experienced editors to confirm if using GIS-derived data can be used as a source. Cheers, [[User:Hwy43|Hwy43]] ([[User talk:Hwy43#top|talk]]) 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
:Does the above match what you have?<p>Before we start using it, I'd like to consult with some further experienced editors to confirm if using GIS-derived data can be used as a source. Cheers, [[User:Hwy43|Hwy43]] ([[User talk:Hwy43#top|talk]]) 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::The data does match. The guy from the city was saying don't post the spreadsheet on the internet, just provide the link. I found this license:
License

{{pre2|<nowiki>The City grants you a non-exclusive, world-wide license to use, modify, and distribute the Data contained on this Site for any lawful Use. (Derivative Work) means a work that is based in any way or to any extent on the Data including without limitation any work that uses any of the Data in a modified form. You may use the Data to create Derivative Works using the Data and distribute said Derivative Works for any lawful purposes. You will be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from any use of the Data. Any unauthorized use of the Data, this site or content, will terminate the license and all the rights or permission granted by The City.</nowiki>}}

Anyways, I cease editing the area data. If we can't use the GIS data then all the neighbourhood articles will have to be scrubbed. I didn't edit them but the area data that is there doesn't seem to be referenced and some of it is wrong according to the GIS data. [[User:Trfs|Trfs]] ([[User talk:Trfs|talk]]) 16:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:59, 9 May 2012

Please start new topics at the bottom of the page, even if they are related to a section above, to maintain a sequential order of topics.

I prefer to keep discussion threads together. If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.

Improvement District No. 349

Since you'll probably have the same thought I did after making this edit, I'll start the conversation. Let's wait until Friday to move the article, when AMA publishes their weekly update, to see if they have given 349 a proper name. 117Avenue (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't the equivalent of a city! ;o)

Improvement District No. 349 is the official name. An approved order in council is required to change the name of a municipality and no such O.C. has been approved thus far, but waiting until Friday is reasonable in case AMA appends anything to the end of the official name like with other IDs.

On a related matter, I've been thinking of converting some of the redirects of the other IDs to articles, particularly No. 9 and No. 12 as these local governments don't represent either applicable national park as a whole. Such articles would focus on the local governments and would allow the respective national park articles to focus on other matters. Thoughts?

Also, Happy New Year! Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I'll search for a verifiable source to confirm which census division it will be assigned to. My guess is CD12 as the majority of the land for the ID came from Lac La Biche County which is in CD12. If nothing, it is a matter of time before it appears on StatCan's annual Interim List of Changes to Municipal Boundaries, Status, and Names publication, at which time we can assign to the proper CD. Hwy43 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kananaskis Improvement District is the only other ID that is located at its official name, and it doesn't need a ", Alberta". I thought the boundaries of 9 and 12 were identical to the Banff and Jasper National Parks, so I don't see the need for separate articles, as they would be on the same thing. I think the addition of a Governance section would be best, unless the article was already running long, then "Governance in Banff National Park" could redirect to Improvement District No. 9, Alberta. The WP:SIZERULE says 57kb is enough, but I wouldn't since it is a featured article. 117Avenue (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I intended to say "proper" rather than "official", because often people refer to a place by a common name, rather than a number. 117Avenue (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Municipal Affairs' municipal profiles and municipal officials search is now showing "Improvement District No. 349".

ID 9 is coincident to BNP, excepting thereout the Town of Banff. ID 12 isn't coincident with JNP[1] as it was split in 1995 into two IDs - Jasper ID and ID 12. Jasper ID changed to Municipality of Jasper in 2001 (specialized municipality). The MofJasper represents 8.3% of JNP's land area, while ID 9 represents 12.2% of BNP's population (Banff's area is <0.1% of BNP).

A Government section for BNP should summarize both the ID 12 and Town of Banff governments, while the same for JNP should summarize its two governments. As WP:SIZERULE indicates >50 may need to be divided and >60 says probably, I think separate articles on just the IDs are appropriate, modeled on Kananaskis Improvement District (less the G-8 Summit section, plus other relevent sections per Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities#Structure guidelines to bring it beyond stub status).

On an aside, how did you check the current size of the BNP article? I don't know how to check article sizes. Hwy43 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we can drop the Alberta then?

Right, right, right, the town and SM are separate, I should have known that. But is the Town of Banff considered part of Banff National Park? I am guessing so. Now that I consider a governing section would cover two places, that all makes sense now.

The page history lists the size of each revision. Also, the +/- on the watchlist is how bytes it changed. 117Avenue (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop yes, as you've already done.

Town is part of BNP. So we can create separate articles for these two IDs then (without the ", Alberta")?

Thanks for advising. I suspected it was right there staring at me. Hwy43 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've Googled and Wikipedia'ed Improvement district, and it seems only Alberta numbers them, so we shouldn't have a problem with the lower numbers. 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Improvement District No. 9 and Improvement District No. 12, or Improvement District No. 9 (Jasper National Park) and Improvement District No. 12 (Banff National Park) per official legal names? Hwy43 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AMA has to make things complicated, don't they? Can we just pretend the parenthesis aren't apart of the official?

But seriously, we could do a mix of common name and official name, with the article at "Improvement District No. 9", but the lead sentence saying "Improvement District No. 9 (Jasper National Park)", like what you've done to the highways. 117Avenue (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed as suggested. Historically, I believe their official names have included the parentheses content for less time compared to when they didn't include this content, hence their former official names remaining the current common name. Hwy43 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement District No. 9‎ and Improvement District No. 12 created. Hwy43 (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrhead TownPost

Greetings & happy new year,

TownPost is a completely legitimate community site in the Barrhead / Westlock area, the site is free for individuals, policed locally (so that only locals can post), as well as free listings for Barrhead based businesses. It has been operating as such since March 15, 2010 (via whois). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexcts (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well!

I understand your addition of the TownPost external link was made in good faith. However, you may not be aware that one of Wikipedia's policies is that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. It is clear that the purpose of the TownPost website is to advertise. Therefore, it cannot be listed as an external link at Barrhead, Alberta. WP:LINKSPAM indicates that "adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Townpost is a community site and directory, it's primary purpose is informational and local only. There appears to be a double standard, see the external Links in Cold Lake, Alberta an identical type site exists with the same anchor text and the site has the exact same purpose. Why would identical sites in other communities be permissible but Barrhead is not entitled to the same community awareness? Dexcts (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No double standard. It is a matter of these things being noticed. Didn't see that one previously. I clicked the link and it was dead. Based on your description of the website, I've deleted it. Thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still mystified that community based publications are irrelevant for the informational purposes of wiki, large corporations (who profit from their ventures) are cited often on similar pages. Whitecourt has a similar link to it's "Community Advisor" although this link also seems broken currently. Dexcts (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally there is a page for Whitecourt Star a one line "stub" page for a small newspaper with 2755 circulation, would this not be considered for the purpose of advertising as you cited? Dexcts (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Community Advisor is/was a regularly published newspaper. There is a new newspaper in Whitecourt (forget the name), so that, and the dead website, are likely indications that the Advisor may no longer exist.

The Canadian communities WikiProject, under its structure guidelines, indicates complete articles about communities should have a "Media" section, which should include elements on local newspapers, hence the content on the Star and Community Advisor.

However, per the same structure guidelines, neither the Whitecourt Star nor the Community Advisor websites are official links of the community for the "External links" section, so they can be removed from the Whitecourt, Alberta article.

A stub article for the Whitecourt Star is a different issue. According to WP:ELYES, "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." Therefore, linking the paper's official website in the Whitecourt Star article is appropriate. Hwy43 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Member assessment at the Canadian Roads Wikiproject

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Mac Economy

These are not all mining operations, Suncor has Firebag which is a SAGD operation, in addition to mining.

Nexen is based entirely SAGD extraction.

These companies are by far not the only ones operating in Wood buffalo, there are dozens, however the ones I mentioned all operate Upgraders, which upgrade the bitumen into sythetic crude. 156.44.158.2 (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't all "mining" companies, then why did you leave the term "mining" in the sentence when you added CNRL, Shell, and Nexen? Regardless, I've since removed "mining" on your behalf.

The fact that there are many more oil sands companies operating in Wood Buffalo is exactly why I changed "The largest oil sands... companies are" to "Oil sands... companies include"; because the five don't represent all, and all five listed may not be the five largest (a reference would be required to verify that claim). Hwy43 (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 Largest Canadian cities by census

Thank you for picking up on those errors! Some of those pdfs were extremely difficult to read and I guess my eyesight is not as good as it once was. --- Profe DB

No problem. I'll continue improving as and when time allows for further research. Hwy43 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population centres

Baaa, thanks for that. I didn't even know that the urban areas list already existed, so yeah, I'll merge the two. But yeah, as you'll notice, while I've gotten a lot of the work started I'm far from done yet; for most provinces all I've done so far is copy-pasted a fairly standardized introduction and an empty table to be filled in later. So anything you're able to contribute, by all means, go for it. Census. Bleah. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know how to convert a CSV file into a Wikipedia table if I tried — so if you're able to, then hellz to the yeah. And some kind of way to include the large/medium/small designation would probably be a good idea, too; I couldn't decide whether to add a column which would contain the letters L, M or S in each line or to do separate tables for each class. I certainly know which would be simpler, but what's easiest for an editor isn't always what's most useful for the reader, so I didn't want to presume. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that CSV conversion is working out nicely. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of census divisions of Canada by population, 2006

Oops, I did go ahead and move the article to List of census divisions of Canada by population, 2006 and then copy-pasted the old contents on top of the redirect. I did this after I saw the notice of the new census, but before I read your reply in the talk page. Sorry about that... an administrator can undo this and re-merge the histories, even if people already start editing the new article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put a {{db-move}} tag on it, hopefully that will restore it relatively soon. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and it all worked out. Updating the table line by line is a significant and lengthy undertaking as you know (first 100 complete thus far). I can rebuild the entire table for the article from scratch quite quickly using the same method described to Bearcat here (see his replies in the section above). Let me know if you want me to take a stab at it. I can probably get to it within the next 12 hours. Also, do you agree that the last column should be removed? Hwy43 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting links to valid wiki topics

More than once you have deleted links to active pages. What this essentially says is that you will decide what is linked or not. This is not, In my opinion, constructive editing. Yaloe (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted here as I noticed the article was proposed for deletion, and had the intent to return it if the article survived. Pardon the lack of edit summary the first time, but that was indicated the second time.

Third time was reverting after you reverted the prod decision claiming the seven days weren't up when they were up, hence this.

As the prod has since moved onto the WP:AFD process, the wikilink remains at High Level, Alberta for now. We'll now see how that plays out. Hwy43 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SCref

You expressed an interest in {{SCref}} a few weeks ago on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. I just wanted to let you know it's been updated since then. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been meaning to look a little closer at that after I got through my census update to-do list. Looking forward to using it. Hwy43 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Just wondering if it would be possible for you to go to this page, and do the same CSV chart conversion in order to update List of cities and towns in Newfoundland and Labrador (the final list should include only those places whose CSD status is either T for town or CY for city, and should exclude anything else.) This list has an especially extreme problem with people constantly trying to add every little unincorporated outport instead of restricting it to incorporated municipalities, so I'm hoping that upconverting it to a table format with columns for population and area and the like will resolve the problem. I'm also probably going to move the page to "List of municipalities..." instead, but that's for later. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done If you can, please resolve the broken TOC. Otherwise I'll return later this evening. Hwy43 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I'll take a look at what else I can do with it. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Census

You're correct, we should retain at least a brief summary of past census information, as growth patterns over time are relevant to an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Princess Theatre (Edmonton)

Thanks for your continued edits to Princess Theatre (Edmonton). I have nominated the article for GA status, but have yet to find a willing reviewer. Would you consider the job? --Rawlangs (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've never conducted a GA review before, and don't know if I'm eligible to do so. Good luck. Hwy43 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Lake

Why do you have two numbers for the 1996 and 2001 censuses of Cold Lake? Should there be a better explanation on the article? 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a municipality dissolves or amalgamates, Statistics Canada publishes a before and after community profile for the municipality. Go to the 2001 Community Profiles and search "Cold Lake". You'll find a hit for "Cold Lake, Alberta (Town / Dissolved)" and "Cold Lake, Alberta (City)".
There should and will be an explanation. I'll be adding a note similar to the note I included at Demographics of Ottawa#Population history. Hwy43 (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azure, Alberta

Hi, You created this redirect saying "(create redirect of Statistics Canada locality to applicable municipality)", but didn't then mention Azure on the target page of Foothills No. 31, Alberta. I'm going to add it to the dab page at Azure, but it would have a better chance of surviving there if you could mention it on the page with a source! PamD 10:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it into a stub, but a ref would be useful. Thanks. PamD 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PamD, your message serves as a reminder of my intention to mention all of these redirected localities in the articles of their applicable municipalities. I'm not certain Azure, Alberta is notable enough to warrant an article, so I may return it to a redirect once Azure is mentioned at Foothills No. 31, Alberta. There are a lot of named locations within Canada's rural areas that have little or no history other than being named in the first place for whatever reason. Hwy43 (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Transportation Photo Gallery

Thank you for your assistance. You talk of interspersing some of the photos at other places in the article. As you "trim," perhaps you can find some more appropriate places for photos to go that would be satisfactory to you. I tried to find photos that were interesting, showing the wide range of transportation and unusual offerings and differing vistas throughout Alberta. All photos come from Wikipedia.Steverelei (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhoods in Calgary land areas

I am getting the areas from the respective wiki articles and I (and other editors -- maybe) will be filling in the rest of the info as time goes on. If you check out the article's talk page I put on some indirect sources. They at least show the city has the info but they don't want to put it on the web for some reason. Trfs (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dropping a note here and for explaining at Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Calgary#Area section. Your efforts and attention are appreciated. Like Calgary, Edmonton publishes a lot of great information on its official neighbourhoods, but little or nothing on their actual areas. Hopefully one of us can eventually find a complete listing of neighbourhood areas from a a reliable source. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of designated places in Quebec

Greetings, Now I did a little bit of editing by removing a few redirects. Now, If you want more help on the designated places in Quebec article, Could you talk to User:Bearcat to check the article and make sure there's no redirects. Also, there Is some French words on type it's written "Municipalité dissoute" etc. please talk to Bearcat to translate all of the French words into English above "type". User:Bearcat does a lot more editing than I am. So talk to User:Bearcat right now on this Designated places in Quebec article to be fixed. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the talk page of this article about why it's problematic to identify just what the heck most of the "dissolved municipality" designated places are supposed to represent... from the Map tab at the Statistics Canada page, they often consist of some oddly-chosen set of non-contiguous parcels of land within the eponymous municipality. They are not the eponymous municipality itself. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Area Data

I asked someone from the city of Calgary about area data and he gave me a copy of it and this link [[2]]. Also, this stuff is copyrighted and the city has denied permission to copy it. It has a lot of source material for the City of Calgary. I believe this is part of the city's Open Data initiative.Trfs (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did the city provide, and is it the same as what can be obtained at the public data link provided? To confirm, which of the two has the city denied permission to copy?

I've downloaded the GIS shapefile version of the community boundary dataset from the public data site. The associated database already had pre-calculated areas for each community/industrial area in m². I've converted the areas into ha and km² and ran a semi-automated process to build the following.

Does the above match what you have?

Before we start using it, I'd like to consult with some further experienced editors to confirm if using GIS-derived data can be used as a source. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The data does match. The guy from the city was saying don't post the spreadsheet on the internet, just provide the link. I found this license:

License 

The City grants you a non-exclusive, world-wide license to use, modify, and distribute the Data contained on this Site for any lawful Use. (Derivative Work) means a work that is based in any way or to any extent on the Data including without limitation any work that uses any of the Data in a modified form. You may use the Data to create Derivative Works using the Data and distribute said Derivative Works for any lawful purposes. You will be fully responsible for any consequences resulting from any use of the Data. Any unauthorized use of the Data, this site or content, will terminate the license and all the rights or permission granted by The City.

Anyways, I cease editing the area data. If we can't use the GIS data then all the neighbourhood articles will have to be scrubbed. I didn't edit them but the area data that is there doesn't seem to be referenced and some of it is wrong according to the GIS data. Trfs (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hwy43&oldid=491630734"