User talk:Alan.ca

Alan.ca (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Alan.ca/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Deletion Discussions

User talk:Alan.ca/DeletionDiscuss

My Block Discussion

User talk:Alan.ca/block

Hamilton

Moved to talk:Hamilton

Ann Arbor review - a question

I saw that one of your comments concerning sub-sections. From my perspective, I don't believe that changing the formatting is possible given that such sub-sectioning for city articles is now almost the norm (see Seattle, Washington, Louisville, Kentucky, Boston, Massachusetts, and Canberra). When it comes to sub-sectioning, are you more in favor of those seen at several non-US city articles (e.g. those in India) that do not use sub-sections? Personally, the idea of sub-sectioning is to improve readability, and some areas (e.g. culture and geography/climate) demand it for organization purposes.

I appreciate it when people give suggestions on article improvement, but it becomes a problem when someone is bound to one thing without willing to hear out another person's opinion on a particular matter. I am hoping this is not the case and that any suggestions will further improve the article rather than lead to an edit war and/or more arguments. Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally flexible on all article development concepts. One of the problems with all of these sub headings is that it creates a long TOC. As well, when I read these sub-sections, I often find incomplete paragraphs. It also seems common that the long sections containing these subjections would be better served by forking to a dedicated article on that subject while keeping a good summary in the main article. Admittedly, the Ann Arbor article isn't the worst offender. Here's a thought to ponder: Why create a Geography and Climate' section, just to create two subjections basically about Geography and Climate? Would it not seem more sensible to create a Geography and Climate main section separately? How about condensing the entire section with subjections down to 3 to 4 well written paragraphs under one heading? This discussion really should be taking place at WP:CITY to get broader input. Alan.ca 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I took your suggestions into consideration. For now, I think the two sections that should retain sub-section headings are culture and infrastructure (this is a personal preference, since these topics are fairly broad and cannot be summarized into three to four paragraphs in an adequate manner). Also, I noticed that you believe Boston has similar problems (most of which I have addressed), though you did not seem to have similar concerns on the other articles I mentioned (particularly Seattle and Louisville). Is there a reason for that out of curiosity? Pentawing^Talk 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that it doesn't appear likely that we will be reaching an agreement concerning sub-sections in city articles in the near future (e.g. < 1 week) before the Ann Arbor FAR is automatically closed, I have proposed to do the following: I will be posting this issue on the WikiProject Cities talk page and attempt to gain feedback and hopefully have a consensus reached concerning a proper policy for sub-sectioning. Since this will take time, I am also proposing that the FAR for Ann Arbor be declared closed in favor of the article's maintaining its FA status (given that the other issues, in my view, have been addressed and corrected). Given that such a policy can have a major impact on all city articles (notably for those which are FA or are achieving FA status), it would be the most prudent to gain greater feedback on the matter. At the same time, the Ann Arbor article will continue to maintain its FA status until the issue is finally resolved by the larger community. Pentawing^Talk 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the sub-sections in the article per your suggestions (I figured that there is no point in fighting any longer on this issue as it concerns the Ann Arbor article). Nevertheless, I am leaving the post on the WikiProject Cities talk page in hopes of getting a final consensus concerning sub-sections in articles. In the meantime, you have not yet answered one question that I have presented: why focus on only the Ann Arbor and Boston articles while not bothering with the Seattle and Louisville articles? I am not trying to be judgmental or accuse you of something, but unless you can give a reason the lack of similar comments for the other two articles to me is very telling. Pentawing^Talk 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Forest Park, Washington source request ack/syn.

FYI, I've added in an assortment of external references for the Lake Forest Park, Washington page, and have pulled the "needs sources" tag that you added back out of the article. I've also thrown in a few more facts to expand the history, and a nice quote from the original prospectus for sale back in 1912. Solarbird 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! However it seems that you did not include the references in the text to support the facts. Please review WP:FOOT and WP:CITET. Let me know when you get a chance to correct the references. Alan.ca 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenmore, Ontario

Oh, and I got tired of seeing a red link to Kenmore, Ontario in my Kenmore, Washington page, so I made a stub page for Kenmore, Ontario. (This is all relevant because Kenmore, Washington's founder was from Kenmore, Ontario and before that, Kenmore, Scotland. Yes, really. The Scottish Kenmore is a Washington State Kenmore sister city, and Kenmore, Washington has sent people to Kenmore, Ontario to say hi.) Anyway, I see you have interest in Ontario towns, so if you know anybody who knows anything about the Kenmore in Ontario, it'd be nice if you could point them at it. Solarbird 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my main interest right now is to rate every national capital city in the world. We are always looking for help at Wikiproject Cities if you have an interest. At once the Capital Cities are rated, I hope to bring them all up to GA status. It's amazing how poor the coverage is of great cities like Rome. Alan.ca 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō

I closed this AfD. Why have you opened it and relisted it? Please don't do that again. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the afd I read:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached

Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you close the AfD before or after this date/time?

They happened essentially simultaneously. The admin that added the "relist" notice while I was closing the discussion did not follow through and actually relist, so I assume he deferred to my closing. But that does explain your action, seeing as that relist comment was added between me reading the AfD and editing it to close it. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, glad that we could clear that up. Would you please relist the AfD as it seems there wasn't much debate on the issue and I originally had nominated them both because of a 12 month old merge proposal. The articles have been the subject of much debate and discussion for over a year, yet no verification of the facts has presented. I'm quite certain these two really meet the deletion criteria. At a minimum I was hoping to draw out a debate that might point to one or the other as being the correct one to merge into. I would like like to resolve this 1 year old deadlocked dispute. Alan.ca 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with your request, and had I decided to weigh in on the discussion, I might have agreed with your rationale. However, since there were 5 comments, none of them to delete, I'm going to leave it closed. You can renominate it in a month or so and maybe get a more rigorous discussion at that time. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misused your admin powers to revert and protect this AfD. The AfD was clearly relisted more than ten minutes before your closure. I am not an admin, so I don't have the power to revert your protection and heavy handed closure, but I have notified the relisting admin and I guess he will have to decide for himself if your actions have been appropriate. I challenge you to consider: if two articles with a history like this are met with a simple closure of an AfD for keep without any meaningful debate, where are we setting our deletion standards? Alan.ca 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about the protection—please assume good faith. That was before the reasons behind your action were clarified. I've unprotected it now. If the relisting admin wants to relist, that's OK with me...I just don't see that it's warranted. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is still protected. I have assumed good faith throughout this discussion, but I am concerned about your reluctance to revert your mistake. I don't see why Tigershark should have to revert your changes when clearly he thought it should be relisted before your closure. If you acknowledge that you made a mistake in closing a relisted AfD, why not revert your mistake? Alan.ca 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not acknowledging a mistake, except that for some reason the previous unprotection didn't take. I did it, but it must have been lost (sometimes the database gets locked, that's the only thing I can think of.) However, there is nothing wrong with my closing of the AfD. The fact that another admin was deciding on relisting at the same time that I was closing it is not particularly relevant, although as I said, if they want to reopen and relist it I don't have a problem with that. But me closing the AfD was not a mistake—I meant to do it. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debates are only relisted when there isn't enough input from the community. In this case, it was quite clear that that various users wanted the article to be kept. You cannot unilaterally add the afdrelist template to AfDs that are not going the way you want them to be. Which part of Please do not modify this page do you not understand? I fully endorse Bell's actions. Please use WP:DRV for this in the future, and don't allege admin abuse when you are at fault. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, another admin relisted the debate. Subsequently Doug closed the AfD ten minutes later. I reverted his mistake. What brings you into this discussion? Alan.ca 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton - Good Article

I see that the Hamilton, Ontario article has just been designated a Good Article, thanks to your efforts and those of User:Nhl4hamilton. I wanted to extend my congratulations and appreciation for your work. I don't know if I would have the patience to take on such a project, so I mostly do vandalism reversion and other janitorial tasks.

Keep up the good work! ... discospinster _talk 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. Have you considered helping out with Wikiproject Cities? Alan.ca 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, Texas

Would you please tell me why you classified a featured article as a start class article with no explanation? The Marshall, Texas article is the oldest surviving city article and the second city article to be FAed, it is still being refered to as in city FACs and peer-reviews, and it survived a FARC attempt this year, because the nominator's concerns were addressed. Despite the fact that the article is an FA, it has been classified at the bottom of the projects classification scheme. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on your rating. It seems a little severe to rate an FA at the bottom of the barrel with no explanation. Thanks. -JCarriker 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]