User talk:117Avenue

Ian Hecox

I am sorry that you have mistaken me for vandalizing. I really like smosh and thought that they should have their own seperate pages. What was wrong with that?

Yvonne Jones

Hi there, I see you got to the Yvonne Jones article before I had a chance to go back and fix the citations needed. It looks much better the way you edited it. Anyways, did you happen to check the references I removed? I just want to make sure I did the right thing, as I couldn't find anything in those articles that even came close to referencing the text. Random articles on health care and energy may show she has an interest in those topics, but don't appear to back up the announcement of her three priorities. Cmr08 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I just took your word for it. It got added to my watchlist when I was bypassing a redirect. She is a person I haven't heard of, in a party I don't support, in a province I haven't been to, so I don't know anything about her, and didn't want to get involved in writing the article. I just cleanup when I can. Sorry, 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check your contribution list first. I had noticed the name in several history checks of related articles, and thought you were editing them. I now see your edits in those articles were cleaning up. Thanks anyways, I appreciate you getting back to me, and the work you do in cleaning up those articles. Cmr08 (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you know about infoboxes?

In a politicians infobox is there a correct way to title in the office section which electoral distrcit they represent? For example some politicians articles are "MHA for Virginia Waters" while others have the MHA spelled out. One contributer I've noticed though is only putting "Member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly" as the office and then under the predecessor and successor section it lists the constituency. Do you know if there is a proper format for this because I haven't noticed this third way really used before? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox officeholder, an assembly member should use the assembly and constituency_AM parameters. The ones I've seen in Alberta manualy insert the title in the office parameter, because our assembly's official name doesn't end in the word Assembly. Ed Stelmach, which is a featured article, spells it out, "Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville", and this is how it would appear is you were to use the assembly member parameters. And so I would have to say the correct way would be "Member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly for Virginia Waters". This can be done by replacing office2 with |assembly2 = Newfoundland and Labrador House of |constituency_AM2 = [[Virginia Waters (electoral district)|Virginia Waters]]. 117Avenue (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought it should look like. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television episode

Hi there. I just wanted to inform you that I restored this template to this revision. The changes made today broke the transclusions for the episode list and the below= parameter, for example on Dowisetrepla. I notified the user, Headbomb (talk · contribs), who probably made the breaking changes but since you seem to keep an eye on it, I wanted to leave you a note as well. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was too late into the night to analyze Headbomb's changes. 117Avenue (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed you have the admin hopeful userbox on your userpage. Have you ever considered running for admin or is that just a general statement that you would think about it one day? Regards SoWhy 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about it more and more. My edits just broke the 20,000 mark, and when BernsteinBot ran earlier this week[1], I was on the doorstep of the top 2,000. I have the userbox to say I wouldn't say no if someone did nominated me, but I don't have the courage to nominate myself yet. 117Avenue (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not analyzed your edits in any depth so far but what I did see was quite good. If you were an admin, which areas would you want to work in?

I'd offer to analyze your edits and possibly to nominate you if I liked what I saw but (as a disclaimer) I won't nominate (or support for that matter) anyone with an edit summary usage as low as this, so you would have to agree to change that if you want to accept my offer. ;-) Regards SoWhy 07:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're saying 74% is low? I'll have to work on that, thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Imho anything below 99% is, simply because I think edit summaries are vital to make it easier for others to understand your edits and admins especially are expected to communicate in a clear and transparent fashion. It also serves to avoid misunderstandings if your reasons for an edit are not clear from the edit itself (and you can never anticipate when someone might think it's unclear). You might want to enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in My Preferences => Editing in order to avoid forgetting them. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually already have in enabled. But I guess what I am wondering is if it counts default summaries, or do I always have to enter text. When I create page, I don't type anything in, because an edit summary is automatically made, when I add a comment to a section on a talk page (like now), I let the section title be my summary of what I've done. 117Avenue (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would still add an edit summary, even if it's only a short one. For example, I use "resp" (or "resp to XXX") to indicate that my comment was in response to someone else or "cmt" when it's a non-responding comment. I admit that's not the best style as well but at least people know that I didn't just correct some typos or suchlike. On a side note, the aforementioned option prompts you as well if you try to save a section without a summary. Regards SoWhy 09:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2011

I am not sure if you're watching this article or not but I've posted a question in the discussion page I thought you'd probably be able to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still watching all the future elections, but I don't have an answer. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you have an opinion on this or not but the Liberals and PCs have started nominating candidates for the elction, I've started adding those who have been nominated but I haven't cited them. Should I cite everytime a candidate is nominated or will I just wait till Elections NL or the party releases their official lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated in my comments on WT:CANADA, I only cared about the ones not scheduled for this year, as the other eight are closer to election day, and are more likely to be what will actually happen. A reference will be required if there were any contradictions, and the number of candidates shouldn't be included until Elections NL has released its list. 117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

British Columbia general election, 2013

"Current" really seems unnecessary at this point, but if you are going to put it in, you should be consistent. Do you know that Christy Clark won't quit, die or be forced from the leadership before the election? If not, then she should be listed as the "current leader" too. Ground Zero | t 03:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean 'unnecessary at this point'? 117Avenue (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

These are people who are leaders of their parties now. One could argue that it is speculative to suggest that they won't be leading them tow years from now. If the party leaders change, the article can be updated, but otherwise it is not unreasonable to simply indicate that they are the party leaders. Ground Zero | t 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WT:CANADA#Party leaders for future elections? It is speculative to suggest that they will be leading the parties into election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

By the same argument, it is speculative to suggest that these parties will be nominating candidates in an election to be held two years from now. While it is a reasonable assumption for the Libs and NDP, who knows whether the guys behind the Nation Alliance Party and Your Political Party will still be interested in politics, or whether the BC First Party will get off the ground. These are pretty ephemeral groups. What do you think about changing the heading of the section to "Currently registered political parties" to make it clear that we are not speculating what parties will nominate candidates and who their leaders will be? And while we're at it, what do you think about changing the article title to "40th British Columbia general election" to parallel "41st Canadian federal election" and avoid the assumption that there won't be an early election call? Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the article suggests that these parties will be nominating candidates, it is a list of currently registered parties, and if there are registered parties after nomination day, without candidates, they are still going to be mentioned on the article. A slight rewording could help to make this clearer. In regards to your proposed renaming, I actually believe it should be the other way around, the naming convention for scheduled elections is to have the year in the title, however one could argue that it is a different case because it is a minority government. 117Avenue (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is a list of currently registered parties, the heading of the list should be clear that these are currently registered parties, and then it is sufficient to identify the leader without specifying "current". The list, after all, includes parties that may become deregistered in the next two years. We don't know now what parties will still be registered any more than we know who their leaders will be. Ground Zero | t 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As a side note to this why are the Green Party and the Conservative Party even included in the infobox? Shouldn't it only be parties with elected members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Same reason the Green Party is included on the next federal election article, it is included as an option in opinion polls, which is a third party source, and therefore meets the notability requirements to likely to be a significant contributor to the dynamics of the election. 117Avenue (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CFB Edmonton

The two coordinates are different that's why I left them in. The one in the title is the base proper and the infobox is the landing area about 1.5 km southeast of the base. I've added a bit more to it now I have the reference I wanted. I also adjusted the coordinates for the helicopter pad so it is on the pad rather than on the grass and added the base coordinates back. By the way do they use the old runways for some sort of car trials? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm, I knew the coordinates were different, I remember checking once that the title coords were for the base, which is what the article is actually on. I had the coordinates to the actual helipad over a year ago, but you changed them back.[2] As for what the runways are used for, I have no clue, I don't know anyone who works there, sorry. 117Avenue (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I feel stupid. I should remember that the coordinates for airports in the Canada Flight Supplement are sometimes off. I once copied the coordinates exactly and put a water aerodrome 3 miles inland. The person on Flicker with the images had some of the base but I don't think they can be used as they have two different licences listed, one of which isn't free. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for pictures of the base? I could take some myself (after the snow is gone). But I am not too familiar with the Canada DND laws on taking pictures on/of the base. I do know that they exist. 117Avenue (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if you have the chance. I had a look around but the only thing I could find was this and it isn't clear. So I sent a message asking what restrictions there were. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That link is somewhat helpful, but it is already what I had in mind, nothing classified or threatening the security of operations or the safety of people. 117Avenue (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Red Deer, Alberta

Sorry for changing that, but the fact that it begins with the word "category", and states "Pages in category "People from Red Deer, Alberta" when its opened led me to belive it was a category. It even looks like other category pages. Just take a quick look at the link, [3] and you'll see why I got confused. Cmr08 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a category page. But Red Deer, Alberta is not being placed into Category:People from Red Deer, Alberta, as that wouldn't make sense. When a colon gets added to the beginning of a category [[]], it becomes a page link, rather than a category placement, and the See also section is a link of related pages, this category included. 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I need to bang my head a couple of times, it's only now that I noticed what I had done. I agree with you, it wouldn't make any sense at all for Red Deer to be listed in that category as Red Deer is not a person, so I guess it went right over my head. But thanks for letting me know about the colon in front of category, that's something I didn't know. Cmr08 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

List

Tx for watching over the lists ... btw, just a point of reference -- in the normal course, an entry on such a list need not have an article as long as it has an appropriate ref. But a ref to the person's own website would not suffice. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again -- I see you claiming incorrectly in your edit summary of deletions that an article is needed. A proper ref suffices; if it has one, no article is needed. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-badlistentry, which is what I place on the users' talk page after such edits, bags to differ. 117Avenue (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I know your intention is good. And my recent effort on lists mirrors yours largely -- I have been deleting many inappropriate list entries, of late. But the guideline -- which trumps a template, especially one that has only been touched by a very few editors -- is more specific and more lenient, in that in the appropriate circumstances it makes quite clear that a proper ref suffices. See WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more things that may interest you. 1) I am exploring whether a bot can be created to help with this. Interested in more on that? 2) Sometimes I run into resistance, even with my more liberal view, from editors who maintain that it is better to keep the non-ref'd, no-article entries. Interested in more on that as well, when it occurs? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would want to keep non-ref'd, no-article entries, it violates a number of policies. 117Avenue (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• See, for example, the conversation here. Feel free to join it, of course (referencing this conversation as having brought you to it probably makes sense).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, now you've got me more involved than I wanted to be. Yes, there are the articles on other language Wikipedias, and I guess those should be kept. But a bot may not be able to detect those, maybe what should be done is link to that other language article, like what I've done on ERR (disambiguation) (coincidentally a year ago tomorrow). 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Airport codes

I was thinking back to the work you did on the weather box and wondered if you could have have a look at {{Airport codes}}? It is now being used in {{Infobox hospital}} but it always is in the parentheses, Alberta Children's Hospital. Would it be possible to add something like "p=n" that would remove the parentheses? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to add a parameter to remove the parentheses. But is it common now to place the airport code into the hospital infobox? Because I am thinking maybe it should be written into the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox seems stable, you can implement it if you don't have any other comments. 117Avenue (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I got distracted. I think the airport codes template is the best place. Then if someone thinks up another use it would be easier. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if I was clear. I didn't mean substitute the Airport code template into the Infobox hospital syntax, I meant provide code fields for the infobox, like this, so that the p=n field isn't forgotten. 117Avenue (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Green Party of Canada/meta/color‎

I have started a discussion on the talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 117Avenue. You have new messages at Talk:Wherever I Go.
Message added 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BC Premiers

Though it's out of the ordinary, among the Canadian provincial leaders, British Columbia doesn't number their premiers via only individual. Many sources at Christy Clark have her as the 35th Premier of BC. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that Premiers are counted twice when they are not consecutive, even if they are the same person. Please do not change the numbers back. Various sources show this, but here is the most reliable one. This is the official website of the Premier of British Columbia. Hope that clarifies things. Nations United (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like GoodDay beat me to it. I put my comments in a new section at the same time as you. Oh well. Nations United (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that BC is different than every other city, province, and Canada? 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

All I know (from sources) is that they do it differently. For example: In the USA, some of their states number governors via individual, while others don't (chooseing to multiple number 'non-consecutive term' governors). It's up to each Canadian provinces, like it's up to each American state. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I thought that it was a Wikipedia MOS, but I guess we gotta go by the sources. 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it works out right, see List of premiers of Prince Edward Island (which used to be erroneously adding up to 33 or was that 29). GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're sitting down 117Avenue. New Brunswick & Nova Scotia also number their premiers, the way British Columbia does. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's the great thing about Canada, everyone is different, it only makes Wikipedia work more difficult. 117Avenue (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited Wikipedia standing up. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You should check the USA's governors lists. There's atleast 3 (if I remember correctly) lists, that I can't decipher, as some states even number their 'acting governors', while some states number their earlier & latter governors differently. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the numbering scheme of the US Presidents. If that scheme had been adopted to the Canadian Prime Ministers, Harper would be the 28th. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know what I prefer after this. 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been numbering office infoboxes for quite some time. Many of those times, I've had to give up & simply delete, as I couldn't decipher lists or would find conflicting sources. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For a real hair-puller: A few years ago, I had to fix the numbering of the Popes in the content of the Year articles. A fellow had Pope Benedict IX as only the 145th pope, when infact he'd been pope three times & thus counted as the 145th, 147th & 150th pope. I think it took me about 2 days to correct. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit to the Alberta list, sometimes premierships lapse. I just went through the BC list, and changed a number of dates, it looks like premiers were resigning before a new one had sworn in. 117Avenue (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed that before & somebody reverted me, due to a source they had. I'm certain Getty resigned on the morning of the day Klein took over; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's not that they're over-lapping. There's usually about 2-3hrs between when the outgoing premier resigns & the incoming premier is sworn-in & so the same date is accurate. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I know that their never over-lapping. But just as you've convinced me above, we have to go we the sources, not what we believe. Am I going to find similar problems if I go through the other premier lists? 117Avenue (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. But just be sure, when you change dates in the List of premiers... articles, to change the dates in the infoboxes & content of the premiers bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandal heads-up

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before but you might be interested in checking out User:AussieLegend/Project 04#The Verizon vandal. You've reverted some of her vandalism today.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)