User talk:117Avenue

Archives

Ray William Johnson

Hello

Just to let you know, I have decided to fully lock this page for a while. There were unreferenced death rumours being added by autoconfirmed users.

The page is currently set to indefinitely fully protected, what I'm planning to do is to downgrade it again at the weekend to indefinite semi protection myself. It's just if I put a time limit for the indefinite full protection to come off on Saturday say then the page will be fully unlocked on Saturday and IPs etc will be able to edit it and if the same thing started again you'd be back to square one and have to ask for full semi protection again and hope you get it. This way will hopefully avoid that lol.

I was just going to leave it but after the last revert I on an autoconfirmed edit some editors posted on the talk page requesting an edit was made. Feel happier if the page was fully protected for a bit, hopefully they'll get the message. I've googled it and can find nothing to say the rumour is true, I'm inclined to think it's trolls spreading a rumour. Any questions, ask me on my talk page :)--5 albert square (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds all good. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Aylward

I don't see any reason why you are changing Aylward's term as ending sometime between December and January. Just because his successor was announced in December doesn't seem like a reason to say his term as leader ended, even if he wasn't doing normal leader duties. The party's website had him listed as their leader till the January 3. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was a bit too hasty. The way I see it, is that he could have finished before the Christmas break, and often updates to websites don't get done swiftly. Is there a news source that mentions what his letter of resignation said? 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He stated he'd step down when his successor was chosen. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And his successor was chosen December 14. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate list page information

I must beg to differ with your interpretation. The material that you've deleted consists of (i) an electoral record table, (ii) a one-sentence description of the number of times this candidate has run for office, and (iii) the candidate's own one-word description of her occupation. There is nothing here that is intrusive, unencyclopedic, or contrary to Wikipedia's standards for these pages.

I realize that Wikipedia's standards for including information on peripheral candidates have evolved in recent years, and I also grant that some of the miniature candidate biographies that I wrote in previous years would not be appropriate today. With that said, however, I can't understand why this particular entry would be a source of controversy -- it isn't a "biography" at all in any meaningful sense of the term. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, (i) is contrary to Wikipedia's standards for these pages, you are giving candidates undue weight. These lists are meant to briefly describe the candidates, and you have abused this, bloating the information presented. I have no problem with (ii) and (iii), it is what the pages are for, and what the notes and occupation columns are for. This particular entry is a source of controversy, because you are trying to expand this convention to the 2011 articles, and I want to put a stop to it. When you tried before, I asked you what your intended end result would be, and you never replied. When I see pages like New Democratic Party candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election or New Democratic Party candidates, 1988 Canadian federal election, I feel great anger that some candidates get detailed accounts written about them, while others barely get mentioned. They should all have to be summarized in a short sentence, in a table cell. 117Avenue (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I saw your question from the 2011 archives, but I'll answer now: my long-term intent is that all candidate entries should include full electoral records (in addition to short biographical summaries). My most recent edit only constitutes "undue weight" in the sense that not all the other entries have been filled in yet. I don't intend for this to be a permanent situation.

I would also argue that these electoral records aren't really "biographical information" in the proper sense of the term -- they're statistical summaries, based on material that, by definition, is in the public interest.

My own views on "candidate summaries" have evolved in recent times, and, as I've said, I recognize that some of the things I wrote in previous years would not be appropriate by today's standards. I still do not believe that including a candidate's complete electoral record in the footnotes should be regarded as problematic. If you disagree strongly enough, perhaps we could take this to the Cdn Wpdns Discussion Board. CJCurrie (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have again said that you don't intend for this to be a permanent situation, and have again not answered what your intended end result would be. But I am beginning to see what you are saying. The reference section isn't the best place to put information, it is for listing sources. What can be done is put a hidden table in the notes, as it is the explanation of the person. Here is my example. What do you think? I removed the winner column, because I think it is irrelevant to the person being described. 117Avenue (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got my attention by undoing my edits.

117 Avenue Why did you undo my recent edits on Strathcona County, Cloverdale, Strathcona? These are my first forays into aiding in the Wikipedia effort, so I am learning how it works. Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears you are controlling or trying to control the Edmonton area entries. If my knowledge of local history is not appreciated, I certainly don't need to participate. Tom Monto, Alberta historian (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Tom Monto, Alberta historian[reply]

Regarding your edits as 96.52.225.148, because of this edit, where you added the text "To be a stickler, it is more than 15 square blocks (although the dimensions of the area are a bit fuzzy due to the railway track breaking up the normal grid design. The Princesss Theatre opened in 1915 after the crash, despite its construction date implied. The Connaught Armoury is located north of 85 Avenue so is outside the heritage area indicated." to an encyclopedic article, this is inappropriate. It is considered commenting in the article, as I stated, and original research. It makes me question the reliability of all your subsequent additions. Regarding your edits as Tom Monto, Alberta historian, I think Sunray has explained your potential conflict of interest. Please also read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, using multiple accounts is confusing for users trying to communicate with you, and extended use can be violation of Wikipedia policy, and lead to blocks. 117Avenue (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner - aka

Hi

Thanks for correcting me, I learnt something today! I didn't realise it was only allowed in "small spaces", thanks for that :¬) Chaosdruid (talk)

To reach our world wide audience, all abbreviations are discouraged. Also, the use doesn't make sense with the first A. 117Avenue (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of exclusions, such as am, BC, US etc., of which aka is one. Unfortunately I _{hadn't read the small print}. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Registered Parties

I noticed the list of registered parties on the Elections Alberta website [1] has updated to include the Evergreen Party. But the Wildrose is still Wildrose Alliance. It makes me wonder if the party never filed paperwork to legally change its name.--Þadius (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this a couple of weeks ago too. I think the article should remain at Wildrose Party for the commonname reasons mentioned on the talk. Party members, and most media, refer to it as Wildrose, it is the name they will paste everywhere during the election, and it's all over their website too. I thought the organization did legally change their name (because the copyright on the bottom of the website is changed), but have not filed the paperwork with Elections Alberta to change their registered name. But I may have just shot myself in the foot verifying this, their constitution is online, and it states their legal name is Wildrose Alliance Political Association, and they want to be registered as Wildrose Alliance Party. It is dated September 2011, which makes me wonder what the June vote was for. I'm thinking probably their branding. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Liboiron

Hi User 117Avenue, I just want to say that birthdate of Landon Liboiron was sourced and that the actual source about his age has expired. That's why I removed it. This is not a form of violation, please consider it. --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing[reply]

That is not what it looked like. You gave no indication that the link had become dead, you added a date of birth, and attributed it to an unreliable source. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that I indicated the dead link, could I add the new source? --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing[reply]

No, after you notified me of the dead link, I removed it, and replaced it with a citation to the newspaper, which is just as good as an active URL. And like I said when reverting you, and above, wikis are not a reliable, and verifiable, source. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Leaders

There's obviously a lot of confusion around the Liberal leadership, different sources say different things. From what I understood at the time from Yvonne Jones' announcement and from what was in the news she remained the Liberal leader while Kelvin Parsons was just the Opposition Leader (which makes sense considering the circumstances). Due to the confusion around this some media sources say different things. I'll try to look for some clarification. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there needs to be a lot of clarification. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you watch the video of her announcement in this source she states Parsons would be Opposition Leader and that she would remain leader. The written text is not as clear. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"338" in the table for 42nd Canadian federal election

I have put the idea up for discussion at Talk:42nd Canadian federal election -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joint federal/provincial parties & unknown parties

These area minor points, but I thought I'd get your opinion before starting.

First, I noticed that 100 years ago there were several provincial parties that ran federal candidates, for example United Farmers of Alberta, which were mostly at the provincial level, but had a couple of federal MPs who kept the "of Alberta" parts of their affiliation (for example, this dude). How do you think we should handle these? The old templates just used the provincial party row-names in federal elections, but I'm wondering if we should create federal versions of these provincial parties that linked to the same page but displayed the "of Alberta" part. If we did that, what would be a good label for them? "CA AB United Farmers"?

Second, do you think we should do anything special with the row-name Template:Canadian elections/Unknown, or should we just give it a bland colour and keep it as "unknown"? The Parliament website confirms that they really don't know what party these guys were from. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need to add either of these. We've said that the parties listed in the General (no jurisdiction specified) section can be used at the federal or provincial levels, and I don't think that the row-name function will be used all that often. If they weren't listed as independents in the election, a bypass could be done. Unknown doesn't need any inclusion, because we've already made gainsboro the default. Or is this a reason for black? 117Avenue (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use row-name for election results on the articles about politicians and ridings, so I expect to be used quite often; it's in over 100 articles already.

You might be right about using black unknowns; it seems a bit inaccurate to group them with the independents when some of them might have been the representative of a party in the days before we logged party membership as thoroughly as we do today. I'll make unknown a separate category, and if we later want to make that category the same colour as independents, we can do so with one edit.

As for the United Farmers of Alberta, I guess I could move it from the provincial category to the general category. However, the reason that I was thinking of making a separate version of the party for federal use is that if we only create one version, we would either have to (1) add the words "of Alberta" when used in the provincial context, which we don't do for any other party, or (2) drop the words "of Alberta" when used in the federal context, which is contrary to the Library of Parliament, which lists "United Farmers of Canada" and "United Farmers of Alberta" separately even when both are running in federal elections. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to go with the two parameters for the UFA, adding one for the federal, either CA AB United Farmers of Alberta as you suggested, or simply United Farmers of Alberta or UFA. I just noticed this edit, are you sure this is a good idea? There are other parties that used the Conservative name in the past. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll also find, going back into history, no colours to assign parties. How can we chose a colour to use, if there are no posters to be found? 117Avenue (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with pointing "CA Conservative (historical)" to Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942) that didn't already exist by pointing "Conservative (historical)" there. In fact, I'd say that "CA Conservative (historical)" has more claim to point to that link, and that "Conservative (historical)" was the ambiguous one. As for the colours of historical parties, I think the purpose of our template is to give a useful visual reference (and to standardize the naming of parties). If we have a poster from that era, great, but otherwise I don't mind using the colours employed by the old templates. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm, I read that wrong, I thought you were adding "Conservative (historical)". I only know of one case were a user has wanted a missing colour. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Albert/Alberta Greens

It has been requested that Alberta Greens be moved back to Green Party of Alberta. Since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one aswell. Regards,--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANADA - A New Discussion About The Infobox

Hey 117Avenue. I just wanted to let you know that a discussion has been started at WP:CANADA. I know you are already a supporter of mine, but if you want, you may want to reads my response; it's long, but I would greatly appreciate it. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]