User talk:Floydian/Archive/2012c
This is an archive of my talk page from September through the end of 2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Floydian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
More Toronto photo requests
Hi, Floydian! Are you interested in doing another photo request? The headquarters of Sunwing Airlines is in Toronto, at 27 Fasken Drive, Toronto, On, M9W 1K6, Canada (The HQ building looks like this). Also, do you take photos in Mississauga? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There's another one nearby: the SkyService Airlines HQ AT 31 Fasken Drive: See map WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can, although its somewhat random as to when I make it out to that end of the city. I have no plans to be out that way at this very moment, but things change on the fly. I will make a good attempt to get some shots next time I'm out that way though. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very funny "on the fly". I might be able to detour in passing that area, but again no guarantees. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Heheh, completely unintentional pun! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. If/when you get the photos, please let me know :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Heheh, completely unintentional pun! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very funny "on the fly". I might be able to detour in passing that area, but again no guarantees. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that you recreated Talk:List of east–west roads in Toronto/TOC after it was deleted, moreso that you copied and pasted it rather than properly moving it from your userfied copy, and moreover that you didn't even do it in the right namespace. The same obviously applies to Talk:List of north–south roads in Toronto/TOC. Have a {{trout}} for that, and please do me a favour and tag those as U1s. Once that's done, if you desperately desire for these to be reinstated then your userfied copies should be moved back into templatespace so as to preserve the history, though given that these were deleted at TfD it's hardly appropriate to do so without discussion anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- They were deleted under the pretense that we could reproduce it using the horizontal TOC templates. The result looked way way different, organizing the streets by letter or removing the dashes between entries and replacing it with a number. The only way to recreate it is to use the custom TOC template and manually enter all 40 entries. I took the quicker path and recreated the templates as subpages of the only article they'll be a part of. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Pretence"? They were deleted under the rationale that this wasn't important enough to warrant the need for a dedicated template: there was certainly no implication that the requested enchancement was a prerequisite. And regardless of that, making an unattributed copy of the template sans history in the wrong namespace and then reintroducing it contrary to the TfD without notifying any of the involved parties was hardly the right way to go about reintroducing it. This still needs properly addressed, and I'd prefer not to have to waste my time with an MfD which is essentially a re-run of a closed deletion discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Erm... no I see no mention of anything along those lines at the discussion... It was deleted because it was claimed that it could be reproduced using {{horizontal TOC}}... Its not a dedicated template now; it's a subpage of the article that uses it, which is done on many articles. User:Graham87 can merge the histories if that is the issue at hand (but it seems to be a sidetrack)... But its unattributed to me, so the only important detail lost is the deletion nomination edit. I can't create a deletion review because the content still exists, and I won't just U1 delete it because I'll stand up for the benefit of the reader over "process". If another discussion needs to be had, that's fine... but I'd much rather people look and see that one works better in this particular situation. Sometimes redundancy makes for a tailored experience. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Pretence"? They were deleted under the rationale that this wasn't important enough to warrant the need for a dedicated template: there was certainly no implication that the requested enchancement was a prerequisite. And regardless of that, making an unattributed copy of the template sans history in the wrong namespace and then reintroducing it contrary to the TfD without notifying any of the involved parties was hardly the right way to go about reintroducing it. This still needs properly addressed, and I'd prefer not to have to waste my time with an MfD which is essentially a re-run of a closed deletion discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- They were deleted under the pretense that we could reproduce it using the horizontal TOC templates. The result looked way way different, organizing the streets by letter or removing the dashes between entries and replacing it with a number. The only way to recreate it is to use the custom TOC template and manually enter all 40 entries. I took the quicker path and recreated the templates as subpages of the only article they'll be a part of. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've replaced both, in their respective articles, with {{horizontal TOC}}. They should not be restored until such a discussion reaches a consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the discussion. Now go stalk someone else's talk page and stop racing to the finish line to incite drama. The discussion is that the original debate was based on the premise that horizontal TOC could duplicate this. It can't. In fact, it does a butt ugly aweful job at it. Every delete vote was based on redundancy, which is very clearly not the case. Duplicate it, or leave it bloody well alone. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- With the best of faith, that's a rather inaccurate portrayal of the TfD. Myself, Andy and Imzadi 1979 plainly considered {{horizontal TOC}} to be adequate without further enhancements, and Secondarywaltz merely inquireed about the numbers rather than predicating his comment on it. So that only leaves you. Without caring too much about your history with Andy, didn't it involve something about you circumventing a discussion on templates that you didn't agree with? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- A debate has taken place over the past year+ over the liberal use of {{coord}} in highway articles. In the end, KML was implemented for linear objects by the highway project as it was by far and large the path of least resistance. However, Andy continues to pop up at nearly every highway discussion to grind his axe and insist on the inclusion of some coordinates. Although unrelated, I have a feeling Andy watches my talk page for opportunities to one-up me.
- That aside, two of the four votes at the tfd were: "Hard-coded TOCs which include every section heading: can easily be replaced with {{horizontal TOC}}" (by yourself) - true it can be easily replaced, but this doesn't recreate the template in the same way, and looks terrible. "Delete as redundant." (By Andy) only holds water on the basis that the replacement could duplicate the original. If I had seen this, I would have brought it up more verbally and the deletion discussion could have very well gone another way. In either case, this is not redundant to horizontal TOC, and until those planned css changes are made I myself invoke this as a case of IAR for the benefit of readers. I attempted to hold a review of the deletion, but the templates were userfied and the discussion closed before it went anywhere. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- With the best of faith, that's a rather inaccurate portrayal of the TfD. Myself, Andy and Imzadi 1979 plainly considered {{horizontal TOC}} to be adequate without further enhancements, and Secondarywaltz merely inquireed about the numbers rather than predicating his comment on it. So that only leaves you. Without caring too much about your history with Andy, didn't it involve something about you circumventing a discussion on templates that you didn't agree with? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd hope that you can see the slight silliness in stating in your defence that Andy's comment can be interpreted to agree with your own when he himself has contracted that. Likewise with mine and Imzadi 1979's, which both plainly state that {{horizontal TOC}} is fit for purpose (without caveat). As for IAR, I would hope that you can understand that IAR is not grounds for unilaterally overturning a TfD that you disagreed with. Regardless, we're still left with a mess at the moment. One way or another, this needs to be properly resolved, and the simplest way to do that would be to respect the TfD close for now pending actual discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not stating that it does. I will renominate it myself if that's the way things need to be... but as I stated I won't simply erase it. Content gets recreated and second discussions are held. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you're happy to renominate it then please go ahead and do so. That's not my preferred resolution, but it should suffice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your preferred solution is the opposite of mine though, so at the very least this offers a compromise... as opposed to someone (not you), who is being pointy and harassing by trying to speedy delete them. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you're happy to renominate it then please go ahead and do so. That's not my preferred resolution, but it should suffice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not stating that it does. I will renominate it myself if that's the way things need to be... but as I stated I won't simply erase it. Content gets recreated and second discussions are held. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd hope that you can see the slight silliness in stating in your defence that Andy's comment can be interpreted to agree with your own when he himself has contracted that. Likewise with mine and Imzadi 1979's, which both plainly state that {{horizontal TOC}} is fit for purpose (without caveat). As for IAR, I would hope that you can understand that IAR is not grounds for unilaterally overturning a TfD that you disagreed with. Regardless, we're still left with a mess at the moment. One way or another, this needs to be properly resolved, and the simplest way to do that would be to respect the TfD close for now pending actual discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Compare horizontal TOC to custom TOC. Irregardless of the discussion held in February, can one not see plainly how one is not redundant to the other, and how the custom TOC is far more readable, legible and user friendly than the templated one. They both accomplish the same objective, yes, but one is much more suited to the situation. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- So far as I can see, that decision was made during the TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it wasn't even discussed as the nomination gave the impression that the templates were redundant to one another. Consensus can change. So can your own opinion. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ontroads Facebook Page
Hey Floydian, I just wanted to let you know there is a Facebook page for Ontario highways now. Have a look if interested: https://www.facebook.com/groups/279324105505702/ Haljackey (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in! Thanks for pointing that out to me. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Rainbow Country
Just a quick request to be careful when you move a page to an undabbed title as you did with Rainbow Country — while it's debatable at best whether the song would actually compete for primary topic, given that it doesn't even have an article yet and wasn't really one of his better known songs, there was a Bob Marley song of that name being linked to by numerous Marley-related articles. Most of those links were via a single Bob Marley template which I've already fixed, but it's still going to have to be checked subsequently to ensure that there aren't any direct links left.
So please remember that it's not just a question of whether there's already another article at the undabbed title or not — you also have to check "What links here" to see whether there are any redlinks still waiting for a different topic of the same name. And then if you do find some, you need to either fix them in advance of the page move, or reevaluate whether your topic really deserves the undisambiguated title. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll make sure to perform that check from now on. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:17 near Kenora, September 4, 1939.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:17 near Kenora, September 4, 1939.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Floydian τ ¢ 07:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
WP Songs in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Songs for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Toronto Hydro Corridor
Hi,
I am a master of architecture student from University of Toronto and I am working on a research project about the hydro corridors in Toronto.I was wondering if you have any maps of Toronto's hydro corridor history, any map that would show the change and progress in the transform stations and the hydro lines within the city.I would appreciate your help, Thank you.
my email address is: oliazadeh.e@gmail.com
^^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.89.119 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Haven't Seen You On ST/SC4D For A While...
...But I'm sure you're still interested in the stuff. Have a look at this, I'm sure you'll like: http://www.majhost.com/gallery/Haljackey/Interchange/final.png Haljackey (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I usually wait a full week, but we're pretty backlogged at ACR right now... Rschen7754 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ping, if you haven't noticed. --Rschen7754 01:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Highway 69
I don't know how to do it, so when you get a chance could you go to the intersection list on Ontario Highway 69 and reshade km 0 to km 56.9 (i.e. Lake Joseph Road and the old 400 multiplex) as "former" since they're no longer part of Highway 69? Thanks. I initially toyed with the idea of just removing them entirely, but there's probably a valid case to be made for retaining the information for historical reasons (plus I don't really want to sit there having to manually recalculate all the km figures by hand.) Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps long term we could consider spinning the decommissioned segments off into a "historical" list separate from the "active" one, but to really make that useful we'd need to send the "historic" list all the way back down to Waubaushene again -- and I don't really want to have to figure out where to dig all that information back up either. (Or Brechin, for really historic trivia. UGH!) Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Will do. You make a row grey by changing {{ONint to {{ONint|former.
- I've got a copy of the 1989 mileage tables, and they provide the intersections and kilometer...ages down to Waubaushene and for Highway 169. The old length could be constructed using maps and those numbers methinks. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah, if we did decide to open that can of worms the simplest thing would probably be to pick one or two representative years, rather than trying to exhaustively redocument the entire route for each and every individual realignment. (Old Wanup Road, Estaire Road, Nobel Road, 529, Parry Sound Drive, Oastler, Lake Joseph, Joe Kings...brain says no!) Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
We've missed you in the channel lately! Hope all is well (and that you're still alive!) --Rschen7754 08:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Triple Crown
Jctint/core mile/km flipping
I came across an official Iowa route log today that was in km and not miles. Do you think it would be worthwhile to put something in the core to allow for cited units to be flipped? {{Convert}} allows you to flip the units around, that is {{convert|15|mi|km|disp=flip}} gets you 24 kilometres (15 mi). –Fredddie™ 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)