User talk:Hwy43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Population updates of top 100 Canada[edit]

I will respect the intent of 100 list for the time being.

I have verifiable web sources for many of Canada's top 50 cities and will continue discussions until they are either acceptable or the allowance of more accurate municipal sources are accepted in general consensus... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkevlar (talkcontribs) 15:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mkevlar, I know where you are coming from. This is my website. Note at WP:CANPOP, the general consensus you are seeking for more recent municipal sources is already accepted. Specifically, see the following excerpts from CANPOP:
  • "Although some supplementary sources may be added, the population figure and demographics from the last official Statistics Canada census is the principal definitive source for population data in articles."
  • "Between censuses, properly sourced intercensal population and demographic updates from a government source such as Statistics Canada, a provincial statistical agency or a formal municipal census such as those in Alberta, may be provided in addition to the 2011 census data."
The key thing here is Canadian community articles can include more up-to-date population data if from a reliable source and if referenced properly, but the most recent federal census population count must remain until the next federal census population count is published. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Hwy43. Your contributions are welcomed, but you seem to be deliberately masking yourself anonymously and you may have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
  • instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

In addition, your attempts of reveling the identity of fellow users and intimidate them with your Wikipedia skills is a form of Cyberbullying and may falls under the Criminal Code.

Without prejudiced, please consider your future postings carefully as they may contravene the criminal code for cyber-bullying. Mkevlar (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Mkevlar, so you retaliate my notice with the same, asserting I have a COI, but have provided no grounds, and include a border line WP:LEGALTHREAT? I am trying to help you understand how things work here. You need to be transparent and not evade the attempts to assist you. If you don't heed the attempts to assist you, and instead start attacking others, making legal threats and continuing editing in a matter that is a COI, you are on the fast track to having an administrator block you from editing. How about trying to work with others in good faith? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
As for revealing your identity, you are the one responsible for indicating that you are Marlon Kevlar of GreenScore, and are also responsible for not being transparent about it. You can start being transparent by following WP:DCOI. Hwy43 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Broken links[edit]

I noticed on the article List of communities in Alberta has issues with the references; 7, 14, 15, 21, 23, and 26. The references seem to be in the actual info-boxes from the {{:List of X in Alberta}}. What do you think will be the best approach to fix the issue? Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've observed it but haven't investigated how to resolve. These all transcluded properly without any warnings in their Reference sections once upon a time. While you were on hiatus, someone evidently revised some reference templates that triggered some warnings under certain situations, but they failed to test the change in instances where there was transclusion. Sloppy work. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kyle1278-2, five months later, I've resolved 14, 15 and 26 as well as a couple others that emerged in the last few months. I'll attempt to fix 7, 21 and 23, though it may take another five months. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hwy43 Good to hear that it will be resolved, even if it takes 5 mouth months. 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

List of municipalities[edit]

Hello again. I was wondering if you had an opinion to the new format I'm trying out at List of municipalities in Yukon. Do you think this change is worthwhile? I used the population change and density templates instead of just putting in raw numbers. I'm not sure it is worth it myself, but there are marginal gains (it is easier to update/no calculation errors).

And I'm wondering if you had any plans to upgrade the other province lists to featured status, and if so, if there is any way I can help? I'm not sure where to start myself. Thanks for your opinion! Mattximus (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Any idea why the templates don't appear to work in the total row?

Too busy to focus on the next list yet but will get to it eventually. I did respond to your question on the NL list. Not sure if you saw it. Hwy43 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops forgot to do the total row, will fix. Whenever you have time I'm happy to co-nominate any of these lists and work on any issues that might arise. And yep saw the reply to NL, I'm still of the mind that we should include them as functional municipalities based on the email you received and the fact that they serve many of the functions of a municipality, but I'm also happy to wait for more information as well. Mattximus (talk)
What happened to the bold within the total row, and why the change in background colour? Hwy43 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sold on this new formatting either. I thought it would save time in the future but I may just revert. The percent change template auto-populates the other two columns (a nice feature), but it does not work with the total row. I had to fiddle with the formatting then manually change the colour so that row populates. I also forgot to re-add the bold. Think I should just revert? Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Fixed bold and table colour for what it's worth. Thanks for pointing it out. Mattximus (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare, Ontario[edit]

Are you able to correct the population data for Shakespeare, Ontario? The population data has been vandalized and I'm not familiar with updating this on Canadian articles. The data is here. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Mattximus just made this edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 93[edit]

I was wondering if the Icefields Parkway article should moved to Alberta Highway 93? Presently AB 93 redirects to the Icefields Pkwy. Highway 93 continues along Highway 1 and continues as the Banff-Windermere Highway which becomes British Columbia Highway 93. Presently if the short section west of Hwy 1 is not included and is technically not the Icefields Parkway.

What are your thoughts? MuzikMachine (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

MuzikMachine, my thoughts from 5+ years ago are posted at Talk:Icefields Parkway. If you want to propose something, do so there to maximize the consultation with other interested users. It is going to take me a while to get reacquainted with what I feel is the best solution. If you restart the conversation there, I'll chime in once caught back up. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea Hwy43, I added my comments. Cheers! MuzikMachine (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to List of municipalities in New Brunswick[edit]

Hi, I noticed there were some major changes to the recently promoted List of municipalities in New Brunswick. I don't think the new table make sense (what do the numbers mean?), and the two very long financial paragraphs are not very clear and don't seem to flow with the rest of the text. I reverted once, but I wanted to consult with you since we worked on this page together to see if you have an opinion. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like unencyclopedic WP:TRIVIA. If we are going to start including financials, then where does it end? Number of employees? Kilometre lengths of roads, water pipes, sewers, etc.? The possibilities are nearly endless to regurgitate all numbers associated with each municipality. The two of you have replied to each other on each other's talk pages. I urge both you and abandon those (and now this one) and start fresh with a focused discussion in one location — Talk:List of municipalities in New Brunswick — to keep it all in one place and capture the attention of as many interested editors as possible. This is a featured list as you said, and any bold significant changes to the article should be discussed after being reverted to determine if there is a way to integrate some or all of the content in a careful manner that does not compromise its standing as a featured list, and in a manner that results in it not looking radically inconsistent with the other Canadian municipality featured lists. I'm too busy to review the details of what has been added and to get involved in a discussion for at least a day or two. I suggest it be reverted to its stable version with the content copied to the talk page and a discussion initiated. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, you summarised my issue with the changes better than I have. I have reverted and explained the reasoning on the talk page. Thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Bowen Island[edit]

Thanks for your input to the 'Bowen Island' page. I would appreciate your help with this.

This is what I am trying to do: - create a 'Bowen Island' disambiguation page, that would list 4 different Bowen Islands:

I can't seem to move the existing 'Bowen Island' to 'Bowen Island, British Columbia'; I get a message saying that the page already exists. But I had earlier successfully moved 'Bowen Island' to 'Bowen Island (British Columbia)'. And then I created a Bowen Island disambiguation page. However, in the interim, you reverted my page move to 'Bowen Island (British Columbia)'. I can see why you suggested that the name is incorrect. But the page 'Bowen Island, British Columbia' exists as a redirect page (to 'Bowen Island'), but I want it to contain the existing entries for 'Bowen Island', and to then become a disambiguation page with the title 'Bowen Island'. That way, a user searching for Bowen Island would be taken to the disambiguation page with the 4 island options.

How to do this? Thanks Boy.bowen (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Boy.bowen, please see my latest comments at Talk:Bowen Island#Article requires disambiguation?, which ends with a link directing you to how to get things started. For the benefit of all interested parties, and to keep things as consolidated as possible, I recommend that any further comments you may have be posted at Talk:Bowen Island#Article requires disambiguation? rather than here. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm wondering if you would be interested in collaborating again with more of the municipalities pages? I suspect you might not have the time, but I thought I would just ask to see if bringing the Atlantic provinces to featured status interested you. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification[edit]

Hi, Hwy43. I'm just posting to let you know that List of municipalities in Manitoba – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 28. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You are a sock[edit]

Sock puppet investigation Shark32322 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The page they meant to link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hwy43. Resolute 01:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Sweet. I've been wanting to check sock puppet investigation off my bucket list. Hwy43 (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


I'm just changing the phrasing of "the Henday" in that boundary section there because I didn't refer to the road as "the Henday" anywhere else aside from mentioning in the lead that people call it that (mostly because I hate that phrasing along with "The Whitemud" and "The Yellowhead" more than life itself) so it's now inconsistent. Of course you're free to change every single reference to The Henday if you wish but I'd argue that it's too colloquial. Most AB Trans docs also seem to have every word of TUC capitalized.

I fully support never using "the Henday" again throughout the article. I thought it was already used in that section and just carried it forward.
The "City of Edmonton" is an official term and therefore a proper name, whereas the "City" alone, even when intentionally using it as short form to refer to the "City of Edmonton" is not a proper name. Same with "Transportation Utility Corridor" on its own. It is not a proper name, and the fact that it is capitalized incorrectly elsewhere is not a valid reason to carry forward incorrect and unnecessary capitalization. I've found this misuse of capitalization is an issue that runs rampant in the public sector and certain professions. Being an urban planner and former public sector employee new to editing on Wikipedia in late 2009, I capitalized terms like this and it drove me nuts when terms like this were not capitalized. I learned in short order on here from others that doing so was incorrect. I was wrong. The consensus on Wikipedia is to not capitalize nouns unless they are truly proper names. Hwy43 (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't particularly care to argue on that point, but the fact remains it is not defined in that section. I saw no reason for the redundancy with the history section which is why I made no reference to TUC in that section when I wrote it in the first place, but of course it could be added. There has to be some definition else it doesn't really make sense. -- Acefitt 03:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
There may be a need to introduce the TUC earlier on in the article, or at least acknowledge it within the lead. I may circle back at some point (and attempt do so when I'm not half asleep like I was last night). Hwy43 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More baffling is the starting point of the loop... the interchange is 3 km wide - calling the entire thing the starting point is in fact more vague, and adds more text, than simply stating Calgary Trail. Strongly disagree there. If we have to compromise on that I'd say make that distinction further down, but I still think that adds nothing. -- Acefitt 23:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The above paragraph is something that would have been much more useful posting to Talk:Anthony Henday Drive as there may be more watchers of the article that are interested in this. I'm going to paste and respond to it there. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
There's technically no reference for this so really the text shouldn't even be there, but the 111 St bridge is 2 km from Calgary Trail. Exit numbering further down the road is clearly from bridge to bridge, so to define the starting point as a crossing point as opposed to a massive interchange is more specific, and less text. Seems like the obvious choice to me, second being nothing at all. -- Acefitt 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we are speaking the same language. See Talk:Anthony Henday Drive#Starting point. If anything further to add on this item, I suggest we keep it over there. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Since you seem to be the other active editor on the Alberta highway articles, just thought I'd fill you in on my sequence of events for rewriting and expanding the articles. I'll try to go by importance to the WikiProject, so highways 1/2/16/63/43. I didn't realize how daunting a task this would be till I quickly looked through a lot of the AB highway articles yesterday so I think a quality over quantity approach is probably the best way to go forward, and focus on just the core articles. -- Acefitt 01:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually haven't been active on these articles for a while but interest tends to renew when seeing fresh enthusiasm by others. It is daunting from my own experience. I'm reminded of how I nearly added all missing major intersection lists but never quite got through the 1 - 216 series. Your approach to focus on the core articles for now makes complete sense. Good luck! Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, if and when you get to the History section of Alberta Highway 43, note that I can pretty much reference all of it. I added the tag myself. It was prepared during my first month on here when I had not yet learned the ropes about sourcing, etc. Hwy43 (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)