Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alberta/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Switching to one Infobox

I have been standardizing the various infoboxes of Canada to use one infobox—{{Infobox Settlement}}. This should make articles more consistent from coast to coast. I have been updating the various towns and villages of Alberta and I'm guessing that there are about 70 articles left. It seems to take about 3-4 minutes per article to perform the switch. If anyone is interested in helping— contact me.—MJCdetroit 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Elections in Edmonton

There's a discussion on the appropriateness of articles for individual municipal elections over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Edmonton Election Pages. As I've dealt with a few members of this project in editing articles on municipal politics in Alberta before, I thought this might be of interest.Sarcasticidealist 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Edmonton

This new portal was under construction. A biography, article, and image have been added. Should the sections be changed to show random rotating content of GA class or better? There doesn't seem to be a Portal:Alberta - Should a Portal:Alberta also be started. Should Portal:Edmonton be converted to Portal:Alberta? SriMesh | talk 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Template:Roads in Alberta Cities

Another template for deletion by the same user arguing that templates inside templates are not good. See: the discussion--JForget 19:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New articles

Here are some new articles worth mentioning:

Some by me, some by others.Kevlar67 03:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Community articles

How much information to include, and should a template be developed? I've added info to Renfrew, Calgary but it could probably use some direction.139.48.81.98 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-naming assessment categories

Hey, I'm going to be moving the assessment categories for this project from "WikiProject Alberta" to just "Alberta". You can see on the list of all assessed projects that out of 915 of them, only 12 use the word "wikiproject" in the assessment name. The entra use currently makes our effective official name "WikiProject WikiProjet Alberta". It will probably take a day or two for the job queue to move all the pages to their new categories. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the class/importance categories are themselves properly categorized (must be done manually), that would work. --Qyd (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the template so that it will put articles in the new quality and importance categories. Now we just have to wait for the change to make it to all the articles using that template (about a day) and the 1.0 bot to update the assessment table (about 2 days). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed standardization of importance rankings

Hello, WikiProject Alberta. The other Canada-related wikiprojects have been merging their talk-page templates so that articles can be added to WikiProject Canada and to other Canada-related projects at once. This should help all of the Canadian wikiprojects spread awareness about each other and co-ordinate improvements and assessments. We would like this objective to include WikiProject Alberta. Under this system, an article about an Albertan musician (for example) would look like this: This template uses the same assessment criteria for all listed projects; so if WikiProject Alberta were to integrate with the other Canada-related projects, you would have to change your importance-ratings scale to standardize with that of WikiProject Canada. This would mean that your only top-importance article would be Alberta and your only high-importance articles would be major topics like Edmonton and History of Alberta. Would you, the regulars in this project, be open to thus changing your importance ratings? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting Ed Stelmach to GA status

Any editor interesting in assisting with this is encouraged to head on over to the talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta

A discussion is underway regarding the deletion of Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta.[1] Please feel free to provide your opinion. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edmonton meetup

I'm investigating the possibility of creating a Wikipedia meetup in Edmonton for sometime during the spring or summer of 2008. If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/Edmonton, add yourself to the list of interested editors, and watchlist the page. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Available auto location map

Gainford is located in Alberta
Gainford
Gainford
class=notpageimage|
Location of Gainford in Alberta

{{Location map Canada Alberta}} will add a map of Alberta with a dot placed automatically using geo coordinates.

It can also be used with {{Infobox Settlement|pushpin_map= Canada Alberta}}, such as in Whispering Hills, Alberta. 

{{Location map|Canada Alberta
|lat=53.58659|long=-114.78554
|caption=Location of Gainford in [[Alberta]]
|label=Gainford}}

The preceding code will produce the map at right.--Qyd (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Badlands

There seems to be a set of articles missing on the Alberta Badlands... such as Municipal District of Badlands/Badlands, Alberta. The Drumheller article links to Badlands as a location, but the article badland is about a type of terrain, not the Alberta area. 70.51.9.5 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ammolite

Ammolite has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Labattblueboy (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Alberta

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Towns of Alberta/archive1

Towns of Alberta has been nominated for a featured list removal. Lists are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the lst to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 06:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, User:98.204.15.128 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is trying to get Law Society of Alberta deleted. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

List of waterfalls of Canada

Please help to fulfill the dynamics of this list, List of waterfalls of Canada, and fill in any red link missing waterfall articles and their respective images. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For an extremely insignificant discussion that may still be of interest...

...see here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of universities in the Canadian Prairies

I have nominated List of universities in the Canadian Prairies for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

mormon temple in edmonton

There is a Mormon temple in Edmonton, AB. Should the article belong to this WikiProject? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion of roads in Edmonton

Many roads in Edmonton have been prodded, e.g. Callingwood Road. I thought someone here might want to take a look and see if any can be salvaged. Fences&Windows 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

{{prod}} is for undisputed deletions only. If anyone believes the article should stay (other than maybe the author), they may remove the prod message. --Qyd (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can remove a PROD tag, including the article writer. That said, is Collingwood Road notable? Other than the major freeways, are any of those roads notable? Resolute 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That question is precisely why I didn't remove any of the prod tags. I thought that people from the area might be able to better judge and establish notability, or suggest an alternative to deletion such as a merge. Fences&Windows 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would say no. Virtually everything under the template's "East/West", "North/South" and "Other roads" headings are just minor commuter roads. Whyte would be notable, imo, and Stony Plain Road is given it is Hwy 16A. Calgary Trail and Gateway Blvd (both Hwy 2) are. Might be one or two more that a resident of Edmonton could mention, but most are just stubs of little use, imnsho. Resolute 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Very little use indeed. Some work was put in the articles, however, and the klm link shows a representative map. --Qyd (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM

Hello WikiProject Alberta. A Start-class article handled by your WikiProject, Lethbridge College, has been selected as one of this month's WikiProject Universities Collaborations of the Month. You should see some increased activity at that article from now until December 25. When you have the opportunity, please vote for next month's Collaboration of the Month or help improve this month's other COTM, the B-class Rochester Institute of Technology.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletion of communities in Alberta

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 9 - a whole lot of communities in Alberta have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Refinery Row

The article discussing Refinery Row (Edmonton), has recently been moved to Edmonton Oil Refining Center. I have proposed at Talk:Edmonton Oil Refining Center#Request to revert page move that this page be moved back. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Banff Deaflympics

We don't seem to have an article for the 1991 Winter Deaflympics (Banff Deaflympics/1991 Deaflympics) ...

There does exist an article for a specific Deaflympics, 2009 Deaflympics, so perhaps with the Canadian Olympics of Whistler going on now, we should also articlize this event? (The Deaflympics are sanctioned by the IOC)

70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, Alberta

If there is anyone with history on Phoenix and Alexo, it would be greatly appreciated in improving and understanding this subject. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Calgary

FYI, there is a suggestion at Talk:Calgary to create a WP:CALGARY. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard for including Alberta in place name

The discussion to move Sherwood Park, Alberta has closed without consensus. I am sorry to be a pain, but I believe that there should be a set policy for the naming of populated places. I have come up with three options for a solution.

Option A

Meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, any municipality that is considered a city, or was formerly a city.

Extended option A

Meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, any municipality that qualifies for city status, a minimum population of 10,000. Keep in mind WP:CANSTYLE#Places#2, and that the requirement for Saskatchewan is 5,000, and Weyburn, at pop. 9,433, was moved in July 2008.

Option B

Only major cities. I would consider 85,000 (Lethbridge) a major city in Alberta, but to provide a second option to my opinions, I will lower it to 25,000, since Lloydminster shouldn't be moved.

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#Places and Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation before commenting. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Object on Airdrie and Camrose as there are other municipalities by the same name. In the case of Airdrie, the Scottish city is of equivalent size. The Welsh hamlet of Camrose may be smaller than the Alberta city, but I would not use size alone to determine primary topic. Canmore is iffy, and would definitely require a dedicated move discussion. The rest of the option A cities should be movable without issue. Resolute 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Airdrie, sorry, I didn't know. 117Avenue (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries. That one jumped out at me right away as it is my home town and I'm well aware of it's Scottish sister city! Resolute 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the point of this is. If a move proposal meets the applicable guidelines (WP:CANSTYLE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc.), then it should be moved. Setting arbitrary population thresholds for Canadian place article titles was rejected some time ago, and frankly, is counterproductive (and actually runs counter to existing guidelines). Has there been some sort of problem? Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm also not sure what city status has to do with it. The real question is whether or not is whether one or more articles qualifies for the same article title, and if so, is one of them a primary topic? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:CANSTYLE is the current "standard" if you will, and population/size has absolutely nothing to do with it, look at Flin Flon and Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!. When the city/town is the primary topic, it should not have the province in the title. There is nothing particularly special about Canadian cities that they should take precedence over that of another city, unless they are significantly the primary topic (I am reminded of the Vancouver]/Vancouver, Washington debate). I think that WP:CANSTYLE works fine, and province-specific changes will be counterproductive, I edit articles about geography of multiple provinces (probably all of them) and would prefer not to have to remember the details for each of them, at least when it comes to naming. kelapstick (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
A few months back, I recall following a discussion where a group of wikiusers were moving, in their opinion, unnecessarily disambiguated articles on cities in Canada. I didn't follow as closely as I would have wished, but I suspect they only did communities that were officially incorporated as cities. I also don't recall what their rationale was to move away from the widely-used format of City, Province. If anyone recalls the same discussion and knows its whereabouts, please provide the wikilink so that I may revisit and comment further. I'll try finding the same for the benefit of all in the meantime as well. Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you're thinking of Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities, which was an attempt to catalogue Cdn place names and to consider which ones needed dismabiguation and which ones did not. They started with cities, but the intent was never to limit it to cities. The rationale was that there was consensus on a Canadian naming convention, which implemented broader Wikipedia naming guidelines, and which followed the practice of most place articles in the rest of the world (except, notably, the U.S.). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that previously, but it doesn't include the discussion I was referring to in my earlier post. It is very likely that the two were related however. I'll try to find what I was looking for over the course of the weekend. Hwy43 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Disregard my last comment. A quick search has now resulted in me thinking my memory has played tricks on me. I now believe what I observed wasn't a discussion at all, but a high frequency of edit summaries for this article on my watchlist between March and July 2010 inclusive. Hwy43 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I now see the unfortunate move discussion at the Sherwood Park article, where the Alberta place is clearly the primary use, but you encountered Qyd, God bless him, who is a great/hard-working editor, but on this one issue refuses to acknowledge applicable guidelines and stubbornly opposes all such requests. A bad decision on a move request is not a good reason to cook up arbitrary rules for Alberta places that aren't consistent with Wikipedia practices or guidelines. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for more discussion on this. Do we have consensus on option A then? I would implement it myself, but only an administrator can. 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should state it more simply as any municipality whose name is unique, or satisfies PRIMARYTOPIC and CANSTYLE. We shouldn't impose a limit to just articles about cities. Mindmatrix 14:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It appears from the intro at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities that the intent of that initiative was to consider all communities. The intro makes references to towns and settlements. My suspicion is the initiative began with cities since it was a logical starting point. Hwy43 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out, there is indeed already a naming convention in place for settlements in Canada (inclusive of Alberta), which is noted at WP:CANSTYLE: any place which either has a unique name, or can convincingly be demonstrated to be the primary meaning for a non-unique name, can be moved to an undisambiguated title regardless of whether it's a city, a town, a hamlet or a two-house crossroads. And it's also correct that Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities started with cities only, but that was simply about organizing the project into manageable chunks and was never meant to imply that only cities can ever have undisambiguated titles. As of now, that list does also include a large number of towns and villages and townships. There's also never been any sort of consensus to apply an arbitrary population cutoff, either. So I'm not too clear on why it would be necessary to formulate a separate standard for Alberta — there aren't really any unique considerations that make the existing Canada-wide standard unsuitable, so an Alberta-specific codicil would serve only to add an unnecessary layer of confusion. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what are we all doing standing around then? Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove, Chestermere, and High River can all be moved without discussion. Without a population limit, we could even go onto Whitecourt, Taber (note: currently subject to a move discussion), Morinville, Rocky Mountain House, Slave Lake, Drayton Valley, Bonnyville, and the list goes on, but we need to draw the line somewhere, otherwise my hometown of Ryley (pop. 458) would get moved because according to Wikipedia it is the only case of that spelling. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
What would be wrong with Ryley being moved from Ryley, Alberta? If it is the only use of that spelling, it would make sense for the page to be located at Ryley. --kelapstick (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
A word of warning about this: please make sure that, at a minimum, the place is uniquely named in Canada (use Statscan SGC database, or various provincial sources). Also make sure that there are no other communities with this name in other English- or French-speaking nations, and note that many Wikipedians overlook African countries when making such considerations. If other communities with that name are found, a disambiguation page should be created, so that we have a record of it, and others will know that that name has already been researched. Mindmatrix 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should continue moving forward with the remaining cities and Sherwood Park, and then move onto other municipal statues (towns, villages, summer villages, hamlets, etc), doing one status at a time. This would be a manageable way to move forward. Hwy43 (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, because as we move down in population, we move away from primary topic, that is, there is a lower percentage of hamlets that are primary topics than are cities (and urban service areas), and there should be constancy; why have Donatville undisambiguited when there are 300 other hamlets with the province in the name. Hwy43 and I have already been in a discussion with someone who believes all unambiguous populated places shouldn't have their province name attached. But I agree with Hwy43, all provinces should be done at the same time, and as Mattinbgn pointed out, this is a Wikipedia wide thing, and the United States and Australia would have to be done too. I think, that for now, let's draw the line at High River, and archive this discussion, and bring it up at Wikiproject Canada when it is time to do a Canada wide rollout of the towns. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion above was intended to only involve Alberta communities since this is the WikiProject Alberta page. If we move forward with this initiative, hopefully users with interests in the other provinces and the three territories will notice and follow suit. I don't think we need to stop at High River. If the interest is there, we could continue from there stepping downward by population to keep it manageable. I suspect interest may naturally wane before we get to Donatville, Ryley, etc. Hwy43 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is stating that a move is required, only that if it satisfies the requirements of WP:CANSTYLE and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, then the article can be moved to the undisambiguated title. If there are multipe places with the name Donatville (in Alberta, Canada, or elsewhere), then clearly the article should not be moved unless the place in consideration somehow distinguishes itself from the others, per PRIMARYUSAGE. As far as US placenames are concerned, US Wikipedians have discussed this several times, but have never reached concensus to rename those articles; I don't thinkk they're likely to do it anytime soon, either. Mindmatrix 15:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Festival Express in Calgary

I left this on other talk pages, but still haven't found an answer. Still trying. I watched Festival Express a while back, and the Calgary segment featured a news reporter kneeling down on the field before the concert began and giving a typical news report. I figured this reporter was Ed Whalen, but I've yet to find any confirmation of that. Any hints/help?RadioKAOS (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Whalen had a rather unique voice, so if you've heard him on other broadcasts (i.e.: look up old Stampede Wrestling or Calgary Flames footage from the 80s), you'd know immediately if it was him. I've never seen this video, so can't help beyond that. Resolute 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "List of unincorporated communities in Alberta"

List of unincorporated communities in Alberta has been proposed for deletion. Discussion is here. Hwy43 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just Published! Could someone rate this?

Hello,

I just published an article I've been working on for a week or so, Princess Theatre, Edmonton. I believe it's in the scope of your project. Would anyone be able to go over there and rate it for me?

--Rawlangs (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Rated B, which is the highest rating without a formal assessment process. I'd suggest that you bring it to WP:GAN, though, since at a glance it looks to comply with WP:GA?. Steve Smith (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done by Pyrotec. Outcome was good article rating. Hwy43 (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages.Moxy (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alberta/Archive_2&oldid=1238708444"