User talk:-ACL-

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 28th Alberta general election. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for the welcome, but there was no mistake behind my edit. I intentionally removed the "seats needed" from the infobox on 28th Alberta general election, in accordance to the discussion that occurred on Talk:Canadian_federal_election,_2011. I had already did this once today and provided full explanation behind my doing so. The reversion back to the former was subsequently done without reasoning either. If we need to reopen discussion on every single upcoming election page, I suppose we could do so. But in the end, I simply do not agree that "seats needed" is a necessary addition to Canadian electoral pages. Not only is it nonsensical to suggest that the PC's need -23 seats to win a majority but it is also, in a way, incorrect to suggest that the Liberals need 36 seats to win the election. That is not the way our parliamentary system works, any party with a plurality of seats (whether it hits the majority mark or not) can form a government, just as a coalition of parties (all obviously without the required "seats needed") could form a government. "Seats needed" is simply an unnecessary line on this infobox that can be taken away. Readers can do the math to figure out what a particular party would require in order to achieve a majority. -ACL- (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think that when people see "seats needed", that it isn't seats needed for a majority? Because that's what I think. 117Avenue (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a point that was raised in the discussion on Talk:Canadian_federal_election,_2011. Because I'm aware of Canadian politics and elections, I understand what you're referring to but to an outside reader it may not be exactly clear. I think noting that these are the "seats needed for a majority" it may be a little more valuable to have in the infobox. However, then I think it may start to become cluttered. Since the amount of seats each party had at dissolution is provided anyways, if it was noted, for example, on the Alberta election page under "87 seats in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta" that "44 seats are needed for a majority," I personally think it would be sufficient. On the whole, though, if we're not going to have "seats needed" on the federal election page, I don't really see why we should have it on all provincial pages either. -ACL- (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, I can see it your way. 117Avenue (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so cordial about it! -ACL- (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Some else has actually started a discussion for a parameter at Template talk:Infobox election. 117Avenue (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Clear Vista Elementary Junior High School (Wetaskiwin, Alberta) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clear Vista Elementary Junior High School (Wetaskiwin, Alberta) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Clear Vista Elementary Junior High School (Wetaskiwin, Alberta) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pipestone Creek


The article Pipestone Creek has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Creeks typically are not notable, and no references from reliable sources to confirm notability otherwise. The fact that it exists isn't sufficient.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hwy43 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)