User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2009

Proposed deletion of 84 Street, Edmonton
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 84 Street, Edmonton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:

84 Street, Edmonton – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Abductive (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Short arterials have been deleted. 117Avenue (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And so it goes...
And a bunch of others have been prodded by me. You should probably look at Notability (streets, roads, and highways). Abductive (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is nothing in Edmonton notable? These are just stubs for arteries. And what about shopping centres, I would say they are notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable things have reliable sources about them. Abductive (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Puzzles about redirects
I'm no expert, but I was  a little puzzled by a recent group of proposed deletions of redirects, when it seems fixing the link would do; see the page history of Alberta secondary highway 901. I don't want to go to the work of changing the others if I'm wrong, though, so was there a purpose, or are these mistakes. It would seem to me that if the roa is covered at all in Wikipedia, there should be a link to where it's covered.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the Canadian naming conventions the articles starting Alberta secondary highway were moved to start with Alberta Highway. When I changed the redirect in select Alberta Highway articles I decided that there was no need to do the same for the Alberta secondary highway articles, since they are uncategorized and nothing links to them, I did not see any reason to keep them around, it could confuse those new to Wikipedia. Do you disagree? 117Avenue (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletions of Redirects
Reference this discussion and the above as well, Redirects are not eligible for PROD. Please read WP:PROD more carefully. I have denied several of these recently. If the highways don't actually exist then they should be no brainers for WP:RFD. But if their names have changed then the old names should redirect to the new names. Please take note of the RFDs and participate in a decision there. If the Roads never existed then I would support an IAR deletion, but I am not confident that is true from your comments on Qyd's talk page. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

 * Hello 117Avenue, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:


 * PROD removed from Alberta Highway 745, by User:Doug, with summary '(Prod denied, not an "article, list, or disambiguation page" not eligible for PROD - also rm cat as the highway may not even exist)'
 * PROD removed from Alberta secondary highway 502, by User:Doug, with summary '(Prod denied, not an "article, list, or disambiguation page" not eligible for PROD)'
 * PROD removed from Alberta secondary highway 745, by User:Doug, with summary '(Prod denied, not an "article, list, or disambiguation page" not eligible for PROD)'
 * PROD removed from Alberta secondary highway 788, by User:Doug, with summary '(Prod denied, not an "article, list, or disambiguation page" not eligible for PROD)'
 * PROD removed from Alberta secondary highway 940, by User:Doug, with summary '(Prod denied, not an "article, list, or disambiguation page" not eligible for PROD)'
 * PROD removed from Alberta secondary highway 989, by User:Doug, with summary '(Prod denied, not an "article, list, or disambiguation page" not eligible for PROD)'


 * Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Barnstar
The Maple Leaf Award

I'm pleased to offer you this red maple leaf for your contribution to transportation articles in the province of Alberta. Your work is appreciated. --Qyd (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Degrassi
What are you talking about? Someone keeps messing up the official order of episodes and I'm fixing it to the correct order aka cleaning up. So I don't know why you're giving me a "warning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hipsterrr (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I warn you against your interactions with other editors, because at 06:42, 24 October 2009 you reverted an edit, identifying it as vandalism. The reverted edit was not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the article, or Wikipedia, in fact I believe it was an attempt to improve the article. I warn you against ownership of articles, because I see you as the primary editor of Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9), and reverting a majority of the edits by others. I also feel compelled to give you a third notice, please follow every entry on a talk page with four tildes, this will make your signature, (for more information see the Talk page guidelines). Now, regarding the episode listing on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9), I must ask you to please conform to the TV episode style guide and episode list structure by arranging the order of episodes by original air date, rather than filming order, or production code. This provides a list that will be easier for readers to understand the continuity of the series, and to locate episode information based on a known date. Welcome to Wikipedia, 117Avenue (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A LOT of trolls often visit there and post fake episode summaries very frequently and directly copy and paste summaries from websites which is copyright infringement, that's why I usually revert a lot of edits. I don't claim ownership of articles so don't put words in my mouth. Degrassi has aired episodes out of order in Canada in plenty of other seasons, that doesn't change the official order. I doubt you even watch the show. It messes people up when it's out of order so that's why I want to keep it at the official order, they're airing them in the correct order down in the states. The reason why they aired them out of order because 905 is a continuation of 903 storyline and same with 904 and 906. The Hipsterrr (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're the one putting words in my mouth, I have watched a few episodes of Degrassi: TNG, that is what lead me to the article in question. I came to see how the episodes related to each other, and after being confused with what I saw, I found that they were not listed in order of airing. The message I am trying to convey to you, is that the purpose of the Production Code column is to show the order of filming or production, and it is Wikipedia's style, and the norm on other articles, to list episode by air date, I think that that would mess up less people. You cannot call the production order the "official order", the air date order is also considered the "official order" by some. The source of the Twitter from 30 June confirms me by stating that the "order" has the production codes out of order, the CTV video site also confirms me with the episode #, and the series # simply keeps track of how many half hours have been aired, as of that date. I see plenty of evidence of my reasoning to have the Degrassi episode lists conforming to the standards. I can't follow your logic, 117Avenue (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I love how you "scold" me for my not signing my entry on your talk page when you haven't signed any of your three entries on my talk page. You don't have to follow the rules, but you can still correct others who do the same? The U.S. is airing them in the correct order, more people watch the show that live in the U.S. than in Canada so it would confuse most readers. That's my logic. Instead of wasting your time on people who try to improve articles, how about you go waste your time on people who are actually vandalizing articles and the site? And I'm not new to wikipedia, I've been editing for over a year, and I've had this account for almost two months. The Hipsterrr (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never intended my tone to be scolding, or angry, I only wish to convey notices of information, after all that is why we are here on Wikipedia, to educate. I was unaware that signatures were required when adding warning templates to a person's talk page, I just considered it an anonymous notice to newcomers. You may want to check out Template messages/User talk namespace for more about these templates, it may help bring vandalism down on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9). I was unaware that Degrassi had more fans in the U.S. than Canada. By the way, where do you live, you may want to think about creating a user page to give the appearance of an established user. My intensions were not to "waste time on people who try to improve articles" but to improve Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9), and I hope to help you in the future improving this article. See you out there, 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Place Ville-Marie
''Hi there, I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks.''
 * Hi 117. Actually I am from Montreal, but live in Halifax. No idea of the exact floor count, but their must be an easy way to find out, no? Cheers and good luck. -- Rob  NS  23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your inquiry: I believe your question was adressed by M3taphysical in Talk:Place_Ville-Marie. If you still have concerns, please let me know and I'll see what I can do, but it wouldn't be for at least another two weeks because I'm studying for exams. AirOdyssey (Talk) 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I'm sorry for not responding. I got confused with other similar questions I received. Since the old logo is not replaceable, you may exceptionally use it as long as it isn't in a gallery.  Zoo Fari  22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edmonton LRT
Wondering why you removed the external link to getsthere.com? It wouldn't normally qualify under a personal "blog", it's an informative website, covering the topic of LRT, and shouldn't be treated any differently than the now defunct, westlrtconcerns.com ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.18.249 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:ELNO for more information. It is not an official page of the article's subject, and bias with people's opinions. 117Avenue (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

For the many, highway articles you have made complete. Cheers  Kyle  1278  00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 901
Hi 117 Avenue, since my revisions yesterday, I posted the Strathmore Standard news article on a Canadian roads and highways forum. In response, someone from the forum found and posted more information about the planning study that is underway for Highway 1 east of Calgary. It provides a much better understanding of what is being considered in the area (I found the SS news article a tad vague). See http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4046.htm and click the Presentation link to view the interesting potential medium and long term realignments of Highways 1, 901, 21 and 24. It will be interesting to see what the final recommended alignments will be for all four highways upon completion of this planning study. --Hwy43 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is nice to know what is going on in the Calgary area. 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Communities in Alberta
Hey 117 Avenue, what is meant by "we don't need duplicate lists here, with links to the main articles"? I wonder if this list duplication was inadvertent or if it was a rookie mistake on my part. Please clarify and provide any suggestions to avoid in future mass edits. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated! --Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I now see what you did. You removed the lists that were there previous to my first wave of edits because it was redundant with their own separate list pages. Good catch - reduced the length of the article significantly! --Hwy43 (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have edited the populations of the cities with numbers from before 2009. Didn't every municipality have a census this past spring? Do you know where those numbers could be found? Not only are the cities out of date, but all the other municipality articles (Towns, Villages, MDs, Métis, IRs, Ghost Towns) have old populations. 117Avenue (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited the populations of the cities themselves, I just put the year that the population was counted in brackets (the census year). Not every municipality performs a census on an annual basis (although the majority of cities in Alberta have opted to do so in recent years due to Alberta's high growth). I've compiled 2009 municipal census results on my website (www.altapop.ca), but I am awaiting for Municipal Affairs to publish its 2009 Official Population List (OPL) before updating the populations on this article just in case Municipal Affairs decided not to accept some of the results. The 2009 edition of the OPL should be released any day now as I have never seen the latest annual edition published no later than December. (Note that I did add some 2009 populations to the Calgary CMA page only because I noticed someone else had already started doing so.)  As soon as the 2009 OPL is released, I will update this article, the Calgary CMA article and then all municipality articles. If you have any questions about municipal censuses in Alberta, please ask! I've spent way too much spare time on this particular interest. ;o) --Hwy43 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose if you feel ambitious, you can go to every municipality's article and update the population. 117Avenue (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is on my to-do list, as well as updating the Listing of Cities/Towns/Villages in Alberta articles... --Hwy43 (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trade and Convention Centre
I've been assuming that it was the Shaw, but you're right that the Agricom seems like a plausible guess too. I can't find anything one way or another online, though, and don't have much in the way of offline sources here in New Brunswick. Steve Smith (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)