User talk:Hwy43/Archive 1

This archive page includes discussions that began between November 3, 2009 (date of account creation) and December 31, 2009.

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Vejvančický (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Alberta Highways
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vejvančický (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing red links
Hiya, Hwy43. Before removing redlinks from articles, please would you read and consider WP:REDLINK? I also want to say, thanks for your contributions. I can see you're making constructive edits and trying to help, and we need people who do that.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi S Marshall. Thanks for dropping a line and glad to help.  I accidentally created the redlink.  I assumed there already was an article when it turned out there was not.  Since I wasn't prepared to write an article on it, I opted to remove the redlink.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Census demographics
The demands of encyclopedic writing are not the same as the demands of a website that serves as strictly a data table; in writing, it's completely counterintuitive and awkward to go backwards. If the information were being presented as a table, I probably wouldn't bother with this — but if it's in written format, it needs to be presented in standard chronological order, because the very nature of written presentation makes backward chronologies look utterly wrong. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe standard chronological ordering is appropriate in most written-form encyclopedic situations (e.g., History sections of certain articles). However, the nature of census demographics is the older the information, the less relevent and less useful the information in written form.  For example, inserting a demographic summary for each federal census result for Calgary (since its incorporation as a town in 1884 to 2006) in chronological order would push the most current demographic information from 2006 to the bottom of the Demographics section and would result in the user having to needlessly scroll through paragraphs of terribly out-dated info in order to view what they really want – the most recent and relevent information.  Such a strategy for selective demographic info would be more appropriate to include within the History section of the Calgary article.  This is why, as I find 2001 census demographics preceeding 2006 census demographics while editing various municipality articles, I move the 2001 info under the 2006 info.


 * Is there a Wikipedia standard that says otherwise for census demographics?


 * Regarding census demographics being presented in table form, I favour the opposite of what you suggest – developing the table in chronological order. See Alberta Population Profile – Calgary.


 * By the way, I saw your discussion with another regarding the premature removal of federal census information when municipal census information is added. I strongly agree with the methodology you suggested - it is necessary to retain the 2006 federal census results in order to properly compare two or more municipalities and the 2006 data should not be removed until the 2011 federal census data is published (at the earliest).  As I edit municipal articles where someone else has removed the 2006 info, I will make the effort to return it to its original form.


 * Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)