User talk:Hwy43/Archive 13

This archive page includes discussions that began between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Gingeroscar/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Gingeroscar/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I set up this sandbox page for this editor to use. Please inform directly of the request for speedy deletion. Hwy43 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Hwy43. I'm just posting to let you know that List of municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 26. 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 ) 22:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

MD No.
In the official websites of the few remaining Alberta MDs with No. in their titles you can clearly see that even they themselves omit the No., or at the very least don't hold it to be sacrosanct. The only one not is the Municipal District of Opportunity, but as they say the exception proves the rule. The numbers are not common name.


 * https://www.countygp.ab.ca/en/county-government/strategic-plan.aspx
 * http://www.warnercounty.ca/
 * http://www.stettlercounty.ca/
 * https://www.40mile.ca/
 * https://www.mdbighorn.ca/
 * https://mdpinchercreek.ab.ca/
 * https://www.county.wetaskiwin.ab.ca/
 * https://www.countybarrhead.ab.ca/


 * https://mdgreenview.ab.ca/
 * https://www.mdwillowcreek.com/
 * https://www.mdacadia.ab.ca/
 * http://mdprovost.com/
 * http://www.mdwainwright.ca/
 * https://mdranchland.ca/
 * https://md.bonnyville.ab.ca/
 * https://mdlsr.ca/component/edocman/ownership-map-2020/viewdocument/864?Itemid=0


 * https://www.mdsmokyriver.com/
 * https://www.mdspiritriver.ab.ca/
 * https://mdpeace.com/area-overview/
 * https://www.countypaintearth.ca/maps/disclaimer
 * https://www.county.stpaul.ab.ca/
 * http://www.thcounty.ab.ca/
 * https://minburncounty.ab.ca/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.224.98 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello 70.77.224.98. Thank you for reaching out. As I have attempted to convey across your multiple email addresses, there are benefits to you for registering an account. One of which is better communication opportunities. While some of your edits have problematic implications unbeknownst to you, you are also doing some good work on here. Registering with an account will make conveyance of such implications much easier and provides a better opportunity for mentorship if you are amenable to such. There is no sacrosanctity going on here. Your edits regarding rural municipality names are contrary to established consensus based on the fact that common names for all rural municipalities that subscribe to the "Brand of Name No. X" naming format is effectively impossible to confirm because of there being too many variants competing for common name status. And in the unlikely event some could be confirm, the confirmed common name formats can differ from one to another to another. Further, if there is an advanceable common name confirmation approach that is sufficient to overturn the current consensus, erring on the side of municipal graphic designers (re: logos) and/or website designers is not sufficient. Please review the two conversations re: Alberta and Saskatchewan and the failed move request linked below to bring you up to speed on the consensus.
 * Proposed move of rural and specialized municipality articles (Alberta)
 * Proposed move of rural municipalities (Saskatchewan)
 * County of Minburn No. 27 move attempt
 * Your edits are contrary to the consensus approach to the naming of rural municipalities in Alberta and Saskatchewan. With this information I hope you have a better understanding of the implications of your attempts. If you don't register, at least stick to one IP address rather than hopping around from one to another (your IP address sometimes changes on a daily basis). Pick one and stick with it so that communication barriers are minimal. With that, I will be returning the two articles in question to their previous states in alignment with the established consensus. If you don't like it and want to revisit the current consensus, I suggest you raise discussions on WP:ALBERTA and WP:SASKCN. Debating it here is futile as only you and I will see the discussion and not the others with the same interests in the sets of articles. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * One more thing for now. Please read MOS:BOLDTITLE, MOS:NOTSEEALSO, and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Hwy43 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1901 establishments in Alberta


A tag has been placed on Category:1901 establishments in Alberta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1903 establishments in Alberta


A tag has been placed on Category:1903 establishments in Alberta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1903 establishments in Saskatchewan


A tag has been placed on Category:1903 establishments in Saskatchewan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1894 establishments in Alberta


A tag has been placed on Category:1894 establishments in Alberta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1890 establishments in Alberta


A tag has been placed on Category:1890 establishments in Alberta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1899 establishments in Alberta


A tag has been placed on Category:1899 establishments in Alberta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1900 establishments in Alberta


A tag has been placed on Category:1900 establishments in Alberta indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 1884 has also been emptied, by moving Calgary to establishments in Northwest Territories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sustainability discussion
Hello Hwy43, I initiated the project and you spread the discussion. We could discuss some of it here and bring any consensus we arrive at back to the discussions productively. TheKevlar 16:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I would like to know is why you are strongly against Sustainability headings in cities?
 * I held back adding sustainability in the past because it was ideas, planning, and policy
 * Now its built form, revitalized neighborhoods, mandates, infrastructure, and major funding
 * A few Canadian cities have prioritized sustainability and the public needs access to this information
 * I haven’t spread anything. It was you that started sustainability discussions in six locations after introducing it at a first location. My talk page is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline is the appropriate place. Hwy43 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I would like to know is why you are strongly against Sustainability in cities? TheKevlar 16:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with a position on sustainability practices. I am a longstanding editor of community articles in Canada and am intimately familiar with WP:CCSG as a result. I have never witnessed a section on sustainability before and such is not expected at CCSG. Seeing it is not expected at WP:CITSTRUCT either. If you want to start introducing sustainability sections across all major cities across Canada, I have suggested the best place to first get buy-in is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding Hwy43. The WP:CITSTRUCT has the following statement: "The suggested sections and headings are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article on settlements or places; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all such articles" This is the directive I am expanding content under. Not all cities warrant sustainability sections. A few cities already have the section and a few more need it. I do value your position, so once they are done it will the right time to have that conversation. Cheers back TheKevlar 02:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , note that CITSTRUCT says "It does not replace [CCSG] " and that "editors are advised to come to a consensus that works best for the settlement/places article in question." You state that "once they are done it will the right time to have that conversation." What do you mean by that? My repeated suggestion remains; take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline to come to a consensus that works best for the major cities in question. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes to List of municipalities of Manitoba
Hey there, I notice there was a very large edit to this list that I do not agree with, especially the random infobox, but nearly all other changes as well. I would like to revert the whole edit but wanted to hear what you think first? Change found here:. Mattximus (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:EASTER
Preceding discussion from User talk:Joeyconnick:
 * FYI, please see Wikipedia talk:Piped link, which means this is not a WP:EASTER infraction. Hwy43 (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's one other random editor's opinion that agrees with yours. Hardly a reason to ignore our guidelines. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi... Again, one editor agreeing with you does not give you cover to override WP:EASTER. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote. I originally posted on that talk page and no one replied. I prompted again weeks later and finally received a response and nothing since for 4.5 years. The silence suggests that piping for the purpose explained in that post was not controversial and therefore not regarded as an override. Hwy43 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:WEAKSILENCE. Also, now you have someone disagreeing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been implemented for over five years Canada-wide but when a less-seasoned editor does some undesireable edits in good faith, those that re-introduced the consensus implementation five or more years ago now get scrutinized? Hwy43 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have opened a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Piped link. Note that WP:EASTER is neither a policy nor a guideline. Hwy43 (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blakemans Store
Wondering why Blakemans Store is not mentioned. One of the oldest families in the area. Also Blakeman was first mayor of Black Diamond. And the oldest building. And still operating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:7866:5800:c43b:6c68:7f07:9458 (talk • contribs)
 * It appears you are a new editor looking for assistance. I suggest you seek help at Teahouse. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Authenticity
Not sure why information has been removed as information provided was from the County of Minburn No. 27. I have been employed by the County of Minburn No. 27 for 29 years. The CAO oversees all information and gave me the direction to add to our wikipedia to give factual historical information and current information. If you would like to contact him directly please let me know. I may be a new user to wikipedia but information provided is factual. I am asking that information previously submitted by me is unblocked. Any questions, I can direct you to our CAO Brent Williams. Audra Kropielnicki at Minburn County (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE why your edits at County of Minburn No. 27 are problematic and have been deleted. In short, much of it is WP:UNSOURCED, poorly sourced, or sourced to WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. The writing is also quite WP:PROMOTIONAL and has a non-neutral point of view (e.g. "magnificent golf courses" is a promotional, non-neutral opinion). In reaching out at the TEAHOUSE, hopefully a volunteer can help mentor you to add content properly. Please also be wary of having a WP:COI and please use WP:CCSG for what headings to use and in what order they should be presented. Hwy43 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * also, please ask CAO Williams when he is going to convince council to change the official legal name of the municipality from the lengthy and dated "County of Minburn No. 27" to the more concise and modern "Minburn County". The latter sure has a nicer ring to it. Hwy43 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Mission Lake Subdivision, Saskatchewan
I think this is another place created by kyle1278 that doesn't exist. If so, that's three (the other was Boundary Dam Lake, Saskatchewan but I took care of that one months ago). Makes me wonder how many others he created that aren't real. Masterhatch (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am forgetting the third but the two you mention above were created in Kyle1278's early editing days. My recollections of the contributions of this editor, now, were that they were well-intentioned and done in good faith. There must be an explanation of why it appeared that this place existed. I suggest you WP:PROD it, notifying Kyle1278-2. Maybe my ping above will catch his attention. I notice from his contribution history that he hasn't been very active of late. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The 3rd was Madge Lake, Saskatchewan, which was redirected a couple of days ago to Madge Lake. Yeah, I'll put it up for deletion. (I've never nominated an article for deletion so this'll be my first!) Masterhatch (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New Brunswick
This might interest you. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks. Watchlisted. Hwy43 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you are feeling ambitious, perhaps an equivalent to 2015 Manitoba municipal amalgamations is in order. Maybe 2023 New Brunswick municipal reform. Hwy43 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There're so many existing articles to update first that it might not even make the bucket list. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The restructuring is 1.112328767123288 years away though. Lots of time to update the articles! ;) I might take a crack at it then at some point before Jan-1/23. Hwy43 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

South-west vs southwest
Both are correct. Southwest is American and south-west (also south west) is Commonwealth English. Masterhatch (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There are somethings from Commonwealth English that are feverishly adopted in Canada and others that are not. In my experience, usage in Canada for these directions is predominantly the compound word version and not the hyphenated or two-word versions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)