User talk:Hwy43/Archive 3

This archive page includes discussions that began between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.

Alberta highways
Good job in cleaning up the highway articles. I have always been meaning to do it, but keep seeming to be distracted by other projects. One day, hopefully, I will get back to the theme for which I chose my user name. I still feel honoured that someone modelled their alias after mine. Keep up the good work! 117Avenue (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll continue sweeping the articles over time with numerous additions and improvements (i.e., references), like I've done in the past with community/municipality articles, but at a reduced pace now that the holiday season has passed. My original user name was made in haste and was temporary. Observing your user name format triggered the decision on a permanent name relating to a personal interest in roads/highways which we share. Hwy43 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Med Hat "notable residents"
To: Hwy43: I was the person who attempted to add Greg Morrison to this list. By the way,I have never been registered on here or tried to "talk" to anyone, so I hope I'm doing this properly. My question is why you would go and remove what I had added? I'm not sure what your issue is...if you're saying that he is not "notable" enough to be on this list, I would beg to differ. The winner of "Canada's Worst Driver" is notable? I've lived in The Hat for about thirty years and can tell you that I have never heard of half the people on that list, but I can guarantee you that if you were to stand downtown and ask ten people if they know who Greg Morrison is, eight would likely say yes. If you Google his name I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find some references to him, as he is still in the news regularly as he is now also the owner/manager of the local semi-pro baseball team (the Mavericks of the Western Major Baseball League). Anyhow, just wondering how this stuff works, and if it's up to users to submit additions to articles, what exactly the criteria are? PS...just for the record, I know for a fact Greg Morrison himself would laugh about this whole issue, maybe even be a bit angry at me for trying to put his name on the list. He's far from being a "glory hound" or whatever. But I happen to be one of his older brothers, and I am quite proud of his accomplishments. When I saw that list and some of the supposedly "well known" people on it, and that Greg's name was not on it, I admit that I was at first amused. Then I got a bit annoyed, which was why I tried to add his name. When I saw today that someone had went and decided on their own to remove his name, my initial reaction is simply curiosity, so I'd appreciate hearing why you decided to do this. Thanks.Yo918 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Yo918


 * Hwy43: Thank you for responding to my query. I now understand a bit more about the guidelines and criteria, etc. I noticed also that when you put my brother's name into the search box for Wikipedia that someone else comes up, some composer. After consulting the guidelines for baseball I'm still not totally certain whether Greg would actually qualify as a "notable" resident, though. He did not play any games in the majors, however, he did have one year in the Blue Jays organization that was considered to be quite memorable. In 1997 he won the "triple crown" in the Pioneer League, batting .448 with 23 HRs and 88 RBI in 69 games. I believe the HR record still stands. He not only won the MVP award for the Pioneer League that year, he was actually named the "player of the year" for the entire Toronto Blue Jay minor league system. I know he also played on Canada's national teams at various times, the last two that I recall for sure being in 2003 and 2005 at those World Cup of Baseball things...in one I know he shared duties at 1B with Joey Votto, who I believe was the NL MVP this year. As for "back up info" or whatever it would be called, I just punched in "Greg Morrison Medicine Hat" into the Google search, and quite a few came up. One that sort of summarizes his career is www.baseball-reference.com, if you should be interested. I noticed also that the Wiki entry for "Medicine Hat Blue Jays" actually mentions Greg and his season of 1997. Anyhow, I'm not sure if any of this helps, or if it changes your view in any way. As I said, I myself just recently registered and started using this site...and must say I am VERY impressed! For reference, Wikipedia is great! As a struggling wannabe author I am always looking up things, and as a history buff I also have lots of reference books. But this service is like one-stop shopping, awesome. And I have to say that anyone who takes their own time and energy to help keep it updated and accurate, as you seem to do, should be thanked by those that use it. So, please accept this as my personal appreciation. I realize there was no malice or personal intent behind your edit, and as I said I was just curious as to how this all works. And please, as I am currently not employed fulltime and spend lots of time on my computer, let me know if there are any opportunities you may know about, either paid positions or simply volunteering, and I might be able to also help. Anyhow...thanks for your time, and I hope I am doing this properly (as to how to contact someone else, that is?). I'm unsure, but am I supposed to sign this with just the four marks, or with the marks AND my user name? I'm thinking just the marks? Yo918 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hwy43: Thanks, I appreciate your help on this issue, and also on how to use Wikipedia's talk feature. Have a good one! Yo918 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryley, Alberta
Geez, I can't get anything past you anymore. Thought I'd leave a note here to further explain, since edit summaries aren't always the best place to have a conversation. Decided to come out and visit the family for the weekend, and read this article in the Beaver County Chronicle, which is a weekly supplement written by the county in the Tofield Mercury. It looks like on the county website, that only one page is uploaded, the one containing the important notices, and not the articles. You could ask Beaver County or the Tofield Mercury to mail one out to you, or I could try to scan it and e-mail it to you when I get back home. 117Avenue (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been getting ones past me? I'm embarassed that I'm just now catching on! I see that you've re-cited it based on a hard copy instead of a web link, which is satisfactory. No need to scan and email as I trust you. A couple questions relating to this event... Did the newspaper article actually say amalgamation or dissolution? If the former, I wouldn't be surprised if AMA classifies it as dissolution at the end of that day. Also, I knew that a Ryley CAO left sometime in the middle of 2010. Do you happen to know if they filled that vacancy with a new CAO, only for this CAO to leave right away (hence the December 2010 reference)? Hwy43 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe that didn't come out right, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you, but you are there to catch anything that I might not do correctly. The cite was correct, but the URL was for a different page of the paper. By the way, why did you remove the line on the offices being across the streets from each other? I think that it explains how easy it is for them to share administration, and the possible favouritism over the Village of Holden, due to the proximity. The word Mendoza is reported to have said is amalgamation. The article reads:

Mendoza said the village must deal with its immediate problems by retaining a competent CAO and work towards a sustainable future. If that doesn't happen, he said that Municipal Affairs may force amalgamation.
 * But, I agree with you, it would be dissolution, as the village would become a hamlet. It has been difficult keeping up with all the news there. One CAO left after some controversy at the beginning of 2010, then interim CAO Sherry Garbe came in, and this contract was extended to December 31, but she left December 23. Now resulting in the current interim. 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My opening comment was a tease, just as I presumed your opening comment was a tease.
 * Understood regarding the URL and the lengthier version of the Chronicle in the local paper. I removed the blurb as I felt it was superfluous and overly detailed. You are welcome to re-add it if you feel strongly about it, or replace it with a more general comment about how the county's seat is located in Ryley. I won't stand in your way.
 * Maybe amalgamation was the municipal restructuring process provided by AMA to the mayor. The Town of Lac La Biche/Lakeland County situation turned out to be an amalgamation instead of a dissolution. Or maybe it is intentional use of amalgamation by council instead of dissolution as the latter has a more negative connotation.
 * Thanks for the update on what has transpired over the past year in the CAO position. Hwy43 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also keep in mind, this is the mayor saying this, speculating what AMA would do, I am hoping it won't actually come to amalgamation/dissolution. 117Avenue (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Perhaps the mayor has yet to discuss this with AMA. Hwy43 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberta highway articles
Just so you are aware: A route description is not the same thing as a WP:RJL junction list. A route description is a prose description of the route. --Rschen7754 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello? --Rschen7754 21:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advisement. I'll review this and revisit all articles if necessary.  Problems here were three different usages among all highway article, mile by mile being inappropriate in a metric context, and Km by km being awkward (usage of unit acronyms in a title withour numerical associations). Hwy43 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here your header change was incorrect; the header should be along the lines of "Junction list" or "Major intersections". --Rschen7754 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As indicated, I will review WP:RJL and revisit all, but it will be in a little while. My time at the computer for the moment is no longer. Hwy43 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to start without me, would you consider dropping the major in any headers? The term is POV-based, unless there has been previous consensus on what has been considered major. Hwy43 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been that "Major intersections" are ones with the same class of road way. In other words, a (primary) provincial highway's intersections with other (primary) provincial highways. The header has never been challenged in nearly 30 FACs of US highway articles where the MOS and POV police would have commented in the last 4 years at least once.  Imzadi  1979   →  22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And failing that, the reliable government source detailing the exit points of a highway, or reference points along it for measuring the kms, will indicate certain roads that can be considered "major" for our purposes. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Rschen7754 – I have reviewed WP:RJL. Thank you for apprising me of it. I was unaware that route description was different than a junction list. I will re-sweep the Alberta highway articles and revise accordingly. Questions however:
 * In the four articles you subsequently edited, you used the heading Junction list twice (1A and 29) and Major intersections twice (8 and 10). Any reason why they are different? I'd like to use a consistent heading throughout all articles if possible. I am partial to Junction list, but are there certain situations where Major intersections should be used instead?
 * Is it premature to change the headings in all articles if the summary lists and tables within their respective sections do not yet fully comply with WP:RJL?
 * You didn't do this, but at Hwy 29 the table uses two different colours for three sets of concurrencies, both of which appear to be different colours that the concurrency colour in the table footer. Should all three sets be changed to #ddffdd per WP:RJL?

Imzadi 1979 and Floydian – Thank you confirming there is consensus behind Major intersections and your input respectively. I prefer to avoid the use of the major adjective due to perceived POV unless consensus deems it appropriate otherwise. All – as I continue to sweep Alberta highway articles with iterative improvements, I may call upon you for some advice and I trust you'll contact me if I unknowingly edit contrary to guidelines again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to #1 - apparently WP:CRWP says "Major intersections" so that's what should be used. I believe in the US we use both, and to be honest it doesn't matter. Feel free to convert it to one standard if you want.
 * I'd say it's not a problem. If you have a table that needs to be converted to prose and you don't want to do it just yet use the prose tag to mark it for later.
 * 3 is correct, but it's only the concurrency terminii that get highlighted.
 * As you seem to be working on AB I'll move on to SK - I'm going through the worldwide articles and getting stuff converted to RJL. --Rschen7754 05:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Thanks. I'll go with "Major intersections".
 * 2. I'll strive to eventually convert all summary lists and tables to fully compliant RJLs instead of prose. This will take some time though and I may not get to it immediately.
 * 3. Like this? Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Major is selective in this context. We don't want an indiscriminate list of every single road on a highway that crosses the entirety of the province, we just want the important, or major, intersections. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I seem to recall observing indiscriminate use on one or more articles. I will consult with you when I come across entries that I feel should be deleted. Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. --Rschen7754 06:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Just fine point to confuse the issue, but illustrate the editorial discretion that goes with editing articles. In Michigan, like most other states, we don't list random county roads on state highways. MI has a system of CRs that are numbered in a state-wide system that are listed on the state map. Since MDOT puts them on their map, I include them in RJLs for MI articles. On some highways, that pass through counties that don't participate in the CDH system, I do insert other (primary) numbered CRs, but only as a way to balance the content of the list. It's a bit of a judgement call, and a bit of editorial discretion, but there's a logic and a rationale at work. I will support anything similar in other jurisdictions if the editors have a rationale and it's not a "because I like it" type thing. If there's a reason to make an exception from "normal" practice, you have my support.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My intent is to use Alberta Transportation's Provincial Highways 1–216 Progress Chart, the latest Official Alberta Road Map, and provincial legislation identifying future interchange locations as my primary sources for intersections with other highways and communities, and then drill down further from there if there are other notables. I'll seek the most direction on intersections in urban areas. For example, is an entry for 78 Street in the Town of Peace River on Hwy 2 really necessary? It is neither an intersection with another highway nor an interchange. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the sort of stuff I'd dump. Basically, if the intersecting roadway wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't have its own article, I wouldn't list it in the list. Now, a side note for a moment. if you look at M-78 (Michigan highway), two small points. There are no major junctions in Barry County, but it's still listed in the table. The second point is that the terminal mileage given is the length. That's one way to make sure that all of the counties and the length from the infobox are given in the body of the article some place. That way no one can say that those pieces of information in the lead/infobox are not in the body of the article.  Imzadi  1979   →  08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I’ve completed numerous edits to Alberta highway articles per WP:RJL. My work is ongoing, but I’m at the point now where I would like some direction on intersections in urban areas. I’ll use my namesake (Highway 43) and two hometowns (Fox Creek and Whitecourt) to supply the context.

Which of the following intersections are worthy of being listed in Highway 43’s major intersections list?

Fox Creek (west to east)
 * Kaybob Drive… all-directional, unsignalized, first of only two entrances to the town, also provides access to the Smoke Lake Provincial Recreation Area (PRA), (road to PRA shown on Alberta Official Road Map)
 * 3 Street East… T-intersection, unsignalized, second of only two entrances to the town, also provides access to the Iosegun Lake Provincial Recreation Area (PRA) and the Fox Creek Airport, (road to PRA shown on Alberta Official Road Map)

Whitecourt (northwest to southeast)
 * River Boat Park Road… all-directional, unsignalized
 * 53 Avenue… all-directional, unsignalized
 * 52 Avenue… right-in/right-out to the east
 * 51 Avenue… right-in/right-out to the west
 * future Hwy 43/43X/32 interchange (include per WP:RJL)
 * Highway 32… T-intersection, unsignalized, aside from being a provincial highway it also provides access to the Whitecourt Airport (include per WP:RJL)
 * Mill Road/Govenlock Road… all-directional, first signalized intersection, provides access to Millar Western Sawmill / Pulp Mill to the north and rural residential subdivisions in Woodlands County to the south
 * 51 Street… all-directional, second signalized intersection, first of two entrances to Whitecourt’s central business district
 * 43 Avenue/Hospital Road… right-outs only on either side (in case you are looking at it from Google Earth, this intersection was reconfigured last year)
 * 42 Avenue… all-directional, third signalized intersection (intersection was established last year)
 * Whitecourt Avenue… right-in/right-out to the south
 * Dahl Drive/Pine Road… all-directional, fourth signalized intersection, second of two entrances to Whitecourt’s central business district
 * 38 Avenue… all-directional, unsignalized
 * Park Drive North (37 Avenue)… all-directional, unsignalized
 * Park Drive (34 Avenue)… all-directional, unsignalized
 * 33 Street… all-directional, unsignalized

As noted, at least two of the above should be included per WP:RJL. I have opinions on the remainder, but would like to hear from all of you first.

Also, I have a question about rail crossings. Are the two at-grade crossings listed at Highway 56 (at km 5 and km 231) worthy of being listed as major intersections?

Thanks in advance for your direction. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For Fox Creek, I'd include both. 3 St looks like it leads to all sorts of nuttyness. The other looks like the primary access into the centre of town. For Whitecourt, in addition to the two you noted, I'd include 51st and Dahl. I don't have a Canada wide map, so I'm relying on google maps on making these decisions.
 * Rail crossings sometimes merit inclusion. On Ontario Highway 17, I've included some railway grade seperations and little creeks in barren remote areas where there are no intersections nearby for hundreds of kilometres. Use discretion with them, but I have no definitive answer for you unfortunately. Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  06:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed re: Fox Creek and Whitecourt. The only other in Whitecourt I would include is Mill Road/Govenlock road as it will provide access to the second of three interchanges on the future Highway 43X (southwest bypass of the town). Hwy43 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I stick to intersections with state highway class or higher roadways on non-freeways. I will make exceptions for the CDHs, which are a system of CRs numbered statewide, and a few other oddballs. Lookng at what's in the article currently, I'd reformat that table to match MOS:RJL better, and drop out km markers 7, 86, 124, 132, 159, 175, 187, 242, 288, and 444. Km markers 132 and 422 I'd convert to bridge format if retained. (Bridge format involves using one cell to column span across the destinations/roads intersected column and the notes column. The river name can be used to span the location column(s) as well. See Interstate 75 in Michigan for the Zilwaukee Bridge, Mackinac Bridge and International Bridge listings.)  Imzadi 1979  →   07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note, that means that some locations will not be in the junction list, even though the highway cross through them. M-78 (Michigan highway) shows that the highway runs through 3 counties, but there are no major intersections in the Barry County segment. That's fine. The table is for the major junctions. If there are top-level subdivisions of the state or province that lack them, they still get listed. If a second-level subdivision (city/village/town) is not listed because it doesn't have a major junction, I don't bend the criteria to make it listed. It should be listed in the prose route description anyway.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The km markers you've noted are before my time. Some of these will be future interchanges, (i.e., 7 and 235), while others will be closed as the highway is converted to freeway status (i.e., 282), and other stretches have not yet had interchange locations determined (see, Map 43.1). Kilometre 444 refers to the hamlet, not the nearby train trestle or highway bridge over the Paddle River. I'm on the fence about removing them, so I'll let that stew for a little bit more.


 * I will convert km 132 to bridge format per the example you provided, and add the other notable rivers as well. What do you do however if the bridges simply aren't named though? Span all columns for that row with the wikilinked river name?


 * Re: top and second-level subdivisions, I think I now have a way to communicate that there are no hierarchies of subdivisions in Alberta by comparing the example you provided. I'll bring that up back to our related discussion at Template talk:Infobox road. Hwy43 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Carmangay, Alberta
I agree that the recent rail accident near Carmangay, Alberta may not be notable by itself, but it is probably worth mentioning in the article on the community. If the Transportation Safety Board of Canada eventually publishes a report on the incident, that report would be worth adding as a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My question of enduring notability in my edit summary was based on not recalling coming across similar scale derailments mentioned in other community articles. Maybe there are. I've certainly seen mention of more notable derailments in others (i.e., Hinton). A referenced brief explanation on the cause of the derailment once the report is published, which could be a month to a year away, would probably be appropriate. Hwy43 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of Brome Lake in List of cities in Canada
Hi there.

I saw that you undid my revision to "correct" (I thought of it as a correction!) the name of Brome Lake in the List of cities in Canada. I've justified my action on the talk page, but haven't "re-done" it. Care to comment? If there's no response at all, I'll probably redo it in a couple of days. Hope to chat. AshleyMorton (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Greetings, thanks for dropping a line. I will comment on the talk page of the article in question in response to your new discussion topic there (hopefully this evening). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Alberta Stubs
All the ones I could figure out anyway -- how do you tell which region some of them are in? I couldn't tell based on county or location for a lot of them. Any way to be sure? Aelfthrytha (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean you couldn't tell based on county? Every county/MD article should say in the infobox which region it's in, and every region article has a list of communities. 117Avenue (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Various Alberta place stubs
Hello. You're invited to the Articles for deletion/Various Alberta place stubs discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Invite much appreciated – thank you (likely wouldn't have been aware otherwise). You noted the January 2010 nomination. All those places nominated then are different that what we are seeing now, except for maybe five. I'll explain more later if you would like. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have known about either, if I hadn't added User:AlexNewArtBot/CanadaSearchResult to my watchlist. At the time I thought it may not tell me anything I'd be interested in, but when I saw Alberta on the list a bunch of times, I thought I should take note. 117Avenue (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've added and also noticed the recent creation of Academy, Alberta. Is there a tool to receive direct notifications when certain users create new articles, or does this double as that tool? Hwy43 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats the tool that alerted me as well, although I have the Canada Roads one on my custom information page. Once I noticed a few I went through the user's contributions. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neat. At this time I don't have the wherewithal to create something similar for myself (at least I think I don't). Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what your definition of direct notification is, because whatever you want to see, you would have to navigate to a page. There's the user contributions, for all edits a user makes, and there's http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/ for list of pages a user has created. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That method (navigate → contributions → soxred93) is what I use now, which I find cumbersome. User:AlexNewArtBot/CanadaSearchResult is a significant improvement over that method. Not sure if it catches everything I'd be interested in though. Was just wondering if there was a tool that could automatically watch new articles created by users X, Y, and Z, where I could then unwatch them if they aren't in my area of interest, and correct/improve those that are in my area of interest. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alberta places reversal

 * I'm just disassociating myself from the discussion entirely, cutting my losses. I definitely misunderstood you when you suggested deleting 12 specific articles, a solution which might have spared these from all being relisted separately.  Between the nominator saying "I'm going to leave all of them up" and you saying that you would prefer that the other 20 also be deleted as well, I don't want to get involved with that.  The problem with mass nominations-- which are an appropriate response to mass creations-- is that they inevitably come down to people saying, "delete these but keep those".  In those cases, if someone has made what seems like a reasonable suggestion, based on an evaluation of some sort, then other people endorse it as a good idea, and the person who originally suggested the idea is seen as someone who is leading the way.  I drew the wrong conclusion, and that's my fault-- I shouldn't have written something along the lines of "Like Hwy43 says, delete 12 and keep the other 19 or 20", since that's not what you actually said.  My bad.  Mandsford 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's likely that the 12 named would be deleted. People roll their eyes at the idea that a subdivision called Rolling Hills Estates or whatever is it's own little town.  I was hoping that Floydian would simply take the other 20 off the table, for now, with a statement that he might bring them "back up again later if there's no change in the content".  Chances are, there won't be any change in content-- there never is from people who get some weird thrill out of making 32 or 33 separate pages and giving them a name.  The reality is that most people are not going to look through 32 articles, especially 32 really boring articles, in an effort to double check what another editor has said.  You're to be commended for having looked at them, and people will defer to your opinion as a result.  All you'd have to say on the other 20 is that they aren't neighborhoods, but it's not certain whether they are, or ever were, independent communities.  Then, there's no vote on them and they can come back again.  Mandsford 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Century Estates and Coolidge
Could you please recheck the coords you supplied on Articles for deletion/Various Alberta place stubs for Century Estates and Coolidge. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Coolidge is 54° 35' 12" N 113° 34' 45" W. Can't find one in the CGNDB for Century Estates. It appears I pasted Coolidge's coordinates into the table twice during the research stage for that AfD. If it weren't for that error, the outcome likely would have been delete 13, and keep 19. Renominate? I recall observing during the AfD discussion that it was an anomoly among the 20 as it appeared to be a rural residential subdivision like the 12 others, but never investigated for any research errors. Hwy43 (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, my vote is still delete all. That is why I waited until now to correct the coords, I'll do Bonnyville No. 87 tomorrow. But for consistency sake, Century Estates should be deleted. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I awaited the outcome as well before correcting "unincorporated community" to "unincorporated area" per the CGNDB, which I'm about to do now. Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

McNabb's
Do you know what has happened to McNabb's? There's no mention of it on the 2011 Athabasca County map. Where it is supposed to be (SE-16-65-22), appears to be part of the Hamlet of Colinton. 117Avenue (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at StatCan's mapping, the designated places of McNabb's and Colinton are adjacent. Comparing these boundaries to the county map, both DPLs, as well as the quarter section to the south of McNabb's, comprise the county's boundary for the Hamlet of Colinton. Good find! I'll revise the articles accordingly as soon as possible to reflect this unique relationship. Not sure if McNabb's has always been within the hamlet boundary or if the hamlet boundary was expanded at some point to include McNabb's. Hwy43 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering McNabb's had an entry in the 2006 census, doesn't that mean it was separate than Colinton? It looks like Colinton has annexed/amalgamated with it since then. 117Avenue (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what you are asking is if Athabasca County expanded Colinton's hamlet boundary since 2006. Unknown. Based on past inquiries with StatCan on the designated place program, it is doubtful that the two designated places will be merged into one entry for the 2011 census. StatCan recently advised me that Alberta Finance and Enterprise (AFE) is responsible for soliciting input from stakeholders (i.e., municipalities, Alberta Municipal Affairs, etc) on revisions to Alberta's designated places (additions, deletions, renamings, boundary adjustments, mergers, etc). StatCan advised that AFE did not submit any requested revisions to Alberta's designated places before the deadline for inclusion in the 2011 census. On a related matter, I've noticed that designated place and hamlet boundaries are not coincident for numerous communities in Alberta. Some are larger than established hamlet boundaries, some are smaller, some vary back and forth, and few are exactly coincident. I'd like to see all provincially-recognized hamlets included in StatCan's designated places program with boundaries coincident to those established in accordance with the applicable provincial legislation. Hwy43 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, we don't say that McNabb's is apart of Colinton, and that McNabb's still exists? 117Avenue (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We do now (edits just completed). Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is a really interesting relationship. Is this correct now? 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, first of its kind found as of yet. Yes, that is correct now. Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the map, please also look at the fine print under the copyright in the lower right corner. Land Ownership derived from municipal tax data, September 16, 2010. Hence the title of 2010 Land Ownership Map in the upper left corner of the map despite it last being dated March 3, 2011. Hwy43 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The dang thing was so big I had to zoom in to find these communities. My computer remembered this setting and never zoomed out in any of the re-downloads. I remember going to the legend box for the creation date, that I forgot there was a title at the top. 117Avenue (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So there are two variants of the title in two locations. All three articles now use the smaller title in the lower right corner. Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Aghh! Good enough, I'm going to bed. 117Avenue (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bon nuit! Hwy43 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cypress County
What's wrong with County, State, USA? Those areas are all three: separate county, separate province/state, separate country. What's your reasoning for undoing my edit? 98.221.120.104 (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

...And also...since when do we put provincial and state abbreviations in parentheses? It looks strange. 98.221.120.104 (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Initially I undid the revision for two reasons. First, was consistency. Adding the state for the two directions (southwest and south), yet not the province for the northeast, east, and southeast directions (all in Saskatchewan) was inconsistent. Second, inclusion of the state and country is redundant. By simply clicking the Hill County wikilink, the reader would learn from the article's opening sentence that Hill County is within Montana in the United States. After undoing, I reviewed Template:Geographic location. The example ended up showing that different provinces/states should be recognized, but in parentheses. Therefore, I re-added the state and added the province based on the example, but abbreviated them to minimize clutter within the published template. As there already was a significant amount of text in this template, including the full name would reduce readability to a greater extent than using the abbreviations. As for the country, the inclusion of it remains redundant as clicking either the Hill County wikilink of the MT wikilink both promptly advise they are in the US. (Note the template example does not show an example where a municipality is adjacent to an international border.) Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the Saskatchewan counties and municipalities should be labeled as such. I also think the template should be clear at a glance without the need to click on the links.  "Hill County" without Montana, USA seems to imply that Hill County is within Alberta, Canada, when it's not. 98.221.120.104 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * With the state now abbreviated within parentheses, the template no longer unintentionally implies Hill County is in Alberta. I've reviewed how the template is applied in numerous locations along the international border. The only consistency I observed was inconsistency. Might I suggest that you raise this issue at Template talk:Geographic location in an effort to build consensus on how to apply this template along the Canada/US border? Hwy43 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hussar, Alberta
I'm new to wikipedia and I included historical information about Hussar, Alberta for which I noted you removed, this information comes from the Hussar history book as well it is verified by the Glenbow Museum. Did I do something wrong? I also live in the Hussar area do you? Ebdavison (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my message on your talk page, welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your contributions to the opening paragraph at Hussar, Alberta as the new content was unreferenced, lacking an inline citation to verify the new content. Based on the explanation in your message above, it appears your contributions to the opening paragraph were made in good faith. I encourage you to re-add the content with an inline citation using a citation template. I recommend citing the book you mention above. See this edit as an example of how I used the "book" version of the citation template in two locations at Windfall, Alberta. Hope this helps. Also, I don't live in the Hussar area. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Article-specific discussions
Thank you for clearing things up from your perspective. I've been with Wikipedia for the past 3+ years or so, and I've always posted discussions on WikiProjects instead just since more people follow the WikiProjects more than the articles itself, and most people who following articles related to the WikiProject follow the WikiProject also, but not vice versa. I should check next time to see if the discussion has already arisen on the article's talk page first before-hand. Thanks again. --  K.Annoyomous  (talk)   06:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Calder, Edmonton
The coordinates from the GeoNames query you provided as a reference indicate a point in the Calder railway yard, outside the residential neighbourhood. AFAICT either that facility was the intended target, or rounding to the nearest minute caused the shift. The district isn’t very large, one mile E–W by half a mile N–S; its southern boundary is defined in the article as 127 Avenue, which is at 53.585° N, and the present location is at least 150 m south of that. Would you object to my reverting your edit? —Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you explain the above at Talk:Calder, Edmonton for the benefit of the article's other watchers, I would not oppose. I'd also recommend wikilinking this discussion in your edit summary for the benefit of others as well.
 * On a side, I notice that the article is silent on the neighbourhood boundary also including those lands south of 127 Avenue between 124 Street and 127 Street. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the CGNDB coordinates still do not fall within this portion of the neighbourhood anyway. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for help
I know you're more involved with Alberta articles but I've been looking for help re-writing and expanding the introduction for St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the only thing stopping it from being GA. I don't know if this is something you're interested in doing or know of where I could get help with getting it re-wrote. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me. Other commitments at the moment won't allow the time to undertake a sustained and concerted effort. I may have more free time in two or three weeks to take a close look. Hwy43 (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Brome Lake
Well, I didn't actually change it, as such — it was already being listed and linked at the Brome Lake title, and I just moved where it appeared in the list so that it was alphabetized under B for Brome instead of L for Lac. There's not really a whole lot of value in double-barrelling the list to include both the French and English names — especially in cases like Montreal, where the only difference is the accent — because the rationale about government sources would only apply if you thought that people were going to go from the list directly to the StatsCan database by themselves, without clicking on our article as an intermediate step — but even if you think that we should include both names, we should still be listing and alphabetizing them by the name at which our article is actually located first, and then alternative names in brackets, rather than the other way around. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily object to putting alternative names like Lac-Brome in parentheses — but the primary name, the one that's listed first and the one which determines where it belongs in alphabetical order, should be the name at which our article is actually located. (And it's not necessary to do "Montreal (Montréal)" or "Montréal (Montreal)" either, but that's another story.) So I don't fundamentally object to including the French name in the list — but if it's done, it should be Brome Lake (Lac-Brome), rather than Lac-Brome , if we're keeping the article itself at the "Brome Lake" title. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello my urban friend
Was thinking the GA nomination for Ottawa will do better now. I was going to change the pop totals for each area in the "Neighbourhoods and outlying communities" section. I cant find the numbers as that are in the article - as I have found this, that show differnt numbers. Should we change all this? Moxy (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have completed a significant amount of work at Ottawa over the past couple of months. Keep it up! In your efforts, have you been specifically addressing these GA nomination issues? Frankly, I don't feel inclusion of populations in parentheses within the Neighbourhoods and outlying communities section is necessary. Even should others feel differently, all the current populations shown should be removed pursuant to WP:CANSTYLE. It should also be noted that the “Neighbourhood” sections for Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary do not include any neighbourhood populations. If populations published by a government source were available, their usage would be more appropriate in List of Ottawa neighbourhoods (where it appears six of the 22 unreferenced population totals for the nbhds/communities may have been transferred from in the first place) and/or their own individual articles. They should be used with caution though, being specifically described as estimates. On a quick side, it has been observed that the City of Ottawa's Research and Forecasting Unit has been prone to over-estimating population. Its 2006 estimate of the city's population in the reference you found is 65,000 greater than the 2006 federal census count. Returning to the matter at hand, I think all the population numbers should be removed from this section, and that the different numbers you've found be considered at List of Ottawa neighbourhoods. Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Numbers removed - and as for GA stuff yes I have done mosts I think.Moxy (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Moxy, I have some observations about the "Historical populations" table at Ottawa. The 2001 and 2006 populations from the StatCan sources are based on the city's current boundaries. The 1881 and 1891 populations from the 1891 census source are based on the boundaries of the city in 1881 and 1891. However, the 1901-1991 populations from the City of Ottawa source do not appear to be based on the city boundaries as they existed at the years of each census interval. For example, the 1901 census reports Ottawa's population was 59,928 in 1901 (refer PDF page "100 of 598" or page 22 of Volume 1 here). The City of Ottawa source reports its 1901 population to have been 101,102. Further, the 1996 StatCan community profile for Ottawa reports the city's population was 313,987 in 1991 (and 323,340 in 1996). The city source reports its populations in 1991 and 1996 to have been 678,147 and 721,135 respectively. I suspect that the City of Ottawa used some sort of methodology to adjust its historic 1901-1996 census populations to reflect its post-amalgamation city boundaries, but this can't be verified since the City of Ottawa doesn't elaborate on its metholodolgy. As a result, the "Historical populations" table uses different methodologies, resulting in deflated figures prior to 1901 or inflated values between 1901 and 1991 inclusive. Due to this, ideally the table should be revised to reflect only one methodology. I can think of two options – removing the populations for the years prior to 1901, or revising the 1901-1991 populations to reflect city's boundaries as they existing at each of these intervals. Thoughts? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think people will only realy care about the older numbers noone will care about 1901-1996 - at best we should find other source for 1901- 1996 (LIKE Canada Year Book Historical Collection). Removing prior to 1901 will not wok to well since this are the numbers used in the article its self.Moxy (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. If we can't find online sources for all the censuses, I can review census documents at the local library, which is what I've done for Alberta's urban municipalities here. Once the table is updated, we should include a footnote within the table explaining that amalgamation is the explanation for the jump from 313,987 in 1991 to 774,072 in 2001. Hwy43 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Population
I don't think it should be a problem, as long as the site is listing data properly referenced to the sources. It would be problematic if you were sourcing text to a self-published site that contained factual errors or statements of opinion, but if it's simply a compilation of demographic data that's properly referenced to the original reports, it should be fine. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Place names
While there is some flexibility in edge cases, our general rule when it comes to community/neighbourhood naming is to consult Canada Post's mailing address database — if the place is officially recognized as a distinct mailing address in its own right, then it goes to "Community, Province", and if it's not, then it goes to "Community, City". So the question would be, if you were sending mail to someone who lived in Forest Lawn, would you address it to "123 Any Street, Forest Lawn, AB", or "123 Any Street, Calgary, AB"?

However, even if the titles do get stuck at Calgary by that criterion, there's still another option you may want to consider, which would be to take the former municipalities category off the main articles, and put it on the "Community, Alberta" redirects instead. Under WP:RCAT rules, this is an appropriate approach to take in cases where the main title doesn't fit the categories as well as the redirected title does, but the main title is still the more appropriate place for the article under our main naming conventions. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, ha. Sorry, I misunderstood your question a bit and thought you were asking if the articles should be moved — I see now that you were asking if you should do exactly what I suggested above. Duh, that'll teach me to read too quickly! Bearcat (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 986
I thank you for creating articles on the four 900 series highways. However, I fail to see the notability for Highway 986. When I was creating the articles, I established three notability criteria for the 500 to 899 series highways. It must be at least one of; 1. meeting with Calgary or Edmonton, 2. at least 220km long, or 3. meet general notability guidelines (the rarity of 666). The first three 900 highways are 1 to 216 series realignments, so I see the need for them, but 986 is a 686 extension, which doesn't have an article, so why would its extension? 117Avenue (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have found no guidelines on WP for determining notability of Canadian highways, and am unaware if the methodology provided above for determining Alberta highway notability has been previously discussed within WP. Notwithstanding, all 900 series highways in Alberta are notable for numerous reasons.


 * 1) There is only four of them, whereas there are 80 in the 500 series, 74 in the 600, 63 in the 700, and 79 in the 800.
 * 2) Two are east/west while two are north/south. The former two could have just as easily been numbered within the 500 and 600 series, while the latter two could have within the 700 and 800 series based on their respective directions.
 * 3) The 900 series highways were all under the jurisdiction of AT before they took back jurisdiction of the 500-899 highways from the rural municipalities, making them unique from the 500-899 highways.
 * Based on the above, justification for notability of 986 should not be necessary. However, there is the Northern Alberta East-West Corridor. Once fully constructed, Highway 986 and 686 will be the only east/west corridor between the Mackenzie Highway and Highway 63. It will link the Peace Country to Fort McMurray, also linking oil sands activities in the Fort McMurray, north Wabasca, and northeast Peace River areas. The functional planning study for the remaining portion of Highway 686 to Fort McMurray was recently completed. The alignment is now designated by AT, and reflected on their mapping accordingly. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with all 500-986 highways in Alberta having their own articles in the absence of notability guidelines within the scope of WP:CRWP. Hwy43 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relating to this, I've been meaning to advise that I’ve been unable to find reliable sources to confirm any content within the lead of List of Alberta provincial highways. Have you found any? Without sources, it is predominantly speculation based on past observations. Therefore, referring to the three other 900 highways as “1 to 216 series realignments" is speculation until we can find a reliable source confirming they will be renumbered to the 1-216 series in the future. By the way, I do recall previously contributing to this speculation, but I see it differently now upon further reflection. Since AT has taken jurisdiction back over the 500-899 highways, it is unknown if the 900 highways will be reassigned to the 1-216 series in the future. Once the extension of Highway 686 is fully constructed, it is also unknown if the Northern Alberta East-West Corridor will retain the current 986 and 686 numbering, or be changed to either 986, 686, or 86 in its entirety. Presuming any of these outcomes at this time be speculative. Hwy43 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The west/east corridor is a very good reason, and that explanation should be added to the article. Regarding a reference, you can never find a reference for things in the future. And as for what is planned to happen, it may be difficult to find one in something as complex as AT, with people coming and going. This is also why I think some were given a 9, and others an X. All we can do is note the similarities in the similar numbered highways. 117Avenue (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Initial content about the east/west corridor has been added. I plan to research and add more info once found. I have content for 901 and 947 that will be added soon. I've yet to come across anything for 921. As for future plans, I wish AT would publish more of its "public" information on its website. Do you know if they have their own library open to the public? Hwy43 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see now that you added it before I made the comment. No clue about the library, (not that I haven't tried to be hired by AT). 117Avenue (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Municipality
Thank you for helping to clear things up at Municipality. BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. As you may recall, I previously advised I would do my part. I drafted the revisions to the Canada portion at that time, but lost them somehow before adding them. I have a few more revisions coming. Hwy43 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ridge Valley?
Hello. You recently created the page Ridge Valley, Alberta as a redirect to itself. I'm sure this is not what you intended to do, but I haven't been able to find the correct target article myself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Typo on my part. It was meant to target Ridgevalley, Alberta. Thanks for noticing. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Time in No. 349
I suspect that because CFB Cold Lake is based in Alberta, the unpopulated, cross-border Cold Lake Air Weapons Range observes time with Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I share the same suspicion for the AB portion. Unsure about the SK portion based on these maps, although I doubt it matters since the entire range is unpopulated as far as we know. Hwy43 (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe those maps, the Lloydminster bubble is bigger than shown, Maidstone, follows Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No question the maps are conceptual. Not only is the bubble bigger than shown, it should be further north. The tiny divot shown appears to be at the same latitude of Red Deer or even further south, when it should be at about the same latitude as Edmonton. Try this instead. Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That map makes sense. I followed the link on Time in Saskatchewan to http://www.municipal.gov.sk.ca/publications/SaskTime, and oddly the Saskatchewan government doesn't provide a map. 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Peculiar and unfortunate that SK doesn't provide a map. The 2006 Mapquest Road Atlas shows the same boundary in the Lloydminster area as Canadian Geographic. Further to the north, the atlas shows the time zone boundary bisecting the range coincident with the provincial border. Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Calgary & Banff
Thanks for your help with the citation on the Calgary page about Calgary's status in relation to Banff tourism. As a fairly inexperienced editor, I really appreciate it -- this problem had me quite vexed and you showed up with a straightforward answer. Doh! And thanks again! Country Wife (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I wanted to say that I agree with your comment that the statement was self-evident, as were these ones where the citation needed tags were removed. Hwy43 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Keraunos
Thanks for the barnstar. I was wondering if you saw it. Strange that we haven't heard back from him, I was expecting a reply, or a comment here. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Missed that as I was away that weekend. When reviewing the watchlist upon my return, I didn't see it among the flurry of activity on your talk page involving the two other topics. Hwy43 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for placing the hypertext on my talk page
Thank you for placing the hypertext on my Talk page, but no reason to delete article links so quickly. After skimming them (both seemed long) they didn't appear obviously useful to that article to me either. Happy editing. (",) 99.190.82.204 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Rocky Lane, Alberta
Hello there, I appreciate your recent message. However, I believe you have a misunderstanding regarding the community of Rocky Lane, Alberta. Being a long time resident of this community I know for a fact that it extends greater than the Boyer Indian Reservation. Yes, this reserve is within the limits of Rocky Lane, but so is the Child Lake Reserve, which is located in the east end of Rocky Lane. I do not mean to start a debate, but I am personally related to some of the individuals that first settled this community. In fact there is an entire book dedicated to the rich history of this unique community. I am fairly certain it would not be available online, but I could try and find the title and author if this is of any interest to you. Thank you for your interest in Rocky Lane. Nicole Hayday (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to respond in detail at this time, but will when once my other commitments have passed. Hwy43 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is understood that your edits were made in good faith. However, I would like to explain a few things. Note this is not intended to discourage. It is intended to explain why I have reverted your edits. I see that I am not the only one to have reverted them either. First and foremost, Rocky Lane is a locality on the Boyer 164 Indian reserve as confirmed by Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada is a reliable source. In general, removing a referenced fact on article from a reliable source should never be done. Second, a phone interview with a resident is neither a reliable nor published source, and the act of interviewing a resident constitutes original research. No original research is one of Wikipedia's core policies, which states that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. If there is a larger surrounding rural area within Mackenzie County named Rocky Lane, content could be added to this article so long as it is supported by reliable, published sources, and so long as the content does not remove the fact that Rocky Lane is a locality on the Boyer 164 Indian reserve. The reference you provided for "Both the Boyer and the Ponton River flow through the community of Rocky Lane" does not confirm or support this sentence. Notwithstanding, the references you provided for the content relating to sports and recreation do support this content. I can re-add. A couple other things of note: "municipal district 23" no longer exists (it is now known as Mackenzie County), and Indian reservation is an American term and is incorrect for this article (the Canadian equivalent and correct term is Indian reserve). Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Relatively new to this, thanks for the heads up and the improvements. South Fish Creek Activist (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-redirect
You created Lynburn, Alberta, a self-redirect. I assume you meant to point it somewhere more useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed somewhere more useful was intended. Thanks for noticing and advising. It is now fixed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)