User talk:P.T. Aufrette/archive2

archive1

Template:INR
Hey, I have no clue what you did in your edit, but now nobody sees the new Rupee symbol, just boxes. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder which operating system you are using, and which version? Perhaps it hasn't been updated?  In any case, thanks for the feedback, I will revert to the prior version and try the change again in a year or so, after more people have updated their operating systems. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Heya, I [and most of the users of Wikiproject India], use Windows XP with either IE6/7, Opera 11 or Firefox 5+. Some use Mac, some use Linux. Do I need to do any software update? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't be necessary. The change was reverted, so the problem should go away (if any page still shows the old version, it will change when you edit the page). In general though, it's a good idea to keep operating systems up to date, but it wouldn't be a requirement in order to be able to use Wikipedia. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, a note that most entry level phones don't support this unicode character too. Infact, several Android devices don't support it as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that's useful information. It's a pity that many manufacturers of Android devices don't provide operating system upgrades. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand 10 cent coin
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of New Zealand 10 cent coin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://uk.ask.com/wiki/New_Zealand_20_cent_coin.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is just a mirror of the New Zealand 20 cent coin, which the newly-created New Zealand 10 cent coin obviously resembles. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand 5 cent coin
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on New Zealand 5 cent coin, appears to be directly copied from http://uk.ask.com/wiki/New_Zealand_20_cent_coin. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on New Zealand 5 cent coin if necessary. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Same as above -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prime Ministers
Rather than reverting back and forth please comment at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Gérard L'Éveque
Oy vey. Now I'm just confused. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacques Rose


The article Jacques Rose has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 11:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Régent Millette
WP:POLITICIAN is quite specific that in most circumstances a politician has to actually hold an elected office to be notable enough for an article on here; with rare exceptions such as John Turmel, who's notable because he is actually listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world record holder for the most elections run in and lost by any single person in world history, a person is not notable just for running for office, even repeatedly. And the article does not make any credible case that Millette is notable enough to be one of those exceptions — if you can add further evidence indicating that he's more notable than the existing article would suggest, then feel free to do so, but as written, the article does not demonstrate that he's notable enough for an independent article.

And at any rate, redirects can be instituted at any time, and it is not necessary to go to AFD for permission. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Out of all the articles cited as references, there isn't a single one which actually constitutes substantial coverage of Millette as an individual; there are articles which mention his name in passing, but not a single one of them is actually about him as a topic in his own right. For example, a politician isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because you can reference it to the actual table of ballot counts on a page of election night coverage — the fact that his name appears in the table isn't sufficient if the page doesn't contain any meaningful information about him. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true that the list format has been problematic in the past for that very reason; candidates who run more than once may have their "biographical" information placed in an article that doesn't correspond to the particular election you want to link from. There's also the ongoing problem of actually keeping them clean, since people have far too often taken the list format as a license to post the very same kind of unsourced or poorly sourced campaign brochures that we were trying to avoid in the first place. In truth, the lists are supposed to look more like this — although not all of the older lists have actually been converted yet — and then instead of just linking directly to Régent Millette, one would link to the appropriate list for the relevant election, since he'd be named, and the information relevant to that particular election given, in each individual list. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Marcel Lussier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Damase, Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello bot. It is very likely the one in Montérégie, and the French Wikipedia article links to that one, but to verify it would probably require original research. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Senate
Hi, the page needs work, not speedy deletion. It's most certainly notable, and multiple other pages will need to be created to fill in a current gap in wikipedia coverage. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you did not wait for my response before issuing the Speedy, I'm going to recreate the page. Next time you want to speedy something, consult first, then nominate. TTFN. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You could have saved yourself the bother with a note saying hey - are you going to do something about it? If you'd prefer stubs with next to no information I can do that. I'll fill it out when work is less busy. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your help with the disambigs. Only 34 more pages. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John William Ritchie on pl.wikipedia.org
Hi! You have changed date of death to 18 december. On en.wikipedia there are two references ( and, each giving other date (13/12/1890 and 18/12/1890). Do you know which one is correct? (please answer on pl.wiki: here) --Winiar (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Mulcair
I always thought the big bold letters at the top of the infobox should match the article title (Thomas Mulcair instead of Thomas J. Mulcair). If his birthname was simply Thomas Mulcair, and he was known as Thomas Mulcair, I agree the infobox shouldn't bother with the birth name section. The J makes the difference to me. I do not know, however, what the official policy is on this, or guideline. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the sentence. But we're not writing a sentence, just an infobox field. Two different things. Anyway, I'm certainly not going to revert on this over Thomas Mulcair... All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

George Buchanan Foster
Hello,

When I created this article, it was my understanding that both father and son were Canadian senators, each in their turn? Was I incorrect in that?

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So then you have saved me from error, for which I am grateful, and Wikipedia is thereby improved. Thanks much.

A monolingual Yank, Georgejdorner (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

João Bráz de Aviz on pl.wiki
Hi! There's already a page (redirect): João Bráz de Aviz. I'm not sure which version is correct - in references both can be found (see:, , ) --Winiar (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gédéon Ouimet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party of Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello. I noticed that you have been active in the Quebec-related articles. Perhaps you would be interested in joining one of the wikiprojects? --MTLskyline (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

SCref
Hey - fantastic job on fixing and updating the SCref template! Mind matrix  16:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks... -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of boroughs in Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to LaSalle, Lachine, Saint-Laurent, Saint-Léonard, Ville-Marie and Outremont


 * Ahuntsic (provincial electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Crémazie (provincial electoral district)


 * List of municipalities in Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outaouais


 * List of township and united township municipalities in Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outaouais

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Untitled section
Hello. I noticed that you've suppressed easily verifiable information regarding candidates for the upcoming Quebec general election. Why are you doing this? Any of this information can be found on the applicable parties' websites. The only point here is to have it on Wikipedia so that people can more easily access it all at once. With all the corruption and scandal going on in the current Quebec government, do you really want to put your reputation on the line by suppressing verifiable information? Please leave it alone. Wikipedia is not your personal property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.200.68 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken, I have no involvement. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

List of census divisions of Canada by population
Could I ask you to hold off on editing List of census divisions of Canada by population for a few minutes? The list had to be resorted to the 2011 rankings instead of the 2006 ones, but that's taken me about an hour and a half to do, and because you've made several edits to the article since I started doing it I either have to scratch all my work and start over again, or blow all of your edits out of the water and then go back and reapply them manually — so it would really help if you could wait for a bit before making further changes. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I was pretty much done, except I noticed just now that the "was" data in the 2006 column prevented numeric sorting. I was going to add an additional column to put the "was" text into.  There are only about a dozen places where the "was" references go, I can reapply them manually. Let me know when you're done. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just finished updating the article and then reapplying your intermediate changes, so everything's back to normal now and you can do whatever else you want or need to again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, great, thanks. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. When you recently edited John Hale (Canadian politician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Caldwell and Halifax, Nova Scotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite DCB
cite encyclopedia will not work as expected for  if last is set to an empty string



But when  is removed   behaves as expected.

By using the construction I have put in place, one does not need to know what the underlying code is for cite encyclopedia or worry in the future if the logic around some of the parameters is changed. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the clarification. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see Template talk:Cite DCB -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Abacus Data


A tag has been placed on Abacus Data requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mrmatiko (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Abacus Data for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abacus Data is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abacus Data until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Former cities/boroughs of Montreal
Bonjour. I just wanted to point out to you that the "neighbourhood/communities" section of WP:CANSTYLE states in part: "Where a neighbourhood is recognized as a distinct and valid municipal address by Canada Post (see address lookup here), the title may be at Neighbourhood, Province rather than Neighbourhood, City (e.g. East York, Ontario; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia). Such neighbourhoods were usually once autonomous municipalities that have since been annexed or amalgamated, or are semi-autonomous municipalities (e.g. Montreal's boroughs)." That naming convention was the result of a fairly lengthy discussion/consensus. While my inclination is to agree with you (all neighbourhoods/communities should be at Neighbourhood, City ), that is not the current convention (sadly). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the boroughs of Quebec City were all already at X, Quebec City. I too think it's more logical that way, but in any case, I wanted the X, Montreal variants not to be redlinks, and the easiest way to do that was to move them to their seemingly logical destination. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And I don't disagree with your logic, but when the naming convention was discussed, we unfortunately couldn't convince the majority of editors that common mailing addresses ≠ good Wikipedia title names.  Oh well.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Arthabaska (electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, Quebec


 * Beauharnois (provincial electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, Quebec


 * Bellechasse (provincial electoral district) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, Quebec


 * Charlevoix–Côte-de-Beaupré (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to L'Ange-Gardien, Quebec

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! 76.65.57.182 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Bearian's deletion log
Bearian (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jct
We already added a set of parameters to the template that should address the needed functionality. They are the  parameters that allow the input of linked or unlinked locations like Mackinac Bridge (used as a destination along several of Michigan's freeways) or "Other Desert Cities" (used in California, no link would be appropriate).  Imzadi 1979  →   21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's less convenient for users because it requires using the template, which ordinary users shouldn't be expected to know about.  For instance:
 * It's more natural to write this as:
 * -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It does actually work with just the | rather than | . -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, so it does. I thought I tried it without the and it didn't work, but I must have gotten two different editing experiments mixed up in my head.  Oh well.  OK then. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rivière-Windigo, Quebec
Hey - try not to use bare URLs as refs, use or some template of the sort. (See Bare URLs) Cheers!  " Pepper "  @ 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Atkinson
Hi, thanks for your work on Atkinson. Unfortunately the article had been riddled with vandalism the day before by a random IP. As it wasn't picked up, your valid corrections were mixed up with bogus nonsense. I reverted the vandalism, but as I don't know the subject's life and work I can't properly re-add your work. I suspect that your impulse to edit the page came from seeing the vandalism in the first place. You could, perhaps, copy and paste your text back in with not so much difficulty as you know what's what. Thanks and best wishes Span (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was a mis-revert on my part. I was alerted by additions such as


 * "He was a gentleman enjoyed life to the fullest, from a top of his horse, Sir Harry, or his Massey Ferguson 168 tractor building fences, or making friends. Gordon Atkinson had a fascination about each individual person. He considered himself an Answer man, ad took it upon himself to make attempts at settling injustices be it from the Oka Crisis, to the English Language and Alliance Party in Quebec."


 * Most of the adds were nonsense or at best unsourced and original. I would just take the whole lot out and re-add ref'd changes as you see fit. Span (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Sorry about the confusion. Span (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quebec infoboxes
Why are you changing standard degree/minutes format for coordinates (that match CTQ) to decimal degrees? Also, the use of the word "constitution/constituted" in the "established" line of the infobox has little meaning for average readers. It usually represents the date of incorporation, so it would be better to use that word. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The words "constituted" and "constitution" are used in the official English translation of AN ACT RESPECTING MUNICIPAL TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, and correspond to the term used in French (eg, for Lawrenceville, "Date de constitution" = 1905-04-27.  So this is actually the official term applicable to Quebec.  Incorporation doesn't apply, in that the word "corporation" in the names of municipalities was specifically struck out (see c. 19, s. 270).  It seems better to use "constituted", since it's a verb, and "constitution" has another much more common meaning in English. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the location, the official MAMROT database (eg, the above link for Lawrenceville) gives a specific address for every municipality, usually city hall or municipal building, so it is useful to extract the latitude and longitude for this from Google Maps and set the  field to the address and the   and   to the corresponding nearly exact latitude and longitude.  At least this will be a useful starting point for exploring the municipality via Google Street View or similar online tools, rather than an approximate latitude and longitude that might be in some field or lake. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, but the fact remains that "constituted" really means municipal incorporation. This conveys a clearer idea to the average reader of what is meant, which, IMO, is better than trying to match terminology of legal documents that have little bearing on the real world. As for coordinates, it's an established practice to avoid over-precision for cities/municipalities (see MOS:COORDS) or use documented coordinates from published sources (such as Commission de toponymie du Québec). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "constituted" is not some incomprehensible legal jargon, it's actually an understandable English word. It's the word chosen by the government translators who translated the law into English; they must have considered other choices of wording and consciously rejected them.  "Incorporation" in particular seems definitely wrong, since no municipality in Quebec is ever referred to as "the corporation of the city of X", like in some other jurisdictions; clause 270 of the law specifically strikes out any former such wording in the official name of any Quebec municipality.  Why not go with the actual jurisdiction-appropriate terminology?   A Canadian province is like a US state, but we still call it a province.  This seems like the same thing. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding precision, there is a "seconds of arc" field provided for the non-decimal form, which is within the nearest 31 meters; specifying within 0.0001&deg; is roughly the same order of magnitude of precision. If   specifies a street address, this is not too precise.  The benefit of a street-address   is that the town hall usually represents the core of the municipality, and some readers will want to click on the coordinates and then proceed to follow links like Google Street View or aerial view and walk through the streets in whatever passes for a downtown in a given municipality.  The benefit of being able to do so outweighs the inconvenience of seeing one or two extra digits in the coordinate display.  Reading MOS:COORDS, I actually read that as a suggestion not to use more than four decimal digits, or fractions of a second of arc.  If second-of-arc precision was never appropriate, there would not be   or   fields provided.  Regarding documented coordinates, a street address represents documented coordinates in effect, because it is trivial (a matter of seconds) to verify the latitude and longitude corresponding to it (eg, in Google Maps, using "What's here", and Bing Maps probably has something similar); a few years ago, that would not have been the case.
 * When the Commission de toponymie du Québec specifies coordinates, they often do so only to the nearest minute of arc; that is, only within 1.86 km. See for instance here for Grenville, Quebec.  However for some of the small village municipalities, their total surface area is small (Grenville is only 2.81 km2, which would correspond, if square-shaped, to a square with sides of 1.68 km.  The Commission de Toponymie coordinates represent an earlier-generation dataset that is not really compatible with aerial views and street views and Google Earth flythroughs, because they might land you in some farmer's field a kilometer away from the heart of the municipality.  We have the capability to provide something better. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are changing a lot of long established infobox conventions. I'll move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quebec to get greater consensus. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi P.T. Aufrette. First, I appreciate the work you are doing to try and make every infobox consistent (let's see if we can do that all Canada ;-)). I replied to your post on my talk page with bold text and ALLCAPS inside the infobox. As for the coordinates, I like to see less precision, pointing to the approximate centre of the territory. Anyway, we have to allow for more time on the WikiProject page, say, till the end of April? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi P.T. Aufrette. I have been away for a while but I can now resume updating articles. I noticed that you just updated Rivière-au-Tonnerre, Quebec. I wanted to recommend a few more things: if the Canada census box is used, why duplicate the change and dwellings in the settlement infobox? It makes this box so long. And since the Canada census box already shows the last 3 census populations, I think there is no need to repeat it again in the population list below it.
 * BTW, nice articles for Rivière-Koksoak, Quebec and Baie-d'Hudson, Quebec. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am just trying to make things consistent across all the municipality articles, and many of them already had the change and dwellings, so by default I settled on adding that feature to the articles that didn't have it. I am grabbing the data from StatCan and filling in the infobox in a semi-automated way, so it requires no extra effort.  I agree that dwellings might be a bit of overkill, but I kind of like the one-line percentage change.  Maybe we can try to survey what others think about it?  It can be removed in an automated way across all articles if there's consensus for that.  I'm not really a fan of the Canada census box, it seems a bit cluttered and hard to read at a glance, and one problem is that there is limited room for horizontal expansion.  I think the key figure is population, and there it's nice to see the figures go back to 1991, which you can't do with a horizontal format.  In any case, I'm not adding population lists to articles that don't have them, but where they already exist I simply add a line for 2011, again in a semi-automated way. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Lawrenceville, Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brome-Missisquoi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Based on your thorough investigation here, I have discovered additional issues and launched a contributor copyright investigation. I suspect that by the time we are done with it, many more issues will be discovered and addressed. Appreciate your careful approach there! Many people just remove the one they stumble upon and leave it at that, which (obviously) can leave a mess that we don't know about. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. When you recently edited Lac-Despinassy, Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abitibi-Ouest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about testiness at Martin Cech. You're right, I have deleted the comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unicode and INR template
Hi, what is the unicode for the new ₹ symbol? How do I get it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's U+20B9, so you can create it by typing in.
 * Here it is: &#x20b9;
 * Here it is again: ₹

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey, thanks. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi P.T. Aufrette, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hauterive
Thank you for looking closer. You saved me the effort of having to explain it in detail. Hwy43 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

List of designated places in Quebec
Hi P.T. Aufrette, I recently started the above article. Given your interest in the similar List of population centres in Quebec article, I thought you might be interested in auditing the wikilinks to the various designated places to avoid redirects, where applicable, and resolving any redlinked designated places that may have articles at other titles. Any effort to help, if you have the interest and the time, would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at the article's talk page. In short: it might be hard to make a useful list out of this. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Designated places
I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I've noted at Talk:List of designated places in Quebec that I solved the Amqui mystery. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

selective edit
I err'd in reverting both edits at Dénes Lukács (tennis). But I could not keep the Baylor info in the "undo" as it was in the same edit where important things were removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Montréal–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
May I ask why you made this a separate article? Elections Quebec considers it to be the same riding as Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, it has a similar name and kept the same MNA. Were there significant boundary changes? --Noname2 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The National Assembly website lists them all separately, see Les membres de l'Assemblée nationale par circonscription or Les résultats électoraux depuis 1867.


 * Similarity of names can sometimes be misleading. For instance, when Mégantic-Compton was formed, none of its territory came from the newly-defunct Mégantic; when Viger disappeared, its territory was carved up three ways, and only about a third of it went into Jeanne-Mance–Viger.  In the case of Montréal–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I believe its territory went to Marguerite-Bourgeoys and Marquette in addition to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but I don't know in what proportions.


 * In general, even if maps were readily available online (which they usually aren't for old ridings), it would often be a judgment call and a matter of subjective interpretation to determine if a riding in a new electoral map is really merely a continuation of a riding from the previous electoral map, or a new entity (even if maps were readily available online, which they aren't for ridings before 1965). Even Elections Quebec sort of avoids the issue by simply declaring that every electoral division is "new" each time the electoral map changes.


 * I have slowly come around to the view that the cleanest solution, which avoids resorting to WP:original research, is to treat each new name as a separate article, as the National Assembly website does, except for very simple cases like Les Chutes-de-la-Chaudière becoming Chutes-de-la-Chaudière or L'Acadie becoming Acadie or Laprairie becoming La Prairie, which are more orthographic changes or corrections than name changes. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, sometimes a riding can undergo a drastic boundary change but keep the same name. What do we do then? --Noname2 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the 1992 electoral map (first used in the 1994 election), the old Bertrand in Montérégie disappeared and a new Bertrand appeared in Laurentides, and that is considered an entirely different riding that just recycled the name; they are geographically quite distant. On the other hand, Frontenac is a trickier case: the two National Assembly website links I listed above even disagree between themselves over whether Frontenac on the 1972 electoral map should be considered the same riding as Frontenac on the 1965 electoral map: there is a very small (percentagewise) overlap of territory, but 1972 Frontenac is really more of a successor to Mégantic, and Mégantic-Compton was the real successor to 1965 Frontenac.


 * But in general the simplest and cleanest rule seems to be to follow the same principle that the National Assembly website does: if it's the same name, it's the same entity (except for the very rare pathological case like Bertrand); if it's a different name, it's a different entity (except perhaps for orthographic changes rather than true name changes). Admittedly this can create paradoxes, especially when a name is revived after an absence of decades: for instance, is 2011 Mégantic the same entity as 1965 Mégantic even though there is no actual overlap of territory?  And there may be inconsistencies: the National Assembly website seems to consider L'Acadie different from Acadie, but not Les Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (as it was called in 1989) and Chutes-de-la-Chaudière (its name since 1994 and later), and can't make up its mind about Frontenac.  You also have cases of long-lived names that must have undergone drastic territorial changes over the long term: for instance Jacques-Cartier, which has been around since Confederation; today it's just part of the southern West Island (from Pointe-Claire to Senneville) but earlier incarnations included parts of Verdun and Saint-Laurent if I'm not mistaken.


 * But I think any other rule that we could dream up would still result in oddities, and would have the disadvantage of being much more complicated, requiring a great deal of subjective interpretation, and especially, requiring original research and access to maps of old ridings (I don't know of any online for pre-1965 electoral maps).


 * Following this "name" rule even means that René-Lévesque and Saguenay are different articles even though René-Lévesque on the 2001 map had the identical territory to Saguenay on the 1992 map; Saguenay had a long history and probably a number of territorial changes over the years. In general, for older ridings we really don't want to (and can't) do original research to try to distinguish what was a straight rename (like Anjou to Anjou–Louis-Riel), what was a multi-way dismemberment (like Viger and Jeanne–Mance-Viger), and what was something in between... as you can see, the name doesn't always tell the story... and even if we had the maps, it would require subjective interpretation (what is the percentage threshold of overlap of territory that would make a new riding with a different name merely a continuation of an old riding? and shouldn't it be based on percentage of population rather than percentage of territory, since many large unorganized territories have almost no population?).  So we should apply the same simple "name" rule to modern ridings and old ridings alike, to maintain consistency.  I created Anjou–Louis-Riel as a redirect to Anjou, but on thinking it over would probably go ahead and create an article for it. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In cases where the name changes but the boundary doesn't change even a bit, it should be the same article. No worries about original research there. --Noname2 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because for consistency we should apply the same principle for old ridings and new ridings alike; but we really have no way to research that for old ridings in the distant past. René-Lévesque and Saguenay were created (by other people, back in 2007) as separate articles, and it wasn't until I found the external links with Flash maps of the 1992–2001 changes that I realized that the transition occurred with no territorial change.  For older ridings we have no practical way to discover that sort of thing. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an imperfect solution, but I think it would be less imperfect if we didn't split articles for cases where we know the boundaries didn't change. René-Lévesque and Saguenay should be merged. --Noname2 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would inject extra complication (a territory-based criterion that must be researched, two infoboxes in the same article) for no real gain. Better to keep them disentangled.  The other article is always just a click away. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for two infoboxes. Just say on the page that riding name changed. Right now we mostly keep articles merged when there's a change in name but not boundaries. You're going to need consensus to change that, but I still think it's a bad idea. --Noname2 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just curious
Are you a Francophone-Canadian from Quebec? GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider myself a native speaker of English. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Bgwhite (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Montérégie-Est
I have initiated a full nomination (here) for Category:Montérégie-Est and its subcategories, which you had proposed for speedy renaming and to which another editor had objected. Cheers! -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)