User talk:Skeezix1000/Archives/2007/June

Toronto Eaton Centre
I don't mind clearing up the date inaccuracies, etc. but to describe them as serious is overstating them. I feel your version has too little detail. There is nothing wrong about mentioning these unsual features such as the Metro Toronto Police, the parking garage, etc. I'm not going to bother about whether the Police office is a precinct or division, though we could simply call it an office if we don't known exactly.

The garage was one of the larger changes so this is not overstating it. It did have a distinctive style (the photo can be purchased from an urbanists' association). The old entrances opened on Dundas, the new exit/entrances I've seen them on Yonge and Bay, and this isn't useless trivia.

Lastly, the Timothy Eaton statue was moved to the Dundas entrance when the new mall opened in the 1970s according to that article.

GoldDragon 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the sense of development, now your objections are clearer, and I have no major problems with your wording. Anyway, speaking of the Club Monaco, it had a large space near the entrace unlike most of the smaller stores, and it was considered a sub-anchor (like Holts at Yorkdale), so it should deserve some mention in the article. It may not necessarily be considered part of the 2000s redevelopment, if another chain occupied that area before it was all imploded for H&M. GoldDragon 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning
Jeez for a minute there I thought you were tagging me. I looked at the page difference and the summary. Usually I let them make a couple (if they ain't too bad) and then tag with the BV. After that I just block. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Montreal Expos Merge Tag
Fair enough. It strikes me that after two years of constant opposition to a merge, that one user attempting an end-run around that consensus with an AfD, only have nodobdy support his merge effort when the AfD was speedily closed suggested to me that the template was not needed. However, if you wish to leave it up, I accept that. Cheers, Resolute 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, true. Personally, I think that the other sports Wikiprojects should go the other way and separate out other teams into their own articles - even the Seattle Pilots.  Too much history is lost when a team's existance is condensed into two or three paragraphs.  I know that WP:HOCKEY would crush any merge/delete attempt in a second.  Its rather interesting how other projects have treated relocated franchises in the past, and I wonder how much of a "well, it worked in 2005 so we might as well leave it" sentiment exists today, as opposed to really fleshing out the history of many organizations. Unfortunately, I doubt the Montreal Expos problem will go away, despite the fact that it is extremely logical to have a separate article for a team with 35 years of history. Resolute 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add, the AfD I was referring to was one he launched last week, that was closed by an admin before a single vote was registered, not to the one from 2005. Resolute 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I could have anyone from WP:HOCKEY do it. Many are general sports fans, but most have stayed out of that debate. Resolute 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous merge discussions on Montreal Expos
Hi. I'm a little surprised that you believe chronological order takes supreme precedence over the spirit and letter of WP:TALK and WP:REFACTOR.

To quoth from the latter, '(b)oth refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility.' I don't think there's any doubt that the former and current setup of the page with the merge argument scattered in something like 8 separate sections interrupted by various other discussions makes accessing the topic neither clear nor accessible.

You're right. WP:TALK does give clear guidelines on content editing, and you shouldn't be deleting someone else's contribution. Except for one thing - I didn't. Not a single character of the other topics was deleted. Instead, I followed a good faith practice of WP:TALK, centralized discussion. To quoth the relevant section of why it was good practice to combine the topic, "This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again. Instead, solicit discussion in only one location...." The same topic addressed in 13 different places is what WP:TALK suggests you don't do. I grant you that this is mostly intended for a talk topic across various pages rather than a single talk page, but the concept is identical.

In fact, the only reference to chronological order I see on talk pages is in starting a new topic at the bottom of the talk page. I didn't do so (since it wasn't a new topic) and that may have been confusing. Probably better to have the whole thing at the bottom of the page.

And finally, let me finish with this. "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." Your links are a valuable contribution, but WP:REFACTOR suggests that rather than leaving all the links scattered you should consider refactoring and archiving if there are '(s)eparate discussions of similar or identical topics.' Might consider creating a separate archival discussion page using your links. I may do so myself when I have a few minutes, although I'd rather be adding content like the Molson Girls doing the 7th inning stretch to explain why French-Canadian baseball was a bit different than that south of the border. Old64mb 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood my comments, and I apologize if they were unclear. I did not suggest that chronological order takes "supreme precedence" over everything else.  The spirit and intent of WP:TALK is that one does not screw around with the comments of other editors unless absolutely necessary.  So, yes, sometimes it is necessary to add headings or indents to the comments of other editors, to make the page legible, and occasionally the comment of an inexperienced editor has to be moved when (s)he obviously places it inadvertently in the wrong place on the page.  But no matter how well-meaning the intent might have been, one should not be revising comments, whether it involves deletions or not, by moving them around and removing them from chronological order and the context in which they were made, unless there is a very important reason to do so. And here there was not.  The ongoing comments on the merger do not represent an evolving analysis of the issue, but almost entirely represent new editors every once in awhile raising the same question as before (shouldn't the articles be merges?), generating generally the same responses as before.  There are far less disruptive ways of consolidating these repetitive comments than by wholsale reorganizations of the talk page, either by reproducing the links to the discussions (and including links to discussions elsewhere) as I did, or your great suggestion of creating an archive page which simply reproduces the comments in one place.  And just to add: I think you are reading far too much into the guideline discussions on "centralized discussions".  The guidelines urge us to avoid situations like the one WalterWalrus3 created last week, where he started the same merger discussions in two separate places -- on the Washington Nationals talk page, and on the Expos talk page.  The guidelines are not giving other editors free license to cut and paste the comments of others, whenever we feel that one comment might more logically be placed elsewhere. The goal is to interfere as little as possible with the talk page comments of other editors.  Although your reorganization was generally well done, it creates a bad precedent.  If other editors feel that they have free license to reorganize talk pages to fit their determination of what constitutes a more logical order, they may not do so as carefully as you did. Skeezix1000 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)