Open main menu

This is an archive of my talk page from January through the end of April 2011

Contents

Regarding highway articles

Thanks for the heads up. Most of my contributions to these articles were made in 2005-06. For the most part I don't mind that you and other editors have re-written them considerably once more accurate information becomes available.

That being said, the best information that is available to me is thekingshighway.ca (where the webmaster did obtain archive photos from the MTO), onroads (at AsphaltPlanet) where the author is pretty up-to-date on recent MTO construction projects, and vintagekingshighways.com (who had the foresight to photograph Ontario highways in the early 1990s just before the massive upgrades). Even if these may not be considered fully reliable and might border on the side of roadgeeking, it works for the sake of general information in deducing what order of projects came first. The MTO's press releases are mostly about construction work which is disruptive to traffic and there are few if any pictures and photos.

I was hoping that you would keep my edits on the QEW page, since your 1996 Rand McNally Golden Horseshoe atlas [1] shows that the new Brant St parclo interchange came before the reconfigured Freeman interchange junction, although we don't know the exact dates that construction happened). As for the former QEW in Toronto (now Gardiner Expressway extension), I compared photos on onroads (at AsphaltPlanet) in 2004 and Google Street (which is around 2009) to establish that the median barrier was finally upgraded, albeit by the city and not the province.[2]

Definitely for the sake of making featured article status, some of the roadgeek material such as the sign gantry details can be footnoted. GoldDragon (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but you'd be surprised at how much information is out there, in addition to the fact that the map as a book is still a source, even if there are no pictures to show it as it was. We can't show those because the map is copyright, but instead we'd use something like this:
<ref>{{cite map
 | title       = Golden Horseshoe
 | publisher   = Rand McNally
 | page        = 11
 | section     = F–G5}}</ref>
Which results in:
Golden Horseshoe (Map). Rand McNally. p. 11. § F–G5.
This tells somebody who made the map in the image (Rand McNally), and where they should look in the map. A diagram would be used to show the appearance before vs after, and that diagram could then be sourced to a before map and an after map.
By the way, all the photos on vintagekingshighways by Averill Hecht (about 98% of them) are eligible to be uploaded here. Just let me know if you do so that I can add the permission tag. Any photo on thekinghighways taken by the Department of Highways before todays date in 1961 can also be uploaded using {{PD-Canada}} for the permission tag. Cameron Bevers is taking it upon himself to watermark those images (which aren't his) now because we keep grabbing them, so I've downloaded his entire database.
Also, you need to add a copyright tag (such as {{cc-by-3.0}}) to the aerial photo of the 401/403 interchange you uploaded or it will get deleted in 7 days by a bot. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, with a bit of research at Urban Affairs, I found that the first constracts for reconstructing Brant Street were let in 1989. The first contract for the then-403 extension were let in early 1991, and the interchange was completed by 2001

Talkback

Hello, Floydian. You have new messages at Talk:2010_Copiapó_mining_accident.
Message added 05:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied to the concern you posted on the article's talk page. Veriss (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vale of Avoca

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mount Pleasant Road

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

dundas street

Please use RfD or RM for this. It is not obvious enough. If it is as obvious as you say, it will b e done there, but I'm not going to do it on my own personal authority. And please remember never to put back a speedy tag someone other than an author of an article declines. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but a waste of time in my opinion. There are only two articles, and wiki policy is pretty clear on that matter: use hatnotes. The primary topic is also quite clear in this case: there are internet hits on the Hong Kong street, and there are several dozen books which discuss the Canadian road down to the dates it was built in the late 1700s. There may be other Dundas Streets, but alas, we'll deal with it when we come to that junction. If the Hong Kong article vanishes, then there is no excuse. I'll wait for now. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States

Do you think that mediation would help? Thank you in advance for your guidance. Racepacket (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think taking a break (all of you) for two weeks would help immensely. You're arguing over the scope of a project which will automatically include any articles tagged under the various state projects. The same thing happens for Canadian articles. They can be tagged under other groups (ie the Canada Roads project), but the articles still get counted in the 1.0 Release tables for WikiProject Canada even if there is no WikiProject Canada banner. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 04:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Please explain why that would happen. If the new template is not used on a talk page, there would be no connction to the WPUS, and no relationship to the other state articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind. After examining some templates it doesn't look like the US is set up the same way as WP:CANADA. The point is that a project is meant to organize, not to say "we have to look after all these articles at the same time". WikiProject US should only concern itself with the High and Top importance articles. The many child projects of WP:US would take care of the others. Regardless, take a step back and realize what you guys are bickering about and how that energy could have gone towards content creation. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. I have spent the last two days at a university conference, which I found much more stimulating and dignified. I do appreciate all that you do to keep the gears in place and the train moving forward. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dundas Street

What I meant was that a search would reveal that many sources with non-trivial discussions about things on the street exist, however none is yet used in the article, and it would be good to see someone save the article by attributing each part of it, which I didn't have the time to do. I do agree with the current decision of turning it into a redirect though, because it's the original author's responsibility to attribute everything or otherwise have their content deleted. I've changed the redirect to Mong Kok#Streets and markets, which is a more appropriate target. --Deryck C. 08:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. If and when somebody or yourself has the time, they can always recreate the article in a better standing. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 12:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada Roads/Ontario WikiProject

Greetings. Thank you for the invitation to the Ontario Roads group.

I was wondering: is there a standard model page for the group to emulate? Mappetop (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problemo. I'd say Don Valley Parkway is the highway article to emulate, its the only featured article in the Canadian Roads WikiProject. For city streets, Mount Pleasant Road is the only one I've worked on to a large degree, so it's the best example I can give at the moment. It leans more towards history as opposed to describing the route, but articles can go either way. The Resources tab of the ON Roads group has some general guidelines on how to structure articles, especially the Standards page. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You can also look at Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles for the US Featured Articles. Obviously, an analogous CRWP article will be metric-first, have provinces instead of states and use Canadian English instead of American English, but the concepts will remain the same. Imzadi 1979 ? 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lake Shore / Lakeshore Boulevard

Given that you renamed the article (to Lakeshore) just over a month ago and it had existed for five years prior to that as Lake Shore, I feel that the interim name should remain "Lake Shore" until this can be resolved. You have cited old City of Toronto name change documents and I am keen to see them. Most of the available evidence indicates that the street's name is indeed "Lake Shore Boulevard" (street signs, current City of Toronto documents, etc.) and so your reference will need to be solid. Posting or linking to an image of the document would seem to be the surest way of avoiding future controversy in this matter. Thanks Floydian, --Wikier99 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not able to make the actual move myself, only an admin can do that. You'll need to get consensus on the talk page, as I'm not obligated to take pictures of a document to prove what it says. I can add the reference to the article, but as I said, it is going to be redirected in about 2 weeks. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 02:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Merged roads

Was there a discussion somewhere about merging these pages? We've lost a lot of content with them, such as at Bay Street. The merged article is also far more unwieldy for people who click on one of the links. - SimonP (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing of worth to keep on these plethora of non-notable road articles; its non-controversial cleanup of permastubs in my opinion. You can copy information you feel was lost onto the new list, but I'm redirecting all the brochures that list nothing more than places and neighbourhood and unsourced crap. The redirects take users to the appropriate entry in the new list, so I'm not sure what you mean by unwieldly. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And of course you're going to recreate all of these permastubs. Add sources or I'm just going to take them to afd en masse. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I certainly object to removing these pages, so I'd not consider this non-controversial. What I don't understand is how a merged page helps readers. Doesn't it just make finding the content they are interested in more confusing? I'll make sure to track down some refs before restoring them. - SimonP (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
As opposed to 100 seperate one-paragraph articles? A list groups them together so that the etimologies and route descriptions are all together. Many of the street names in Toronto tie in with one-another. Policy is pretty clear that we are not an indescriminite list or directory, so most of the information on the current articles (bus routes, list of parks and businesses and "attractions") needs to be removed. What's left is a few sentences describing the road and maybe the history of it. I can understand Bay Street being an exception, and I've made a bunch myself (Eglinton Avenue, for example, won't be merged), but can you really compare Morningside Avenue with Bay Street? Surely you must draw the line somewhere, or do you feel that EVERY article on a road that follows the concession grid in Toronto is notable? - ??o??ia? t ¢ 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the same rules apply to roads as to every article: if you can write a well referenced page then it should exist. If a current page is not well referenced, tag it as such an eventually that problem will be addressed. There is no call to redirect or delete them. In terms of the list of landmarks, I see no problem with those. Most cities have a list of landmarks page, and List of Chicago Landmarks is even a featured list. - SimonP (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You've got your policies confused. If you can write a well referenced page then it should exist. If the page is not referenced at all, and hasn't been since it was created in 2003, then it should not exist. The notability guidelines say the notability should be established non-trivially in multiple reliable resources independent of the subject. By your logic, articles should never be deleted - EVER. I am addressing the problems instead of tossing the shit into the compost in the hopes that it comes out smelling like roses in a few years, like magic. Lists of landmarks belong on a list of landmarks article, not on a road article. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 23:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't delete pages when it's perfectly possible to find good refs for them, even if no one has gotten around to doing so yet. That's why we have some 270,000 pages at Category:Articles lacking sources. There's no policy to simply mass delete those pages. We do delete articles when it is impossible that they will ever have good references, but that is not the case here. It took me only 15 minutes to find some good refs for Morningside Avenue (Toronto), for instance. If you feel like addressing the problem, how about joining in and looking for refs? Merging to an equally unreferenced mess of a page does not help the situation at all. - SimonP (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
So by all means, lets increase that horrendous backlog instead of tossing some of the useless junk. Finding references doesn't make a road notable, it adds a ref to one sentence of the one paragraph article. Now it can wallow for another 5 years? I think not. I've spent weeks listing the history and actually (despite your allegation) referencing everything at List of roads in Toronto. The entries on that list are in many cases better than the articles you are recreating. I will not allow Ontario to continue being a trash hole for articles on every single object that exists; stubs will be deleted, improved if they actually have potential, or be amalgamated into lists of similar crappy article (much in the way that all the regional roads in York and Peel and Windsor have been redirecdted to their appropriate lists). If individual entries in those lists are notable and substantial enough to warrant an individual article, they can be forked out. We don't need an individual article for each and every arterial road in Toronto. You clearly do not understand our notability guidelines, so I'll continue to nominate the articles you are recreating at afd. Thanks. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has inclusion standards listed at WP:GNG, they are not arbitrary but based on set principles. If an article has multiple, reliable, and independent sources then it is acceptable. A quick search for any of these streets in a newspaper archive, such as ProQuest, gives hundreds of hits. They easily qualify. You might believe it is trash now, but almost every article began as trash one day, and often took many years to become reasonable. See also Wikipedia:Eventualism. - SimonP (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
They'll still be there even as a redirect. They just won't be individual articles. The references must also be non-trivial, as almost every mention of a road in a newspaper is. There is no prejudice against recreating these articles later, but at the same time there is no loss in transfering the information to a central article that isn't an unreferenced and badly organized stub. Yes, many articles began as trash in the days when wikipedia was young and expanding exponentially. Those days are long over, and the focus has shifted towards making good articles, not making articles. An article that has sat since 2003 with no references isn't going to gain them anytime soon.... Though maybe the threat of their deletion will drive some to actually improve them. I nominate for deletion based on what is, not what could be; I'm not a crystal ball, and niether is wikipedia. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather than keep wrangling over this ourselves, I've invited others to contribute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canada_Roads/Ontario#City_roads - SimonP (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Floydian, your opinion on the existence of these many articles is noted, but you need to discuss then gain a consensus before making such major page merges, especially on such a mass scale.--Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 127

Hey Floydian. Regarding this edit, are you intending to put in a table? Also, 127 is not in Thunder Bay District, it is in Hastings County and Nippising District (about 2/3 and 1/3). --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah my computer screwed up last night and so I had to save the edit rather than losing it. Gonna fill it in on the bus in about an hour or two, so it should be up soon. Cheers, ??o??ia? t ¢ 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects in Toronto roads navbox

Having redirected a number of Toronto roads to List of roads in Toronto, I think you may need to remove these from the roads navbox, per Wikipedia:Navigation templates's section "Avoid redirects." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was waiting at this moment for the remaining AfD's to close so I can do it all at once. Unfortunately the stubborn nature of a couple editors with regards to article count vs. quality improvement has made me lose interest in these articles. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm one of those stubborn editors. Anyway, there are going to be even more redirects when all the AfDs close, so you'll have redirected a goodly number, in total. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No, because you didn't mass spam every afd with WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'm specifically referring to Oakshade and SimonP, two users that had never and probably will never again edit Canadian road articles. Their insistance that everything with any entry in any book is notable is why wikipedia has several hundred thousand piles of crap that need to be cleaned up; work done by editors who actually take the time to research and expand topics rather than creating stubs and increasing their edit count. The fact that one of them has an article because they wrote wikipedia articles simply dumbfounds me. Redirects show up as a different colour for me, so I'll fix all of them once the AfD's close. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo Use

In the MTO's Roadtalk for Autumn 2010, they used this pic http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/english/transtek/roadtalk/rt16-4/401%20pearson-collector%20lanes.jpg in the issue. Does that mean it's fair game for use here? Haljackey (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I'm thinking of making a futile attempt at asking the MTO to release photos under creative commons for use here. Imzadi managed to get the Michigan Department of Transportation to do just this.
Of course, we all know how responsive and cooperative the government is up here. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if we can grab a conceptual pic of the W-E Parkway here but if we can it would be very helpful to the article! Haljackey (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It would all be copyright / fair use. It's generally pretty hard to get exceptions, as I've been fighting a long battle with the DVP interchange construction photo. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Niagara Parkway

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ACR close

Mind closing Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 270 (Colorado)? --AdmrBoltz 00:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for that map to be updated. Looks like it got done last night so I'll take a look. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 402

Forest, Ontario is a disambiguation page. So far as I can tell though, {{jcon}} has no way to disambiguate a destination name. {{jct}} can by using |location#=[[<article title with disambiguation>|<shorter name>]] instead of |city#=<ambiguous location> I snagged the rest of the dab links when I was doing my run off my watchlist, but I had to leave that link alone. Imzadi 1979 ? 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. In this instance I'm able to delete the other Forest, since it appears to be this place according to my mapbook.[3] The other cases are very few and far between but may require using jct. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 07:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Grouse Mountain Images

Hey Floydian,

Long time no talk, thanks for the help always looking out for me :P. I made an edit to the Grouse Mountain wikipage regarding the Wind Turbine and uploaded images provided to me by Grouse Mountain Resort after I contacted them directly. These images belong to them not Morrison Hershfield, so does your suggestion still apply? Joe Fielder (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, for them you would have to send an email with that permissions form and have them fill it out and email it back to you. Then just follow the instructions at commons:COM:OTRS#If you need to confirm permission. Basically adding {{OTRS pending}} to the image, and forwarding the email with a link to the image (on wiki) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Cheers, ??o??ia? t ¢ 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright I will do that thanks, I really appreciate the help. Joe Fielder (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pink Floyd Influences

Hello. You might have noticed all the references. Please add those. Judaispriest (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing your York Mills Road merge propsal after a month of zero consnesus

Can you please point to me the what disregard to policy I made in your "blatant disregard for policy" charge?--Oakshade (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? First of all, merger discussions can last for a while; the deletion discussions clearly pointed out that a merger discussion on the talk page is the venue for the proposed actions, despite my insistence that the talk pages will sit unnoticed. Therefore, the talk pages are now being used. Second of all, mergers are proposed, and if nobody opposes, then they can be assumed to be cleared for takeoff. You have clearly not performed many mergers or been introduced to the concept in a positive way (hence your obvious apprehension at the mere thought of the loss of a unique article title), but the process can often take many months. Lack of consensus means there has been oppositions, which there has not been. I have made the proposal by placing the tag on the page, to which nobody objected. I have waited, and am continuing to wait until approximately three months have passed, at which point I will perform the mergers if nobody responds. Removing the tag repeatedly and asserting some consensus in either direction is absolutely the wrong approach to the situation. In that case it is clearly a you versus me argument, and there is no discussion. Please thoroughly read WP:MERGE, WP:SILENCE, WP:CONSENSUS and take a look at the concept of WP:PERMASTUB, which is just an opinion, but a very valid one. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I seem much more familar with those guidelines than you are. Go ahead and wait three months (actually it's usually a week, but go ahead), and as WP:MERGE states, ask for a third party or an admin to perform the merger if there is a consensus for this merger. We don't want to go the WP:RFC route.--Oakshade (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
In discussions where enough time has passed (normally 1 week or more), and there has been no discussion or where there is unanimous content to merge, any user may close the discussion to merge and move forward with the merger.
-- ??o??ia? t ¢ 22:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of Kennedy Road content

Floydian, you wanted this merge. Now that you have it, please stop removing the merged content.--Oakshade (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop introducing unrefernced original research into articles. This is a core policy of wikipedia. The current entry summarizes all the data of the original article with proper sources provided. If you wish to add additional content from the source, find reliable references for it, and introduce it with proper grammar and flow. Don't bloat articles with undue weight and wordy over-detailing. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This wasn't me but many other editors who inserted this content. If you truly feel that absolutely no unreferenced content be in the article, then delete every unreferenced sentence in every other section. --Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've been doing to road articles Ontario-wide. Your opinion unfortunately doesn't trump the 5 pillars of wikipedia. The fact that nobody else has come in prior to me to clean up what is a growing pile of trivia is irrelevant to the fact that it is a pile of trivial information. Feel free to add citation needed to the article where a statement is unsourced; if adding a reference to it wouldn't be a case of over-referencing, I'd be happy to quickly back up the content that I add to Wikipedia, instead of sputtering garbage everywhere. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 23:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about A class

I have a question about when an article gets to A class..reason i am asking you is because of Ontario Highway 401?. Question is when an articles makes it to A level does the GA class get removed or classed to A over GA? Reason i am asking is does the page loss all the free "advertising" that we do fo GA and FA articles like GA list of articles ect..Moxy (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the technicalities work (the other road editors probably know much better), but as far as I know it technically remains a GA until it is replaced as an FA, but each Wikiproject can review it to it's own A-class standards. The {{WP:CANADA}} banner may remain GA if they don't support A-class articles. For Canada Roads, it would override the GA class. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
ok will ask over at the A projects..i was thinking of nominating Canadians so we can start the A process for Canada articles to.Moxy (talk)
GA-Class and Good Article status are related, but exclusive. If a GA-Class/GA-Status article is successfully reviewed for A-Class, it becomes A-Class/GA-Status. The green plus sign remains on M-185 (Michigan highway) even though its A-Class. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok thats what i wanted to know..perfect --will move ahead with A class fro Canada project.Moxy (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unorganized Thunder Bay move

The term for the area to which the article is referring, as defined by Statistics Canada, is properly called "Thunder Bay, Unorganized". Calling it "Unorganized Thunder Bay" is confusing. "Unorganized Thunder Bay District" would be better, but that still isn't its "proper" name. vidioman 06:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was using WP:COMMONNAME as my basis, which states that we shouldn't necessarily use the "official name". There was another guideline regarding using simpler titles where possible, but I can't seem to locate it now. Regardless the intent is to simplify many complicated article titles, and so I'm not opposed to your suggestion. Unfortunately I can't find any reliable sources besides the statsCan listing to go by; they're rather obscure topics that are difficult to locate at their current titles. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 07:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Unorganized Thunder Bay would suggest that it is an unorganized part of Thunder Bay, though. It isn't, it is the unorganized part of Thunder Bay District. Also, there are several of other articles for unorganized territories in Northern districts that you should change as well. vidioman 12:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, with district makes sense. I had already started a discussion about merging the two unorganized Algoma's, since one part is literally a strip of forest that will never see a single house be built. I've been changing as I come across them. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I reverted the page renaming since there has been no discussion. The current article names for unorganized areas in Ontario is already clearly systematic, consistent, and in harmony with official designation. The arguments in WP:COMMONNAME are not applicable since the common place name would be the individual communities, not the census subdivision. So please stop renaming the other unorganized areas, and bring the discussion to Wikiproject Ontario if needed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for starting the discussion on the project page. One little point regarding merging after 1 week: the policy states "normally 1 week or more". That doesn't mean that the standard is 1 week. Discretion needs to be used to determine enough length for debate. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Normally I wait several months on low traffic page, but a certain editor has taken themselves to removing my tags as "having no consensus" when no discussion is started after some period of time (say, a month), so I've been a bit more proactive the past few weeks. Cheers - ??o??ia? t ¢ 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
        • LOL. Which article? I've been active with Articles to be merged from August 2008 and earlier. Surely we both agree on that that's enough time for debate... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
          • York Mills Road. Following several reversions, numerous heated discussions erupted from this. The editor has been very disruptive imo, taking several explanations, often line by line, of guidelines and policies, in order to finally get the point and move on to a new piece of straw. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 23:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
            • If I may make a suggestion: don't waste your time on heated discussions. I've learned that there's no point in trying to win every battle. Often there is no right or wrong approach, and some standards can be read in different ways by different editors. So if someone feels that strong about it and it is not factually wrong, let it slide and move on. In time, consensus may be reached or another editor will sort it out... Cheers, -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow, you edited Talk:Unorganized Algoma District at the exact same time as me, making the exact same edit I was going to make. Thanks for looking after that. We may not agree on the naming issue, but at least we both care about the quality of WP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! I was looking through their edit history trying to figure out if it was a second account of yours. A very strange action for a longtime user (the other editor) to do though. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation of new articles

Hi! I have seen your contributions to WikiProject Toronto and I am amazed by the number of articles you have upgraded to good and did you know status. Do you have an idea for an article?Cause I want to write one. Please give me some ideas. By the way, I think its only fair to give you a barnstar. See ys! Ossih (Talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... articles to create or to improve? A lot of Toronto articles (especially on neighbourhoods, schools and geographical features) are rather lacklustre on sources and information. I noticed you were working on Humewood earlier, so it may pique your interests.
As for new articles, many of the landmarks don't have articles yet. There is actually a photo gallery of pictures without articles to go with them. Mostly churches, but it may give you some ideas to work with. Cheers, ??o??ia? t ¢ 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I gathered as much informaton as I could about Humberwood(which is really little). My article focuses more on Humberwood Centre rather than Humberwood. In any case check it out! It's satisfactory 'cause one of WikiProject Toronto's aims is to create at least a stub for every neighbourhood. 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossih (talkcontribs)
Oi... I wish we didn't have a goal to create stubs (I wouldn't count Humewood as a stub, it would be a start). Articles should be created as best as possible, and not created if there's nothing to write about except that "Foo is a place in Toronto." That being said, there is so little on these neighbourhoods to work with unless they're vibrant downtown shopping districts. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ripley worm.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Ripley worm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking fwd to Freeway draft

Hi FloydianNankai (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be ready soon. You can see what I've got so far at User:Floydian/Controlled-access highway. Cheers, ??o??ia? t ¢ 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking fwd to Freeway draft

Hi FloydianNankai (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be ready soon. You can see what I've got so far at User:Floydian/Controlled-access highway. Cheers, ??o??ia? t ¢ 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Ripley worm.jpg

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ripley worm.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Image Discussion

Thanks for your help man. I was notified of this problem on Wikimedia Commons, and I never go there unless I want to upload a photo. Went there yesterday and noticed that a bunch of photos were nominated for deletion. I've contacted the two authors requesting them to fill out the ORTS form, hopefully they can figure out how to do it.

Speaking of photos, I added two more images of Highway 401 in Dorchester to my Flickr. Took em on an overpass near the Dorchester Swamp which the 401 cuts through. If the 401 was built today it would certainly be built around the area lol.

Are they useful for any article? You can view them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/haljackey/

All the best,

Haljackey (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I was just lucky and happened upon them. Commons needs to get its act together and stop acting independently of the projects which it was designed for; it could have very well been a case of discovering the situation when a bot came here and took the images out of the article, then fighting to restore them. I like the zoomed picture, and it shows a section of the highway that received special engineering treatment. I'd like to squeeze it in somewhere / replace an existing photo with it. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 21:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I keep hoping that if a photo is tagged on its enwp talkpage that the Article Alerts bot will note that it has been tagged for deletion on Commons. (That's part of the reason why I tagged all of WP:MSHP's photos a while back.) Imzadi 1979 ? 21:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Want to replace the 'rolling' terrain photo with the zoomed in pic? And yes I should be notified on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons as that's where the photos are used. Haljackey (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an option in the preferences to have Commons e-mail you if something on your watchlist there is edited. That's what I do since I don't go to that specific site that often. The alternative is to change your talk page there into a soft redirect to your talk page here, which would prompt editors to edit your enwp talk page instead. Imzadi 1979 ? 21:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok the photo is now on the commons: [4]. Thanks for the tip Imzadi1! Just wish there was a simpler way... Haljackey (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, at the very least a bot should post to the talk pages of articles using the photo to indicate that there is a deletion discussion though. I get emails when my talk page on commons is posted to (such as when my images are nominated for deletion), but this isn't helpful for pictures I haven't uploaded. Similarly, I think getting an email everytime my watchlist updated at commons would flood my inbox.
I could use your feedback here when you get a chance. [5] Both the authors have sent confirmation now and hopefully the issue will be resolved soon. Haljackey (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons

While I appreciate that you are frustrated, I have to say I am a little shocked by your comment and edit summary on Wikimedia Commons (although your page here, I do notice, warns that you have a "problem with swearing" - ha). I have never known you to be uncivil, and to deviate so much from WP:AGF, so I thought I would leave you a note, since this isn't your normal behaviour. Is everything okay? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as attacking anyone or being uncivil, I was merely expressing my personal frustration (which is probably exacerbated by the stress of being in the midst of exams at this moment). One of the things I said was a little much, so I've retracted it, but it still stands that I've given up. I'd rather deal with whatever consequences may come of uploading to enwiki than to send three or four emails to the same photographer asking them to essentially repeat what they've already said, just so the photo doesn't get deleted. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 17:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
While I initially appreciated your support in this dispute, just remember that I was the one who uploaded their work. At this point I don't want to make it any more complicated than it already is. Haljackey (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Exams will do that to anyone. And your copyedits are much appreciated. Floydian, one of the reasons I left a note here is because I know how you feel. When I first started doing extensive work over at Commons, I got into some major battles in which I found myself asking others over and over "where is the policy on which you are relying?!?" (over issues relating to everything from disambiguation to category structure). It took me quite awhile to appreciate the main attitudinal difference between the Wikipedia and Commons environments - they simply do not have policies and guidelines over there the same way we do here. On Wikipedia, we have a much greater tendency to write down the rules, and to wikilawyer with them, while over there (largely due to the smaller pool of active contributors and the nature of the project itself which typically gives rise to fewer conflicts) they (we) rely more on convention. And over there, it largely works (to the extent that I now find myself doing much more work over there than here). I'm not telling you this to bore you with my stories (although I may be doing that too), but to make clear that you are not the first one to be frustrated by the "cultural" differences between the two projects, as I have been there myself.

What would probably be more constructive than uploading your images locally from now on (which deprives other projects of the images and means you have to constantly police them, possibly unsuccessfully, to prevent their ultimate transfer to the Commons), is to focus on the two very worthwhile issues that you have raised, namely project-interconnectivety and demystifying the OTRS process. Those are two very positive suggestions that would probably address some of the concerns you have. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk: progressive rock

Hi Floydian, I would be interested to hear your opinion about my proposal to dump Robert Christgau's reviews from the infoboxes of all progressive rock albums, because he has nothing useful to say about a genre he hates. Cheers! Academic38 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied over at WT:PROGROCK. We should include a negative review on each album for neutral point of view purposes. No weight need be given to him otherwise. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Four Mile Lake

Hey,

I've been getting most of my information from the Four Mile Lake Association website. I am new to editing but would like to cite some of the stuff.

Here are some links for most of my information: http://www.fourmilelake.ca/download/FMLA_OP_submission_to_CoKL_Sept2006.pdf http://www.fourmilelake.ca/download/

Other information is from my personal knowledge. I noticed that you are editing a lot of articles from the area. Are you from Coboconk?

Thanks,

Scott FourMileLake (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

The problems around redirects are many-fold, but one is that the received wisdom is lacking in grounding.

The "don't replace redirects" argument has a crazy "performance" element, that is actually circular - the old essay based on even older tests that said "Don't replace redirects for performance gain - it's not really a benefit" which is cited by the "don't replace redirects" has been modified because of the page which cites it to read more "Don't replace redirects it's a performance hit".

The main reason not to replace redirects (and one so important that if of the rest was removed, the net benefit would probably be positive) is to keep the sense, style and flow of the article text. The second priority should be to keep the wikitext readable - unpiped links are generally better than piped links.

Double redirects would be a valuable feature - yesterday, for example, I created Nutlin 3 and Nutlin-3 both redirecting to Nutlin. Ideally Nutlin 3 should redirect to Nutlin-3, a redirect with possibilities, so that if that article is created the redirect is not left pointing to the wrong place.

Templates are, however, different. We have template naming guidelines, these make it easier for editors to intuit the likely name of a template. For example "Infobox settlement" not InfoboxSettlement, InfoBoxSettlement, Info boxSettlement, Infobox-Settlement, etc. etc.. The casual editor (and I would suspect even most experienced editors) will know this by example, not by seeing the guidelines. Therefore keeping to the canonical names is a benefit to these editors, and hence to the project.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Indeed. Piped redirects should be left if there is potential for an article... But what about when there is no hope in hell of it ever being worthy of one? Usually in my normal editing I'll bypass those redirects so as to discourage creating non-notable articles. Standardization of templates is something that the encyclopedia spent the last several years accomplishing with Wikiprojects, so in that sense that seems like its a non-trivial non-cosmetic change. The idea of course is to discourage the continual spread of widely varying editing practises, which are sure to cause conflicts since each is equally backed by policy, hence why arbcom had to settle the matter. Some things should just be standardized to avoid issues down the road, even if doing so is a bit of an issue in itself. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There are clearly absurd situations such as [bacterium|bacteria]. And the WikiProjects exercise still has three holdouts, User:CBM, MILHIST and Roads. MILIST and Roads at least have a standard redirect, but MILHIST resisted because some user (I forget which) put about the absurd idea that if they allowed the standard name template to be primary for their banner, they would have to change all the other template names. That and other FUD - and I think the Roads people ran and poisoned the well at MILHIST or vice versa. But in parallel with that, the vast majority of infoboxes are now the same format as headers, and so are most other widely used templates. The mess of portal templates was almost resolved, despite some incredible parochial ownership behaviour, the last stage has been stymied for the precise same reason. So progress has been made, and things are much better, and they will continue to improve, despite the handful of vociferous users that oppose everything, and the slightly larger group that oppose or support apparently at random, most users are generally supportive of good sense improvements (even if they see them as more minor than those of us attempting to bring them about do). Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC).
Heh. Sounds wxactly like politics and why everything takes 25 years to get built. - ??o??ia? t ¢ 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski

Hi! This is to inform you that a user you reported ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Floydian_.28Result:_Stale.29 ) is now the topic of an Administrators' Noticeboard Incident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively ). Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) I've actually already responded. Cheers, ??o??ia? t ¢ 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Floydian/Archive/2011a".