User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2014.1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:117Avenue. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I disagree that because the Labour Party and the UFA were not the only components of the CCF that they should not be listed in the nav box. Bettter to convey who the main components were, then not put in any at all. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the triple negative and the lack of commas make your comment difficult to read and understand. I believe members of the Labor Party, UFA, and CCF, among others, joined to form the Alberta NDP. Does one of the sources say it was only two parties? 117Avenue (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the Labour Party and the UFA should be listed as the predessesors of the Alberta NDP/CCF, as the bulk of the CCF's membership and candidates came from those organizations. You have opposed this on the grounds that these were not the only two groups involved in the CCF's foundation. You may be right (though I have not seen any sources to show who the others were), but I think that is besides the point. A partial listing of predessors is better than no listing at all. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No mention is better than unreferenced speculation or original research. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, we performed an edit on Disney Cinemagic at the same time! I'm surprised it didn't cause edit conflict. TDFan2006 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We were editing different sections. But since you brought it up, it needs categories. 117Avenue (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... Yeah... TDFan2006 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Between the parties and independents who did not earn a seat in the legislature, the Green Party received the majority of the votes in the 2011 election (96.51% between the GPM, CPC and independents).[1]"

This is a fact and it supports the inclusion of the Green Party name in the header title as "Green/Other".

If the Green Party were not combined with "others" the "other" category would likely not have even a single percentage point in the polls; it would be insignificant.

Probe Research uses the name "Green Party" when they are conducting their polls and reporting their results.

"Six percent of those surveyed would cast a ballot for the provincial Greens or another party not represented in the Legislature." - Probe Research, December 2013

"... while seven percent prefer the Greens or another minor party." - Probe Research, June 2013

"... while support for the Manitoba Green Party and other parties not represented in the Legislature is essentially unchanged (8%, +1%)." - Probe Research, April 2013

I would appreciate it if your removal of my revision #590130617 were undone.

Thank you

Bionitech (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Between the minor parties, the Liberal Party received the majority of the votes" and "between the parties that did not run in a majority of the divisions, the independents received the majority of the vote", are also correct statements. You're choosing the stats that paint the Green Party in a good light, you are applying your POV to the article. Other is still other, one party may have a larger portion of the other vote, but Probe is still not separating the Greens from the rest, it is POV and original research to point out one of the parties in the other group. With the few parties in Manitoba, it would be possible to list all the parties in the other column, but practice has been to call all of them other. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How am I disrupting anything by creating and refining a page about something I care about and making references to Valley Line in Edmonton to that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For creating unreferenced, unnecessary articles, ignoring users who have said the Valley Line article is an unnecessary split of a not long article, and not following Wikipedia procedures in proposing, discussing, and garnering consensus on controversial changes. 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue, it looks like the party supporters are starting to edit the Stephen McNeil article again, so you might be interested in taking a look at the content they are removing. The info is sourced to reliable sources, but being removed as an "attack on Stephen" as one of the editors described the content. Personally, I find the content more trivial in nature and don't really know if it should be included, but what concerns me is that Liberal supporters are being recruited to watch the page. The third new user posted a message on talk page stating "Thank you for altering me to this attack on the Premier. All of us must stick together against this for the future of NS."[2] To me, this sounds like party supporters are vowing to control content added to the article, which seems to go against what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Cmr08 (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that this is rather sudden, but I know from answering a lot of your previous edit requests that you would be a good candidate for the template editor user right. So I thought I would just give it to you. :) I have also lowered the protected to template protection at {{For year month day}} and {{For year month day/display}}, so you should be able to edit them yourself now. If you don't want this right, just let me know and I'll remove it. But otherwise, keep up the good work with protected templates that you have been doing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't taken the time to request the user right, thinking that it would take time I didn't have. If you're still feeling generous, could you upgrade the protection on Template:Canadian party colour, Template:Canadian party colour/colour, Template:Canadian party colour/colour/default, Template:Canadian party colour/name, and Template:Canadian party colour/name/default? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion-wise, those templates aren't yet to a point to where they have to be template-protected, although there are template-protected templates with fewer transclusions. So in my view, it's a judgement call whether we give them template protection or not. Looking through the edit histories, I see quite a few edits by Noname2, who doesn't have the template editor right yet, so template protecting the pages would mean that they wouldn't be able to edit them. For this reason I'd rather not upgrade the protection to template protection just now, although I'm open to suggestion about this.

Also, have you considered converting these templates to Lua? With Lua you could just put all of the data on one data page and load it with mw.loadData. This would allow you to structure in a more logical way, say by party, rather than have it spread out over multiple pages organised by different attributes. And it would be a lot faster than the current template system, because mw.loadData caches the data table per page rather than per template call, and because Lua table lookups are a lot faster than #switch parser functions anyway. I could work up a little demo if you are interested. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't learned how to write in Lua, and after spending this week template writing, I am quite spent. There are a lot of things I would like to do, but don't have the time for. 117Avenue (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I know the feeling. :) Don't worry, there's no deadline for Lua conversion or template writing on this website. If you ever have any questions about Lua, though, feel free to ask me on my talk page, and I'll be happy to give you an answer. (I could talk all day about Lua.) And I might try and make a sample module for Canadian party colour when I have a little time. The structure seems to be pretty simple to me, which means it shouldn't take too long - it's only being made to look complicated by the need to put it into template code. I imagine that the main module would be quite short, but the data page would be quite long. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you have the appropriate privileges, would you please make this change? Useddenim (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Useddenim: You're looking for {{edit template-protected}}. That should flag down an editor with the correct priveleges who wants to help with edit requests without having to hassle anyone on their talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

He's back! The protection expired on the 12 Feb, so must have forgot to set his alarm clock.
41.69.59.181 (talk · contribs) changed:

1. Hiram Blanchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. William Annand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Philip Carteret Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4. Frank C. Lynch-Staunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5. Helen Hunley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I have not reverted as of now.
The following IP may have added "|monarch= ..." to the articles below.
41.69.55.0 (talk · contribs) 41.69.34.228 (talk · contribs)

1. William Stevens Fielding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. John Sparrow David Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. George Stewart Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4. Bernard Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5. Camille Thériault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6. Ray Frenette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7. Frank McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8. Pat Binns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   

Perhaps we should request an admin protect them again? My watchlist is overly bloated from stuff like this, so if you would "mention me" with a [[User:Jim1138]], I would be more likely to see your reply. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jim1138, I don't see the point in keeping tracking of the IPs he has used, there's too many of them. I've added the articles in the first list back onto RFPP, but I don't think the latest diff in the articles in the second list are blacket vandalism. 117Avenue (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The IPs were just FYI links so you could view the IPs' histories. The second list is primarily about the addition of monarch= to the info box which I remember you removed at least one for reasons I forget. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please ping me on my talk if you have to revert one more edit from the username - I will indef. Looks like they've taken to adding image copyvios as well. Sigh. Connormah (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Connormah: Moatassemakmal was editing again. 117Avenue (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed now, though I sense that they may be back with IPs. In that case, please ping me again.. Connormah (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue. About this portal image that you reinstated, I think I must be missing something. I didn't think those portal images were used for anything other than linking to pages in the portal namespace. Are there any templates that use them when linking to WikiProjects instead? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that you reverted all the pages. That wasn't such a good idea - it just put about 5.4 million pages into the job queue. Better to discuss these things first... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That must be why what links here isn't working. I was trying to use it to answer your question. The only template I know of is Template:WPbox. 117Avenue (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some issues with proposed parameters for {{Infobox television episode}}. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Infobox television episode provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirects Template:For year month day/Exp and Template:Age in years, months and days/Exp. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I confess I'm curious about your rationale for your reversion of my edit to the Redford article. I rather thought it was apparent currently-serving premiers aren't included. Indeed, the article on Richard Gavin Reid, a featured article no less, includes the fact he was the shortest-serving premier. Are we to change that as well? Redverton (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if may be so bold, that is something you should seek to change on the Reid article through consensus. In the meantime, I feel right to re-add my edit, since I'm going by the featured article here. Thanks. Redverton (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how that was an MOS:ICON vio? I used a predefined field in the election infobox with icons commonly used for that purpose, see: Next United Kingdom general election; German federal election, 2013; etc. If you disagree with the use of and , there was no need to revert; they could have been changed to + and -. Nbpolitico (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the ICON violation, articles on Canadian elections don't use the seats needed field. Instead they use the seats needed for a majority, since a majority isn't required to "win" the election. 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not explained how this is an ICON violation, please do. Also, one does not need a majority to "win" in Britain either, but they need one to win unambiguously, without a period of uncertainty, just as in Canada. In Germany, no party has ever won a majority in over 60 years but the figure is still used. Please direct me to where consensus was established to omit this from Canadian election articles. Thanks. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. Your proposed introduction was reverted, so it becomes incumbent on you to gain consensus for your proposed change. And on that point, whether or not this considered a failure of MOS:ICON, I would likewise oppose the addition of this line. It is a confusing change since the template is not able to define what exactly the seats are needed for. In a multi-party election such as this, I do not find value in adding this to the template. Resolute 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not adding anything to the template, I am using a field that has existed in the template for sometime but has been unused in Canadian election rules for reasons unknown. - Nbpolitico (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're attempting to add content to an article. That the syntax is already contained within a generic all-purpose template is immaterial. Resolute 17:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do you suggest we have a broader conversation on this? 117Avenue's talk page is probably not the best venue. The artcile's talk page would be an option, but perhaps a venue with a wider audience such as the Canadian politics project page or the Canada WikiProject page. Your thoughts? - Nbpolitico (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have brought up my concerns with the increase/decrease templates earlier, they now have tens of thousands of transclusions. They assume a reader knows what a coloured triangle means. Does it mean that number will go up? Does it mean that is the number that has already been added? Does it mean the number is currently rising? I don't think their interpretation will be clear. The discussion on seats needed took place in April 2011, evidence of it can be found here, here, and here. 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, FWIW adding a link to the most pertinent of those in the edit summary (if it would have fit) would be helpful in future cases. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that they should be included in the main category along with all the other years; otherwise when you are viewing the non-category members of the category it will look like there were no elections after 2003. Certainly threw me the other day. –xeno^talk 03:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just took a read of WP:SUBCAT, I see there is such a thing as non-diffusing subcategories. So I guess I agree with you. 117Avenue (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for tracking that down. Thanks for your efforts on these pages! –xeno^talk 11:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue,

I have undone the changes you made which removed categories from five articles which I edited - though I can easily understand why you changed what I had added. Though it may seem to be a loophole in the way Wikipedia is organised, there is nothing which states in WP:REF that the reference for an article has to be on the article being referenced - it can be elsewhere. There is also no way to add an inline reference to a category, especially when using tools to speedily add categories without opening an edit window. All of the articles which I edited are referenced, but all in the article List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada and similar list articles. By adding them to the category, they enable any editors to add further information about the reported or reputed hauntings. Given that I am bulk categorising close to a thousand articles, this is the simplest way of doing things, though I hope to get back to adding a more "official" reference and more information to the articles once I have finished the categorising. Trust me, though - all of these articles have references to their reported hauntings in list articles around Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 08:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If the reported hauntings are notable enough for a section on the subject, I could see it being categorized as such. But I think "reportedly haunted" is highly subject, and not quantifiable. If much of this list is due to one reference, the category is liable for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

avenues
Thank you for quality articles on streets and roads in Canada, for "I don't mind being wrong, if it means a better article is written.", for gnomish work to avoid redirects, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Acting Parliamentary Leader Jean-François Fortin 2014.02.26 -" ( see http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Pages/PartyOfficersExecutives.aspx ) I trust you'll add this information yourself since you went to the trouble of reversing what I'd done rather than try to find the source. I'm done. 192.235.250.130 (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Where? 41st Canadian Parliament says that. 117Avenue (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You keep reverting my edits claiming that the change is not in the reference. This is the reference: http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Pages/PartyOfficersExecutives.aspx scroll down to Bloc Quebecois. See what it says beside "leader" and then see what it says beside "acting parliamentary leader". 192.235.250.130 (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.250.130 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And where does it say that Bellavance resigned to run for the leadership election? If you do not provide a source, this information is is original research on a living person. 117Avenue (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say he's interim leader of the BQ? See http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Party.aspx?Item=a639384e-e1a0-4169-83da-904925139b6a which lists all of the BQ's historic leaders, including acting leaders. 147.194.1.170 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post reference that has been used says "Bellavance acting as party leader in Ottawa", but on second thought this may mean parliamentary leader. However your statement that he served as interim party leader from December to February is still wrong. 117Avenue (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is likely that he is not listed as BQ leader on the parliamentary internet site because the BQ is not recognized as a caucus and therefore they would not recognize a parliamentary leader for the BQ. In addition to the media sources of his interim leadership I provided, the BQ website lists him as parliamentary leader[3]. I will again restore the previous state of the article. - Nbpolitico (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct, Bellevance was the parliamentary leader, however he was never the party leader. 117Avenue (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)