User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2010.1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Please do us all a favor and withdraw the mass afd nominations for Alberta settlements. Every settlement is notable, even if not recognized as hamlet by Alberta Municipal affairs. Some communities are first nations/metis and not under provincial jurisdiction, some are historic/ghost towns, etc. You would be right to nominate articles about non-existing places, however, this is not the case. --Qyd (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of not doing my research, and wanting to delete settlements with historical or tourist significance. I have only nominated short articles that do not have any history explained in them, and none on the List of ghost towns in Alberta. If I have nominated communities with history, I apologize, as it is hard to tell which ones they are with a two sentence article. If I have nominated communities in Indian or Metis Reserves, I apologize, as it is hard to tell which ones these are, as they are not explained in the article. I see a not notable community as one that is not recognized by an authority, in this case the Alberta Municipal Affairs. 117Avenue (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it wasn't your intent, but you are admitting to not abiding by WP:BEFORE and making an good-faith effort to research an article topic before nominating it for deletion. In this case, you mass-nominated over 100 articles simply because "it is hard to tell with a two sentence article" if they are worthy of inclusion. I should remind you that Wikipedia has no deadline. Just because an article is only two sentences and hasn't yet been expanded doesn't automatically mean the article topic is non-notable. Also, just because you "see a not notable community as one that is not recognized by an authority" doesn't mean the Wikipedia community agrees. Population centers in fact have always been accepted as notable by the community. As explained by Qyd, there are many other reasons a place can be notable besides being "recognized by an authority." I created the article of Midland, California and as far as I can tell, absolutely no authority "recognizes" it, but that doesn't mean it's not-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, I am certain you did the nominations in good faith, it was just the wrong approach. Every settlement is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article (all real places are inherently encyclopedic). Municipal Affairs is not the ultimate authority (what they define as hamlet is not necessarily the universal English language definition. Most of this articles need updates, corrections, expansions. What they don't need is to be deleted. Cheers. --Qyd (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that there are notable and historically significant communities not recognized by AMA, but these facts are only coming to light now. For example, reading Peace Point, Alberta, I had no idea that it is an important community. I have rescinded a few of my nominations that are notable, but not yet explained. Midland is notable because it has history. Because Oakshade says there is no consensus, I guess I can't cite a notable place as one with legally defined jurisdictions. I don't see the point of having an article with no more information then you can find on a map. For example, how is Lindbrook, Alberta helpful? I have been there, it is a small gas station on a highway intersection. It falls short of the requirement for notability. 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lindbrook used to be a stop on the Canadian National Railway. There's a campground and RV park in Lindbrook. Nudist campground no less. The article can be expanded, sources can be found, research may unveil history of these places. You delete them now, and nobody will ever add anything to the articles. That's why articles about geographical places routinely pass sfd. Articles being short is not a valid deletion reason. --Qyd (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The nom's almost seem WP:POINTy, and are now being discussed at WP:ANI. WP:SOFIXIT also applies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I raised the issue at WP:ANI as I wanted some advice about the best way to deal with the situation. The reason I didn't notify you that I had raised the issue was that I didn't think that any administrative action (warning / blocking etc) was justified in this case. It would be better if you were to leave a couple running and ask that the others are withdrawn. Once consensus has been established in those left running it may be possible to revisit the other nominations, although as has been stated above, settlements are generally held to be notable. Please consider the above suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you had the best of intentions, 117Avenue, but please, at least, Google the article name before you nominate it. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that a mass deletion seems rude, and 110 articles qualifies as a mass deletion, but it is small in comparison to how many Alberta settlement articles already exist, 385 registered hamlets, plus an unknown amount of articles about communities with historical significance. But where do we draw the line, what community is too small to be notable? 117Avenue (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:CANADA would be a good place to start a discussion about this. --Qyd (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that all of the nominated articles should NOT be deleted due to any combiniation of or all of the following reasons:

• most or all of the communities are recognized as localities by Statistics Canada;
• most or all are recognized as officially named places;
• most or all are recognized as unincorporated areas by the Geographic Names Board of Canada;
• most or all are identified on the Alberta Official Road Map, other road maps, or other popularly distributed mapping products;
• despite their small sizes, some may have a significant importance in history;
• some are communities within Indian reserves or Métis settlements;
• some are ghost towns;
• some are former urban municipalities that not only dissolved a long time ago but no longer even meet the Municipal Government Act (MGA) hamlet requirements (see Section 59);
• some may in fact meet the hamlet requirements of the MGA but the municipal district or specialized municipality has yet to take the initiative to designate them as hamlets through Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA);
• some may be former hamlets absorbed by urban municipalities via annexation (i.e., College Heights by Lacombe; Nacmine and East Coulee among numerous others by Drumheller; etc);
• some may be military communities within army bases;
• if you nominate the deletion of these and they are accepted, the same should also be done for equivalent communities in all other provinces and territories in Canada, and perhaps around the world;
• etc, etc, etc.

I think we all get the picture here. Although I understand why one may consider the mass deletion of Alberta settlements as a result of the recently discovered new information on what actually is designated a hamlet in Alberta, I believe a thorough review would conclude that each are all notable for numerouse of the reasons presented above and many others not presented.

Can the mass deletion of Alberta settlements be easily retracted?

If it is, I'll do my part to replace all hamlet references within these articles with "unincorporated community" and perhaps even create a List of Alberta unincorporated communities article. In fact, I was already planning to do the former anyway. Note that the former and the latter would be at the bottom of my current to-do list however. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A few corrections to the previous list, I did not nominate any settlements listed on List of ghost towns in Alberta, in the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, or on army bases. Nacmine, and the settlements on Indian/Métis reserves, were some what accidental, I didn't know at the time. 117Avenue (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries 117Avenue. I suspected you didn't based on our previous discussions prior to the nominations. Without scrutinizing the nomination list in detail, I added them to the above list for the benefit of the others monitoring this discussion in case they weren't privy to our previous discussions. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. Please withdraw them. You can leave a few as test cases and renominate the rest should the debates remaining open be closed as delete. 100+ AfDs in a single day is plainly disruptive. Timotheus Canens (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not merely a hamlet, but the site of a university. Did you even bother to read what you were doing? Bearian (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, they are two sentence articles that explain no significance. I did not know there was a university there. Also, I know what a university is, why did you wiki link it? 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

College Heights was once a hamlet but is no longer. The 1999 Municipal Codes published by Alberta Municipal Affairs shows that College Heights was considered a hamlet in 1999. However, the 2000 Municipal Codes publication removed College Heights from the publication, and it has not shown up in any of the subsequent 2001 through 2009 Municipal Codes publications.

The removal of hamlet designation was a result of a January 1, 2000 annexation of College Heights and other lands within Lacombe County by the Town of Lacombe. As such, College Heights is no longer a hamlet as the Municipal Government Act (MGA) does not allow a village, town or city to designate a hamlet within its boundaries (see section 59 of the MGA). Therefore, the most College Heights amounts to now is a neighbourhood within Lacombe, and that designation may not be official in the eyes of the town.

Unfortunately the Alberta Official Road Map and Alberta Transportation have yet to catch on that it is part of Lacombe as the map still shows College Heights as its own separate community and highway signs along Alberta Highway 2 still point travellers in the direction of the former hamlet and not Lacombe that has since absorbed it.

Regardless of the above information I have presented, I agree that the College Heights article should not be deleted. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In four minutes, I added text and four citatiosn about this hamlet. Please stop nominating any articles or stubs for deletion, or you risk being banned or blocked from Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bearian, Bearberry may have been once considered a hamlet but if so, the designation would have been removed by the Province of Alberta before 1999. None of the 1999 to 2009 Municipal Codes published by Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA) list Bearberry as a hamlet. Locals may refer to Bearberry a hamlet, but may not be aware that it actually isn't officially designation a hamlet because it either doesn't meet the requirements for a municipal district to designate it a hamlet (see Section 59 of the MGA), or Mountain View County simply hasn't pursued officially designating it as a hamlet through AMA.

Regardless of the above information I have presented, I agree that the Bearberry article should not be deleted. However, the article should be revised to remove all references of hamlet and replaced with unincorporated community. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar

For calmly and civilly dealing with the arguments over your mass nomination of deletion of Alberta places, and being right at least some of the time! Bearian (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for repeatedly undoing my edits to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes? Other confirmed future episodes have been listed, and the season ten article still exists. Why do think that not all season articles should be referred to on the list article? 117Avenue (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your question, even though a tenth season has been confirmed, it is a usual act to not add the upcoming season until after it starts to air and until after more information has been confirmed. It has been this way with all the past seasons. I would keep season ten on the episode list, but it is fit to wait until after the ninth season ends to keep the list current. DiamondMonster (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask you, according to what policy? Why does it have to be the way you want it? Why is adding four more future episodes not keeping it current? 117Avenue (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not unusual to post episodes on websites in advance of them being aired, whether the unaired episodes will be aired in the current season or the following season. It happens on EpGuides frequently, particularly with The Simpsons over the years (late in a past seasons, numerous episodes for the following seasons have been listed before the past seasons finished). In my opinion, including future episodes is not only appropriate, but also builds anticipation of the forthcoming episodes. --Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that may be a better way of saying it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the use of non-free images on lists...

The use of non-free media in lists is rather tightly controlled. It's rare that non-free media gets a liberal pass to be used heavily in lists. There are some exceptions, but they are few and far between. In the case of the Red Coat Trail, you're wanting to use File:Alberta Highway 3 (Crowsnest).png to identify Crowsnest Highway. Yet, textual representation of it identifies adequately. This causes this usage to fail WP:NFCC #1, which asks as a test "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" The answer here is yes, it can be. WP:NFCC #3 places requirements on us for minimal use. In no place on Wikipedia will you find a fair use image in use more than once on a given article. In the case of Red Coat Trail, you're wanting to use it three times. The usage also fails WP:NFCC #8, which goes to significance; will the reader's understanding of the article fail if they don't have these icons? No, it won't. If someone is so interested in Crowsnest Highway, they are certainly capable of clicking once to go to the article on that highway and see the signage used to represent the highway.

Similar arguments apply to the cases in List of Alberta provincial highways. Before I got there, the article had 19 non-free images in use on it. It is rare to find more than five on any given article.

If you think I'm way out on a limb here, you can seek other people's opinions on the issues at WT:NFC. But, simply restoring the uses is not the way to go. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that you are out on a limb, I see where you are coming from, and I can see why an image for Crowsnest Highway doesn't need to be on Red Coat Trail. But I disagree with your answer to NFCC #8 for all seventeen images on List of (one three times). In this list format a user could see which highways have custom highway markers, which could lead them to those articles over others, with your edit they can not know which highways have had special naming recognition with the Government of Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That functionality could be replaced with free imagery, or an asterisk. Non-free policy around here is a real pain in the tookus to a number of people. But, it is what it is. :/ --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What free imagery are you referring to? 117Avenue (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• You've done an excellent job of replacing other removed, non-free icons with free alternatives. I think you can find them better than I can! I've never seen most of these highways. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's different though. Andrew Airport is closed while CFB Edmonton is still in operation. Some of the other bases that are in operation don't have closed runways listed. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not? 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the double posting. In my opinion it's so the infobox contains only current material. If not then why not have a list of all the base commanders since it opened. The box is supposed to just give a snapshot of the material and the closed runways should be covered in the article proper. See CFB Shearwater for an example of that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is kind of current. I mean the runways are still there, they are just closed, I think that the strikeout would explain that. The infobox should explain what is there, I wouldn't have a problem if the asphalt was torn up. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

87 Districts were given royal assent Sometime last year. We won't know what they are until the report comes out in the summer. --Þadius (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Question in the Edmonton portal..(PS good choice in those templates)..I put back the box header...does it look like only 2 templates are in the box outline to you?? Because that is what i see... maybe i should revert it back??..Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem was in the neighbourhood template, fixed it. 117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hug hug!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can try. I think it's most likely that the 3-D components are just for the web only, could we stick to solid color (red) until July? Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I could help. Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent eye on Section 21(2) of the Local Authorities Election Act! Regarding your edits to the table under List of cities section, you may or may not have been aware of the discussion here. Any thoughts to address? --Hwy43 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't go reading all the laws you cite, I just know from editing Edmonton municipal election, 2010, that councillors can run outside their ward. I had just learned the footnote referencing from WP:NOTES#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes. Sorry about reverting your edits to Cities of Alberta, I had started editing it before you logged on. I switched the area and populations, because it is area before populations on the other lists. I added region because towns and villages list their surrounding MDs, I was wondering if this could improve on Talk:Cities of Alberta#Communities for CA's, inline external links are usually avoided. 117Avenue (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well your past research on the next municipal election paid off as I stopped reading the LAEA after Section 21(1). No worries about yesterday's concurrent edit conflict. Regarding the regions, I agree. I too like consistency. Thanks for finding another location for the CA links. They will do until specific articles for the CAs are created, if ever created. --Hwy43 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you partially reverse your precipitation edit to make snowfall to the nearest 0.1 cm (mm)? also, when the monthly precipitation is at the low end (maybe < 10 mm), precision of 0.1 mm is more important, so maybe you could adjust for this? Otherwise, the rest of the edit was great; rounding to 0.1 mm hurts eyes. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing the issues at Template talk:Infobox weather#False precision in snow conversion. A tenth of an inch should not convert to a tenth of a cm, because a tenth of a cm is smaller than a tenth of an inch. If you want tenth of a cm precision, you should input hundredth of an inch data, or tenth of a cm data, (or mm data,) otherwise there would be false precision, which was the problem. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I do realise the issue, but 0.100 in = 0.254 cm. I don't think 2.5 times the precision should do too much harm. Obviously inputting using 0.1 cm data is preferable, but... 华钢琴49 (TALK) 01:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it up on the talk page, because you are proposing hundredths of an inch be converted to tenths of a mm. Tenths of a mm is what we were trying to avoid. 117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi ive recently been on the season 9 page. is the innocent when you dream true?? i dont see a cite.?--Jampackofun (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I am only watching it for vandalism like yours. 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

i was too. i'm sorry i tried to revert it and it came back so i logged in as unregistered and tried to fix it again. Jampackofun (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

the exec said it airs in summer himself. --Jampackofun (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Then cite it. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. 117Avenue (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to our discussion here, I've since located this (this link is now dead per email from AMA below), but the links to the seven files within are all dead. I've inquired with Alberta Municipal Affairs (AMA) asking to either fix the dead links or forward the seven files via email. I'll let you know what comes of the inquiry. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I received a response and it appears that AMA is reluctant to republish or provide the public info that was once available on its website, so much so they removed the cached link as a result of the inquiry (see below response):

Thank you for your recent email regarding past municipal election data. Your web search has located a cached page, we have reported this issue to our IT support and the problem is resolved. The municipal election data was removed from the Ministry's website shortly after the election. Municipal election information can be obtained directly from the municipalities. Often municipalities keep past election information on their website. The Municipal Officials Directory is updated weekly with current contact information.

Note to ourselves in October... grab copies of the 2010 municipal election results when they are posted by AMA as they may only be there temporarily! --Hwy43 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know! That's going to be a busy week, battling vandalizers, and researching the official results. I remember from my travels writing 2007, the results aren't official until noon on the Friday, (October 22), recounts can take place before that. 117Avenue (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to watching from the sidelines with amusement as the battles ensue! --Hwy43 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. So when you said ourselves, you meant you. 117Avenue (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way it clears the non-free content criteria in that article. For a partial explanation of why, see WP:NFLISTS, especially points 2 and 6. Steve Smith (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see now, the other pictures of the deceased premiers were taken before 1949, I'll remove the other uses. 117Avenue (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 117Avenue. I noticed that you added WikiProject assessments to a bunch of redirects related to Alberta roads. Just so you know, redirect pages don't need assessment tags because they have no content in them, they are just a navigation tool. When those are tagged, it ends up throwing off the statistics for the number of articles in WikiProjects. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. But the bot that just went around tagged some like Onion Lake, Alberta, Elk River 233, Alberta, and Castle Downs. 117Avenue (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I haven't seen pages with class=redirect before, and I don't think that the assessment template knows what to do with it. Before I delete any more of those pages I'll go ask the WP:CWNB what they think about assessing redirects. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't live here back then, and I can't find the winner of 2007 showdown. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lPJEkzD6VdsJ:www.channelcanada.com/Article1632.html+the+bounce+2007+showdown&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a The cache of google search result says something about competition in 2007, but what happened? tablo (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue, I would like to start a new Former hamlets of Alberta category, potentially with a sub-category of Annexed hamlets of Alberta for hamlets that lost their hamlet status upon annexation by a non-rural municipality. The former would include all communities that were dropped off the hamlet list in the annual Municipal Codes publication over the years, while the latter would include those that were absorbed by urban municipalities (i.e., College Heights now within Lacombe; Nacmine, Rosedale, Wayne and East Coulee now within Drumheller; Hillcrest now within Crowsnest Pass; etc). Do you happen to know the correct process that should be followed to do this? Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a category is just like creating an article, either run a search for the exact name you want to use, or create a red link (like here,) then click on it. Most categories only have a list of what categories they are apart of, (like Category:Former municipalities now in Edmonton), while some have a short description, (like Category:Hamlets in Alberta). Hope this helps. How do the existing categories Defunct municipalities of Alberta and Former municipalities of Alberta fit into your plan? Perhaps a merger or move would be a better option. 117Avenue (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do as you suggested in the coming days. Regarding Defunct municipalities of Alberta and Former municipalities of Alberta, I feel the former should be removed or redirected to the latter, and that Former municipalities now in Edmonton become a sub-category of the latter. Thoughts? Not sure exactly how this would be done, but imagine it is pretty easy to figure out. --Hwy43 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense, but now it doesn't conform with other categories, see Defunct municipalities in Canada. If you choose to rename Former municipalities of Alberta all you have to do is, first create the new category, then add the template {{Category redirect|new name}} to the old one, and a bot will come and change every article that is in it. This is what I did to move all the highway articles[1] to the new category. 117Avenue (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I had a suspicion building that it may have created an inconsistency nationally. I'm a strong proponent of consistency and in this case, I simply didn't check first. In reviewing Defunct municipalities in Canada, I see that half the subcategories use defunct and half use former. I also see four use municipalities in and two use municipalities of. Which of the following formats do you feel is most appropriate for this category and all of its subs?

• Defunct municipalities of...
• Defunct municipalities in...
• Former municipalities of...
• Former municipalities in...

If we both agree that applying a consistent format is important, should we consult with others first or just do it? If the former, where do you suggest we post the discussion? Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should take this to the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. 117Avenue (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I fully understand what has gone on (or at least I'd like to think I do). Thank you for executing this. I'm still contemplating the creation of categories for Former hamlets in Alberta and Annexed hamlets in Alberta. I'll let you know what I propose to do when it comes time. --Hwy43 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't do a whole lot of editing/discussing on Wikipedia, so apologies in advance if I'm going about this the wrong way.

I've noticed that you've done a few edits to the CIAB-FM page, so maybe you can fix this. The station has actually changed its call letters to CKNO-FM. I found this out since I work in radio and actually had the station confirm directly. Which isn't the best source, but I found this http://edmontonbroadcasters.com/ebc/stations/ that states the call letter change as well. As someone who works in the radio industry, Wikipedia is a valuable resource, so I'm just doing my help to keep it up to date. AlisonCMc (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't listen to that station on a regular basis, so I haven't heard the call letters they say on air. Bearcat has actually improved the article more than I. I will ask him why I can't find it on the CRTC website. 117Avenue (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked it up and the changes seem to be correct on both counts; I'll change the articles accordingly. The CRTC doesn't actually publish decisions approving or denying call sign changes, which is why you wouldn't have any luck searching their site for information on that; call signs are actually looked after by Industry Canada (which looks after the technical aspects of broadcasting, while the CRTC primarily regulates the content aspects) and can be searched at Spectrum Direct or REC Networks — although that said, in this particular case REC still has both stations listed only in "pending license" format ("EDMONTON ##"). Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. 117Avenue (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the resulting edits at List of communities in Alberta#Specialized municipalities. I was planning to request that you do so but you beat me to it! --Hwy43 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you just created Category:Improvement districts in Alberta. I just created Category:Specialized municipalities in Alberta. However, both are subcategories of Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta, when we now know that both of these are not subcategories of municipal districts. Should we try to overhaul the category system for Alberta's municipalities using the hierachy presented here underneath Category:Settlements in Alberta? We would likely also have to consider how non-municipality settlements (hamlets, unincorporated communities, etc) would be impacted.

Also, the Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta should probably be moved to Municipal districts in Alberta to be as correct as possible since counties are considered municipal districts. Thoughts? --Hwy43 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting on the Specialized Municipalities to see what you thought, I didn't expect you to put it in counties and MDs. I created one for IDs because Kananaskis needed a place to go, I am trying to empty Settlements in Alberta. You listed IDs as a part of RMs on the list of communities so I thought I could get away with putting it in MDs, but I guess that isn't technically correct. In my opinion the county category should remain with that name because it is the common name and the most officially used name of a MD, unless you want to open this to a wider opinion. Would the hierarchy go something like this:

117Avenue (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I temporarily placed the SMs subcategory under Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta until I found a more logical location and never thought to look up one level until now. So I've since moved the ID and SM categories under Category:Local government in Alberta. I'll digest the hierarchy you've provided above while doing my related research and get back to you.

I understand the case for the common name for Category:Counties and municipal districts of Alberta. How about Municipal districts and counties in Alberta per the official name of the AAMDC or Municipal districts (counties) in Alberta? Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "counties and municipal districts" was chosen because it is alphabetical, but I think AAMDC is a good source to go by, I would support a move to "municipal districts and counties in Alberta". 117Avenue (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a second draft of the hierarchy for consideration based on my preliminary research on Alberta geography from provincial and federal sources.

Let me know what you think. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Urban Services Areas: I don't think it needs its own category since only two articles will be in it. Localities: will you be creating those articles, or do you know which ones to add to it? Military communities: Ralston would be the only article, because Denwood is a part of CFB Wainwright, and Lancaster Park is a part of CFB Edmonton. Settlements: will you be creating those articles, or do you know which ones to add to it? Townsites: I don't think it needs its own category since only one article will be in it. Neighbourhoods: a town neighborhoods category shouldn't be needed because neighbourhoods in towns shouldn't have articles, only three municipalities in Alberta have neighbourhood lists. Drake Landing Solar Community can stay where it is, and Category:Neighbourhoods in Alberta can be moved to Cities in Alberta, I like the name for that category considering its contents. 117Avenue (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Urban Service Areas and Townsites – I agree. These could be subcategorized in the future if more are created over time (we could put Redwood Meadows under either Communities on First Nations reserves or Localities in the meantime).

RE: Localities – I think we should first try to find a complete list of Alberta localities from AltaLIS or Statistics Canada before either of us create articles or add to it.

RE: Military communities – despite what the Ralston article presented until I edited it a few minutes ago, Ralston is located on the base, not south of the base. As for the other two, their redirect pages could be tagged with subcategory bringing the total to three (we could also do the same for the Medley redirect as well). For consistency, military communities on military bases should be treated the same as the proposed Communities on First Nations reserves and Communities on Metis settlements above, if you are in agreement with them.

RE: Settlements – I have a complete listing from AltaLIS. I can create those articles over time. This proposed Settlements subcategory is contingent upon Category:Settlements in Alberta being moved to Category:Communities in Alberta. A temporary Surveyed settlements subcategory could be created for the interim.

RE: Neighbourhoods – 1.) If "neighbourhoods in towns shouldn't have articles" is the case, the subcategory should be removed from the Drake Landing Solar Community article as it is the only town neighbourhood currently linking to Category:Neighbourhoods in Alberta. 2.) Do you prefer Neighbourhoods in Alberta or City neighbourhoods? It is not clear from your comment which of the two you prefer. --Hwy43 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I support your move from settlements to communities. Drake Landing Solar Community is a neighbourhood, and it is in Alberta, I think it is correct to keep it in this category. Removing it would leave it in fewer categories than I feel comfortable with, an Okotoks, Alberta category would work, but there isn't one, so what do we do with it, unless it doesn't meet notability? Perhaps the new Communities in Alberta could work? I prefer to keep the name "Neighbourhoods in Alberta" as is, but under Cities in Alberta as you suggested, not Settlements in Alberta as I suggested. 117Avenue (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If "Neighbourhoods in Alberta" ends up being the name and is slotted under "Cities in Alberta", and if Drake Landing Solar Community remains in this category, then the location of the category under "Cities in Alberta" wouldn't be ideal given Okotoks is not a city. Perhaps leaving "Neighbourhoods in Alberta" at its current location under "Settlements(→Communities) in Alberta" is the appropriate place for it if Drake Landing Solar Community remains categorized. It could move to the desired location if and when Okotoks incorporates as a city (the town recently reconsidered changing to city status but quickly decided to stay as is). --Hwy43 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there enough articles for an Okotoks category of its own. If you know of any that I missed add them. 117Avenue (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the reorganization. Communities on First Nations reserves and Métis settlements may not be a complete listing. I have not created Localities yet because be don't know what to put in it. Settlements will need to be emptied before filling. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and good job! I've made a couple changes to those articles that were on my watch list. I'll take a peak at the other articles as well and also cross-refence with my running list of Communities on First Nations reserves and Métis settlements to make them more complete. --Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My municipalities map shows a post office called Enoch and Siksika on those reserves, while it doesn't show the three you just added. 117Avenue (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest Category:Municipal districts and county seats in Alberta → Category:Municipal district and county seats in Alberta?
The pluralization of Municipal districts is inadvertently misleading/confusing.
Alternately, you may want to consider Category:Rural and specialized municipality seats in Alberta or more simply Category:Municipal seats in Alberta to capture the seats for the specialized municipalities, IDs and Special Areas in addition to the MD/county seats. --Hwy43 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, they both sound weird right now, I'll have to think about it. I didn't know specialized municipalities had "seats", what would be the seat for Jasper and Crowsnest Pass? "Municipal seats in Alberta" would be simpler. 117Avenue (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The three largest specialized municipalities have seats. I believe I've seen Jasper's townsite as the seat for the Municipality of Jasper. Not sure which community in the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass is its seat. According to its website contact page, its municipal office is located in Coleman. I have a recent AAMDC map at work that I can check to confirm both.

Do you know if IDs have municipal seats? I suspect no, or only Banff and Waterton Lakes NPs do.

I recall the seats for the three special areas are Hanna, Consort and Oyen. My AAMDC map may confirm this.

As you think about Municipal seats in Alberta, one of the things you could do is include an introductory statement on the category page that states something like:

The below articles are municipal seats of specialized municipalities, municipal districts/counties, special areas and improvement districts in the Province of Alberta.

I'll try to get back to you tomorrow evening. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think IDs had seats, that is why I was surprised when you said they do. But I am still a little fogging on the jurisdiction there, do they have councils, who approves bylaw changes or development permits for the Hamlet of Lake Louise, like the MD councils do for hamlets elsewhere? The problem with Municipal seats in Alberta, and including the specialized municipalities, is where would the sub-category go then? Category:Rural municipalities in Alberta wouldn’t be appropriate. 117Avenue (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I included IDs in my initial comment as I didn't want to assume they didn't without confirming first. I too am foggy on how IDs operate. Some light is shed on MA's ID Profiles.

Here are the results of my review of the 2008 AAMD&C map at work today:

• no municipal seats are shown for IDs (this could be due to the IDs not being members of the AAMD&C however);
• Hanna is shown as the only municipal seat within the three special areas; and
• Crowsnest Pass (not Coleman) is shown as the municipal seat of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass (despite the office being located in Coleman);
• a municipal seat is not shown for the Municipality of Jasper (this could be due to it not being a member of the AAMD&C however);
• Fort Vermilion, Sherwood Park and Fort McMurray are the municipal seats for Mackenzie County, Strathcona County and the R.M. of Wood Buffalo respectively.

I understand the predicament on the sub-category location. The only new alternate solution that immediately comes to mind is locating it under Category:Local government in Alberta. I'll let you know if anything else comes to mind. --Hwy43 (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

IDs: It looks like they have councils, but their office is in Edmonton. Special Areas: Was it you that listed Oyen and Consort for 3 & 4 at List of communities in Alberta#Special areas? Crowsnest Pass: Crowsnest Pass is thought to be the only thing in the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass, because everything else was amalgamated, but we don't have to do what the map says, we report reality. Jasper: Jasper is the only thing in Jasper, I didn't expect anything else. Sub-category: I'm still thinking, nothing seems to be totally right. 117Avenue (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been continued at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 21#Category:Municipal districts and county seats in Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what are your thoughts on creating Category:Special areas in Alberta as a sub-category under Category:Rural municipalities in Alberta and placing Special Areas Board and its three associated redirects within it (Special Area No. 2, Special Area No. 3 and Special Area No. 4)? --Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I had thought about it, if the article was split into one that discusses the area, rather than the board. 117Avenue (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason the category was switched from Category:Communities in Alberta to Category:Settlements in Alberta in the first place is that "settlements" is the general standard for places — "communities", in category names, is used primarily for things like religious retreats, kibbutzes, shtetls, leper colonies and other communities of choice or circumstance. And at any rate, the categories for all Canadian provinces and territories have to be named the same way, either all "communities" or all "settlements"; Alberta can't stand alone with a different naming format than the other 12. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As explained in List of Alberta settlements, Alberta's definition of a settlment is not a municipality, it was a subdivision made before the Dominion Land Survey. 117Avenue (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)