User talk:Darkcore/archive4

Hello, I've started WikiProject New York City, and from your edits it seems you might be interested. See its talk page for the beginning of a discussion on the standardization of neighborhood names, and bringing New York City up to featured status.--Pharos 13:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Something neat - Darkcore, you remember editing out something that said "Lincoln Cheung - chairman & CEO, Wedd's house," from the Business list on the UCC page? That guy is my Head of House. Knowing him, he probably put it up there....

Darkcore, hi, I was wondering if you could add "Lincoln Park" to the template of Newark neighborhoods. I can't figure out how the template should be edited. Although it might not be an official neighborhood by the city of Newark's reckoning, I think it more than qualifies in terms of distinctiveness and historical value. LP is officially park of "South Broad" but there's no "South Broad" listing in the template.

dinopup

I really like these. I didn't think of those titles before, so I really appreciate your effeorts to improve them. Thank you. --Spinboy 03:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see you've been moving some of the Queens neighborhood names. I wonder id it might not be best to just move these to Flushing, Queens etc., given that the borough article itself is at [Queens]].--Pharos 03:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Darkcore,

Hi there. I see you have been mercilously editing my work as usual. That page about my father - perhaps there is a conflict of interest but he is certainly a notable man. As the other person on this page suggested, if you search "David Ritch Cayman Islands" on Yahoo or Google you will find several pages of information about him - news articles, releases from the gov't of the Cayman Islands, etc. etc. Had ANYONE ELSE written this article, there would be no consideration for deletion. I thought it was an article that needed to be made, and I will soon be posting one about my grandfather, who is a former prime minister in Cayman. If you'd like to do something about it, be my guest.

Travis

Darkcore,

I'm just tired of you looking down your nose at me, that's all. I checked your contributions list; my father's article was only the third you've nominated in at least 5 months. I'm far from saying there is a vendetta and I know you really could care less, but I don't like how you keep re-appearing to tie me to a chair with red tape and force me to read your Wikipedia 'white paper.' Please just go away - I am not infringing on your perogative as an accomplished editor as I'm sure you'd argue I am, just think that we most likely cannot have a civil association with each other. I would think this a reasonable request. Travisritch 03:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, Darkcore, I don't know what you'll think of this, but could you consider taking another look at the David E. Ritch article? I tried to clean it up a bit, and remove some of the obvious POV statements. This probably won't be enough to make you change your vote, but I think it's a much better article, and I personally think it merits keeping. But, it's your vote, your call. Cheers, Bratsche ^(talk) 04:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. My environmental studies textbook, Living In The Environment 13th ed. (ISBN 0534397980) defines Urban sprawl as "the growth of low-density development on the edges of cities and towns that encourages the dependence on cars." I agree with you no doubt that modern Brooklyn is high denisty development and clearly not fitting to the critera of urban sprawl. But, in the context of the history of Park Slope (mid-to-late 1800s) it is valid-- especially given the fact that the first major boom in the neighborhood was dependent on the ferry service to Manhattan (urban center) started in 1814, and the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge (cars) in 1883. Brooklyn at the time, especially Park Slope, was a low density commuter suburb to Manhattan. New York City follows a concentric circle city model concentrated at the middle (the central buisness district), with an expansive spawl of people and capital into the emerging middle class suburbs on the periphery (South Brooklyn region in 1800s). Of course we know that Brooklyn eventually becomes engulfed into a metropolis, and later into a megalopolis, but not in the historical context in question. --Howrealisreal 23:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Park Slope was built by many captains of industry who lived IN Brooklyn. Commuting to Manhattan was simply not feasible until the subway system was built, which was well into the 20th century. Almost all of the structures in Park Slope were constructed prior to the creation of the subway system. Before that, all transportation was to the industrial sections of Brooklyn, and downtown Brooklyn (which in the 19th century was similar in size to downtown Manhattan, in terms of commercial buildings). And, by the way, the Park Slope building boom came about after the Civil War... which is a whole other subject I'll leave you to read up on.

Hi there! In response to your question on VfD as to who decides what streets are notable - the answer is that we all do, and if you see an article on a non-notable street you are welcome to list it on VfD. Or, simply be bold and merge it into something that is notable (e.g. a building on that street). Yours, Radiant_* 13:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the education on celcius degrees and degrees celcius. Maybe I'll remember it from now on.

Hi Darkcore! Things are bit more complicated than that. If OCAD is not a community college then neither are the others (see my response to your comments on my talk page. Paradiso 23:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

According to their websites the admission requirements for the colleges are the same as for the university. For example: Seneca wants a 65% minimum average grade 12, while Ryserson wants a 70% minimum grade 12. I think there are some universities in Canada were a 65% average isn’t even required, but it all depends on how many applicants. Some colleges have popular programmes that are very difficult to get into, even harder than getting into programmes at some of the traditional ‘universities,’ like you mentioned for Sheraton.

Therefore, I think the way the entire section now divides up universities from colleges is problematic because such distinctions are very unclear in Canada these days.

Here is what I suggest:

• do not group the schools according to university or college
• After a general discussion (a paragraph or two), all the schools should be listed with bullets in alphabetical order, with any descriptions attached to them.

This might make for easier reading as well. What do you think ? Paradiso 05:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Did you see the article about New Toronto in Eye? JohnnyB 19:25, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your comment: "I don't think that "policy" applies here, since there are only three pictures and are applicable to the article obviously" - I agree and support.

Thanks a lot for restoring the pictures.

--IHUB.org Founder 06:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Craigy   (talk) 23:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Quebec page as living in or being associated with Quebec. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Quebec for instructions.--Rmky87 00:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wondering if there was a discussion about these moves somewhere that I've missed? What are the motivations for the mass-moves? Thanks. --Qviri 05:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I, too, was wondering - why the move? The official names of the Highways were fine as the article headings, and by changing them the way you have, the highway number becomes the subject of the title, as opposed to the region the highway is in (the more appropriate titular subject.) I think those renames should be undone. --DarrenBaker 05:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. First, Wikipedia policy is to use the common name for every article and disambiguate using parentheticals if necessary (this is what I've done). "Ontario provincial highway" is not the common name for Ontario highways; in fact, most of the highway articles start as "Highway XX is...". In fact, doing a quick Google search, the vast majority of results with the term "Ontario provincial highway" are Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia-based articles. Second, many of the highways being described in these articles have been downloaded to municipalities (but still retain their names as "Highway XX", e.g., Highway 27, Highway 7) so it is misleading to state that they are "Ontario provincial highways". Third, Ontario provincial highway XX is unwieldy and unattractive. Highway XX (Ontario) accomplishes the same thing, but is simpler and makes sense. Darkcore 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you are going to use the municipal downloading as the basis for renaming the article, then what you would need to do is create one article for each and every municipality that the highways pass through. The name of the highway remains intact regardless of who maintains it, for navigational purposes. If you want to get really technical, then I suppose the true name of highway 11, for example, is actually 'The King's Highway 11 Ontario', as are all the King's Highways. Come to think of it, that's probably the best name for the article. What do you think? --DarrenBaker 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Municipal downloading isn't the only basis for the moves (although it is a significant reason). Creating individual articles for every downloaded segment is silly and unhelpful. These articles would be mini-stubs at best. In addition, it would make finding historical information difficult (or it would require duplicating information, which is also not helpful). Besides, many people refer to these highways by their pre-downloading names (Highway 27 is almost completely downloaded but is certainly not called York Regional Road 27 by anyone in common parlance). In addition, articles should not be named by their "technical" names but rather by their common names. This makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for. Highway XX is the common name for Ontario highways. I doubt that anyone would dispute that. It is standard Wikipedia convention to use common names and disambiguate as necessary. Darkcore 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Allen Road. I apoligize if my comment was in the wrong place. I'm not telling you what to do, just stating my opinon. FYI I am asking for consense on naming streets and roads at naming conventions (places). Cafe Nervosa | talk 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply