User talk:Magu2k

Stuff goes here

Graphics re WT:CWNB

If you want a grunty task that is cross-border (though Canada is where all the water comes from), here's one from my "will never get around to" list: in the featured article Columbia River#Irrigation is a map showing the major dams in the Columbia watershed. It's original purpose was in a different article I believe, where the location of every dam was shown. This map (IMO) needs a forked version for the Columbia River article, with all the axtra dots removed so that only the numbered dams are shown. All this will do is declutter and simplify the map, so it's not a huge issue - but it is a FA, so might be worth the effort. I discussed this with Mr. Map (User:Kmusser) long ago and I have a parent version in .ai format to work from if you ping me an email. I only know a tiny bit of Photoshop, I think I'd try the heal tool and the sample thingie. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds tough.. not sure if I could do it but I am definitely interested in giving it a try, what is your email address? Magu (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, didn't notice you don't seem to have email enabled. If you look in your preferences, you will find a tab where you can register an email account. Set that up and you will be able to go to my user or talk page and find an "Email user" menu item on the left side. If you send me an email that way I can respond with an attachment. Franamax (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmonton street map.png

I thought you said you are in Edmonton, did you not notice the missing freeway in south east Edmonton? Also there is Ray Gibbon Drive to St. Albert, and the png has streets on the river. 117Avenue (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do live in Edmonton, Anyways, Yeah have since checked it out, well I started pretty much from scratch, so no streets on the river. Also my color scheme is fairly different form the original and I don't have any representation of St. Albert and Sherwood park. I have marked in the SE portion of Anthony Henday up to (approximately) where it meets SP Freeway. I have also already marked in the portion of Ray Gibbon, but it is just part of the Anthony Henday NW (now) isn't it? Anyways, here are some questions I have, as I want to make sure this is going to fit the needs of Edmonton articles at least for a a few years hopefully. So sorry I don't want to bother you with a bunch of questions but I'll keep it to as few as I can for now:

1. Does every street need to be represented? In my map most minor streets (like your residential ones) aren't shown but important roads like whyte, Jasper, 111ave, 118ave, 137Ave, 127St, etc etc etc are. I decided initally to take this route to minimize clutter and keep the file size down (currently about 1.5MB)

2. Does the file need the creek names? I can't think of any more important Q's right now but let me know, if the answer to both questions are "no" then the file is pretty much ready and I am just tweaking the colors. a bit. Magu (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ray Gibbon Drive is a new road that goes from Anthony Henday along the west edge of St. Albert. Eventually it will be a bypass of the city, but it currently ends at Giroux Road. Also to keep in mind, the north Anthony Henday leg is to open in the fall of this year, so it will have to be updated again. Not every street, just down to the bus route streets, like the current one. I don't think any streets or creeks need to be named, the current one just has shields for the highways exiting the picture. 117Avenue (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have added Ray Gibbon to reflect that but due to the aforementioned lack of St Albert/SP on the map, currently it "ends" at 137th ave (The city boundary) And yeah that is one thing I was thinking about would it be wrong to add the entire NW leg of AH yet? Either way, that won't be difficult to add later. And as far as the names go I have shields similar to the current. I but have added shields (compared to current) for AH (216) and SP Freeway (100) and removed a few since they are not reflected in the map like poundmaker trail, to name one. One other change I intend to make (Unless you suggest otherwise) is to not mark 170th street to be a highway the same as highway 2, or 16, etc like it is in the current map, since, to my knowledge while it's a fairly major road, it does not have a highway designation. One last bit, is to just notify you that since the dimensions are different on this map we will also need to update the edge co-ordinates represented in the template. Magu (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to include St. Albert and Sherwood Park, there places in each which use this template. 117Avenue (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem I will do that it will take some time, thanks for answering my questions. I expect I will have it ready in the next couple days. Magu (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what data sources did you create the arterial roads, highways, river, and boundaries for Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and St. Albert? From GIS data, map digitizing, or other? Hwy43 (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material was traced from imagery or manually reproduced from map references (particularly the boundaries). Magu (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explains how certain features don't appear to be geographically-correct. Further to 117Avenue's comments here, I have the following:

portions of St. Albert's boundaries are incorrect, particularly:

southwest boundary should follow the shoreline of Big Lake; and
northeast boundary is incorrect (refer to this CRB map);

the Sherwood Park Urban Service Area boundary south of Wye Road appears to be a tad exaggerated in terms of size (please double-check, referring to the above linked CRB map);
although the Sherwood Park Freeway is "technically" numbered Highway 100, it is not signed as such, so I recommend removal (note this other CRB map, which was prepared by Alberta Transportation, labels it as "S.P.F." with no background shield or oval);
numerous arterial roads in Edmonton are missing further to those recently identified by 117Avenue (I recommend using the Edmonton TMP's Figures 3.9, 4.1, and 7.1 as a starting point for what roads within Edmonton should be included);
numerous equivalent arterial roads in St. Albert (i.e., Levasseur Rd, Meadowview Ave/McKenney Ave/Bellerose Dr, Grandin Rd, Sturgeon Rd, Dawson Rd, Hogan Rd) and Sherwood Park (i.e., Sherwood Dr between Broadmoor and Brentwood, Granada Blvd, Petroleum Way/Lakeland Dr, Clover Bar Rd north of Hwy 16, Twp Rd 534 along the northernmost boundary) are missing;
the applicable St. Albert roads that actually extend to its municipal boundary should be extended as well;
I'd also like to see RR 231, 232, and 233 (extensions of Sherwood Park's Clover Bar Rd, Brentwood Blvd, and Broadmoor Blvd) shown between Sherwood Park and Hwy 628; and
I'd also like to the remaining Anthony Henday Drive legs that are not yet open shown in the same symbology, but in a broken-line format with gaps to indicate it is under construction.

These are my comments for now. Hwy43 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the St. Albert city limits recently changed, but I was unsure if they were right or not. I think there should be more roads too, with all the arterials, and with a thinner width line, the collectors (aka bus routes). 117Avenue (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the changes, will take a few days at least, but I have been using http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files/backup/community/PDF/BrochureMap2009_Streets.pdf and http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/ZoningMaps/zb_index_map.pdf (among others) and this brings one issue right now which is that other than one small corner in the southwest of St. Albert that I missed and the nature preserve over to the NE which doesn't make it clear if it is part of St. Albert or no, but it seems to differ from the CRB map. Also 117Ave, I can find nothing at all anywhere (so far) indicating the alignment of 167ave at Manning freeway has changed, so while I believe you, can you point me to any information showing how this alignment has changed? I need something to refer to. Magu (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last annexation by St. Albert occurred in early 2007, involving lands to the north and west. The River Lot 56 Natural Area is within Sturgeon County. The boundary of St. Albert on the south side of the Sturgeon River is Poundmaker Road. Hwy43 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also save yourself the trouble of referring to the Zoning Bylaw maps and use the Transportation System Bylaw map instead. It confirms the locations of existing and future arterial roads. It does not confirm collector roads however. I don't think collectors should be added unless we have a reference that confirms locations of all collectors, whether they carry transit or not. Hwy43 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe OpenStreetMap is mostly accurate. 117Avenue (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend worrying about the arterials first before collectors to keep the ongoing map improvements manageable. In the meantime, maybe we can find a more reliable source for the collectors. I do see that the location of the 167 Avenue realignment on OpenStreetMap is consistent with Edmonton's online mapping. Hwy43 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Around how many collector roads would we be talking about? as it is it is tough for me to manage right now (I'm no mapping professional or anything) But for the time being at least, I agree lets get arterials and highways and all that major stuff pinned down. I am not ready to upload a revision yet, but I have most of all the above done with a few exceptions, just to let you know though the next revision, most likely, will not include all the style changes as the amount of added work to bring it all up to "style" is unnecessary until I have at least gotten all the roads in, and placed correctly, then I will re-apply the style and color conventions, and will also make the line width of the highways a fair bit more narrow, etc. Magu (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably all of them. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to City of Edmonton GIS data, there appears to be approximately 200 unique arterial roads and approximately 550 unique collector roads. Hwy43 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new revision. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edmonton_City_Road_Map.svg Please ignore the colors as I said before I will apply style after we have roads suitably placed. Additionally please ignore the weight (width) of some of the lines (particularly arterials) some are not as heavy, this will not be apparent when stylization is applied. I suspect there might still be some issues with St. Albert's borders, let me know, also the ends of some streets may not match up *exactly* due to minor stretching due to the necessity to split data at an earlier stage. Anyways if you find any issues at all please let me know. Magu (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention I have used http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype353/production/NERRInterchangesheet1.pdf

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype353/production/NERRInterchangesheet2.pdf and photos at http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=947&page=4 post number 314 to align the anthony henday sections that are under construction as accurately as possible. I have divided Anthony Henday into 3 sections, solid line for complete/open, broken red line for under construction, and dotted line for future. Magu (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to see a lot more roads inside, and outside, of city limits. 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been pretty busy lately sorry, At this time though, I have no way to bring in a large number of streets without major crashing issues (more software limitations than anything else) and the only other way at this time would be if I could directly import it from an existing viable vector source, which I don't have. My suggestion would be if it's acceptable as is (with stylization added) to use it until I or someone else can add the additional data. Magu (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hannah Sung

The article Hannah Sung has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable entertainer

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hannah Sung for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hannah Sung is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Sung until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Canadian Forces Maritime Command Emblem.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Canadian Forces Maritime Command Emblem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Canadian Forces Maritime Command Emblem.svg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian Forces Maritime Command Emblem.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Canadian Forces Maritime Command Emblem.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]