Kelw

Welcome!

Hello, Kelw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod 22:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Toronto infobox

Is there a reason that you removed the link to the list of MPs and MPPs from the Infobox? There was a specific request at for this infomation at Template_talk:Infobox_City#For example, in Canada, MPs and MPPs to be in the Canadian cities infobox. —MJCdetroit 03:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MPs and MPPs are not part of the city government, so it is not logical or appropriate to include them in the Infobox. Doing so is like including members of the United States Congress in the infobox for Chicago—they belong to two completely separate levels of government and are simply not relevent in the article. As far as I know, no other city using the Infobox_City template includes a link to such a list. For example, see the infobox for Montreal, which uses the same template. Please let me know your reasoning for including this information. KeL 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen what the Toronto infobox looked like before I edit out all the MPs and MPPs and made them a list. Montreal never had any infomation regarding any represention and I'm not gonna be the one to add it. However, many Canadian cities have such infomation —St. John's, Ottawa (which I made a link to a separate list but it was reverted to the what you see now), Windsor, Ontario, North Bay, Ontario —just to name a few. I truely understand your reasoning, but it is infomation that has always been included and wanted with the Canada cites infoboxes. And as you can see by the request using Toronto as a specific example is still very much desired. Compare the old and the new Toronto infoboxes and you'll see that I was trying to make them as uncluttered as possible. I even let a message on Ottawa's talk page about how listing all those MPs and MPPs in the infobox looks. I guess it's better to include than exclude; I just don't like when it make it look so cluttered. —MJCdetroit 04:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I seen that you just added the elevations. I must have somehow missed them the first time. I am surprised that they stayed off the infobox for that long. Thanks for catching that. The infobox looks great. —MJCdetroit 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

I like the NPOV cleanup you did on Ted Kennedy article. Bravo. /Blaxthos 06:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Toronto article

Thanks for cleaning up the addition made under the Cityscape header. I was close to erasing it—it was very unsubstantiated and messy, so I wasn't sure if its core concept could be rewritten in a fair light. Alyoshenka 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The section still needs a lot of rewriting and expanding. Ideally it should have more information on the architectural styles and urban structure of the city and neighbourhoods. Right now there is too much information listing the rich or poor nieghbourhoods of the city, which kind of takes the section off track. KeL 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, especially about taking the focus away from the politics/socioeconomics of the city, which is a much broader subject and can't really be summarized in a section dedicated to brevity. I'll get round to throwing up some bare bones pieces on Toronto's diverse architecture later tonight, but we'll need a real collaboration with decent sources. The image is a great start, though. :) Alyoshenka 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clinton

Hi, just like to say good edit on the Bill Clinton article and thanks for agreeing with me on new democrat issue, though nodoubt someone will dislike both our contributions to the introduction!! Anyway I notice no-ones given you a barnstar, so well done.

		The Original Barnstar
		I LordHarris 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) hereby award you this barnstar for your wikipedia contributions and for your work on Bill Clinton

Curious Capitalization

Hello, KeLw !

Thanks for exploring the aspects of proper capitalization.

Upper case, lower case, which case is it ?

A number of well-meaning wordsmiths are firm about two aspects of capitalzition. First, if it refers to the first letter of the first word of any given sentence, then choose upper case. Secondly, if it refers to a title of office, then choose upper case (for that first letter).

For instance, as examples, they might cite:

1a. John Kennedy was the most beloved President of the United States.

2a. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be Governor of California.

3a. Historians agree that George Washington was the first President of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.

Each instance of capitalizaton, re reasons of title, is incorrect.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, Associated Press Manual of Style, Chicago Manual of Style, and Guardian Manual of Style, simply being a title is insufficient cause for upper case.

The title must be intimately united to the name of the individual, such that, it constitutes their name and not solely a description of their occupation or function.

So that, in the same examples, these authorities would cite:

1b. John Kennedy was the most beloved president of the United States.

2b. Lorraine Hargrave failed in his bid to be governor of California.

3b. Historians agree that George Washington was the first president of the United States, Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States; but, they do not agree who was greater.

More examples of correct and incorrect usage:

1a. Only when President (correct) Johnson . . .

1b. Only when president (incorrect) Johnson . . .

2a. We'll take this to Governor (correct) Libby, the 3rd governor (correct) of Nevada, . . .

2b. We'll take this to governor (incorrect) Libby, the 3rd Governor (incorrect) of Nevada, . . .

Only when the title is tight with the name and preceeds it, is it capitalized - all other instances, you don't.

Note, I don't hold this because my daddy, mommy, or 3rd-grade teacher, told me so; likewise, I don't hold this because I heard or read "something", "somewhere", about the need to capitalize titles.

Look up any specific American president, English prime minister, or Big Cheese governor or premier, in a reputable reference (as those mentioned), to prove my thinking wrong.

If my understanding is incorrect, please demonstrate in what manner - with a supporting reference - that I can access and verify via the library.

Curiouscdngeorge 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The colonial flag is an important part of our history!

The colonial flag is an important part of Hong Kong history! Don't remove it again. --210.6.141.175 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already an existing consensus on the issue. Since you want to change it, I am moving the discussion to the article talk page where other editors can participate. — Kelw (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Canada provinces map}} and {{Infobox Province or territory of Canada}}

Here's the story: when {{Infobox Province or territory of Canada}} was first implemented, it had no width control, width was dictated by the full size of the map images. Those are all 280px (very low res if you ask me) but those images are still in use today. However, that was fixed about a year ago, when the map image size was fixed at 280px. I took that in account when I wrote the code for {{Canada provinces map}} (image size and parameter name came form the infobox). Now last month, the infobox was thoroughly recoded (by you I presume), all to the best, execept the map size (and implicitly the infobox width) were set at 250px rather than 280px. Now if enabled, the labeled map will strech the width to 280px. Other than that (rather minor thing), is there any other reason you would call this "error"" or "disrupts the layout". And is there a good reason why the infobox is "suited for maps of 250px or smaller", as you put it? I tried the layouts with and without labeled map, and saw no problem (I used IE7, Firefox and Opera). Regarding shrinking the {{Canada provinces map}}, yes it would be possoble, but it would greaty narrow down the map options, so it's something I would like to avoid at this point. Would you consider defaulting the map and infobox width at 280px instead (the maps would look better too, as that is their full width, they wouldn't appear compressed). Thanks. --Qyd 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the only one who dislikes the appearance of the labelled maps in the Canadian Provinces infobox, as seen in edits by other editors such as this one. Regarding the width of the Canadian Provinces infobox, the change was made to bring more consistency with other geography templates, namely Template:Infobox City and Template:Infobox Country. The reason I asked you to consider modifying Template:Canada provinces map is because, I presume, you intend to use this template in a variety of situations and articles, not just in infoboxes. In that case, it just makes sense (to me at least) that the template's width be made adjustable. I am not asking you to shrink the map, I'm asking you to make it adjustable. In the future, you will likely run into articles where the maps need to be bigger or smaller than 280px, and you will see the limitations of the template. Anyway, I decided it's okay to remove the labels for the time being because the labels aren't really important for the infobox. The map already shows the location of the province within Canada, so the labels are not really needed. I won't stop you from reverting it if you insist, but I would prefer it stay this way for now. — Kelw (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's something else, I thought there was an actual problem (disruption, display error, etc), if it's just a matter of personal preference, that's fine with me. I considered the lableled map just for article navigation purposes. Anyway, {{Canada provinces map}} now has adjustable width. PS {{Infobox City}} also has adjustable width (map_size parameter) Cheers. --Qyd 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought, as the parameter is optional, disabled by default, easy to switch off, and as the width is now fixed, I think I'm going to add it back. If editors woun't like it on the page, they can turn off the feature there. And thanks for the customisable width ideea. --Qyd 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chinese

We agreed on using template:chinese or chinesename on all chinese-based food articles because there is too many names. Mantou is one of the few food item with 1 name only. Look at tofu and congee. Have you seen the size of some of these articles without the template? I don't see any consensus that said we must use zh-all. Whatever discussion you had earlier is probably with an old template. This one can handle far more languages with far more features and bug fixes. It can selectively display pinyin, jyutping etc. Benjwong 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Toronto

Please respond at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Toronto. Gary King (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong FAR

Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Joowwww (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)