User talk:Gordalmighty

Thanks for improving the Hudson, Quebec page. Galteglise (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per

]

Hi Gordalmighty!
We thank you for uploading

. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

]

Welcome!

Hello, Gordalmighty! helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SriMesh | talk 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply ] Getting started Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Canada Roads WP

Thanks for joining up with WikiProject Canada Roads. Glad to have you aboard!

SriMesh | talk 04:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

A note of thanks

Good job on all the work you have done on articles pertaining to southwestern Quebec. Keep it up! Sirtrebuchet (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't disambiguate titles unless there's actually something else of the same name to distinguish them from. And even if there is a need to disambiguate, we always choose the least complex title at which the topic is uniquely-named — that is,

]

It depends on what the name of the riding is:

1. If it's a unique name, it can just be at "name".
2. If it's not a unique name in general but is unique among electoral districts, it can be at "name (electoral district)".
3. If there's been a federal riding of the same name but no other provincial one, then it needs to be at "name (provincial electoral district)".
4. If there's been another provincial riding in another province by the same name, then they'd go to "name (Actual Name of Province electoral district)". We'd only have to go all the way to "Actual Name of Province provincial electoral district" if there's actually been a federal riding of the same name and a provincial riding of the same name in another province — I can't absolutely say for sure without checking, but I'm not aware of any case that's actually that crazy.

I know it seems kind of confusing, but Wikipedia actually does have a rule about not disambiguating titles unless we absolutely have to. Basically, the rule is to always use the simplest available title at which the topic doesn't conflict with any other topics at their simplest available titles. (For example, this is why we have Rouyn-Noranda instead of "Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec", but Hamilton, Ontario instead of "Hamilton" — there's nothing else in the world called Rouyn-Noranda, but there are a lot of other things called Hamilton.) Hope that helps a bit :-) Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general practice for redirect pages is that they're usually considered harmless and not worth the trouble of actually bothering to delete them. There are some cases where a redirect would actually get deleted:

1. if it's from a really implausible misnomer or spelling error that's unlikely to ever actually get used (e.g. if somebody created a redirect from "Muntttreowlll" to Montreal),
2. if it creates a biased or tendentious assertion (e.g. if somebody redirected "worst prime minister ever" to Stephen Harper),
3. if it's standing in the way of a more appropriate use of the redirect (e.g. if for some weird reason somebody had redirected the alternate title
   Heinz Ketchup instead of Ottawa
   ).

But for a redirect that isn't actually causing any harm,

]

Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Montreal WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Montreal. Simply click here to accept!

Quebec Routes

[1] I deliberately put a question mark (?) after I accidentally refered to the wrong page in some articles due to a too enthousiastic "copy and paste". Be aware of this and on the look-out.

Peter Horn 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will notlce that a number of roads are only 1 km long so when you fill in the page number you will also be able to fill in the right length at the same time. Peter Horn (talk · contribs)

"Distances routières", don't forget the Quebec Autoroutes, Quebec Autoroute 20 etc. Peter Horn 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering where you get the source of the images you make of Quebec Municipalities such as Dundee_Quebec_location_diagram as I am interested in making one on a slightly larger scale for the Chateauguay Valley and the Chateauguay River amongst others. Many thanks. Sirtrebuchet (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the excellent job you have been doing in making all the maps that were desperately needed for various Quebec articles. I have, however, noticed a small problem with your map of the Urban agglomeration of Longueuil.

]

Geographic Location template

Please refrain from changing the formating in the Geographic Location templates, as I am in the process of adding and updating this for all municipalities in Ontario and Quebec. This template is used not just for these provinces but everywhere elso too, so, as you can appreciate, changing the formating would make it inconsistent. Thanks. -- P199 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding colour will not impact the template itself but its appearance which I'm trying to keep consistent. I agree that the template page doesn't give much instruction on its use, so I have modelled the look after the most common use of this template throughout WP. -- P199 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done all northeastern Ontario, Abitibi and Outaouais, now moving into the Laurentides, I haven't seen or updated southwest Quebec yet. IMHO, geographic features (lakes, rivers, etc) should not stand out with bold text since this template focuses on municipalites. And yes, I spend way too much time on WP, I guess that makes me a Wikipedian... -- P199 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your proposal sounds good. Can you provide me a sample of it somewhere so I can see what you mean? -- P199 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stacking geographic features with municipalities will make it seem that they are north/south of each other (as in your example). I kindly suggest the following: -- P199 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Commas or slashes, it doesn't really matter. I don't want to insist on anything, just trying to present the info within the box somewhat consistently so it is logical and clear to readers. Regards, -- P199 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, {{

}} isn't supposed to sit directly in articles as a transclusion. If there's a pressing reason for the top of an infobox to say "Dunham, Quebec" rather than "(City or Ville) of Dunham", then you need to either type "Dunham, Quebec" directly, or use {{subst:pagename}} so that the actual text of the page name replaces the template once you hit save. If you don't do one of those things, a bot or a user on cleanup patrol will always come up behind you and subst out the "pagename" template anyway, so there's not much point in insisting on it.

Also, the traditional consensus at

has been that the infobox on a place's article should generally have "(City/Town/Village/Whatever) of Name" at the top of the infobox, rather than "Name, Province". We can always change the consensus if there's a good reason to do so — but if you're just replacing it with the pagename template because you think that's what's expected, it isn't. But if you've got a good reason beyond just thinking that's what we were supposed to do, then it's okay as long as you explain it so that we know what the real reason is and don't think it was just an error.

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a place has a straightforward "Parish/Municipality/Village/whatever" designation, then yeah, that's what should be used. I don't think there's ever been a consensus around what to do with villes — I think most people just use "city" for all of them unless there's an actual indication in

reliable sources that "town" is specifically preferred (as, frex, Mount Royal

). My own tendency has been to just use ville de in the topline regardless of language issues; it would also be acceptable to just put "name".

As for the article structure, while there are a few editors who've structured articles by preinserting empty section headers, there's never really been a broad consensus for it. I don't see a valid reason not to do it, but there are other editors who will strip out the empty headers if and when they see the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you are adding the names of communities in Nova Scotia where they don't belong. It looks like you are taking the communities in a County, and adding them to the individual articles. A couple of examples are Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and Shelburne, Nova Scotia. You have added the names of every community in those counties to the articles for the towns I just listed. Also look at Clyde River, Nova Scotia, which is a small community in Shelburne County, Nova Scotia. You have added a long list of communities to the Clyde River article which are not part of that community, they are the other communities that make up the county. Can you at least explain why you are doing this? 142.167.228.252 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the problem already. The link you are using is refering to community health boards, not a list of communities. This is the heading for Clyde River in the link you gave me.

Community Health Board: Shelburne County County: Shelburne County District Health Authority: South West Health Province: Nova Scotia Country: Canada

When it states after this the various communities included are not communites in Clyde River, but the places that are included in this particular health board which is Shelburne County. Clude River itself is a very small community and doesn't contain any of the communities listed. 142.167.228.252 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that you are doing a good job editing the Nova Scotia communities, and that adding the names was just a misunderstanding that could happen to anyone. Don't let this stop you from continuing to edit the Nova Scotia articles as you have done good work with the highway articles and such. 142.167.228.252 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - oops, that was supposed to be "autoreviewed", not "confirmed". You're already autoconfirmed because you've been here long enough and made enough edits; you don't need manual confirmation.

Secondly - "autoreviewed" means that you've got enough of a track record for creating valid articles that it is no longer worth the effort to

]

Re:Montreal Boroughs

Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to try and find something suitable (and universal) to replace the current caption with in the coming days. Cheers. MTLskyline (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gordalmighty,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by 
talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I noticed you are a participant of the WikiProject Quebec.

The

. It is the 3rd outline to date about a Canadian province/territory.

• Wikipedia Contents
  • Outlines
    • Outline of geography
      • Outline of North America
        • Outline of Canada
          • Outline of Alberta
          • Outline of British Columbia
          • Outline of Manitoba
          • Outline of New Brunswick
          • Outline of Newfoundland and Labrador
          • Outline of Nova Scotia
          • Outline of Ontario
          • Outline of Quebec
          • Outline of Prince Edward Island
          • Outline of Saskatchewan
          • Outline of the Northwest Territories
          • Outline of Nunavut
          • Outline of Yukon

Outlines form one of the subsystems of

.

The goals for the Outline of Quebec is to complete it to as high a standard of quality as possible, and to make it even better than the Outline of Saskatchewan and the Outline of British Columbia.

Once the Outline of Quebec is completed, it will provide an important example to others creating outlines for the remaining provinces and territories of Canada.

Please take a look at the outline to see if you can notice (and fill in) any missing topics. Pictures would also be nice (the rarer and the more interesting, the better).

Thank you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 10:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In order to better assess the activity at the Canadian Roads WikiProject, all members that had an Active status have been changed to Pending. If you are still interested in assisting the project, fielding inquiries by fellow editors, and participating in group discussions, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Participants and change the {{Partial}} beside your username to {{Yes }}. On February 28, the remaining users that are listed as pending will be switched to inactive.

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A while back,

]

The article List of Quebec provincial electoral districts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is just an empty article hosting

Template:QC-ED

for some reason...

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gord, note that all the Quebec settlement infoboxes were standardized and uniform before, so please don't increase image and map sizes in the infoboxes from the standard 250px to 275px without discussion and consensus. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for understanding. BTW, standard size for the southern Quebec map is the default (250) but for the regular full Quebec map it is 197 (to limit the length of the infobox). In order to reduce the length some more, I shorten the map captions as well (see [2]). Regards, P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw Sorel-Tracy. Yes, the southern Quebec map is fine. Note that 250px is the default size for images and maps, so I removed those lines altogether to prevent future tinkering. I also removed the bold formatting in the map captions (because it doesn't show right anyway) and abbreviated "Regional County Municipality" to RCM. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer at my talk page. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answered on my talk page. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Potton, Quebec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport, Vermont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geography Barnstar
		Nice job with all the new RCM maps for Quebec municipalities! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gord, I noticed you are adding "Adjacent Municipal Subdivisions" above every geo box. I don't think it's necessary (none of the boxes anywhere else have it...). But did you know you can add a heading to the boxes much simpler? There is a "title" parameter for that:

{{Geographic location
 | title     = '''Adjacent Municipal Subdivisions
 | Centre    = Place
}}

gives:

Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I only find out about this now, LOL! I thought it would be better to stipulate what the geo box is actually referring to, especially since I have found entries involving municipalities bordering on counties (and even a region in one case). Take a look at Mirabel, Quebec, which has two specific geo boxes as an example. I've also started adding geographic info to certain municipalities...check out Dundee, Quebec as an example and give me our feedbck. Thanks! Gordalmighty (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mirabel is a special case because it is not only a municipality, it is also like a RCM. As for Dundee, great work. Nice to see articles expanded with real content! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick reply! I would still consider keeping the geobox header...it also acts to separate the content from the references AND will hopefully dissuade editors from entering non-municipal (or county) info where it shouldn't be as per Wiki directives. I will use the template "title" line instead though.
    • BTW: There is another user who has tweaked some municipality coordinates, probably to better place them on the pushpins. But now it doesn't match the data on the Quebec toponymie website. Is this no big deal, or does it sort of make the link somewhat invalid? Example: Dundee, Quebec has been slightly tweaked, Mont-Carmel, Quebec has been tweaked to the point of adding seconds in the coord field. Thanks (again)! Gordalmighty (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not much direction on what coords to use (except not to be overly precise, see
        MOS:COORDS). So I had been using the coords as provided by CTQ. I am not concerned about this, except if it's wrong. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]

May 2013

Hello, I'm

.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|work=[[Canada 1996 Census|Canada 1996 Census]] |accessdate=2013-05-11}}</ref> +4.7% from 1991) - Population in 1991: 6,487<ref name="sc1996"/><br>Includes [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/

Thanks,

]

Canada census

Hi Gord, nice to see you are still working hard at Quebec articles. Thanks for all your work. Can I suggest to use {{

Côte-Nord-du-Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent, Quebec

, where I used the Historical populations template.

Also, <big> text that you use in the geobox title is inconsistent formatting and unnecessary. Using regular text or bold as shown above (

Aparri, Cagayan

), because that would seem to be consistent with all other geobox use. I guess it is really understood that they are "Adjacent Municipal Subdivisions".

Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The {{Canada census}} template shows census highlights for the last 3 censuses, whereas the {{Historical populations}} template is strictly for population counts and can go back as far as censuses were done. So no overlap, it's just that no data has been added for historical populations before 1991 for most Quebec places.

With "inconsistent formatting" I mean that big text is not used for anything else and it is not consistent with geobox use for other places, like all of Ontario. IMO, the big text is too much, really why should the text stand out? My preference is no title...

You can just reply here, I will watch this page. That way the conversation says together. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay for census infobox. I thought the footnotes were a bit too populated anyways. As far as the geobox, the reason I intended to add them was to distinguish between municipal subdivisions and RCMs. Some municipalities have both statuses Mirabel, Quebec that require it. Oddly enough, I did this one without the big text in the first place. So I guess I could go back and change them eventually, but that could take a while. Gordalmighty (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I totally agree that for places with multiple boxes it is needed to have a title (whether it is for different statuses like Mirabel, Quebec, or for non-contiguous areas like Rivière-Rouge). Thanks for your efforts. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Victoria County, New Brunswick may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s and 3 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

There are five incorporated municipalities within Victoria County (listed by 2011 population}:<ref name="cp2011"/> The county is subdivided into seven parishes (listed by 2011 population}:<ref name="cp2011"/> There is one First Nations reserve in Victoria County (listed by 2011 population}:<ref name="cp2011"/> '''Religious make-up (2001)'''<ref name="SC2001"/<ref>[http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Details/Page_Custom.cfm?Lang=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chateauguay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gloucester County, New Brunswick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Bandon, New Brunswick

Lévis, Quebec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Saint-Henri, Quebec

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westmorland County, New Brunswick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangeline, New Brunswick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that you've removed the redirect, apparently with the rationale that other Greenwich articles exist as a redirect target. However, please be noted that there is a disambiguation page for Greenwich: Greenwich (disambiguation) and that the redirect serves to redirect for Greenwich in New Brunswick. If you believe that another article should be redirected, please change the redirect into a disambiguation page with the appropriate page. If you have a question or comment, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 02:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. My mistake! Gordalmighty (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are listed in the

list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hi,

]

The article Caribou Depot, New Brunswick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Popelogan Depot, New Brunswick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community at this location; sources cover the etymology of "Popelogan" and are not specific to this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tracy Depot, New Brunswick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mann Siding, New Brunswick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Literally just a railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]