Revision as of 17:05, 2 August 2005 edit192.30.202.14 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:53, 26 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,098 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] | ||
(45 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{oldpeerreview}} | |||
The second image, which still has the girls in it, can be found here: ] - Caution: Image contains nudity | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
I've emailed Vancouver's Transit Authority to see if they have an image that we might use that would be more safe for someone to view at work or with children in the Prudish States of America. ] 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| algo = old(180d) | |||
:Awe, let's put it in the article. :p ¦ ] 01:08, 2005 July 14 (UTC) | |||
| archive = Talk:Skybridge (TransLink)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
::Both pics are not actually of the bridge, they are of two topless girls that happen to have the bridge somewhere in the background. As I said before, I'm trying to get a picture of the bridge sans the topless girls. If this were an article about breasts I wouldn't mind the picture as much (afterall, it's not all that much of a textbook image even in that case) but this is about a bridge. I thought just having a link to the pic would suffice but someone else has a problem with that. So in the meantime, why don't we wait till we have a picture where the focus of the picture is the bridge? ] 17:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| counter = 1 | |||
:::I just think it makes Misplaced Pages look like the product of ogling 14-year-old boys to have this picture in an article about a bridge. Obviously there are a number of articles where images of partially clothed people and even full nudity are properly displayed, but this should not be one of them. BTW, this image was previuosly at ], where it was removed by someone because of seeming lack of direct relevance to that topic (see ]). The image is pretty unprofessional over all; I'd be hard-pressed to see what it illustrates besides toplessness (and that in a not particularly good way).--] 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| maxarchivesize = 50K | |||
::::Well, why isn't it over at ], then? It's not particularly relevant to the Vancouver Skybridge, but hey, I didn't know that women could go shirtless in British Columbia until I followed some links from here. And frankly, these pictures look a lot less "hey, I'm a model!" than the current illustration on ]. I'd rather have these there, provided they're legitly acquired. ]|] 04:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
}} | |||
{{refideas | |||
== Prudishness == | |||
|1={{Cite web |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer-Vault/1980s/1989/Buzzer_1989_01_13.pdf |title=The Buzzer |date=January 13, 1989 |website=www.translink.ca |publisher=BC Transit |access-date=February 23, 2020}} | |||
|2={{Cite web |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer-Vault/1980s/1989/Buzzer_1989_09_22.pdf |title=The Buzzer |date=September 22, 1989 |website=www.translink.ca |publisher=BC Transit |access-date=February 23, 2020}} | |||
|3={{Cite web |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer-Vault/1980s/1989/Buzzer_1989_11_03.pdf |title=The Buzzer |date=November 3, 1989 |website=www.translink.ca |publisher=BC Transit |access-date=February 23, 2020}} | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
{{WikiProject Trains}} | |||
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|importance=low|Vancouver=yes|Vancouver-importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
== Citations == | |||
] | |||
Needs cleanup, since at the end of every single sentence there is a 'citation needed' warning | |||
Look - the photo here has got the boobies that you were so worried about edited out! Stopping publication is ]! ] 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
: Every single one of those statements needs a citation. I'd put a "This article needs citations" message up and do away with all the "citation needed" tags, but someone removed that very same message before, and I'm not in the mood for a revert war. ] 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Give me a break. There are dozens of images on Misplaced Pages much more revealing than those two. They're just not on articles about bridges.--] 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Three points: | |||
Yeah, right. Well, how about this one then Mister Censor? ] 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
::#Most of the things listed here are common knowledge and thus don't need a citation. See ]. | |||
]]] | |||
::#Adding {{Tl|cn}} to ''every'' sentence in an article can be considered to be ], which is strongly discouraged. | |||
::#I admire your goal of making Misplaced Pages better referenced, but the best way to do that is to jump in and find references for topics that you know about, not adding {{Tl|cn}} to everything. Even for something like this, you shouldn't have a big problem finding citations online. | |||
::Anyway, I've rolled back your edit. ] // ] 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page == | |||
:This is still a low quality photo. In general "tourist" photos, which contain some famous feature but have the tourist's companion prominently in the foreground, are not suitable photos to illustrate an encyclopedia. We want a photo of the bridge, and any person in the foreground is a problem. | |||
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. | |||
:If we leave this photo here, then there is less incentive to get a good photo, so I would prefer that this cropped photo be removed from the article.-] 20:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. | |||
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. | |||
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the ]. | |||
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the ]. | |||
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the ]. | |||
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. | |||
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. | |||
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly. | |||
'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:''' | |||
==RfC== | |||
I came here from RfC, where one of the people in this dispute wrote " Is it right for a Cabal of self-appointed CENSORS to REMOVE and VANDASLISE legitimate photographs of Vancouver Skybridge just because they are PRUDES?" (breaking the guidelines of RFC by singing with their name, not linking to the talk page and not making the summary neutral). Curious as to why a picture of a bridge would leading to accusations of prudery I view the article and read the talk page. Having done so I completely agree that this image is not suitable for the article, cropped or uncropped, because ''its not a picture of the bridge'', it is a picture of two topless girls with the bridge in the background. | |||
*<nowiki>http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouver3.html</nowiki> | |||
I have no issue with the nudity, indeed see my involvement in the discussion over this photograph at ], and with other photographs at ]. However, the criteria for an image's suitability include that it must be ''relevant'' and ''apropriate'' - this picture is neither. | |||
*:''Triggered by <code>\brailway-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist'' | |||
*Relevant? In the case of this article, a picture needs to be of the bridge in question in order to be relevant, the focus of the picture is the girls, not the bridge. | |||
*Apropriate? to be apropriate the image must first of all be relevant and it should not include things unrelated or likely to cuase offense (without reason). A photograph of nude people is apropriate on articles like ] and ], but not here. Equally a photograph of an orthodox Jew is not apropriate on an article about arabs, an image of an arab with an orthodox Jew would be apropriate on articles about the arab-israli conflict, for example. | |||
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info. | |||
I have posted a picture request at ] in the hope that a native of the city or someone from that area will be able to take a photograph of it for us. ] 14:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 11:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
I think that the photograph(s) with the girls are not relevant to an article about a bridge. -- ] ] 19:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{done|Resolved}} This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I suggested to remove the girls completely from the photo, rename the photo, and we could get some photos from http://images.google.com/images?q=Vancouver+Skybridge&hl=en. ] ] 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Disambiguation == | |||
I'd say it's abundandly clear that the image is unsuitable. Broonee's response to this would seem to fall under ] ] 20:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I did fix his entry in the RfC so it sounded NPOV. But I agree, his/her response below really shows that he violted POINT. ] ] 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{reply to|Joeyconnick}} ] or ]? | |||
:The images are not appropriate. Gratuitous nudity is well ... gratuitous. ] ] 19:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
I don't know if the dab for this article necessarily needs to match that of ] given that it's about transit infrastructure and {{em|not}} transit service. Given that ] is embedded at the bottom of the page, I don't think too many readers would be confused to where "Metro Vancouver" is and "Vancouver" alone has huge name recognition. ] —] (]) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Other photos to be removed == | |||
: Was there a request to move the article? I don't think it's necessary. ] (]) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
If you VANDASLISE my page, these SIMILAR photos should be VANDALISE and poked with a hot stick: | |||
:{{u|Walter Görlitz}} I think it stems from the notion that "(TransLink)" is not a super-recognizable terms outside transit circles or Lower Mainland locals. | |||
:{{ping|Northwest}} well unsurprisingly I haven't changed my mind re: "Metro Vancouver". I would rather move the template to "Bridges of Greater Vancouver", honestly, and go with "SkyBridge (Greater Vancouver)". But of the two, I think "SkyBridge (British Columbia)" is best... yes, both New West and Surrey are in Metro/Greater Vancouver but again, if we're going by something similar to CANSTATION, province makes the most sense if city doesn't work. —] (]) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:: The thought of a reader having an issue differentiate between "Metro Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver" hadn't crossed my mind earlier. On second thought, yeah, "British Columbia" is the better dab. When following ]; shouldn't ] instead be ] or could the dab be dropped altogether if there's a case for it? —] (]) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
== References == | |||
].]] | |||
]. ] 17:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
*You fail to see the point Broonee. Those people aren't the focus of the picture and no one is going to object having these people in as they're not shocking to anyone. - ]|] 08:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Joeyconnick}} I had incorrectly assumed it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had bothered to read the references that they were not added to verify the name of a bridge, but as an early reliable source for a contributor to use when undertaking the next major redraft of this page. Naturally, such a person would be shuffling around all existing and later references accordingly, rather than myself, since the subject is not within my ambit of interests.] (]) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
===Caution=== | |||
: We don't add ]s to an article when {{tl|refideas}} exist. When no , it looked to me as though it was the addition of references as well. ] (]) 15:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::{{re|DMBanks1}} a (much) better place for references like that is the article's talk page, not cluttering up the first sentence of the article. I think there's even a template for "potentially useful in the future references". —] (]) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Do not threaten to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. | |||
:::{{ping|Joeyconnick}} The single notation character remains a single notation character, so cluttering is not a relevant point. For those readers who actually read these references, there is an opportunity to compensate for the content deficiencies of the page. Your talk page suggestion may well be technically accurate, but like most contributors, I would not be plowing through the talk pages to identify useful references when redrafting a page. As for this article, I did actually read the non-Buzzer references. Even taking the content of all of them combined, they comprise far less useful information than the 4 Buzzer ones, which is one reason for the mediocre standard of the page. However, I am not prone to making hasty deletions of such weak reference material. We can only hope someone will not now be at a disadvantage from augmenting the Buzzer references with some proper research to create an improved page.] (]) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
] 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::: {{ping|DMBanks1}}. I have now added the refideas based on your earlier comment . You should have done so and not added the OVERREFS. You're welcome. | |||
:And, this is not your article/page, the article belongs to everyone. ] ] 00:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yet now you're changing your story. | |||
:::: There was no hasty deletion of the content. The addition was unnecessary. ] (]) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Foreground and Background == | |||
On the one hand, it appears that the controversy has subsided because there is consensus to leave the questionable photo out. | |||
On the other hand, there is a distinction in photography and any other representational art between foreground and background. In the questionable photo, the bridge was in the background, and the girls were in the foreground. If the bridge is the subject of the article, the bridge should be in the foreground, or it should be in mid-ground with nothing distracting in foreground. | |||
Perhaps there needs to be a Misplaced Pages guideline to this effect. (I am aware that someone will ignore it, and once in a while there is reason to ignore a guideline.) | |||
] 15:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that it would be a good idea to have a Misplaced Pages guideline explaining the relevance of subjects in images. | |||
:] 16:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I agree. ] ] 19:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I also agree. ] ] 20:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Disagree. We don't need a guideline for this; it's covered by a general common-sense test. Attempts to codify common sense are doomed. Doomed, I tell you! ]|] 04:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::It's not ''common-sense'' to all. Lots of people don't know a thing about photography, graphics or composition. It doesn't need to be strict, it's just something to point people to when we get into an argument like above. | |||
::] 16:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::If by "guideline", you didn't mean "policy", then by all means, no one's stopping you. There are plenty of pages explaining that, for instance, it's a bad idea to take line art that was converted to JPEG and convert it into PNG. But I still don't think we need one to say, "when you're taking a picture of a landmark, the picture should be of the landmark, not of your lady friends with the landmark in the background." If you're convinced that such a guideline is necessary because ] refused to be reasonable, then I should point out that there is considerable doubt that Broonee was acting in good faith---and if s/he wasn't, then why would s/he care about guidelines? Fluffing up the set of rules on Misplaced Pages is not a good idea. Rules should only be added in response to a clear and present need. One person playing dumb and making a ruckus is '''not''' a clear and present need. ]|] 16:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::I see what you mean. There can't be a guideline for every little bit of sillyness, such as "]". I wasn't personaly going to make the guideline, I was just seconding ] is he was going to start one. ] 16:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::Maybe, we could just call this a "suggestion." Misplaced Pages "suggests" that if your taking a photo of a landmark, try to make the landmark the focus of the picture, not of your friends infront of the landmark. ] ] 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::I suppose, if someone wanted to provide a nice set of "how to take good pictures of landmarks" article, it'd fit in there. Guidelines like "try to get the sun at your back, or take the picture on a cloudy day" as well as "remember, you're taking a picture of the monument, not of some dude standing in front of the monument". Or something helpful for the amateur photographer who would like to contribute pictures. But that issue's pretty disjoint from the one we were discussing. ]'s uploading an image called "two topless girls" and claiming that it's a picture of a bridge isn't an example of acting in good faith; don't make policy around him. ]|] 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::::No, of course it would not directly derive from this arguemnt. But how does one go about making a Misplaced Pages "suggestion"? It now sounds intresting and I'd like to start/work on it, but I don't know a lot about photography. | |||
:::::::] 21:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Image == | |||
Even if a better image of the bridge can be found, this image should be kept. With no other images whatsoever, the idea of removing it is absurd. Finially, there is no excuse or policy precedent for censoring of this perfectly dignified image. ]] 17:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:The thing is, the image focuses on the girls when it should instead focus on the bridge. And the girl on the left isn't very good-looking. ] 20:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
::LOL if she ever reads this she'll be hurt. ] ] 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
I thought she looked ok, but who's to judge. Anyhow, the bridge is present, and they certainly don't take away from it. I'd ask that the image be restored until concensus is achieved. ]] 21:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
*Maybe I'm missing something -- where have the rights to this been released? Have those two teeny-boppers signed releases? The source quoted on the image discussion no longer exists. --]] 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I think this is a problem, the girls may not know that their picture is here and may not be at all happy about it being here. If the girls are young - (and it's difficult to tell their age) their parents may well be livid and accuse us of all sorts of things. The bridge is shown but it is obscured by the girls - not ideal. Some people are very prudish, and will find the picture offensive. Plus it looks touristy and not very professional. ] ] 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
::At the Peer Review of this article, I have posted some Google links to various pictures we could use of just the bridge. And I have to agree with Theresa Knott on this one: there are so many unkowns with the photo (though, for some reason, it is on the Wikimedia Commons). We do not know who took it, how old the girls are. There was a suggestion to crop the image so we just have the bridge: can we do that? ] ] 22:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::The girls heads are in the way. If we crop the picture we lose a lot of the bridge. ] ] 22:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::Ok, we can scratch that idea out. May I repost the Google links here? ] ] 22:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Don't think the picture is a good idea. Questionable taste, I think blatant nudity of questionably aged girls with questionably legally released pictures isn't really going to do much good for the bridge article. Sam is right though, we could use ''some'' sort of picture on the article.--] 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Before we scratch that idea out I've had a go at cropping it. | |||
] | |||
I think it's poor quality, but perhaps better than nothing. Thoughts? ] ] 22:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
:I'm ok w anything that involves an image of a bridge for the readers to look at. Personally I think the readers would prefer to see the those happy faces (and etc...) as well, but I will respect the growing concensus ;) ]] 22:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I've added it to the article for now although I hope it will be replaced in the near futire with a better picture. ] ] 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
I find it extremely difficult to believe that Sam was doing anything but trying to create controversy by placing this image in this article, and as such I think it does fall under "vandalism." ] 23:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Yep, my goal here was to vandalise, thats why I made edit, which was by eagle eyed article defender Calton. Good work, ], what ''would'' the wiki do w/o the likes of you and EB? ]] 00:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::''That'' edit was after the fact. You can't possibly have imagined that an image of two topless women with a bit of bridge in the background would be greeted with cheers of appreciation. ] 00:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::Actually I responded to an RfC, and I did what I thought was best, as I always do. Others disagreed, Theresa created a compromise, and now everyone should be happy, in theory... That is assuming our chief concern is the image, and the quality reading experience of our fearless readers... which it is, right? ]] 02:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree. Now, since that is taken care of, can we delete the proposed photos, with the censor blocks in them? ] ] 03:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::You mean the one with the big squares on the breasts? I'd vote in favor of deleting that. I can't imagine there will ever be any use for it. ]] 03:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yes, that one. ] ] 03:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
I can't understand how some of you didn't appreciate the "twin towers" in the censored picture--It showed for all of us 14 year olds (in mind, not in age!), how strong structural support is necessary for lifting and separating, whether it is for a bridge or a couple of very well-proportioned and culturally divergent breasts! |
Latest revision as of 15:53, 26 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skybridge (TransLink) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Skybridge (TransLink) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citations
Needs cleanup, since at the end of every single sentence there is a 'citation needed' warning
- Every single one of those statements needs a citation. I'd put a "This article needs citations" message up and do away with all the "citation needed" tags, but someone removed that very same message before, and I'm not in the mood for a revert war. Anonymous 57 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Three points:
- Most of the things listed here are common knowledge and thus don't need a citation. See WP:CITE.
- Adding {{cn}} to every sentence in an article can be considered to be disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is strongly discouraged.
- I admire your goal of making Misplaced Pages better referenced, but the best way to do that is to jump in and find references for topics that you know about, not adding {{cn}} to everything. Even for something like this, you shouldn't have a big problem finding citations online.
- Anyway, I've rolled back your edit. JYolkowski // talk 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Three points:
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouver3.html
- Triggered by
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II Online 11:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II Online 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation
@Joeyconnick: SkyBridge (British Columbia) or SkyBridge (Metro Vancouver)?
I don't know if the dab for this article necessarily needs to match that of TransLink (British Columbia) given that it's about transit infrastructure and not transit service. Given that Template:Bridges of Metro Vancouver is embedded at the bottom of the page, I don't think too many readers would be confused to where "Metro Vancouver" is and "Vancouver" alone has huge name recognition. Previous discussion —Northwest (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Was there a request to move the article? I don't think it's necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz I think it stems from the notion that "(TransLink)" is not a super-recognizable terms outside transit circles or Lower Mainland locals.
- @Northwest: well unsurprisingly I haven't changed my mind re: "Metro Vancouver". I would rather move the template to "Bridges of Greater Vancouver", honestly, and go with "SkyBridge (Greater Vancouver)". But of the two, I think "SkyBridge (British Columbia)" is best... yes, both New West and Surrey are in Metro/Greater Vancouver but again, if we're going by something similar to CANSTATION, province makes the most sense if city doesn't work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- The thought of a reader having an issue differentiate between "Metro Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver" hadn't crossed my mind earlier. On second thought, yeah, "British Columbia" is the better dab. When following WP:CANSTATION; shouldn't SkyTrain (Vancouver) instead be SkyTrain (British Columbia) or could the dab be dropped altogether if there's a case for it? —Northwest (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
References
@Joeyconnick: I had incorrectly assumed it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had bothered to read the references that they were not added to verify the name of a bridge, but as an early reliable source for a contributor to use when undertaking the next major redraft of this page. Naturally, such a person would be shuffling around all existing and later references accordingly, rather than myself, since the subject is not within my ambit of interests.DMBanks1 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- We don't add WP:OVERREFs to an article when {{refideas}} exist. When no edit summary other than " add references", it looked to me as though it was the addition of references as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DMBanks1: a (much) better place for references like that is the article's talk page, not cluttering up the first sentence of the article. I think there's even a template for "potentially useful in the future references". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joeyconnick: The single notation character remains a single notation character, so cluttering is not a relevant point. For those readers who actually read these references, there is an opportunity to compensate for the content deficiencies of the page. Your talk page suggestion may well be technically accurate, but like most contributors, I would not be plowing through the talk pages to identify useful references when redrafting a page. As for this article, I did actually read the non-Buzzer references. Even taking the content of all of them combined, they comprise far less useful information than the 4 Buzzer ones, which is one reason for the mediocre standard of the page. However, I am not prone to making hasty deletions of such weak reference material. We can only hope someone will not now be at a disadvantage from augmenting the Buzzer references with some proper research to create an improved page.DMBanks1 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DMBanks1:. I have now added the refideas based on your earlier comment . You should have done so and not added the OVERREFS. You're welcome.
- Yet now you're changing your story.
- There was no hasty deletion of the content. The addition was unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Joeyconnick: The single notation character remains a single notation character, so cluttering is not a relevant point. For those readers who actually read these references, there is an opportunity to compensate for the content deficiencies of the page. Your talk page suggestion may well be technically accurate, but like most contributors, I would not be plowing through the talk pages to identify useful references when redrafting a page. As for this article, I did actually read the non-Buzzer references. Even taking the content of all of them combined, they comprise far less useful information than the 4 Buzzer ones, which is one reason for the mediocre standard of the page. However, I am not prone to making hasty deletions of such weak reference material. We can only hope someone will not now be at a disadvantage from augmenting the Buzzer references with some proper research to create an improved page.DMBanks1 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DMBanks1: a (much) better place for references like that is the article's talk page, not cluttering up the first sentence of the article. I think there's even a template for "potentially useful in the future references". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- Start-Class rail transport articles
- Unknown-importance rail transport articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- Start-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- Start-Class British Columbia articles
- Low-importance British Columbia articles
- Start-Class Vancouver articles
- Mid-importance Vancouver articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Start-Class Bridge and Tunnel articles
- Low-importance Bridge and Tunnel articles
- WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels articles