Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 18 October 2012

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Boelus vs. Howard City

I see that you've been involved in the question of whether the proper name for the article on the village in Howard County should be "Howard City, Nebraska" or "Boelus, Nebraska".

I've looked for evidence supporting either name, and am inclined to favor the latter. However, I don't want to move the page without some kind of attempt to get consensus. If you'd be interested, I've laid out the evidence that I've found at the article's talk page. Ammodramus (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Attrition

I am glad you have not retired, but can sympathize (and am in a similar funk at the moment). Do what makes you happy - I took a bunch of pictures of covered bridges and am having fun pottering around adding content, albeit slowly. Hang in there, Ruhrfisch _><>° 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloomington meetup

Thanks a lot for letting me know! I've added my name to the list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Bloomington, IN; hope that'll do as far as the organizers are concerned. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And yes, if you'd like to forward the listserv email message to me, that would be great. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Champagne Bricout

Bricout champagne was an important Champagne company that produced three million bottles per year, in the top 10 of champagne until 2003. I had not time to finish, or reference, you deleted before and you probably did not even read. Your erase criteria: A7. is unfounded. This important company then made the headlines of Champagne and is connected to the historical past of the city Avize. It is an important addition to the history of the city of Avize.

Thank you to tell me whether the article should be written differently from the French to qualify as interesting, because I just translated an existing record verbatim from Misplaced Pages.fr for Anglophones cares to know this history, so there !

You can also delete the city of Avize, since you do not see the importance or meaning. Patkoc (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Finding images

Hello Nyttend! I noticed you were a contributor to this discussion... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Suggestion_for_programmers_-_finding_images As OP of the discussion, I just posted some new information that I think is important and goes to the heart of the problem. Hope you don't mind my letting you know. Take care. 3dimen (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, just noticed I probably should have created this with the New section button instead of editing the page. Kinda new to the Talk pages. Hope you get this. 3dimen (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Margaret Curran (disambiguation)

You may want to comment at this page, as you removed the speedy tag. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

List of archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Archaic period

National Register of Historic Places listings in Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saline River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Image protocol question

Hey image expert, what determines whether an image, subject to copyright, but with a non-free rationale, should be posted at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion, or Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review. See User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha#CSD_Notification for background (skipping over the discussion of the first deleted file, and jumping to "This users many uploads are copyvios. Now tagging them".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that was helpful.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of AfD that you participated in

As you participated a few days ago in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:VictoriaHallUrsulineAcademyLynchHouse.jpg

I thought about getting a photo you asked me for, but it seems we already have a picture (it is used for that entry in National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Huntington Grange

Hi Nyttend i see you added a pic to Huntington Grange article. I don't have access to its coverage within any preview from the Dictionaary of Ohio historic places; do you have access i wonder. I was not sure if I could link it from List of Grange Hall buildings back in September 2010, so have just had a question about it at the talk page there. Is/was this in fact a Grange hall of the Patrons of Husbandry? It would be great if you could answer by adding anything to its article. cheers, --doncram 13:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Move

There's a "discussion" somewhat related to you're move of Prostitution in Palestine at User_talk:Wbm1058#Move. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Un-ambiguous?

Didn't like to change it, in case you meant it to be 'ambiguous'... (At the Persecution AfD.) Peridon (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Carnegie Library

Please help!!!!!! I have a picture of the former Carnegie library in Akron, Ohio, but I do not know how to post it to the article. The link is http://www.akronlibrary.org/digital-lib/Library%20History/Images/LHM0008B.jpg. Any help that you could provide me in this matter would be greatly appreciated!!!!!! 71.72.29.241 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 71.72.29.241 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proxy block

Please see this discussion at WP:AN (if you haven't already). Consider yourself asked (the why, not to bite).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commission on Elections

Hi Nyttend, I had tagged Commission on Elections with a {{db-move}} from the result of an RM I closed. Either Commission on Elections (Philippines) should be moved there, per the RM, or you should overwrite my closure with a "not moved" verdict. Otherwise, the RM is just confusing and misleading. Don't you agree? --BDD (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hearing nothing, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page. I'm not watching this page anymore, so let me know on my talk page if you want to discuss the matter further. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Watermark removal

Howdy. So the lesson of the day is to not use G6 for watermark maintenance. Roger that. :) I wasn't sure how to indicate that the watermark was removed beyond removing the watermark template. I had asked in both the help irc channel and the main -en channel. It was suggested to me to use G6. The reason I figured that the old revisions should be deleted (at least with the freer images) was the line "Additionally, if this image is a freely licensed image, it is in violation of Misplaced Pages's image use policy" in the watermark template. That line links to the image use policy. The wording there makes me think that the watermarked revisions should be deleted. What are your thoughts on this?--Rockfang (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy says that we shouldn't use images with watermarks, but that doesn't mean that they're banned entirely. Keeping a watermarked image would be bad if we had a non-watermarked image of the same subject or if there were some other way to replace the whole image, but when the watermarked image is the best (or only) that we have, we should keep the original version. Since the problem with watermarks is that they get in the way and are unnecessary distractions, they're not a big enough problem that we should hide all traces of them. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What's more, deleting the original revision would cause problems with attribution. See SfanIMG's comments on your talk page — if we delete the original free images, it will be easy to get confused and think that these images were your creations. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. So for non-free images that I remove the watermarks from I should replace the watermark template with {{subst:orfurrev}} and for the freer images I should just remove watermark template?--Rockfang (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's the best course of action, yes. I'd rather keep the old nonfree revisions as well, but policy is unambiguous that those need to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well done for some elegant photoshopping but …. I deleted one previous version that Rockfang had dealt with then I decided it was not worth doing any more. They are not serious copyvios and they are hidden as old versions. Indeed, I question whether it is worth removing the watermarks at all. The images were (correct me if I'm wrong) all present on a fair-use basis and the watermarks were not intrusive, in which case it is reasonable (and more honest) to leave the original watermark in place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• No complaints about deleting copyvios; that's why I tagged old nonfree revisions for deletion like I would with any other old revisions of nonfree images. I'm only working to keep images that don't violate policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been relisted

After a deletion review, a recently closed AFD has been relisted. I am contacting everyone who participated the first time who hasn't found their way there already. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Photos of pending NRHP listings

I haven't intentionally photographed pending listings, but I don't see any reason not to. The only thing odd about having a pending listing category would be that it would be a temporary holding pen, which I haven't seen before, but see no reason against it. Go for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought of tagging it with Commons:Template:Empty category; I didn't make this proposal to you and the others until after checking to see that it existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A good idea, conforming to the Moscow Rule of Shopping: if you're on the spot and have an opportunity even if you don't need it right away, grab it. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why I've watched this page carefully ever since I discovered it, and also the NR pending lists for soon-to-be-listed sites. Depending on the former list has its risks, since some properties don't get listed, but I'd rather take the effort of visiting a site and uploading a photo that I didn't need than not take the effort for a place that gets listed later. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I also watch the Florida state submissions to the NRHP, since it gives a several month lead time. Didn't create any special "pending" categories, but that could be useful. --‖ Ebyabe - Union of Opposites ‖ 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made a practice of looking for pending listings, although I'd certainly photograph one of I knew about it and was in the area. In that case, I'd probably categorize it in Commons under "NRHP in X County", figuring that it could be removed if it wasn't actually added to the list. Ammodramus (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't keep tabs on pending listings, but I like the idea of having a pending listings category over on Commons. I always search for photos when I add listings to the tables here, but given the shortcomings of the search engine there, it would be nice to have a category to check. --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AN

Quis separabit? 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Uvala Help

Hey Nyttend, thank you for your help, I believe that i've made the recommended changes that you advised.

V/R

G310Daniel 

(G310Daniel (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

DYK for Lemuel Moss

On 12 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lemuel Moss, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Lemuel Moss's time as president of Indiana University saw the end of its schools of law and medicine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lemuel Moss. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bishop’s Stortford

I’ll reply on my talk page. -- pne (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

This editor has disruptively edited, even when I warned him to stop. I reverted the following edits because they weren't accurate, as shown in this video uploaded yesterday afternoon (the date is written next to the video description). Then, he pretends that none of his edits even happened by correcting his inaccurate info, as shown here. I would've never reverted had he waited for the real info to appear, but that's not the case here. Is that considered "ownership of an article"? Platinum Star (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So far, no replies. But no big deal, thanks for the help anyways. Platinum Star (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Value enhancement

OK, thanks for that, deleted as spam and nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Cincinnati, Ohio

Hi Nyt ... I recently put in a good deal of work adding information about Multiple Property Submissions in the Summary column of the northern Cincinnati list. The only explanation you gave for reverting my work was the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I don't get it. First off, I think table column widths are mostly dictated by the width and resolution of one's monitor. The column widths looked fine to me. Second, are there guidelines somewhere of which I'm not aware that limit the width of a column in a table?

It seems to me that including the MPS information in the tables is valuable because it can help in article development. I've made adding this information one of the things I routinely do when I add new listings. If you feel strongly that this information doesn't belong in the tables, perhaps we can kick it around a little at WT:NRHP and get some other views?

As for the hidden comments, they really serve no purpose other than adding unnecessary bytes to each page. It's pretty clear from the row header ("|Description=") that one is supposed to enter a description there. It seems odd to me that you apparently find those hidden comments more useful than the MPS information. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the MPS information is trivial. I don't think the information is any more trivial than noting when the building was constructed, the architect or the architectural style. It's among the information that the NPS includes in the weekly new listing announcements, so they clearly don't consider it to be trivial. MPS documents provide historical context for the sites that are part of the multiple submission. This information should be of interest to editors who wish to create articles about a given listing. When adding this information to a list, I provide a link to the WP article that describes what a Multiple Property Submission, Multiple Resource Area and Thematic Resource is. I don't understand why you think a reader would find this confusing. Can you elaborate?

As for citing sources, as you know, the source for most of the information we present in the tables is the NPS NRIS database. I believe that every list includes at least one reference to the NRIS database. MPS information is included in the NRIS database. In any case, I see that doncram has restored the information I added and has added a source for each MPS note. Does this allay your concerns? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you here, Nyt, but your responses on my talk page seem to suggest that you're not willing to compromise on this. On the other hand, I see that you've not reverted doncram's work that restored my edits to that page and added some additional information. Does this mean that you're okay with including the information in the Summary column as long as I include a reference citing the NRIS database or an MPS form as a source for each entry? --sanfranman59 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see (although I don't know what "he prefers B and RRR with only a pretence of D" means). In that case, I'm going to take this issue to the community at WT:NRHP to get some other views. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste some of our back-and-forth the last couple of days to initiate a discussion there. Please join in. --sanfranman59 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lofoi

Go ahead and unprotect. The edit wars on those articles have died down. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: 2013 tampa bay rays season

I tagged 2013 tampa bay rays season for speedy deletion because when it was created a few months ago, it was incorrectly capitalized. 2013 Tampa Bay Rays season has since been created, capitalized appropriately. As of right now, searching "2013 tampa bay rays season" with all lowercase letters just redirects to the main Tampa Bay Rays article when the redirect doesn't need to exist at all because a search for it doesn't have to be case sensitive in this situation.

For example, I could enter "tampa bay rays" in the search bar without needing to capitalize each word and it would take me to Tampa Bay Rays anyway. However, I would have to type "2013 Tampa Bay Rays season" in order to get to 2013 Tampa Bay Rays season. TampaBay721 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

photos of bridges restored

You asked in some edit summaries "why are you following me?". Well, I noticed that you weare bashing me in comments elsewhere, and it attracted my attention. You alluded to long-past dispute on List of NHLs in CT, where, when I revisit Talk:List of NHLs in CT, i see really extreme editing in violation of any reasonable interpretation of wp:BRD on your part. It is unpleasant to reconsider that. You have proven to be very difficult to communicate with, over the years. I don't know why you have chosen not to communicate in normal discussions at Talk pages, but rather have communicated by reversion edits with cryptic edit summaries.

You don't own the Ohio NRHP articles. --doncram 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "when you add content that's plainly at variance with our standards, why do you expect me to attempt to reason with you". I have no understanding of what you think is "plainly at variance to our standards". Obviously there is room in the articles for several photos providing different views. Please do explain with respect to specific articles, what you think is wrong. I don't expect to enjoy this discussion, but at least we are sort of talking, maybe. If you have gone and deleted the photos already, i'll tend to want to take back any conciliatory tone. --doncram 01:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well i see you had gone and deleted them. I restored them. In one edit summary you assert something about a non-existent page wp:FILE. I can follow a link from that to a style guide, where indeed there is a suggestion that one can create a gallery on commons. That's a good idea when there are lots of pics, like for some HD articles where there are 50 pics and a gallery in the article itself is cumbersome. That style guide does not preclude the use of a small gallery, like for 3 pics in the given bridge article case. You have really dogmatic reading of the guide to feel you must remove good content.

In other edit summaries I think you are suggesting that for a short article it is impossible to alternate pic placement satisfactorily. It is not a reasonable conclusion to delete the photos. Expand the article, perhaps? Don't you have Ohio sources? Why are the Ohio articles not more developed by now. --doncram 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lucy Lippard file

Hi there, I'm responding to your speedy deletion of a photo I uploaded of art critic Lucy Lippard. The image is from flickr (not my account) and licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). The license explicitly states that this image can be circulated, altered, etc. as long as attribution is given and the image is used for non-commercial purposes. I provided a rationale as well as attribution, and Misplaced Pages is a non-commercial site. It does not make sense to me that it was deleted under F9, Unambiguous copyright infringement. Furthermore, there are no free alternatives to this image. I understand uploading this image to Misplaced Pages with attribution as fair use. Can you explain why you believe that is not the case? --Arthistorygrrl (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)