Talk:Canton Bridge Company

Invalid source on this page

Doncram keeps adding back in this source <ref name="nris">{{NRISref|version=2009a}}</ref> , which does not have anything to do with the Canton Bridge Company. He refuses for some reason to post the actual page this information allegedly lies on, therefore the source is invalid per WP:CHALLENGED. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, it is a reference to the source of most of the data in the article, namely the National Register Information System (NRIS) database. There has been plenty of previous discussion of the NRIS database as a reference, including other editors having difficulty with the idea that it is a database and does not have a page number to cite. Note, an entirely offline reference could be given, with no link to the available-to-download database. Much of the previous discussion is within searchable archives of Talk:List of Masonic buildings. Anyhow, this has all been discussed; the current reference format reflects consensus upon all that past discussion. Please restore the reference, or i will. --doncram 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is vague and fails WP:CHALLENGED under wp:verifability. Again, I ask you to please cite the exact page... You might as well argue that every exact citation from the New York Times can just be changed to just nyt.com! I frankly don't care about any past discussions you may or may not have had, this is currently an invalid citation. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As perhaps a final nail in the coffin of this "source", I've tried plugging in the names of several bridges into this "database". The only information I get is an error page stating: Error Code: 500 Internal Server Error. The request was rejected by the HTTP filter. Contact the server administrator. (12217). This is still not a valid reference, and has been removed from the page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What you're referring to is this reference:

"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009.

which provides a link to a webpage where you could conceivably download detail.exe and other files that make up the NRIS database. The fact that you have difficulty getting that to work does not negate the fact that the database is, in fact, the source for assertions in this article that various bridges are NRHP-listed. So just consider it as an offline source that you personally do not have access to. I removed the URL from the reference in this article. If you persist in removing references, it seems like wp:vandalism and wp:pointy disruption, perhaps justifying your being blocked.

I will continue to discuss, here, any legitimate complaints you might have about the wording of the reference. You have already indicated no interest in reading previous discussion which would probably answer your complaints, so i don't think you are serious about any. It seems you are mad that an unrelated church article is under AFD. There is no way that removing the references here is legit. --doncram 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work = it is not a citation. I've tried this in Opera, Internet Explorer and Firefox from two different computers on different networks. Thus, wp:burden falls upon you to prove it is a valid reference. So far, you have not done so. Blocked? Your record is far worse than mine, my friend. IF this was a book or a newspaper I could get it through other means. However, you're citing something that is only attainable at one place, and that no editor can easily refer to. It is unverifiable, so it goes. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is used in 20,000 wikipedia articles. Markvs88 removed the source again, and reverted other changes carelessly or deliberately (i.e. the inclusion of West Virginia bridge into list), in this edit. Then added a notability tag. It is obtuse editing to argue that there is no source, when the source is the NRIS database that is widely accepted as a source. I could use help from other editors in restoring the article and dissuading Markvs88 from tearing it down. --doncram 16:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know how many it needs to be removed from! This is like saying my place of employment is on the 33rd floor of the south tower of the World Trade Center -- it doesn't exist, therefore it is wp:unverifiable...: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research". And, per WP:DEADREF : "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage, then the citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unsourced. " Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You've already said you won't read any past discussions, but other editors' concern about what the standard NRIS reference displays has been dealt with at length, most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 48#Please change the standard citation to omit the link. That discussion led to a bot run which is changing (or has already changed) the 20,000+ NRIS reference links, and to some revisions of what is displayed. As i have already indicated, good faith discussion of what the standard NRIS reference should display would best take place at Template talk:NRISref.

There is no validity to your claiming the NRIS database does not exist. It exists, online and offline, and it is accepted as reliable by consensus of Wikipedia editors in various past discussions. I have a copy and so do others, and there are several websites besides the National Register which display information from it. You could download a copy. I'd help you do so, but I think you are really not interested in getting a copy. If you actually want a copy, could you more clearly identify what is your problem in downloading it (when you click on what words on what webpage, exactly, do you get to that Error 500 message?)

I perceive that you are personally angry at me for my having nominated a church article in Connecticut for deletion, or perhaps for more reasons, but that does not entitle you to vandalize. If you have other problems, bring them up in some other forum, and/or expand your comment(s) at User talk:Markvs88#rubbish etc. That other stuff is off-topic here; I mention it for benefit of others whose attention will be called to this Talk page.

I repeat, there is no way that your simply deleting the reference in this one article, or in any scattered others, would be anything more than vandalism. --doncram 17:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean a thing to me, unless the reference CITES what you're using it for. As it stands, that is not the case.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying it no longer exists -- there is a difference. Fine, then SHOW ME THE CONSENSUS. I find that thread not to be consensus since it includes (the last thing you typed about .9 acres), having been something we discussed... yet you didn't even tell me about it. Nice.

No Doncram, I am not angry with you. I'm (as I have said before) tired of you putting requirements on various articles that you do not hold your own to. So here we are.

I repeat: I am following the rules. If you have an alternate way to cite the information, I suggest you do it. Otherwise, I'm the Pope of Wikipedia! <ref>The New York Times</ref> and you can't disprove it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

About the .9 acres topic, yes i did tell you about it. Read my first post to you within User talk:Markvs88/Archive 2#anti-metric bigotry thread that was at your talk page, including link to one discussion "which references previous discussion" which points to that other "Please change the standard citation to omit the link" thread, along with explaining the issue directly to you. You're making scattered accusations of wrong-doing you perceive, when I've in fact been plenty direct with you.

About prior consensus on the NRIS reference, I pointed you to the List of Masonic buildings archives already, but you simply stated you would not check that. In the archives there, several Masonic editors railed against the NRIS reference for a long time, and the outcome was that it stays. See in particular this archive for several such threads. There was parallel and preceding discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard (wp:RS/N) archived here which was tabled in favor of the List of Masonic buildings thread. You'll see lots of random arguments, but the outcome was the reference was kept. The most outspoken editor throughout all that was probably Blueboar, and note the more recent "Please change the standard citation to omit the link" includes Blueboar agreeing all is now okay by him. I think some basic issues you've raised here were discussed aplenty, such as the use of a database as a source.

There have also been past AFDs about individual NRHP articles possibly addressing NRIS as a source, but that happens so rarely now so i can't think of examples to point you to.

About following the rules, the situation here is that I am following wide practice and past consensus to attribute particular information to the source it came from. Your removal of the source (and your destroying other edits in the process) in this one article is unacceptable. If you seriously want to dispute notability, open an AFD on this and as many other NRHP articles as you like. If you seriously want to question what is presented where the standard NRIS is invoked, please discuss at the NRISref Talk page, or open a complaints in the wp:RS/N reliable sources noticeboard. Seriously, please do, to use standard processes for getting resolution, and i will respond to whatever complaints you have in those discussions.

You must recognize that with 20,000+ invocations of the NRIS reference, that the status quo reflects a consensus that the reference is okay. I do freely grant that some improvement in what it shows on a page could be made, but there's a process for addressing that. In no way is it acceptable for you to randomly delete this valid reference where it is in fact the source of information in an article. Are you really asserting that I made up the information on this page? Where do you think it came from? --doncram 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes! You did give the link. At no time did you say what the discussion was about. I figured you'd handled it and that was that.

Ah, the famous Blueboar-Doncram war. To which I reply: ROTFLMAO. "I think we're about done here. There is no "decision" that settles anything here, there's just a wish that some magical solution were available that would meet everyones' wishes. " There was no consensus of any kind. You've had HALF A YEAR and have done nothing to fix the problem, so I have no problem whatsoever calling you out on the carpet.

Again, this is consensus only in your head, I'm afraid. At best it was "no decision". That's not the same thing. And, as I said on my talk page, that's up to you.

Er, no I don't, as it is no longer a live source -- it is unverifiable. Yes, the process is to remove dead links. This isn't random (nor is this the only article that has been fixed), and this is not a valid reference. A source MUST EXIST to be a source. So.. I'm the Pope of Wikipedia! <ref>The New York Times</ref> Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

<--outdent As the scope of this argument seems to be far larger than just this particular article, I think it needs to go either to WP:NRHP or WP:RS/N. LadyofShalott 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To reply to Markvs88's last assertions: glad you're amused by reviewing some of that long argument. I don't mind. But, my statement that there was "no 'decision' that settles anything here" was a dismissal by me of an editor's attempt to decree that the NRIS reference was invalid. My dismissal was what was accepted; the NRIS reference was kept in the List of Masonic buildings article and other articles. The NRIS reference was subsequently refined somewhat, but the long-standing consensus of Wikipedia editors that NRIS is a valid reference was affirmed by all that.

Thanks, LadyofShalott.

I'd call this a consensus of two editors speaking here, that argument about validity of the NRIS reference and/or how it should appear on a given page, should take place elsewhere. The wide consensus of many editors, that current practice is okay, is reflected in wide use (20,000+ instances) of the reference.

Based on this, I will restore the several edits (adding an item to the list below, various fixes, as well as restoring the use of the NRIS reference where it is the source for information. Markvs88, please let this go, here, or discuss further here on this Talk page, but do not remove the reference. Also, do feel free to raise the larger questions, if you are actually serious about them, in a proper forum. --doncram 20:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, I'm done. Permanently. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Based on asking that a wider discussion take place in a more visible venue? LadyofShalott 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

nrhp nom docs

NRHP nom docs should be available online for the 3 Wyoming bridges and the Pennsylvania one, per wp:NRHPhelp. The New York state one's article already has NRHP nom doc linked. NRHP nom docs for all the others would be available upon request by email to the National Register, per NRHPhelp. --doncram 21:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)