 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hebron, Nebraska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531210815/http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Images edit
The porch swing and post office was already in the article before my recent edit. The gallery section is useful for SHORT articles because it fixes layout problems, where as longer articles you have enough vertical space to place photos throughout the article without causing layout issues. The courthouse photo isn't unrelated because "county seat" in the first sentence. It sure is funny how you nit pick using WP:IG as a rule, yet ignore the exceptions listed under WP:IG. My solution of using gallery section for short articles to fix layout issues falls under Wikipedia:Be bold, where people try new thing to solve problems. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sbmeirow's been WP:BOLD in adding galleries to articles about small towns. I've reverted, citing MOS in my edit summary. We're now engaged in talk-page discussion. So far, things seem to be going exactly as laid out in WP:BRD.
- Sbmeirow refers to "exceptions listed under WP:IG". Reading the thing in its entirety, I don't see these exceptions. Could we get a more detailed explanation?
- By my reading, almost all of WP:IG argues against the proposed gallery. We're told that galleries should not be used just to shoehorn images into an article, and that "The images in the gallery collectively must... add to the reader's understanding of the subject". In the last sentence of the second paragraph, it's suggested that if a gallery could only reasonably be titled something like "Images of (article title)", then it shouldn't be included.
- The proposed gallery looks very much like "Images of Hebron" to me. The article doesn't mention the post office or the courthouse building at all, so it's hard to see how photos would improve a reader's understanding. The porch swing is mentioned in the article, and it would be appropriate to include a good photo; I didn't place the existing photo back in the article because of its poor quality, but I wouldn't revert if another editor chose to put it in the article, opposite the passage that specifically mentions it. Ammodramus (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)