User talk:Orlady/Archive 8

Tennessee Coach Company

Oak Ridge lady:
Thanks for correcting a couple of changes which another user had made (in the article about the Tennessee Coach Company).
I appreciate your help.
On another hand, however, by what logic, please, did you delete the sentence about the pronunciation of the unusual name Fageol?
I had written: "Fageol" is pronounced as "fad-jull", rhyming with "satchel".
[I had placed that inserted or interjected sentence within a pair of brackets, but the other user removed the brackets.]
New subject: You may find this mildly interesting, or maybe not:
One of the PhD physicists at the Manhattan Project in Oak Ridge was a young man by the name of Robert Lagemann.
Shortly afterward Dr. Lagemann became the chairman of the Department of Physics at Vanderbilt University.
Later, while I worked on my first degree, he served as my faculty adviser in the senior honors program in physics.
Small world, eh?
Smiles!
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response.

Yes, such a sentence does indeed belong in the article about the Fageol brothers and their companies.

[BTW, the Fageol article is woefully incomplete, inadequate, somewhat misleading, and lacking in accuracy; someday, after I finish my present list of articles about Greyhound and Trailways operating companies, I'll eventually return to the Fageol article and rewrite it.]

But the presence of the sentence in question (in the Fageol article) would not be mutually exclusive of its presence also in the article about the TCC.

Since, as you said, you've not perceived the relevance of the pronunciation of the name Fageol (to the TCC), please consider this:

Few English-speaking readers know how to pronounce the name Fageol, and few of the members of the younger generations of bus or transport enthusiasts know how to do so.

[Did you previously know how to do so?]

Now new bus enthusiasts ask, likewise, how to pronounce the name Flxible (the brand name of a once-popular line of motor coaches).

Incidentally, the article about Flxible includes a statement of the correct pronunciation of the name ("flexible").

When a bus enthusiast or other reader encounters the name Fageol (or other difficult name) in an article, that person naturally and predictably wonders how to pronounce it.

It's helpful for an author to anticipate that question and to answer it prospectively (without requiring the reader to turn to a different article or other reference).

Therefore, I find it entirely appropriate and acceptable to include such a statement.

That's why I did so in the first place.

I respectfully suggest that that matter (about deletion) might have been better initiated by submitting it to discussion rather than unilaterally deleting it.

One further note: Several years after I graduated from Vandy, Dr. Lagemann, who was a prince among men (and one of my valued friends), became the Dean of the Graduate School.

Smiles (as always)!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for another speedy response.

I remain persuaded that the pronunciation of Fageol is tolerable and acceptable also in the article about the TCC.

So let's amicably agree to disagree.

As an undergraduate student, many decades ago, I learned the IPA (in a course in linguistics) and how to use it.

However, I think that the simple explanation is more useful to my fellow bus nuts, few of whom can understand the IPA.

Yes, I'm sure that one of the self-appointed hall monitors will eventually come along and change it to the IPA.

Cheers!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the message.

I appreciate your concern, and I especially appreciate your kindness, politeness, and sensitivity.

Your words stand in sharp contrast against what I've received from some others at Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, my time today is short, due to my travel commitments.

At my first good opportunity, several days from now, I'll respond further.

Thanks again.

Doc -- DocRushing (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of bow tie wearers (Fred Astaire and Michael Jackson)

Orlady: I linked Fred Astaire to the white tie article because Wikipedia would not let me use the the eHow reference I wanted to use ("How to dress like Fred Astaire"). The NY Times article simply mentions him in passing; that may be enough but I wanted to highlight him more than that and add some text beside his bare name. If I can find a better reference I will introduce it later.

As for MJ, I have to ask "what makes a bow tie wearer?" If the answer is that the person is "known for wearing bow ties", this is problematic in the case of Michael Jackson because he was known for this for a certain period of his career (specifically the period of the "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" albums/singles/videos), but not so much later on. Billie Jean and Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough were huge hits and those videos helped define him for a certain stretch of time. Googling for Michael Jackson images turns up a number of instances of MJ in unusual (not just tuxedos-at-award-shows) bow ties (cf. Thriller (song)). My guess is that during this period he was heavily influenced by Mr. Astaire in dance moves as well as in the wearing of bow ties.

What can you say about an artist who was constantly re-inventing his style and whose constellation of looks (the red jacket, the military lapels, the sequined glove, etc.) overwhelmed our eyes, not to mention the rest of the spectacle that was his life apart from his dress? Being 'known for' so much, we can hardly say he was 'known for' the bow tie, but it was definitely there and persisted for a certain period. So I think it's fair to include him in the list with perhaps some note to indicate that it was not a permanent feature of his style. That's what I was trying to do by saying that he wore bow ties in "some music videos". --Nehushtan (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me talking about "original research" in this case. "Who is a bow-tie wearer" is hardly an academic subject, and anyway the question (or answer) is highly subjective. What I hear you saying is that in your opinion I'm wrong, so prove it. Well, back atcha: prove that MJ wasn't a "bow-tie wearer". I've given you the proof that for a period of time, he was. No research required, it's in the historical record in the form of photos, music videos, and album covers. So MJ belongs as much as Steve Jobs, to cite but one example from the list. Jobs is not "known" now as a bow-tie wearer, but according to the article was known to do so in the 1980s. --Nehushtan (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore the above ranting. After some consideration, I realize where you are coming from. Sorry about the flame. I'll look into the matter further and see if I can come up with a worthy citation. --Nehushtan (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source - Reply

A more personalize message would have been nice to be honest with you, I've been here long enough. Also, choose one. Rgoodermote  22:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a dislike for the officialness of it is all, I'd have preferred a "Hey, you fucked up and made a rather juvenile mistake, any reason why?" course the answer is a growing disdain for the rules and policies this site is built upon and their inability to allow for one to use common sense despite a rule saying to ignore all rules if the others get in the way of common sense and the one thing I'm growing tired of is seeing ref needed tags on things that can be very easily proven without the need of an external website (which within the world of the Internet is not up all that long). Rgoodermote  23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple things, this and this. I know all about the rules, I was exclusively an antivandal for nearly 2 years. I've grown to see something with the new batch of editors. They follow the rules to a T and take things too literal, taking an authoritative tone, enforcing the rules without little room to move. I remember in the summer of 08 Jimbo Wales was on C-SPAN doing an interview. He said that if a fact can't not be obtained via the same methods others can you could find them another way. He used WoW as an example and explained that some one added something to an article about WoW that talks about a hidden treasure, users could go to the area mentioned and confirm for themselves whether it was true or not and then ignore the added text and not bother with whole needing a source thing because it can be easily verified. But today none of the editors seem to get this, one should not added a fact tag to every little tiny friggin sentence, a source doesn't always exist so you must use WP:IAR and verify it another way. No one is doing that anymore IAR is no longer used unless to gain the upper edge in a fight that has no meaning at all except to further the hateful agenda of a POV pusher, which I am not, I just have had enough with seeing such stupid miss use of the fact tag, blatant misinterpretation of rules and continued following of the rules to a T, if the rule inhibits the growth of the wiki it can be ignored. That includes WP:CITE. If you can not verify something the old fashion way, do it a new way. We've done this for many many years. I don't like the new batch coming in and ruing this old time trick by actually making our reliability go down with their constant addition of ref tags. Also another thing, all the sources you will need to know why the place is called the Western Gateway. It's not that hard to verify. So you know this was all because I do not like being addressed like I am unequal. I am not a new editor I am your peer, I do not like being addressed in a manner that demeans me to a new user again. I have earned my right to be talked to evenly. Do not throw rules at me and do not tell me what I know. It's extremely annoying to me and also I'm really glad to just let go, I've had it with everyone. I want to edit in peace like I used to. I can't have peace with so many people forgetting what this site was built on. Rgoodermote  06:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm generally very calm and collective. But I dumbly let my personal life get intertwined with my online life and it led to me blowing up on the first person to tell me off for something that could be easily shrugged off. Rgoodermote  18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitol Greyhound Lines

Fellow Tennessean:
I've noticed your change of my two-digit years into four-digit years in the article about the Capitol Greyhound Lines.
Recently, before you made those changes, I tried hard to find some guidance on that point in two style manuals, the Wikipedia manual and the Chicago manual.
I limited my search to those two sources because those two are the only ones which I can use while away from home.
I did not find anything about that point.
Where, please, can I find something authoritative?
If I've done something wrong, I want to find out, so that I can change.
Yes, even old dogs can learn new tricks.
[BTW, my convention has been to use a two-digit year only if I had first used a four-digit year in the same paragraph, and I've applied it consistently.]
Thanks for your help.
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for quick action, and thanks for opening the discussion at the MoS.

I'll cheerfully comply with whatever the consensus requires.

Smiles!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!

If you have a copy of Turabian or the AP, GPO, or Merriam-Webster style manual (or other authoritative source), will you please check one or more of those references for anything about the two- or four-digit years?

I feel somewhat crippled while away from my own library at home.

Here are several responses to some of your changes in the article about the Capitol Greyhound Lines:

You removed the external link to the Greyhound website, saying that you "can't find anything" germane; yet that reference relates not only to the change in ownership of the Greyhound bus business but also the reductions in service during the past few years.

You removed my parenthetical note about the name of The Greyhound Corporation (the parent firm), describing it as an "unneeded trivial detail"; on the other hand, that informative note addresses a frequent error by some writers, who refer to "the Greyhound Corporation" or even "the Greyhound Corp.", while failing to pay careful attention to detail.

You removed the alternate name of Jan Hobijn, the author of Jon's Trailways History Corner. Jan identifies himself on his website by his Dutch name, whereas he is known (almost exclusively) throughout the bus-history community by his anglicized name (Jon Hobein). [Jon is a member of a family of immigrants from the Netherlands.] I included his more recognizable name in an attempt to preclude or forestall a question in the mind of a reader who might wonder about the Dutch name.

At one point you refer to the "Capitol Greyhound" [sic], whereas the name of the entity is Capitol Greyhound Lines. Although such an ellipsis or truncation is common in careless colloquial conversational speech, it has no place in formal business or academic writing. That's in the same category as "Inglewood Elementary", "Lipscomb High", "Woodmont Baptist", and "Cobb General" (Hospital). We as authors and editors have a duty to do better than that.

At least once you changed "became merged" into "was merged". Your change is not wrong (or incorrect or erroneous), but it's less desirable in formal writing, because you substituted a stative verb for an active verb. Although "to become" is an intransitive verb, it nonetheless expresses the action of a merging process (a "becoming" process), whereas "was" (as an inflected form of the stative verb "to be") relegates the subject to a passive entity on which something "got done". Expressions of action improve writing. [These thoughts are not my own inventions; they represent the accumulated wisdom which I've learned (from those who knew their stuff extremely well and taught it extremely well), starting in 1952, when my serious interest in writing and public speaking began to awake.]

Please do not misunderstand my intent or purpose. I wish not to appear even slightly unkind, argumentative, or quarrelsome. I hope to engage you in a cordial and mutually constructive discussion. I've written from my heart as well as from my head. I urge you to avoid feeling offended.

Smiles (as always)!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary colleges

It was listed twice. Llamabr (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

List of demonyms for U.S. states‎

Please see talk page for above article. Cmiych (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I have voiced concerns over DYK tag censorship, in Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Fuckin.27_.27Ell_It.27s_Fred_Titmus, and I was advised that you might be the right person to contact, as to how to resolve the matter. Please let me know if you can help at all, or direct me to the appropriate forum. Thank you,  Chzz  ►  05:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie

Thanks, Orlady (and thanks to all of you at DYK). But...eh...User:LadyofShallot worked just as hard on the article--does she get a badge too? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Credit given. I haven't delved into the history to find out why that credit didn't make it onto the list of credits that the 'bot handed out. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem: Richard Henry Boyd

Hello! Your submission of Richard Henry Boyd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Oreo Collins

For future reference, please note that lack of notability is not a legitimate basis for speedy deletion. As noted in the descriptor for the usage you used, an A7 claim requires that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The Oreo Collins article did indicate same; you may disagree with the significance of what was indicated, but the article did treat it as a topic ("who gained notoriety when she successfully received a diploma from an online high school"). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored the article (including the speedy deletion template) to allow another set of eyes to consider the situation. --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Henry Boyd

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Henry Boyd, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Queue #5

Oops, forgot to restore the creds! Thanks for fixing that.

For future reference (in case you don't know) we normally copy the entire prep page to the queue page, the bot just picks the hooks to promote in any case. The reason the formatting was screwed up is basically because you missed the opening <noinclude> statement that appears above the "Hooks" section. Gatoclass (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the whole prep page is supposed to be copied. I thought I selected the full contents of the box and copied it, per usual, but apparently I had only the hook section of the page open in that window. Thanks for your help fixing it! --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that's probably what happened from your edit summary, but thought I would mention it just to be sure :) Gatoclass (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unrecognized Accrediting

Both you and I have been active on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning and you were able to spot many things which I missed and I was able to spot many things that you missed.

Since this listing needs to be authoritative, I believe that all those entries that have missing citations should be removed till we can find citations. This would be necessary, I feel, for the sake of objectivity and accuracy. What do you feel. Thought I will consult you because both of us are zealous about maintaining the integrity of this list. The Hermes (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Henry Boyd-apologies

My apologies-I wanted to put the appropriate template on but I was not sure of the class.I thought that could be change. Again my apologies for any misundersatnding or confusion. Thank you for what you are doing for Wikipedia.-RFD (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No objects what so ever-I knew someone would make the changes-Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Queue 3

Actually, there were 2 US hooks before your changes - one on a species of plant native to the US, and another about land grants in California. I chose them carefully --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lake Beryessa is in the United States. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In queue 6, could you delete the credits? The bot's already credited them before. Shubinator (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and thank you. I wouldn't want to run around removing 30+ credits from talk pages :) Shubinator (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary image uploads

I just hit on something interesting: in Special:ListGroupRights it says administrators have the ability to upload images from a URL. Does this mean that for temporary uploads you don't need to download to your own computer? For example, for File:Mesohippus.jpg, could you just upload from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Mesohippus.jpg? Shubinator (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm... That would be nice. I can't enter a URL into the regular upload form... It's something to inquire about. --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll ask around. Shubinator (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• It was in testing at the start of April: Wikimedia tech blog post. Maybe still in testing ... Shubinator (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Daylight savings time for DYK updates

Here you added a sentence saying that Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes does not adjust for Daylight Savings Time, but I programmed it to shift an hour for DST. Is there a particular time zone that's wrong? Shubinator (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on. At the time I posted that note, I was seeing a 2-hour offset between my time zone and the times posted for Chicago, which should be just one hour different. Today the offsets for Chicago and London look OK, though. I'll delete the note. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Let me know if you see a problem. Shubinator (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation template

Hi! Just wondering, why can't the citation template take complex urls? I don't see a problem, but that's probably because I don't have enough experience with them. Thanks a bunch! Hardtofindaname 08:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Thanks for the clarification! Happy editing, Hardtofindaname 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks for helping out at HMRG Deep, I really appreciate it. Hardtofindaname 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks...

...for your help with the teleflora page! Shymian (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Baker

Thanks for your help with the DYK. Designate (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with the Canterbury University (Seychelles) article. TallMagic (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy winnings

In all the discussion, I neglected to notice the very odd punctuation at the end of the hook:

...that Ken Jennings received 11 of the 13 single-day winnings of $50,000 or more on Jeopardy!?

What about rephrasing to:

...that Ken Jennings received 11 of the 13 Jeopardy! single-day winnings of $50,000 or more?

--EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

petty edits

A user logging in from 69.209.113.108 had recently started making what seem like really petty edits -- removing all phrases like "award-winning" deeming them to be peacock terms, or removing a person's age when s/he died. (this edit shows a sample with both). What I'm getting particularly annoyed with is that 2 different people (myself and FaithinHim) have attempted to remove a "trivia" label from Theme from Cheers (Where Everybody Knows Your Name), but both times the same IP user un-did our changes. Before I attempt to undo the latest revert, can you tell me if you think this person is making reasonable edits and if so, whether you think that the "use outside cheers" section (or whatever the best name for that is) is a reasonable section that is NOT just a list of trivia? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I saw that the user did a few more (including undoing Wildhartlivie's undo of his change!) even after your post, but since it seems like Wildhartlivie's similar post was also ignored, I don't hold much hope that the person's editing behavior will change...  :-( Shymian (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw the discussions on the user and the ban, but I noticed that your revert got reverted by this seemingly new account. Could this be the same user logging in with a name this time? Thanks, Shymian (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Loyston

In my opinion, this doesn't get a county navbox, and communities that aren't mentioned on the navboxes shouldn't have the navbox transcluded. I strongly support the inclusion of most ghost towns on templates, but the fact that it's underwater makes the situation quite different in my mind. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you hate confusion in legal documents? Thanks for doing the research. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, could you give me a link for the state law dealing with municipalities, specifically noting that ciites and towns are effectively identical? I'm not challenging you; I'm simply curious and want to read it. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied on Nyttend's talk page, but for completeness, this information is in the first paragraph on page 20 of the PDF (page xiv of the report) of this report by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't discussed much in the state statutes. Perhaps the most informative legal references are at TCA 6-1-203, 6-1-209 and 6-1-501, where the designation of "town" or "city" is discussed as being an element of the name adopted by a municipality. Also, some statutes apply to "municipalities", in which case "municipality" is often defined as "city or town" (for example, at TCA 6-54-501 and 6-51-401) but sometimes has other definitions such as "city, town, county, or special school district." It appears that in Tennessee the designation of "city" vs. "town" has about as much legal significance as the color of the police cars, which is why I have a history of trying to make "Cities and towns" be a single line on the Tennessee county templates. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl champions nominated at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Super Bowl champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Area errors in NRIS

Just wanted to let you know — if I understand your comments at Talk:Norris, Tennessee correctly, you believe that the NRIS includes 10× area errors for Tennessee. Rather than being an NRIS error, it's an error at nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. If you download the NRIS database in Microsoft Access format (here), you'll see that the figures are correct in size, and 10× smaller than the erroneous ones from nrohp.com. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, this issue was sorted out several weeks ago. As you point out, the problem is at nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website. Has someone put a new date on my old comments? --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; I've only seen that page twice (once when I left a comment and once tonight), and I don't remember the dates for the comments to which I refer. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Forbus Historic District

Confused, do you mean that State Route 28 and U.S. Route 127 are concurrent? Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what the maps show -- both the online maps and my road atlas. For most intents and purposes, that highway is known as US 127. (There's another issue -- that the coordinates for some of the NR-listed properties in rural Fentress County aren't on the places where maps suggest those addresses ought to be located. I don't have the tools at hand to figure out what's right and what isn't, and at least all of the coordinates are in the right general neighborhood.) --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better than the several sites in Massachusetts that have coords placing them between Quito and the Galapagos Islands :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL --Orlady (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Historic Districts vs. locales

Doncram's asked me to do merges on articles where consensus has developed that historic districts are substantially contiguous with towns/villages/wide portions of road. Since you, he, Polaron and Lvklock have been discussing this topic at some, erm, length, I wanted to make you aware of this. In general, in these circumstances I support the merger of stand-alone HD articles under the name of the locale with a redirect where appropriate from the HD name. What I'd like to do is to propose an initial list of uncontentious merges at a central location (I suggest Wikipedia talk:NRHP initially), preferably of technically easy merges. We can move on to more complicated or contentious merges after we reach an understanding on the initial batch. Doncram has also suggested that I "mediate/arbitrate/judge" and lead the discussion. I prefer to mediate rather than arbitrate or judge; maybe "referee" might be a better model. The sheer volume of discussion over the past couple of months over umpteen pages is a bit much to digest, but there does appear to be some beginning of a consensus in the broad sense. Acroterion _(talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilder Village HD

Have you started discussing this with Doncram somewhere yet? If so, point me there please.

My take on this question is that we should use both sources. While the Access file from the NRIS gives the area, it doesn't give the number of buildings. Presumably that's available from the larger database that is available in dbf format; I can't be sure because my computer doesn't know what to do with dbf files, but I don't see a good reason not to trust nrohp.com in this specific matter. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the data on numbers of contributing properties. See this discussion -- that's where Doncram wants to talk about referencing the dotcom site.

I have the impression that Elkman may be able to work with the DBF files. --Orlady (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about OpenOffice; I have the actual Microsoft Office, so all I know of OpenOffice is what I've heard from those who use it. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can use Microsoft Access to link to .dbf files. When you have the database open, choose "File->Import->Get External Data", and the option is something like "Link tables". I don't actually have Access handy right now, because it's on my work computer, but that's approximately how it's done. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I'll try that in Access later (I have a Windows machine with MS Office on it, but it's in another room and it's not turned on right now).

Meanwhile, I think it might be possible to get at the DBF version using OpenOffice. I spent a little time fooling around with the database program in OpenOffice, but haven't gotten serious enough to actually look at a user manual. Openoffice crashes when I try to load the Access database, and I read enough support info to discover that it apparently doesn't support Access files except under the Windows operating system. However, I have found that it does supposedly work with Dbase databases. After I downloaded the various DBF-related files from NRIS, openoffice seemed to think it was accessing the database, but I think I am going to have to read some user manuals to figure out how to actually see the data. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

As I was asked by Doncram to mediate the merge split dispute, I'm sticking my foot in the door of the larger dispute between you and he, since I see scant hope of making much progress as long as the sniping continues. I therefore ask that you avoid interaction with Doncram. Nyttend and Elkman are working to deal with the area sourcing problem, and I see no good that will come from any further interaction on your part with Doncram in this matter.

(copy and rephrase from Doncram's talkpage follows) I'm going to try to come up with a format and ground rules within the NRHP project space that encourage a productive outcome, so that my role can in time be phased out in favor of an ongoing collective mechanism for splits and merges in a central location. The database work that is presently being pursued by Nyttend and Elkman should be allowed to mature (if it hasn't already), and we'll have a more reasonable basis for a decision-making process. I note that I have two messages on my talkpage concerning NRHP mergers from people not associated with the NRHP project, a reminder that the wiki, and editorial consensus, are not solely confined to the participants in this particular wikiproject.

From this time onward, please avoid interaction with Doncram. I've deliberately used a different tone in my interaction with you, since I see a less reflexive or escalatory response on your part, but it's clear that you're picking at each other and must disengage. You are both free to contact me, but I will not tolerate a continuation of the dispute by proxy on my talkpage. I have no intention of using administrative tools in this matter, apart from the housekeeping associated with the subject matter, but I will bring this to the larger community's attention if the occasion demands. Acroterion _(talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening, Acroterion. Since you don't want to have your talk page used as a platform for disputes, I'll reply here.

I will be happy not to have to interact with Doncram, although I do regret that this means I will have to recuse myself from reviewing his DYK noms, fixing issues with those noms that are holding them back from approval, or promoting them to them main page, as I have done several times recently. Doncram seems to have been convinced for over a year that I am out to get him -- and I perceive that he has been engaged in provocative behavior targeted at me (meanwhile accusing me of being a bully). For the record, this perceived feud may have started as early as July 2008 as a result of this talk page discussion and subsequent follow-on discussions, but things definitely got bad after I reviewed the Featured List candidacy of List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and raised objections and concerns (I thought that the concerns I pointed out were easily resolvable, but Doncram did not, and he apparently perceived that my objections were a personal attack on him). (Up to that time I had been pretty active in review of Featured List candidates, focusing on the small fraction of nominated lists that aren't sports-, music-, or entertainment-related.)

I must reserve the right to cry "foul!" if Doncram interjects himself into topics that he perceives me to have an interest in, as he has done in the past, apparently (as I perceive it, at least) just to get under my skin (his creation and subsequent development of the "Norris District" stub was just one recent example).

Also, I would like someone to resolve the altercation involving the Chester-Hadlyme Ferry, the Hadlyme Ferry entry in National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut, and the Hadlyme Ferry Historic District stub that Doncram created after seeing that I had touched the county list article. The issue about the significance of the HD has been resolved satisfactorily due to a comment by Lvklock, but I am still personally offended by his insistence that a Wikipedia article (in this case the county list article) should include the weasel-worded (and utterly unnecessary) speculative statement: "It is located in the area of, and may include, the Chester–Hadlyme Ferry" (note that the database description of the Ferry Historic District says it includes the ferry slip). I also don't think that HD stubs like that one should be written solely on the basis of an NRIS database entry (which largely reflects the contents of checkboxes on the nom form), particularly when (as in this case) there is additional relevant information about the focus of the historic district that can't be included in the article because it's not explicitly included in the NRIS entry, but that gets to the issue of merging-vs.-splitting of HD articles and the associated place articles. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What the...? What happened? Bms4880 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for a very long time, as noted above. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Acroterion: that argument on the NRHP project page is typical of Doncram's actions toward Orlady. It begins with Orlady answering a question, Doncram going out of his way to construe her response as a personal attack, and then lacing his own response with rhetoric meant to escalate. Check any of their arguments, and you'll see that same pattern. Bms4880 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've seen much of the background in this interaction from a distance, deliberately maintained. I don't expect to impose peace, harmony, universal love and free beer, and I'd much rather be doing other things, but felt compelled to intervene before good editors (I specifically include both you and Doncram in that category) were driven from the project. I'll try to set up a basic subpage so we can find and archive discussions without going to individual state talkpages or my talkpage. I haven't quite come to grips with an appropriate means for discussion of contentious matters. I'll meditate on it this weekend. An AfD-like format might be best, with much the same rules of interaction.

@Bms4480: It's my hope that we can move on from this and not reopen old wounds. I'm aware of the general background and a few other things that haven't come up recently. I wish to mediate, not arbitrate, at least in the matter of editorial interaction. I've obtained the specific consent of both Orlady and Domcram (it was his idea, after all) to decide merge/split proposals, and I intend to obtain the best consensus I can before proceeding. Acroterion _(talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP articles needing attention has been a central graveyard for merges and splits. Maybe a re-formatting is in order. Acroterion _(talk) 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was aware of its existence, but I had never looked at that "Articles needing attention" page before. I figured it was a typical Wikiproject list of articles needing expansion or cleanup, and I did not know it was primarily a bulletin board for notification of merger/split discussions. It doesn't look like it is serving that purpose very effectively, as there were only 8 page views in July.

Aside from the moribund nature of that page, I have some reservations about using any single NRHP Wikiproject page as a central platform to discuss numerous individual merger-split cases. The NRHP Wikiproject is fairly active as Wikiprojects go, but (as your comments also acknowledge) the active Wikiproject participants are a fairly small part of the community that contributes the articles that might be considered for splits or mergers. Among the most active participants in Wikiproject discussions there is a preponderance of systematizers and tech-savvy database and template manipulators, whereas a lot of article work on local history, museums, and other historic-site topics is being done by contributors who are interested primarily in a particular geographic area or historical theme, and who may be largely aware of the NRHP Wikiproject. These different groups of contributors predictably have very different perspectives on how information should be organized. If discussions are held on a platform that is frequented by the NRHP systematizers but largely unknown to the other types of contributors, the perspective of the NRHP systematizers may be the only one that is heard. A Wikiproject discussion page (or another centralized "Village Pump" type page) is the best spot to discuss broad principles regarding when to split and when to merge, but I think that any discussions that have to delve into nitty-gritty details of specific articles ought to be done as close to the article as possible. At a minimum, it's important to ensure that merge or split templates get applied to the affected articles, point to the actual discussion location (no dysfunctional #targets that take the bewildered visitor to the top of a busy noticeboard), and don't get removed prematurely. Also, state wikiprojects and sometimes topical wikiprojects should be notified of discussions.

I think that much of the current backlog of disputed articles, incomplete merge/splits, and disputed redirects probably has been discussed sufficiently (or is sufficiently straightforward for other reasons) to be resolved by "administrative" action. After those are dealt with ([possibly including reopening discussion on some), rather than setting out to tackle a whole new list of individual articles not previously discussed, I'd like to pursue a broad consensus-reaching discussion on the general issues of when HDs should have separate articles (and when not) and on how to name them (e.g., when to say "Old Village" and when to say "Old Village Historic District"). It has been represented to me that this is a matter on which there is well-established consensus, but I'm not aware of when or how such consensus was determined and where it was documented -- if you know of something, I'd like to see it. 'Nuf for now. --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've modified my comments on Doncram's talk page, as they could have been construed to mean that neither he nor you may say anything at all concerning merges or splits: such was not my intention, and I have no wish for a false, one-sided consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been a good bit of disagreement over the appropriate way to describe the congruence of HDs and locales - such as the disputed "all or part of" - would something along the lines of "Podunk Historic District is associated with the village of Podunk" suit everyone better? It can be suitably modified if and when better sourcing is posted. I note also that it's quite easy to fall into the trap of assuming too much based on naming, as various HDs associated with Canaan, CT illustrate. Acroterion _(talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick answers, as I don't have time for a novella right now...

I have contended -- and continue to contend -- that it is always correct for the "Podunk, USA" article to sidestep the issue of its precise relationship to the HD by stating something like: "The Podunk Historic District, which encompasses 62 acres and includes 111 contributing properties, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 1, 1988." That does not take care of the question of how an article about the "Podunk Historic District" should describe its relationship with the village of Podunk, but I also contend that it's premature to create a stand-alone article about the HD if one doesn't yet have solid information about the HD's relationship to the village.

When the coordinates of the "Canaan Village Historic District" (described as being in the town of North Canaan) place it smack-dab on Canaan Village (which is the dot shown on highway maps as "Canaan", is in the town of North Canaan, and is signed as "Canaan" for anyone entering the village), I don't see any need to use weasel words to allow for the possibility that the Canaan Village Historic District might actually be related to some other area in the town of North Canaan.

I see that Doncram is saying that I contend that sections and neighborhoods are nonnotable, specifically with reference to Westchester County, New York. That is a misinterpretation of my views (one that Doncram have gone round and round about previously), and it should be ignored in the current discussion. It stems from my involvement with articles about New Rochelle and surrounding areas, where a banned user with hundreds of sockpuppets has created articles about almost every conceivable aspect of the city (including its individual residential subdivisions, city parks, elementary schools, yacht clubs, etc.). These articles were built from plagiarized content (artfully disguised), sometimes contained details that were demonstrably wrong, and tended to be written to laud the glorious wonders of the topic at hand. Lack of notability was indeed one of the concerns I expressed about some of these articles, but the main issue with them was that they were cr*p from a justifiably banned user. --Orlady (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I know all about Jvolkblum and strongly warned Doncram at the time of Jvolkblum's proposed rehabilitation. Let's not open old wounds. Acroterion _(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to avoid that old issue. I brought it up because I read Doncram's statement "It has been widely held by Orlady and others that neighborhoods are not generally notable, in particular in various Westchester towns" as a misinterpretation of the Jvolkblum affair that isn't relevant to the new discussion. --Orlady (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I was determined to ignore it. Acroterion _(talk) 22:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. :-) --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As for terminology of towns, let's stick to the easy ones first. It's hard enough to get everybody to agree on the places that unquestionably share the same village center. As for my proposed wording, it specifically avoids weaseling like "may include" and "portions of" and other beating-around-the-bush. Acroterion _(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: User Talk:Tim1357#Please be sure

Im so sorry for having taken such a long time to reply, i must admit I was extremely embarrassed to have made such a stupid mistake. I did not know that using a recursive category, would bring me to categories unrelated to the starting category. In short, I did not know that one could get to non-vermont related articles, even though they may be traceable to the vermont category. I have gone through and made sure that all the articles that were tagged were appropriate (however most of my work was already done for me) im sorry to have caused you inconvenience. Tim1357 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

North Bennington, Vermont

You say (quite correctly, of course) that "Vermont villages are all components of the towns". Do you know if it's possible for a village to span multiple towns? Village (Vermont) says that there aren't any now, although I wonder about former villages. I would read the sentence before you changed it to mean "it's not in any other town", although I can't imagine someone being confused by the way you wrote it. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Resume frauds category

After reading your comments on my talk page, I realize that perhaps I was a bit too hasty about recategorizing those articles. Feel free to revert any of the disputed changes Imade at your leisure. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharp's Ridge, Knoxville

You're absolutely correct.. Sharp's Ridge is indeed a city park within Knoxville.. my bad. I thought I included that fact when I wrote the article. Thanks!Csneed (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

content removal

I accidentally deleted a picture from the article i just realized. It was totally unintentional, my apologies--68.199.21.195 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Springfield, Massachusetts (Amtrak station)

Any chance you would be willing in this discussion to accept including the city a second time to get the article renamed and then have a second discussion for the two involved articles to see if the city should be in there twice or not? Clearly the current name needs changing and we are failing clear consensus over this one point. That is leaving the article in a bad place. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Denverjeffrey

Thanks for paying attention and taking care of the problem while I was away :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:EyeTestPoster.jpg

File:EyeTestPoster.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:EyeTestPoster.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:EyeTestPoster.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tommy Burnett

On September 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tommy Burnett, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 04:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you-

Many thanks for your work on the Tommy Burnett article. The biographies of the state legislators are far more interesting then the members of the United States Congress. Thanks again-RFD (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Auto-categorizing Robot

Back in July, I asked your opinion about filing a request for a bot to add HD categories to HD articles so that we could remove Category:Historic districts in the United States from {{Infobox nrhp}}. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Auto-categorizing Robot: a bot has now been written and approved to carry out this task. It will add a state-level category to any article with {{Infobox nrhp}} that is tagged with "hd" or "nhld", unless (1) the names of multiple states appear, in which case it will add Category:Historic districts in the United States [so we can sort it manually later], or (2) there's already an HD category on the article. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for your effort in making this happen, and thanks for the notification. --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for citing and replacing dead links on the List of breast cancer patients according to survival status. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There was never any question that Bardot is a breast cancer survivor. Was that reference link dead also? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Heartland Series

At the time, I was co-hosting "PM Magazine" down the street at WATE-TV, and spoke on a regular basis with my good friend Steve Dean, former WBIR promotions director, who actually started "The Heartland Series" at Channel 10. He told me, they wanted badly to compete with "PM" and its down-home, folksy stories and visits to people, places and things profiled in the Appalachian, mountain history of East Tennessee. He told me, the Heartland Series began as a discussion between his General Manager and himself, first spotlighting people, places and events of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, just like we were doing at "PM Magazine." There's nothing documented or written down, just what he told me that I later confirmed through his boss, John Hart.. guess that reference will have to come out of the article.Csneed (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, shucks! That's an interesting story, and I have no doubt that it's true, but I guess it needs to come out of Wikipedia unless you can find a way to get it published somewhere else. Can Steve Dean write a memoir, or arrange to be interviewed about this? (Actually, he's done a bunch of interviews about the show -- maybe this has made it into print as a result of one of them...) --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I know Steve pretty well.. I'm sure the reasons behind the inception of the Heartland Series has never come up during interviews, because it's been so long ago. I also know he has no love for the business anymore as a whole. I'll ask him..we've often joked about co-writing a book about Knoxville-East Tennessee TV. It'd have to be fiction--nobody'd believe the stories we could tell LOL!!Csneed (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)