User talk:Morriswa/Archives/2012/March

Morriswa's Archives
Userpage • Contributions

2010: April • May

2011: September • December

2012: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2013: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2014: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2015: January • February • March • May • June • September • October • November

2016: March • April • May • June • July • September • November • December

2017: January • February • April • June • July • August • December

2018: January • February • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

2019: January • February • March • May • June • July • August • September • November

2020: January • March • April • July • August • September • October • November • December

2021: February •

Undated

Userboxes and categories

Category:Star Trek films is a category for the films, not userboxes. Be careful in selecting and adding categories to the userbox templates so you don't wind up categorizing user pages as films. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've seen that you've done this a lot recently, so let me put it simply. The category I referenced above is for articles about the films. Userboxes don't belong in it at all. If you do add a category to a template, make sure that if it's a category about the template, then you need to wrap the category in <noinclude></noinclude> tags. If you don't, then the user pages that transclude the template will be added to the template category. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, many categories, like Category:Europe are related to our article content, not our user pages, and definitely not our templates. It's not really appropriate to just put any random userbox into every category when many categories are for articles and article-related content. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, my userboxes (Template:User visited Asia, etc.): Could they be added (with "noinclude" tags) to a new category (say, "Wikipedians that have visited Asia"), and that category, in turn, could be added to Category:Asia?

If I am misunderstanding, could you correct what I put here? I will not implement anything until I hear from you. Thank you, and, again, I'm sorry for "messing things up". Allen (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You could add that Wikipedians category to the code using <includeonly></includeonly> tags, but I would not put that category into the main Asia one. Now, here's today's short tutorial. The noinclude tags apply to content in a page/template that you don't want transcluded to the target page; say a category the template itself should be in, but not the pages that use the template. The include only tags do the reverse; they apply to content that the target pages will have but not the template.

{{Userbox}} has simplified this for you, in that it has |usercategory= as a parameter to hold a category for the user pages using the template, but not the template itself. So, add that parameter with the name of the category you propose, and then create the category. There's probably a category "tree" for the "Wikipedians..." categories that's more appropriate than the main Asia category though. Imzadi 1979 → 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Highway designation abbreviations

Some states hyphenate their abbreviations. {{Jct}} follows that convention, and our articles should be consistent. Tennessee is one of those hyphenated states, so you need to abbreviation highways in that state as US-321, not US&nbsp;321. Ditto the SRs. Second point, but the first time a highway of a "class" is mentioned in the text (Interstate, US, state, county, etc.) that first name needs to be spelled out in full (Interstate X, US Highway/Route X, etc) with the abbreviation afterwards. We can't assume that our readers know that I-75 is the abbreviated form for Interstate 75. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Don't Censor Me. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 years, so I know a thing or two about editing.

Secondly, I would like to add the information, but I wouldn't know how to do it (i.e. I wouldn't know where in the article to add it, and I wouldn't know how much or how little to add).

My wiki-passion is road-related articles, so album ones are not a top priority for me (except that I want all of my CD collection, including Don't Censor Me: Extended Play Remixes to be added to Wikipedia).

If you could help and assist me in doing this, then I might be more willing to do it. I don't want to jump in and get drowned. I'm already getting that from the road article folks enough. Thank you. Allen (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you just gotta add it, and trust that others will help refine your additions. Running around and asking others to add stuff though doesn't endear you to the wider community. Then when what you've added is refined, or editors point out suggestions to improve your edits, take that information and apply it going forward. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, guys; I took the leap and added a short section on the CD. If you can help me out, that would be great. I no longer have the CD's case, so I can't really contribute much to the article, unless you know where to look on-line. Thanks. Allen (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Displaying Military Ribbons/Medals as Worn?

Are there any templates for displaying a user's military ribbons and medals as worn on his uniform? If not, how can I do it? User:Gadget850 said that he uses the template "Quote box" into which to place his ribbons. Is that good, or is there a better way? Allen (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. you might want to clarify to people if you mean displaying them in articles or on user pages. WP:MILHIST might have a guideline about not adding the ribbons to articles while user pages are a different ball of wax. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Re [1] - please read WP:R2D, which frowns on edits that do nothing but bypass redirects. What's particularly problematic about your edit here is the replacement of the hamlet redirect with an anchored link, which explicitly violates bullet 4 of "Reasons not to change (bypass) redirects include", which reads "Shortcuts or redirects to subsections of articles or Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links." – TMF 09:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That said, [2] is fairly helpful as it corrects a couple of page names and expands some abbreviations. Please use discretion as to which redirects really need to be "corrected". – TMF 09:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In general, edits like [3] are frowned upon. If the edit doesn't visual change the article, and it isn't doing something useful like expanding abbreviations, don't save it! Those kinds of edits just use up server resources and clog watchlists to no benefit. Now, if you're bypassing the "City, XX" style redirects with "[[City, State|City, XX]]" piped links, that's a good thing. Then foreigners reading American articles can hover their cursor over the link to get a full expansion of the name, but otherwise, yeah, don't make an edit just to bypass a redirect, and definitely don't save an edit that doesn't actually change anything. Imzadi 1979 → 12:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I know you mean good, but I am getting irritated at almost always being told that I can't do something on Wikipedia. I'm not an experienced editor like either of you (Imzadi1979 or TwinMetsFan), but I would like to be able to do all the fancy editing that I see so many editors doing. How can I do that and not get denied? It sucks when doors get slammed in my face. Not happy (but want help). Allen (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You've very reliant on automated scripts to do a lot of editing. I rarely use automated scripts. Yes, I've used AWB at times to do a large volume of monotonous editing. Case in point, when we updated {{infobox road}} in 2010, I probably did 8-10 thousand edits just changing parameter names in articles before we removed alternate names. (At one time, there was like 4 or 5 different parameter names for the termini, now there are 2.) Most of my editing around here is by hand. I've converted entire exit lists from wikitable code to the templates, by hand. There isn't an automated way to do that. I've converted hundreds of articles to use infobox road instead of the country-specific infoboxes that used to exist, once again, by hand.

Just because one of the scripts, or even AWB, recommends a change, doesn't mean we need to make it. The scripts are not holy writ saying something must be changed, and if something consequential isn't being updated, don't save the edit. Knowing when and when not to save a suggested edit is something you'll learn with experience, so just start editing. Write some articles! I didn't learn everything about editing around here overnight; instead I learned it over a few years by asking questions, making mistakes, and taking suggestions. You won't be doing what I do at the level that I do it overnight either. I don't want you to feel discouraged, but I do want you to learn. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for sounding angry -- wait! I kind of am!

Learn, huh? It sounds like the school of hard knocks, to me.

Anyway, yes, I am reliant on automated scripts. That's because I don't know how to do stuff by hand.

Yes, I know that not every edit proposed by a script or an external program must be followed. However, I don't see the point of having every single kind of redirect when they are supposed to be for people searching for stuff.

Now, you said to write some articles, huh? On what? Most, if not all, of the Interstate/U.S. Highway articles have already been written. I am almost afraid to edit anything: It might get reverted (just like the last few Interstate edits, or so)!

I know you aren't attacking me, but when almost everything I do either gets reverted or I get these scoldings, I don't know what else to call it.

Going back to the "learn" thing: If I had someone teach me, then I could learn.

I hope to be a better Wikipedian, if people will help me and let me. Allen (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Pick a state. I've picked Michigan because that's where I live. I've also worked on articles for Minnesota and Wisconsin because I'm somewhat familiar with those states. Once you have a state in mind (best to stick to one at first), dive in and edit. Use the resources for that state's task force page, use Google to find additional sources and poke around the nooks and crannies of that state's DOT website. Seek out state library resources that may be online. Ask specific questions on WT:USRD, read WP:USRD/NEW. Get a feel for the structure and standards expected of a good highway article. Yeah, the Interstates and US Highway articles are mostly created already because they tend to be a tad more "visible" and we've been around working on these articles for several years now. There are probably some highway articles for any given state that haven't been created yet.

In any case though, there is always something that can be done to improve an article, even the Featured Articles. Fair warning though, the FAs especially the ones promoted in the last year or two, are probably in good shape. Use those as your model for improving other articles. You don't need to create something from the ground up. Just look for an article that needs some attention!

Try picking the Stub-Class articles in your chosen state, and look through them to see what they need. Does the article have the "Big Three", or is everything smushed together into the lead section? (The Big Three are the Route description, History and the junction/exit list.) Is the RD section an appropriate length for the length of the highway and its environment? If it isn't, fire up Google Maps and grab a paper copy of that state DOT's map and start writing. Does the article have photos? If not, use http://images.google.com to find some freely licensed photos. You can even search on Flickr or Panoramio, etc, and politely ask photographers for permission to use a photo. (Ask me for some tips before you do that though, ok?) If you're pretty good with a camera, and I don't mean you have to be Ansel Adams reincarnate, go take some photos of the highway in nice weather. If it's an area that gets snow, now is a perfect time to get some winter photos, which we lack.

Does that stub have a history section? If it doesn't, consider starting one! These are best sources to old newspaper articles or old maps. Try searching through the archives on http://news.google.com . I've found Associated Press wire stories repeated in small-town newspapers in the archives. Who'd have thought that the Ludington Daily News or the The Argus Press out of Owosso, Michigan, would have information I could use about the freeways in Grand Rapids? When using old maps, you can cite a map showing the highway before a change an the map showing the highway after the change. It's fair to assume that the change was made between those two editions of the map. For example, for U.S. Route 131, the opening of some sections of freeway have two footnotes to maps for the before and after conditions of the highway. In a pinch, and best to be avoided, you can use different websites put together by members of the roadgeek community as sources. Please note though that these websites may not be accepted as sources in Good Articles, and they wil' not be allowed in Featured Articles. However, they can be used as a starting point to narrow down the timeline of events for citation with other sources

Lastly, does the article have a section with a junction list or an exit list? Once you get the hang of using the templates (and yes, please, use them instead of raw table code) this can be the easiest section to add to an article. In short, this should be a table listing all of the junctions with other state highways along the entire length of the road. Note though that U.S. Route 41 has a bulleted list instead of a table; U.S. Route 41 in Michigan does have the detailed table. If you're working on a freeway, build the table with the exit column(s). Exit lists contain every exit, while junction lists concentrate on the junctions with other state highways. A hybrid list, like on M-55 (Michigan highway) or U.S. Route 131, will have every exit along the freeway segments but select junctions on the surface highway segments, all in the same table. It does work best if the DOT has inventory logs with the mileposts or maps to calculate the MPs along the highway for the table, but you can use Google or Yahoo Maps to get those numbers as well.

Now, if an article has those three sections, it can be rated as either C- or B-Class by the project. The difference between the two will be how complete the sections are, how good the footnoting and citations are, and how good the writing is. Some articles will need additional sections on tolling or services; some will need future sections to account for upcoming confirmed changes. As long as those potential requirements are met and the article is otherwise B-Class, you can nominate it for review as a potential Good Article at WP:GAN, which will probably be your first opportunity to get specific feedback. Look through the GAs and FAs for your chosen state or neighboring state to see what the articles have; the more recent the review date on the talk page, the more accurate your results. Standards and expectations have increased gradually over the last few years.

Unfortunately, no automated scripts will write a Good Article for you. The scripts are great for simplistic, monotonous tasks like fixing dashes, but they're no substitute for hard work. And if you find that information is missing from an article, get a good source to back it, and just add it to the article. If someone reverts your addition, ask them why. If they refine it, see what they did to improve upon your addition. Maybe you didn't have conversions (we pretty much require that metric conversions appear in articles for our American measurements; in fact, we plan on updating the junction list templates to automatically generate a km column for the mileages later this year). Maybe you forgot to spell out the the full designation for first Interstate Highway mentioned in the text. (Foreign readers shouldn't be expected to know that "I-75" is short for "Interstate 75".) Either way, just dive in, edit and enjoy. Yes, it's hard work, but that's why seeing that green plus sign or that bronze star added to your work is so rewarding! Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, I know you are trying to help me, but I feel more overwhelmed now than before. Allen (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you think I felt back in 2007 when I started active editing? You've impressed me as an intelligent, if somewhat misguided, guy. I'm trying to give you some guidance though. The key takeaway point is to just start editing. Narrow your contributions down to a specific area at first, since that makes it easier to identify potential sources and resources. The US is big, Michigan is smaller. There's less to learn about one state's system than trying to learn several at once. Next, figure out what an article needs to make it better, and start changing it. You can always pop in on IRC, where several of us hang out most evenings. (Warning, we don't stick just to highways in the chat channel.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Something to note about most of the automated scripts: they're for polishing content in an article. They fix broken links, update dashes to comply with the MOS, etc. However, if the article was crappy before the polishing because it lacked content, if it was an inappropriately short article for the subject, then you've just created a shinier turd. I don't even check an article for link issues until I nominate it at GAN, ACR or FAC; that's how minor that usually is. Some things though I've learned to do early in the editing, like non-breaking spaces and consistent citations using the templates, so I don't have to go back and catch them later. Imzadi 1979 → 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Automated scripts are tools. Scripts can save us a lot of time; but scripts are not perfect. They are not human and cannot anticipate every possible scenario that may occur. (Trust me; I'm a programmer). Don't blindly apply scripts to articles; they're not always right. A lot of the complaints seem to be coming from your not checking the results of the script to make sure they are right; scripts making mistakes can make things even worse. Please, don't just trust the script; make sure it's doing what you want it to do. --Rschen7754 06:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Operational Distinguishing Device

Can someone upload a free image of the Operational Distinguishing Device (that goes on the Coast Guard's Meritorious Unit Commendation ribbon? I don't have one, but I would like to see it here. Thanks! Allen (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find a free image, I'll definitely upload it for you. Can you link me to it? Thanks -andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I found http://www.iragreen.com/images/upload/sized/074bb4adcd67e9e7dcf00a472a2ce650.jpg, http://64.20.46.230/images/OperationalDevice.gif, and http://militarywired.com/i/dir/Silver-Letter-O. Allen (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Regarding your recent addition of hatnotes to Falling Forward and BASIX: Please do not add hatnotes that point only to redlinks (nonexistent articles). Hatnotes are used for the purposes of navigation; if there is no place to navigate to, they are useless clutter. The correct solution is to create the article, then add a hatnote as needed. Regards,--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Spaces

I ran into your query about spaces, and I figured I'd reply that the rule you learned was for typewriters. Historically, there are different width spaces that typesetters used on printing presses, just are there are different width dashes. The original typewriters are all monospaced, so to emulate the additional space that appeared between sentences and the like, you had to type a second space, among other typewriter conventions. Computers on the other hand are smarter and apply the right width spaces as needed. In HMTL, into which the wikicode we use to create pages is converted, web browsers normally only display a single space at a time, unless you're using non-breaking spaces. Feel free to unlearn that practice though. Double spaces around here are just meaningless. Imzadi 1979 → 07:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? Ever since I started using computers (way back in 1996), I was taught to use 2 spaces. It is a hard habit to attempt to break (especially after almost 15-and-a-half years!). I can try, but bear with me. If you can keep after me (nicely, though) to use one space, that would be helpful. Allen (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My typing teacher when I was in middle school back in the early 1990s taught us the double space rule, but my typing class was on IBM Selectric typewriters. By the time I had to finally take a computer class in the fall of 1996 (mind you I could have been teaching it and I spent half of my class time working in Adobe Pagemaker on yearbook stuff instead of in Clarisworks typing out business letters), the same teacher wasn't telling us we had to do double spaces. Many people though insist you do, unaware that computers restored proportional spacing in our modern typefaces ("fonts"). It doesn't matter if you enter the double spaces in Wikipedia coding though; the server ignores them. ← That's after 5 spaces, and it won't appear any different to you than if I typed out one. Don't worry about it in the end, but don't stress if I do a search and replace on an article to remove them while doing other edits. (Performing that task alone is one of the things people frown upon around here.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I took my first computer class in the fall of 1996, too! Isn't that something? When did you take yours? In college, like me?

Anyway, I want to apologize again for this and any other editing problems on here. Allen (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I took my first one in the mid 1980s as a kid working on Apple IIe and IIc computers... that was just the one I had to take to graduation from high school in 1997. You're not causing problems, just learn what's what and you'll be fine. We're trying to teach you stuff so you can improve. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have used one of those type of Apple computers back in 1995-1996 (blasted Apple's and Mac's!). I really want to thank you, and everyone else, for attempting to teach me the finer points of being a good editor. I may not understand everything that you guys tell me, but I really want to learn. Allen (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Re; Better Edit Notice

I don't know who's trying to block your edits, but I'm certainly not the one doing it. ----DanTD (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. You misunderstand me. If someone is editing a page, and someone else tries to edit it while they are still in the page, then the 2nd person should get a blocked page. Also, if someone is editing a page, no other person should be able to edit the page until after the 1st user finishes their edits. Allen (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how the system works. What if that first person never submits an edit? How would the servers know when to release the page to other editors? In short, the servers don't block anyone from editing a page unless and administrator applies a level of edit protection to the page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it when I'm editing a page, and someone edits it while I was in it. How can I get my edit published in a situation like that? Allen (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's called an "edit conflict", and you should receive a notice that one happened. That page has instructions on why they happen and how to resolve them. In short, you'll be given both the code with your changes and the code for the current revision of the page so you can integrate your changes into the current version of the page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the edit conflict (I had one earlier: DanTD and I both were editing a page. I got irritated and gave up my edits.). Is what you mention an easy fix? Allen (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to lock other editors out of a page while you are editing it, period. There are templates you can post like {{in use}} or {{under construction}} to notify others that you're actively working on something, but no, you can't lock someone out while you are editing; there just isn't a way . Imzadi 1979 → 23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for those templates a couple of months ago, but I couldn't find them. I had to settle for a general cleanup template or something like that. ----DanTD (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing other user's pages

You know, it's really bad form to edit another user's page unless there's a policy violation. I have increased the vandalism count on my user page over that edit of yours. Don't do it again, ok? Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I realized that I should have asked you about it first, however why are you calling it "vandalism"? Did you not see any of the edits helpful? Actually, you did, because you used one of my changes.

I did not realize it was "really bad form". Sorry. Allen (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If an edit doesn't not change anything with the visual presentation of the page (yours didn't) and there isn't a technical reason to change the underlying code even though it doesn't change appearance of the page (replacing template parameter names before the old parameter names are removed from the template, substituting a template to fix the content display before the template is deleted or significantly modified, etc), then the edit doesn't have a valid purpose. Bot owners and AWB users are cautioned not to make edits that don't affect how the page appears. In the summer of 2010, I performed several thousand edits using AWB to change the parameter names on articles using {{infobox road}}. The reason is that the template was being simplified to have only terminus_a/terminus_b as the parameter names instead of start/end, from/to and terminus_a/terminus_b, among other changes. Even though the articles didn't look any different, if I hadn't done that, several thousand articles would have been impacted when the alternate parameter names were removed from the template. Your change to my user page didn't have anything productive, and it wasn't welcome. Didn't you see the big red stop sign in my edit notice? While it is true that user pages are owned by the community like all pages, each user is given deference to exclusively maintain and edit pages in their user space unless their pages violate policy or community standards. Since my page didn't do that, you really had no business editing it without asking unless you were actually fixing something (say a userbox was being moved and the old name wouldn't work). In short, I don't go messing with your user pages, please don't go messing with mine without an invitation or a really good reason. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Morriswa/Highways -- HELP, PLEASE!

I have an OpenOffice.org Calc spreadsheet. I have been trying to import it to Wikipedia, while keeping as much formatting (font families, font color, etc.) as possible. How do I get that done? I want a virtual copy of it here? Allen (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

While there are ways to import some spreadsheet files into Wikipedia articles while retaining some of the layout, things like font families are not really supported within Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not a warehouse for your files, so the content of the spreadsheet would need to support an article and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. What does this spreadsheet contain, and to which article or subject does it pertain? — DeeJayK (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't mention the topic earlier. My spreadsheet contains every Interstate and U.S. highways, past, present, and future.

I guess you can imagine which articles to which it pertains. I would have to look them up again, to be able to give you a more accurate answer. Thank you for your help. Allen (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There already exists List of Interstate Highways which contains an (apparently) comprehensive table of Interstate highways in the US. It seems like the best option would be to integrate whatever additional information you might possess (provided it's properly sourced) to that list. I realize I'm not addressing your technical question, but my point is that it is rarely appropriate to import a dataset untouched into WP, especially if similar material is already present. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The table is on one of my subpages. I already know that there are tables of the highways. My table is mainly for me. It is just an easier way (after formatting is done) for me to see at a quick glance what's what and where. Allen (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

NFL Infoboxes

I'm not 100% sure what type of infoboxes you're asking about, but my best guess is the infoboxes on players pages. There are not infoboxes for each team. The template {{Infobox NFL player}} is used for all active players. The 'currentteam' field changes the infobox colors to the team colors. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Aren't there any userboxes that say something to the effect of "This user is a fan of . . ."? They should have the appropriate colors, as well. Allen (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any list or category that contains all the userboxes related to NFL teams. Category:Sports fan user templates contains a bunch of userboxes for ALL sports teams. If you really want/need a list of ALL of the NFL-related templates, you'll probably have to create the category and track them down yourself. Is that what you want or are you looking for a userbox for one particular team? — DeeJayK (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for a userbox for the Chicago Bears and the Minnesota Vikings. However, I will look at the link you posted. Allen (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See {{User WikiProject Chicago Bears}} & {{User WikiProject Vikings}}. I do have to say that it seems extremely odd that you would be a fan of two NFL teams — particularly two in the same division. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Deejayk, for your suggestions. The ones on the WikiProjects look better (logos), but I'm not a member of any football WikiProjects. In fact, I don't even watch football. Allen (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Portals

Regarding [4], the state portals go on the state-detail pages, not the main Interstate page. --Rschen7754 01:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, then it is a whole other "ball of wax" that needs to be cleaned up. Can the "U.S. Roads" portal be put on there? Allen (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just because something is bad doesn't mean that we go making it worse. Yes, the national roads portal can be put on there. --Rschen7754 02:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And if I can offer a suggestion, but I use {{portal-inline}} if there aren't already links in the section. A see also without a bulleted list looks wrong. If there's already links in there (and you can't just force links into the section), then {{portal}} works. The Manual of Style says not to repeat a link already present in the article, and I've interpreted that to include the links in the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 02:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Manual of Style qualifies that, though. See WP:REPEATLINK. In particular, infoboxes and the main text are usually linked independently. --Stfg (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I find it poor form to repeat a link to Interstate Highway System from the bottom of the infobox in the See also section just to have a link in there. MOS:LAYOUT doesn't mention an exemption for links in the infobox and says that the section "should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Imzadi 1979 → 04:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Image not showing up in article page

I just uploaded images to use on my article page but not seeing the image when I do google search. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulCohen (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the Knight Rider category

My reasons for removing it, which you have undone in a few of the articles, is because Category:Knight Rider is redundant to Category:Knight Rider television series and Category:Knight Rider films. In personal opinion the films and television series categories did not need to be created in the first place. QuasyBoy 17:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

US 8

Just a heads up, but the Advisor script did some good and some bad. It flagged some links that went dead after the newspaper reorganized their website, which is fine. It also changed the access dates on several citations to today's date in ISO format. Those references already had access dates in "Month DD, YYY" format. I don't know why it did that, but as the script user, you should be watching what changes it's making, and if necessary, not blindly accepting them. Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First, to correct you: that was not Advisor; that was Checklinks.

On the Checklinks tool page, I tried to access the links, but it said that they were dead.

I made the tool update the accessdates (so people could know that they were recently tried), but I had no idea there was a certain format for the dates.

As I've told you before, I know not to blindly accept changes from scripts/tools. I didn't know there were any problems with the changes. Allen (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary said Advisor at the end, hence the confusion, and I wasn't taking issue with tagging the dead links, was I?

As for updating the access dates, bad idea. Let's say that I'm dealing with the H-58 article. H-58 was paved through the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in a project that ended in 2010. If the citation says that the NPS page on road construction was accessed on March 25, 2012 (which now says that the project is done), then it would seem odd if the article said that the highway construction was "in progress". Well, the citation might have said that the page was accessed on July 1, 2010, when the project was in progress, and the NPS page did confirm that. If the page is cached in the Wayback Machine, we could confirm that the page did say that on the version closest to that older retrieval date. That's actually the point behind access dates in citations: it allows us to verify against the version of the source that the writer is citing. (Yes, in my example, we'd be verifying out of date information, but it's the first example that comes to mind where the link would be changed. Depending on how the article is written, we might actually want to cite something off that older version in the history section.)

The only time I use today's date for access dates in citations is if a) I accessed the source today and used information from it for the first time, b) if the citation doesn't have a date at all, and I verified that the page content still verifies the information, or c) if the URL changed and the new source location lists a update date that would make the old access date out of place, and the page content still verifies the information. (If the page doesn't still verify the information, I need to update the article text too.)

When dealing with links that go dead, I try to resurrect them first before tagging them. The easiest manner is to search Google for the title of the webpage to see if it comes up at a new URL. The second is search the dead URL at the Wayback Machine to see if it's been archived. If so, you should use the version that comes up immediately before the access date. archive.org can take 18 months before pages appear, so if that doesn't work, just tag it and move on. If it's a source from a newspaper that should have appeared in print as well as online, just remove the URL.

As for date formatting, if the publication and access dates in the other citations are in Month DD, YYYY format, then your additions should be as well for consistency. When they aren't, that's how we end up with articles with a half dozen date formats that take a while to clean up for consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)