User talk:Lordkinbote/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This archive page covers the first quarter of 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Lordkinbote/Archive03.
See also sections: remove context?
I noticed you removing context around links in the 'See also' section of New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. I can't see an explicit statement in the MoS that this is the way it should be - is there one I've missed? Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: infobox
Hi Sean,
Nice work on the {{Infobox Locomotive}}, I've been going back and incorporating it into some of my recently-created articles. One thing I noticed, however, is that the "cylinders" category does not read out in the box once it's placed in the article (same goes for your GP30 example); is this intended?--Lordkinbote 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Doh! Forgot to update the example when it changed from "cylinders" to "cylindercount". Slambo (Speak) 15:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
So I see there are many images like Image:X-33809.jpg which are both tagged as pd and Denver public library image. Although the Denver public library image template is otherwise correct, it does claim to be a fair use tag. Even if we ignore the problem that causes for automated tools, it is also confusing to human readers. Do you know how many of these images are PD vs fair use on Wikipedia? If there are many we should probably fork the template into PD and fair use versions. --Gmaxwell 08:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Offhand I don't know how many DPL images are also PD (which qualify as such due to their age), but I do like your idea of having 2 separate templates to differentiate between fair use and PD. It should be relatively easy to retag the PD images (which I believe are in the minority) as Category:Denver Public Library images groups them all together.--Lordkinbote 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I just created {{Denver Public Library public domain images}} and will begin retagging those that fall within this category, FYI.--Lordkinbote 19:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
SoothingR 20:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)DYK
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Empire State Express, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Gurubrahma 03:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Union Pacific No 119 replica.jpg
-SCEhardT 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, too many others to list. Check under the the first one at WP:PUI -SCEhardT 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:ATSF San Diegan San Clemente CA April 19 1973.jpg
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:ATSF San Diegan San Clemente CA April 19 1973.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhardT 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove the PUI tag while the image is listed at WP:PUI. The problem is not a lack of source. The problem is that you have claimed the image is not copyrighted when it in fact appears to be. What is your rationale for claiming the image is not copyrighted? -SCEhardT 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This image also has no source. -SCEhardT 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk pages
When you warn users, you should subst the template, and sign your message.--Drat (Talk) 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Please take care when making format changes (i.e., regarding the " - " symbol) when dealing with image file names. Two image links were broken after you edited the subject article in this manner. Thanks!--Lordkinbote 07:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops! I've been trying to catch all those. Sorry about that. :-( --BRossow 13:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Good article
Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. —RJN 11:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Delink Dates and Railroads? Why?
Why are you delinking complete dates? (i.e. January 1 1922). There is a reason why they are linked. The style manual says to put full dates within links, as that adjusts the date format based on the language. For example, in the USA it would show up as January 1, 1922 whereas in another country/format it would show 1 January 1922.
You also delinked railroads that are not written yet but need articles. Rhallanger 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I'm confused as to what dates get linked and what don't anymore; there has been a lot of bot activity recently on many of the articles on my watchlist that have been removing the links, hence I have been only putting links up front (i.e., for a date of establishment) but at this point I'm just going to "punt" and leave things as is. As far as railroad links, the only ones I am conscious of removing have been in those instances where there are duplicate links (i.e., Southern Pacific Railroad and Southern Pacific) within the same article. If you have specific examples I will review my edits in this regard.--Lordkinbote 07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I found the source for using date formats. It's ok to link complete dates as it changes the format appearance, however they discourage linking just a year or month. Here's the source for info: WP:DATE I also found this Rules of thumb for linking
Rules of thumb for linking
What should not be linked
- Plain English words.
- Months, years, decades or centuries, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. (This is in contrast to full dates—see below.)
- Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters and the songs on albums, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.
- Words that have been linked earlier in the article. This advice follows the standard practice of defining or explaining a term, or spelling out an acronym, on its first occurrence in a text and not subsequently.
What should be linked
- Full dates; i.e., those that include the day and month. This allows the auto-formatting function for individual users' date preferences to work. Editors are not required to do this, but some readers prefer it.
- Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
- Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article. Sometimes the most appropriate link is a cross-wiki link to Wiktionary.