Talk:Lincoln Park, New Jersey

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Race and ethnicity in the United States census#Race|other races]] Anchor Race and ethnicity in the United States census#Race links to a specific web page: Race (human categorization). The anchor (#Race) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Orphaned references in Lincoln Park, New Jersey

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lincoln Park, New Jersey's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CensusArea":

From Denville, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed March 31, 2012.
From Kinnelon, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 17, 2012.
From Hoboken, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 18, 2012.
From Cliffside Park, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 16, 2012.
From Rockaway, New Jersey: GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000 for Morris County, New Jersey -- County Subdivision and Place, United States Census Bureau. Accessed September 5, 2011.
From Chatham Township, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 25, 2012.
From Dover, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 21, 2012.
From Netcong, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 3, 2012.
From Randolph, New Jersey: Gazetteer of New Jersey Places, United States Census Bureau. Accessed October 20, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of link to a category from "notable people" list

I'd appreciate the input of others regarding an edit I made to this page today, which was quickly reverted. An editor had added a link to a category, and place that link within the "notable people" section of the article. Specifically, the editor added "See also: Category:People from Lincoln Park, New Jersey" to the "notable people" section. Doing so seems both redundant and confusing. Every person listed in a "notable people" section--who has a Wiki article--should be listed in the category "people from Lincoln Park, New Jersey". Any competent editor, when writing the biography, would include this. Therefore, the two lists--one within the "notable people" section, and the other in the category "people from Lincoln Park, New Jersey"--should be identical. If a name shows up on one or the other list, a competent editor would either add their name to the Lincoln Park article, or include "category:people from Lincoln Park, New Jersey" to their Wiki bio. The editor who reverted this edit may be confused by the instructions suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, which suggests that if a list of people on the article page grows too large (as happens on most large cities), then a stand-alone list could be created. A list is not a category; they are two different entities. That the editor who reverted this edit, also created the category, should make no difference. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnolia677 persistently operates under the premise that the only features allowed in articles about places are those explicitly allowed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, and has misrepresented this as policy on numerous occasions. The problem is that WP:USCITIES explicitly states that it is merely "advice about style" and that this "advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline". The link to the Category:People from Lincoln Park, New Jersey provides a cross reference between the list of notables in the article. In some cases the category and list will match up but in most cases they don't; Entries in the list may not be tagged with a category in the individual's article or a category may be added on an individual's article but not added here. Per WP:CLS, lists and categories are intended to co-exist and to allow each other to be expanded in synergistic fashion. If the list grows big enough to merit a standalone list, then both the list and the category would be shifted. This practice is followed in thousands and thousands of articles for places in Wikipedia. One addled editor seems confused but 99.9% of editors seem to benefit from the practice. Live and learn. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for incivility friend. Could you please list a few articles with a link to a category at the top of the notable people section? My apologies if this is in fact common practice. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the list of notable people and the corresponding category link in the article for Fairview, Bergen County, New Jersey. The Category:People from Fairview, Bergen County, New Jersey includes entries for Gustave May and Mohamed Al-Sindi that don't appear in the list of notables included in the article. This is a common occurrence in the large number of articles where these category links are included, and the fact that there are often discrepancies between the list of notables and the corresponding category allows the two to be developed in synergy, so that entries in the category can be added to the article and vice versa. The goal of heading here to the talk page is to reach consensus. Stating my case doesn't make me right and the fact that you've stated yours doesn't make you correct. Unless some broader consensus is reached that would justify deleting the link or that would show that it is prohibited under Wikipedia policy, I have restored the category link in the article to the status quo ante. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. Please list a few articles--not added by User:Alansohn or in New Jersey--with a link to a category at the top of the notable people section. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too should have been clearer. Point to a Wikipedia policy that prohibits the practice. Alternatively you might want to address the specific example provided above that explains how the list and category coexist synergistically in the same article to have each populate the other. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While not policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline states that "if the section grows then it may be split out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article or list (such as List of people from City, State) which can be linked to via the {{main}} template placed at the top of the section. However, it is common for a link to just be placed in the 'see also' section." I haven't found anything, in policy or in guides, which suggests adding a link to a category. Only User:Alansohn seems to do this, as his are the only edits he is able to show examples of. I've already explained it's shortcoming. It would be best to reach out to other editors at this point. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK you again take Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline -- which explicitly states that it is an essay and that "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline" -- and then misread a section about lists of notable, misinterpret something about splitting off into separate articles and insist that this has something to do with a link to a category. I've repeatedly explained the benefit of allowing a cross reference between the list and the corresponding category. You've repeatedly stated WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you can find a policy that prohibits it, I'm more than willing to take it out. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused friend. In the past two weeks you twice made edits using the edit summary: "per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline" (see here and here). The advice of another editor would be helpful. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Essays. Like many others, this essay is widely cited in edit captions and on talk pages across Wikipedia, as is asserted by both Alansohn and Magnolia677 above. The use of such essays is a highly useful practice, as it reduces the need to repeat a wordy justification in every edit caption (or a lengthy talk page section) for many, many similar edits. While not policies, this essay and others like it are extremely useful. An editor should feel free to cite it as their reason for making a particular edit, but should not misrepresent it as a hard and fast rule. Any editor can cite the essay, maintain it or write their own competing essay if they believe is in error. Such actions are constructive, because they facilitate a more direct focus from the Wikipedia community as opposed to widely dispersed attention in thousands of articles. Editors are not required to accept these essays (nor policies for that matter) as binding, but should recognize that they have been developed within the community with a goal of establishing encyclopedia-wide principles and best known practices. Some editors use the technique of citing an essay so long as it meets their purposes, then denounce the very same essay as meaningless, "just an essay" when it does not. Most of our mothers taught us that such behavior was wrong when we were children! If one strongly disagrees with an essay or policy, they can cite another, edit it or write their own competing essay. In short, neither dismissing a Wikipedia Essay as "just an essay" nor passing it off as some sort of law is best practice. Having said all this, most if not all experienced editors have made mistakes in this area - I certainly have. I will try to do better. Thanks for listening! Jacona (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clear up YOUR confusion. You had used a blatant typo in Template:Infobox settlement as an excuse to remove the state. I pointed you to your favorite Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, which says that the state should be included. Next. Alansohn (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lincoln Park, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln Park, New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]