User:Stepheng3/Archive6

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Stepheng3/Archive6! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inset maps

See Template talk:Location map#Inset Maps. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for correcting Sistema Dos Ojos (bloody copypasting!). Alfie↑↓© 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. And thank you for all your encyclopedic contributions! —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Region codes

I just corrected a couple of your contributions. According to ISO 3166-2:GB, Worlebury Hill and Weston-Worle Ridge are in the GB-NSM region not GB-SOM. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cedar Lake

Just a fyi I just had a phone conversation with a staff member of Cedar Lake and he is sending me the GNU release and some photo's of the lake to use in the article, Yay :) will send it to OTRS and upload images so keep an eye. Mlpearc powwow 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work. —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for cleaning up my multiple errors (and others). I resolve to do better in the future. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for letting me know. —Stepheng3 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

City coordinates

You're right- I was confused about its usage. I used the table Template:Coord#Coordinate parameters as my frame of reference; from the table I got the impression that the city(pop) was used if the population was specified anywhere in the article- not in the coordinate template itself. Looks like I got some fixing to do.... Minnecologies^t,c 17:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

HELP!!

Can you please help me out with this article-Ooty? I was editing the infobox when suddenly the whole article went out of shape. It's LIVE now! Please help--Suraj T 07:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Stepheng3. You have new messages at Surajt88's talk page.
Message added --Suraj T 03:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of George Miner Elementary School

The article George Miner Elementary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

long unreferenced, non-notable elementary school

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi - when you're changing the coord paramters, would you mind not moving down the stub tags? I know that MoS calls for them to be at the bottom, but in the case of articles with infoboxes that are longer than the body of the article, any navbox is forced to be way down below the infobox, leaving a large block of whitespace. But stub tags aren't forced down, because they'll wraoto the available space, so by having the stub tag above the navbox in those instances, it helps to use that whitespace efficiently, and brings the "please help this article" message to the attention of more viewers, many of whom would miss it entirely buried beneath the navbox. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic with your concern, but I prefer to place stub templates below navboxes. This helps clarify the fact that stub indications are not part of the article content. If you don't agree with the MoS, you should take this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout). —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to try and get someone to fix {{Navbox}} and related templates so that they don't create so much whitespace. Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks re. Keya Paha River

Thanks for your recent fix of the infobox for Keya Paha River. I saw that the article needed some work and tried to improve it a bit; but it's not my area of expertise, and I'm not familiar with that infobox. I appreciate your going in and cleaning up my mess. --Ammodramus (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

California Bays and Estuaries Policy

Thank you for bringing the missing reference citation to my attention.Thewellman (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of EGRS doesn't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I remember you as having been very involved in years past.

They also are trying to remove the notability and relevance criteria for EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Irish Place

Hi. There is consensus on the WP:Ireland talk page to convert this to an infobox settlement standard like you did with Japan. As long as it retains some features like Irish grid square and that, Can you update it. I asked Plastikspork but he's busy. You do a great job with coordinates and infoboxes! Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit distracted by my non-wiki life these days. I'm willing to do this, but with all that's going on, it may take me a week or two. I hope that's okay. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, take care.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've build a converter in the the sandbox. I've made some tests, and I think it should be satisfactory. Please try it out and let me know if there's anything I can improve. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, please feel free to update the main template with it but be sure to say in your edit summary per discussion at WP:ireland or something. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see you haven't got admin tools.. I'll ask somebody else to update it then. Really appreciate your help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Before making an edit request, I'd like to wait and see what the project participants think of the new version.—Stepheng3 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. One problem though is Northern Ireland. For counties/districts it needs to be programmed with an extra parameter which will state country is United Kingdom and Northern Island rather than a ? Also somehwat confusingly we use Template:Infobox UK place for settlements in Northern Ireland as they are part of the UK. This is why the Northern Ireland towns in your examples are in the grey part. PLease remove those from the examples as the infobox will not be used for N Irish settlements just Republic of Ireland. I gather it will be used for counties/districts though, ...Honestly though I'd rather we just used it for republic of ireland and any districts or countries in N Ireland replaced with whatever we use for counties in the UK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a serious attempt to automatically distinguish Northern Ireland places from those in the Republic of Ireland, but in some cases there just isn't enough data to tell, and County Down is one of those cases. I've now added a country= parameter which can be used override the template's deductions.

I added some NI places to the test cases, but I didn't add any examples to the documentation. If the template is not meant to be used for NI cities and towns, then the documentation needs to state this and those examples need to be deleted from the documentation. Personally, I don't have any problem with locator dots showing up in the gray portion of the map.—Stepheng3 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry one or two opposed your work on the Irish template. We'e both made an effort to help them, they can stick with their crappy grey box and remain in the wiki dark ages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Doc, we all screwed up. You misled me as to what the consensus was at the WikiProject, and I failed to do my own due diligence. I got too attached to my work to engage in a respectful dialogue with the critics. And I've gained the distinct impression (hopefully untrue) that WikiProject Ireland is hopelessly parochial.

Some day I'll probably regret writing this, but today I feel sorry for them. People like you and I—with ability and time and willingness to contribute in many different areas—we are the fortunate ones. That's important to keep in mind, I think. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Indian jurisdiction

Can you not do that, its a municipality and a town and why the small casing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}}, the type= parameter is used to select {{Coord}} parameters, so nonstandard values cause problems, such as villages being tagged with "type:landmark". See the documentation for the list of standard types. Mixed case is OK, if you want that. -Stepheng3 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I was considering making a proposal to update the parameters of this template to exactly those of infobox settlement. Although the task needed to replace all of the parameters would be a massive one. I wouod rather use DMS than decimal coordinates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In the mean time, would you mind if I continued standardizing the type= parameter to match the template documentation? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So long as you don't remove the Municipality and town I've added to ones I've cleaned up so far. They should be capitalized too, small casing looks odd I think for one word.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll attempt to avoid overriding your edits so long as you don't override mine. Deal? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coord unknown

Template:Coord unknown has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GW… 08:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject addition -- guidance

Stephen -- back in 2008 you added a WikiProject California template to California Southern Law School's talk page. I've been editing the article for a while and I think it has potential for a GA. At the same time, I'm thinking of adding other WikiProjects to the talk page; e.g., WikiProject Law. I am not a member of WikiProject Law. With two factors in mind -- my declared "COI" and my non-membership in WikiProject Law -- I ask for your guidance. Is it appropriate for me to add WikiProject Law to the CSLS talkpage? Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think adding WikiProject Law is the right thing to do. If the project disagrees, it's no big deal for them to revert you, so go ahead. -Stepheng3 (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! With the specter of the dreaded appearance of COI ever looming, I like to tread lightly, but boldly in these areas. Indeed, I've upped the WikiProject California quality rating from stub to start, and recently to C class. And I've joined the WikiProject Law group. As I have done with many of the California law school articles, I continue to make improvements. --S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're off to a good start. I can assist you in any way, please let me know. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Galbreath Wildlands Preserve

You did a great job on the Fairfield Osborn Preserve article. Now that Sonoma State University has set up a new administrative structure for its preserves, it would seem particularly appropriate to develop an article on the Galbreath Wildlands Preserve, the new addition to SSU's preserves. I hope you can find the time. Dwalls (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't create the Fairfield Osborn Preserve article; that was Anlace. That said, I'm hardly averse to creating articles on local topics. Do you have secondary sources that would establish the Galbreath Preserve's notability? —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple starting points: Katy Hillenmeyer, "SSU Reaching for Stars," $1 million telescope to be built in Mendocino County," Feb. 8, 2006 http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20060208/NEWS/602080324?tc=ar

Guy Kovner, "A piece of heaven,' Galbreath Trust donates wilderness tract to Sonoma State." The Press Democrat, March 28, 2004, pp. B1, B3.:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20040328/NEWS/403280327

Dwalls (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. I can start work on it this weekend. —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's started. Please take a look: Galbreath Wildlands Preserve. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice start, thanks! I've also added info from a recent Press Democrat article to Pepperwood Preserve. Dwalls (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Gebirgsgruppe

Hi Stephen. I am grateful for the many improvements and corrections you have made to many of the articles I have created and I also appreciate what you're trying to do with this template, but its creating another problem because now there are 2 parameters (country and state) which call the same field, so e.g. in Steinernes Meer they both display the same info. And whilst we can probably fiddle with small no. of existing linked articles, as more are translated they will each have to be sorted out. The problem is that the German template has LAGE-GEBIRGE which is a range's geographical location in terms of parent range(s) and LAGE-POLITISCH which is the state and country together. The nearest equivalent I could shim this to in Infobox: mountain range was "region" which sort of covered both state and country. Can we discuss a way forward before making any more changes? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I've been beavering away at articles for the Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains which I created recently! The purpose of the infobox is primarily to aid the rapid transfer of articles from German Wikipedia. It enables the de.wiki infobox to be simply cut and pasted into en.wiki and automatically shims the fields to the standard "Geobox|range" so it looks like the standard infobox.

• Advantages:
  • Massive time-saving in porting articles and allows translators to focus on translating the main text.
  • Automatically translates the fieldnames and many of the data fields.
  • Displays the standard en.wiki geobox.
• Disadvantage: leaves the fields in German, making it more difficult, but not impossible, to update the infobox downstream.

The latter could be mitigated by providing a decode table in the infobox instructions. I could do that.

What would really help in this and other infoboxes is some way of converting the coord data automatically from the standard de.wiki format of "xx/yy/zz/N" and "aa/bb/cc/O" to the en.wiki format. This is still the most laborious part of the infobox work: its okay if the format is decimal, but usually it's not. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to code something to decode the "xx/yy/zz/N" coord format.

My key point is that the disadvantage you cited would go away if {{Infobox Gebirgsgruppe}} were subst-ed instead of simply cut-and-pasted. Do you understand what I mean by that? —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean use {{Geobox}} and cut and paste the de.wiki data into the equivalent fields? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Take a look at Wikipedia:Substitution. Now consider what would happen if you copy-pasted a completed {{Infobox Gebirgsgruppe}} from dewiki and then subst-ed it: you would end up with a properly (or nearly so) completed {{Geobox}}. {{Infobox Gebirgsgruppe}} might need a few tweaks to force further subsitution. I can make these changes or show you how.

Note that infoboxes generally are not subst-ed. I think Infobox Gebirgsgruppe ought to be an exception because it is based on Geobox. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I only deleted the "country" field because it called up the same parameter as the "state" field, so displaying state, country information twice.

I understand the principle of substitution, but not sure how it would work here. My main interest is to minimise the amount of fiddling around with the infobox and get on with translating the text. If I had to manually substitute Geobox for Gebirgsgruppe every time, I would only get half the articles done in the same time. I don't have a problem with others subsequently changing the infobox, provided information isn't lost in the process, which it often is because en.wiki infoboxes aren't always as comprehensive. E.g. infobox mountain doesn't have an "isolation" field and doesn't display "prominence" as neatly and clearly as Infobox Berg. Of course they could be fixed, but someone's locked down the templates! --Bermicourt (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that there can be some loss of information when a geobox is subst'ed, but it's minor. The displayed article will look exactly the same, so casual users won't notice any loss, only those of us who edit or view source. And the pre-subst data will still be available from dewiki or the history. To my mind, it's very important to keep enwiki easy for non-German speakers to maintain, and the current Infobox doesn't do that.

It's possible for us non-admins to request changes to Geobox, and I'd be happy to work with you there. It looks to me like most mountain articles use {{Infobox mountain}}, which is very nice. Perhaps {{Infobox Gebirgsgruppe}} should target {{Infobox mountain}} instead of {{Geobox}}.

Perhaps we can find a solution that addresses both our concerns. Let's take Tennengebirge as an example. What if anything should be done to improve the Geobox there? —Stepheng3 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion

I would agree that Kfar Etzion is not in Palestine - there is not such place - but you go too far to say that it is in Israel! It is in territory captured by the Israeli army in 1967. And its current status is unclear? Padres Hana (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Stepheng3, thank you for your prompt response. You have introduced me to a subject about which I know very little. Doing a bit of exploring I notice (e.g.) Gaza has region PS but Ramallah has no region code. I have been trying to apply the PS designation for the coordinates given for Ramallah - without success. Can you advise? Thanks again. Padres Hana (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you. I can't figure out how to edit Ramallah so that its region comes up as PS. Many thanks. Padres Hana (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for sorting the PA Template. Its so obvious once you know how. But here's a crunch question: I have moved onto a more sensitive area: Gilo which I would think should be PS. I made the change but it has been knocked back. As you will know Israel/Palestine has people on both sides with strong views, myself included. I am hoping you have an outsiders perspective. Do you think Gilo should have PS designation? If so what do you advise I should do next? Padres Hana (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Inapplicable category

Thanks for your recent edits on Lists of National Treasures of Japan, but what does "inapplicable category" (referring to Category:Japanese literature in Classical Chinese) in this edit summary mean? And why did you remove that category from List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books)? bamse (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but it appears that the works listed in List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books) are primarily in the Japanese language, not the classical Chinese language. If I'm mistaken, let me know, and I'll happily self-revert that change. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Haven't counted, but the works are in a variety of languages/scripts: Classical Chinese, Man'yōgana, Japanese (hiragana),... Often a single work is written in a mix of those languages, e.g. songs/poems in one language and prose sections in another. Probably Classical Chinese appears in less than half of the listed treasures, however it appears in a significant amount and is somewhat related to the topic (early Japanese literature) covered by this list. That's why I'd put it in the "Japanese literature in Classical Chinese" category. Anyway I don't feel strongly about it, so feel free to do whatever you think is best. bamse (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the relevance of the category is more plausible than I initially thought, I've self-reverted that potion of my change. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Finding Coord parameters errors

Thanks for sorting out my mistake with the Coord template at Stogursey Castle. I'm intrigued how you found it. Is there a list or toolserver application which will identify them? Basically I'm worried that I've made the same muck up ( missing out part of the "landmark_region" parameter) on other articles - I write lots of geography and building articles which should be geocoded. I would go back and fix them but I'm not sure how to find them either in my contributions or in articles which would nearly all be in sub cats of Category:Somerset. Help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I found that particular mistake by way of User:Dispenser's daily error report. —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think that is one I will check everyday though. I must learn more about some of what those type of tools can do.— Rod ^talk 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Not Sure what connects AOL with Silicon Valley

Hello sir, Just an FYI, -AOL bought the Silicon Valley internet web browser company Netscape in 1998, but the connection goes much deeper than that. Netscape Navigator (as you know) was one of the first commercially viable web browsers. I used to work at Netscape. AOL was founded through the use of Silicon Valley venture capital, namely by funds provided by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and spearheaded by Frank J. Caufield who served on the AOL board of directors. Much of AOLs technology came from Silicon Valley programmers and executives such as the founders of Netscape Marc Andreessen and Jim Barksdale who worked for AOL (or served on its board of directors) after the merger. AOL has maintained a Silicon Valley office almost since its inception as a company. This is a newer office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aolsiliconvalleyoffice.jpg It is fair to say that AOL might not have become the huge corporation it became without Silicon Valley, even though it had no role in the creation of Silicon Valley itself. Anyway have a good weekend. Jcheckler (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

jodhpur park boys school coordinate edit

thanks for editing the coordinates and making them appear on the headline.. i tried doing that but failed... only thing i was able to do was writing the coordinates.. thanks that u noticed it and made it proper.... now i shall try and improve the pages i know about and see that they are incomplete... thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhoton (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Weimar College

Please visit this link [1] as your opinion and expertise would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lalitgiri

Lalitgiri and the other components of Puspagiri University should really "look the same" in Wikipedia, and frankly, I like the looks of the Ratnagiri page (which I originally created and sort-of designed). No hard feelings, I hope. I don't care that it may not be technically a "jurisdiction" but that box is really a great way to summarize the location and information about this place (which is really, really remote, even by Indian standards).

BTW, have you ever been to this magnificent place? If not, you should try to go there... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessarman (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair points (sorry, I am no Pro when it comes to Wiki editing) -- give me a couple of days, and I'll try to create an Infobox for Indian archeological sites (the existing archeological Infobox that is referenced in "Infobox Indian jurisdiction" is too Greek/Roman/Classics-specific. Tessarman (talk

That sounds like a plan. Thanks for your cooperation. —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new template is beyond my Wiki skills, so I'm just using the religious building template. Not great, and I liked the double map feature of the old template better, but what to do ...Tessarman (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for looking into this further. You can get the closeup map of Orissa by specifying "map_type = Orissa". However, I don't see any way to get the inset map.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Flags

This has been subject of discussion at template talk:infobox settlement; and seems to indicate that flags' use there is acceptable. For settlements are ultimately under the control of some administrative division(s) and nation, unlike people, corporations, inventions, species, and other places where such use would be distracting. It pays not to be too black letter in interpreting things to avoid when the reasons that may have prompted the concern aren't present. Indeed, having these flags aids the user differentiate among many similarly-sounding places to see whether they have found the correct article. I'll update the MOS:FLAG to make note of this (rather widespread) practice for infoboxes relating to geography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the weight to be given to MOS in any event. On this point, there is serious disagreement and no evidence of an original discussion on the matter as relates to geographic elements. The basis of WP:UNDUE weight is obviously flawed. Read WP:UNDUE and it has nothing to do with this. Since the MOS's stated purpose is at WP:MOS, "The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting." The consistent usage - whether it's good or not, as you indicate, is in the eye of the beholder - is to include flags in geographic articles. So, any statement in some subpart of the MOS that contradicts the purpose is either a joke, a mistake, or an error. And all that before WP:IAR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Carlos, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your argument. But no matter. If you can get the MOS:FLAGS changed to reflect your preferences (without getting immediately reverted) I'll happily cooperate toward bringing more articles into agreement therewith. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG is joke Stepheng and by no means is there any glimmer of a consensus. The fact is flag icons appear in at least 511,000 articles. If they were strictly forbidden this would not be the case. It appears that more people are in favour of them than not, so please don;t use MOS:FLAG as a guideline and order Carlos not to use them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you regard the Manual of Style as a joke. If something is included in a half millions articles, that does not necessarily indicate that it is a good thing. (Remember date links?) And have you noticed that someone took MOS:FLAG seriously enough to disable all the _flag parameters in {{Geobox}}? See [2]. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Geobox has long been a redundant template. though. I dislike the maps being at the bottom of the infobox for start. Plus it causes inconsistency with other infboxes like infobox settlement and infobox mountain etc. Of course one could argue that one geo box for all is a good thing... But it most certianly isn't being used that way... Well, certian aspects of Manual of Style are fine, but it does look silly when flags are used in 511,000 articles at least.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, Blofeld! Geobox and the various geographical infoboxes do serve much the same purpose, so one of them is probably redundant. That doesn't make either of them unimportant; I try to follow discussion and watch changes in both areas. Regarding the Manual of Style, I bet at least 90% of Wikipedia articles fail to comply with the MOS in one area or another. That's okay with me because the MOS is prescriptive, not descriptive; it says that a uniform style is desirable, not that it has been achieved. Widespread noncompliance with the MOS just means that wikignomes (like me) have plenty of work to do. You're free to regard the MOS as silly, but I wish you wouldn't use widespread noncompliance as an excuse for dismissing it. Would you dismiss Wikipedia:Verifiability simply because we have a quarter million articles tagged for noncompliance? Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out error

Thanks for pointing out my error in setting GPS coordinates for the Swanton Railroad Covered Bridge... I accidentally left out the minutes... Srbergeron (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for promptly correcting the problem. Cheers, —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

locator map point

Hi Stepheng3, I was trying to place a pointer in the Sierra Carapé infobox and tried various types of input described both in geobox and in geobox2 but I don't get any results. Can you please see if I make some mistake or if the problem is in Template:Geobox/type/range. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to say. I did this too: Template:Geobox locator Uruguay Hoverfish Talk 20:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also this template allows for geo coordinate input, but does not have any display=title option, so we also have to fill in an extra geo-coordinate template for this. Hoverfish Talk 20:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I am at it, I might as well ask this: does the template allow for more than one pointer? I though I saw code for more points in the source code, but I do not understand most of it. Hoverfish Talk 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoverfish, {{Geobox}} is so complex that I don't fully understand how it works. I think I found your problem, however. The Sierra Carapé Geobox assigned values to highest_lat_d and so on, but the Geobox map code ignored those parameters. I got the map working by specifying lat_d and so on. Similarly, Geobox automatically generates title coordinates, but again it seems to be looking for lat_d and so on, not highest_lat_d and such. I know one can include multiple maps in a Geobox, but I'm not sure if one can put multiple markers on a single map. Hope that helps. —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Stepheng3! I saw your name in the edit history of the template and though you were one of the specialists. Thank you for trying to solve my problem. I'll try the parameters you indicate and will take it from there. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 22:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Works fine, Thanks again. Hoverfish Talk 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandria, Ohio

Frankly, this is an absurd statement in WP:USCITY. Virtually all community articles nationwide include coordinates for a very good reason: the location of a place is one of the most important facts related to its geography. Moreover, the whole point of an infobox is to summarise information that's included elsewhere; while trivial things such as the FIPS code and the telephone exchange really don't belong anywhere except the infobox, the location is a highly important element of the geography that should definitely be retained in the text. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lest my first sentence be confusing: I'm not saying you're doing anything absurd. I thought and thought about how to say it, but I couldn't quite figure out how to say that the thing you were quoting was absurd without running the risk of ascribing you a similar quality. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "duplicating strings of numbers". Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandria

Sorry, this week has been very busy, and the rest will be likewise; I was out of state last weekend, working more than normal this week, and will be on a trip this weekend. I'll give you a proper reply when possible. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, finally able to reply; as I suspected, I was quite busy over the weekend. Aside from images, everything in the infobox is either tangential stuff that's somewhat helpful, such as the ZIP code and the GNIS feature ID number, or it's important stuff that's simply repeated. What could be more important for a geography section than the location of the article's topic? What you denigrate as "strings of numbers" is the best way to represent location, and as such is at least as important as the area. Moreover, we've had coords in the Geography section since almost the beginning of these articles, so people can expect to have them there, and this article's omission of them is an unhelpful discrepancy. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, the solution to this problem is simply expanding the geography section to include descriptions of where the town is in relation to other cities and towns and in the county itself along with physical features. Basically, elaborate FAR more. That's where the "official" elevation is listed as well (which is the elevation at the geocoordinates). When I did the Geography section in the Kent, Ohio article, I did not include the geocoordinates in that section. Remember, to the vast majority of Wikipedia users, a geocoordinate is a meaningless number, so its use in the infobox seems sufficient. The problem with the Alexandria article now is that there's nothing in the section, so if you take out the geocoordinate, there's only one small sentence left. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek Temples

I'm curious to know why anyone would bother writing "missing" in all those coordinate templates, when it is so obvious a) that the co-ordinates are in fact missing b) that someone was filling in the gaps only a 3 hours previous, but does need to sleep. Now, if you had tracked down a couple of co-ordinates it would have been really useful. The temple on Aegina took over an hour to locate precisely, even though the island isn't all that big! Amandajm (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was unaware that this put the article in the maintenance category. Thats good1 Well, never mind, I have almost finished them and will get back in a couple of hours. Amandajm (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Please stop removing them. Flags are proper in geographic infoboxes per the geography wikiproject. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography in the section on infoboxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First go to the wikiproject page by following the link above. Then, if your browser has a search function, use it to find "infoboxes". If your browser doesn't have a search function, you'll have to read down to where it talks about infoboxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It was the result of a long discussion - see the talk page or are you having trouble finding that as well? If you revert me, I'll revert you - or someone else will because you are interloping into a decision made after long discussion. The footnote was added to make it absolutely clear that MOSFLAG doesn't apply (no one who used the templates regularly assumed it did) to these templates. It seems you are motivated more by Editcountitis (do you seriously think anyone's impressed by your continually updated statistics?) A bunch of edits removing flags, and getting reverted, is not productive. In any event, the discussion at MOSFLAG seems to be converging on consensus to state there what is stated at WP:GEOGRAPHY; if you feel sufficiently mischievous you can always throw a monkey-wrench in that discussion. MOS is not Gospel; those who adhere to it as the inerrant word of truth are following a wrong path. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant recent discussions came at Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Use_subdivision_name_.3D_nation_to_cut_500_links when a bug in the software was flagged (no pun intended) that made linking to flags - by then an accepted practice, see earlier discussions - was causing long load times, and the advice was given, until the problem was fixed, avoid flag usage. The problem is now fixed and the avoidance is now of historic rather than current applicability. Mass reversals such as you have made just makes cleanup work for others. As a self-proclaimed cleaner-up of things, I would hope you would focus your efforts elsewhere: where the cleanup is at least obviously beyond conflict. I do commend you on cleaning up overly precise coords. Also, I have tried to draft a MOSGEO that addresses lots of the recurring items in Geo articles: see WP:MOSGEO; please feel free to hack at it before I publish it to the community at large. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The practice was well settled upon and the temporary conditions regarding the bug-fix are no longer at issue: the bug is fixed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Red herring? That's your interpretation. Why else was the fix needed if not to accommodate what was being discussed? This is going nowhere - because you fail to see what you don't want to see (like your earlier inability to find the note on the project page, etc.). Don't like it; start an RFC. Talking with you seems to go around in circles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussions as you note were all over the place - you haven't got them all - as many were on various active users' talk pages, but suffice to say that any allegation that there was no discussion of it does not bear scrutiny. Whether it's taste or information is obviously in the eye of the beholder - so I'll leave you to that opinion. As I have said, there is a lot you could be doing in non-controversial areas. And I still invite you to comment on my draft MOSGEO even though we disagree on this point, we'll likely agree on most others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ad:Template:Infobox_Venus_crater

Ad:Template:Infobox_Venus_crater

You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Stanford Roble Gym

This account made edits to Stanford Roble Gym. It has been nominated for deletion by I. You will take into account that you may comment on this proposal if this matter concerns you, if not disregard this message. That is all.FireTool87 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some help understanding project category pages

Hi Stephen, hope you can give me a little advice. I am one of a few editors trying to resurrect the Wiki:astrology project. The project categorised the pages in 2007, but most of those editors involved have lapsed accounts now. We are trying to see how to add subcategories to existing categories, so that some new pages will appear in the dynamic navigation list for the project. I've spent a few hours trying to figure out how to add subcatagories, and failed - I'm now supposing that they have to be requested, but I can't find clear information about how to go about this. Can you point me to a resource where I can get help in adding subcategories? Thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you're already familiar with WP:SUBCAT. The mechanics are very simple, but I don't know where they're documented, if at all. To create a new category (say Category:Zodiacal signs) first type Category:Zodical signs in the Wikipedia search box near the top of any Wikipedia page (just below the "Log out" hyperlink. Since the category doesn't exist yet, this will bring up a message saying You may create the page "Category:Zodiacal signs", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Click on the red link to Category:Zodiacal signs. This takes you to the edit page for the new category. In the large text box between the "Heading Format ..." toolbar and "Content that violates any copyrights...", type the name of the parent category, surrounded by double square brackets, thus: [[Category:Astrological signs]]. In the smaller "Edit summary" text box, type a brief summary such as new subcategory. Then click on the "Save page" button. Your new category should appear within a few seconds. I hope that helps. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow - that worked like magic! :) I knew it had to be less complicated than it was seeming. Fantastically clear instructions. I know the process seems too simple to document for those who know how it works but I wasted hours this morning looking for instructions like this, and I would never have guessed that the solution was this painless. I had read the subcat instructions and because they lacked this information I was lost. I wonder if something like this can be added to that page? Anyway, I really appraciate you taking the trouble to explain that - thanks! -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Deleting a category is so difficult that I suspect the creation process is kept obscure to minimize the number of ill-advised category creations. But that's just a guess. I suppose I could add a hint to WP:SUBCAT and see if it sticks. Or you could. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick reply

Just want to let you know that I'm not ignoring you — I'm at this event, so I'll get back to you later. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to continue the discussion now. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of consensus issue

In this archived discussion it is claimed that, in this other archived discussion, "the consensus has been to avoid geocoding the articles until a satisfactory way to display the coordinates without cluttering the articles is found.". I wonder whether, as a participant in the latter discussion, you could kindly say whether or not that was your conclusion at its end, and if so, one what grounds? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any objective definition of "consensus" in the context of Wikipedia, so I shan't venture an opinion on whether or not it was achieved in that discussion. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Frenchman's Tower

Thanks for noticing and fixing my mistake in formatting the coordinate parameters.

Something else has been bothering me about the coordinates in that article. I used the coord template, then later I added the building info box, and put the coordinates there too. I think I should have deleted the coord template, and set coordinates_display = title in the info box.

Your comments or edits would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best if the {{Coord}} template data were merged into {{Infobox building}}. You can probably do this yourself. If you want help, just ask. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there! Just stopped by to thank you for your helpful coding on the Somalian region pages. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm delighted to know that my efforts are appreciated. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE in-use tag removal from Spring Pond

I've been hard at work on this article (which is a mess) since yesterday, as time permits (please see the article history). The GOCE in-use tag recommends removal after "several hours" of non-editing, which allows some wiggle room. I'm still at work on the article; please leave the tag in place until I'm done which will be in the next few hours). Thanks!--Miniapolis (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

I will really appreciate if you will help me to understand what of my comments have raised the following concern: "You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article". Silicon Valley discussion, Stepheng3 17:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC). Just thought that I always followed the rules of civil discussion. Perhaps I've missed something... Thank you in advance for any clarifications you might provide.--PrqStar (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit. Rather than assuming good faith, you referred to CC's edit as vandalism and assert that he is pretending to be writing on someone else's behalf. You opened with an attack on CC's credentials (personal attack) instead of criticizing what he did to the article. In my opinion, this constitutes incivility. I hope that helps. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I assume you have read the thread. As you can see, this thread was initially dedicated by Coolcaesar to the personal attacks. All CC posts (including the title of thread) break the basic rules: “Do not ask for another's personal details. Do not impersonate other editors.” CC does “ask for another's personal details” again and again. See for instance, “you must either be …” (Coolcaesar 08:33, 2 September 2011) . CC did it in order to make a conclusion: “I note for the record that you have not denied any personal connection to …” (Coolcaesar 21:42, 17 September 2011). In other words, CC is pushing an opponent to the defensive position according to the well known rule: Going Negative: Push Your Opponent to the Extreme that completely contradict the Wikipedia's rules.

As I clarified it (PrqStar 00:08, 16 September 2011) all CC points related to the article's subject were completely wrong. This became a reason for CC to obtain personal information about the writer of article and publish it in order to change the topic of discussion. One of the member of OTRS noticed: “Please refrain from personal attacks or the use of alleged personal information”( Asav. Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team. 21:37, 19 September 2011).

Thank you, again, for taking the time to discuss these issues.--PrqStar (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit was referring to was made on 1 September. In my view, CC's later behavior does not justify your incivility at that time. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was launched on July 11. I have received your message of September 19 that was referring to my post on 1 September. In other words, you have read all posts in this thread and decided to comment only on one of them, because in your "view, CC's later behavior" (as well as earlier) does not need your attention. Sorry, it took me awhile to get your point. --PrqStar (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I hereby bestow on you this Barnstar of Diligence for the tireless correction of countless co-ordinate screw-ups on wikipedia: keep up the good work, and much fewer will get lost on the internet! Complainer (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Adelegg

Hi Stephen, thanks for converting the infobox at Adelegg. Do you know how to get the location to display on the map? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are three kinds of maps used in Geoboxes. See Template:Geobox/legend#Maps. In the case of Adelegg, all that's needed is to set the map_locator= parameter. I'll take care of it. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - you're a star! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless, meticulous and expert work in cleaning up geographical data in Wikipedia articles. We owe you a large debt of thanks! Bermicourt (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bermicourt! —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Stepheng3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:coord missing templates

Hey there! Thanks for the advice & keep up the good formatting work. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback II

Hello, Stepheng3. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates precision

Hi Stephen. How can I spot if coordinates are too precise? For example, with decimal coords, how many decimal places are enough say for a hill or river source? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:OPCOORD. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied on Bermicourt's talk page. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - really helpful. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Generally, I consider notability within the general notability guideline. Has the institution received significant coverage treating it in some degree of detail (not a passing mention or use as merely an example) from independent, third-party sources that are both verifiable (may be checked) and reliable (may be depended on to be true - i.e., with some degree of editorial control (not self-published or user-generated)? Is there something remarkable about the school, or is it merely like tens of thousands of others? Is the content better off merged with a larger article? These are all factors I take into account. --Neutrality^talk 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Re that particular link: Probably not. I would consider that fairly routine coverage, for one; it doesn't really enhance the notability of the school. Also, the relevant information can be quite easily put into a single sentence ("John Smith Middle School, named after longtime principal John Q. Smith in 1994, is located in Fictionville...") that would fit into a merged article. Neutrality^talk 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

WP:GEOGRAPHY says otherwise - it's been tirelessly debated both ways; I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dominican Republic ports

Thanks for the help on Manzanillo Port and Cayo Levantado Port. I'm overhauling all the Dominican Republic ports, and getting better at it as I go (or so I think). If you see me messing up, please drop me a note or a question. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For reaching 1500+ reviewed edits on ClueBot's review interface. Thanks! Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Twice in one year ... such an honor! Thanks, —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

St. David

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you have participated in editing has been nominated for deletion a second time, the first time in 2006 resulted in no consensus and, it can be reviewed here. The current discussion on the removal of the article is located here should you wish leave your comment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:United States Navy ships transferred to other navies

Category:United States Navy ships transferred to other navies, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Great effort, thanks for the contributions. LeeCMason (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)