User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2

Navigational aid

Here's an article that needs your help and expertise. I know that the lights call, but seriously . . . 19:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

Yes... It needs to be merged or coordinated with Beacon, Lateral mark, Day beacon, Lighthouse and a couple of others. Similarly, the articles on United States Coast Guard Charter Boat Captain's license, Captain (nautical), Licensed mariner all need attention. They're all on my list. "He's making a little list" -- Mikado. . . . .Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I don't mean to an officious intermeddler. BTW, I recently acquired a book on Thunder Bay Island. Because of its importance, it got the benefit of almost every technological change in beacons, radios, fog signals, etc., and this book meticulously details the history and development. In any event, go enjoy this beautiful day. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

archiving

I visit to let you know that i noticed one recent comment of yours in a 2008 discussion thread, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. It seems to me that the thread and many others should have been archived a long time ago already, so I set up archiving for the Talk page. Hope you don't mind that I archived your comment, along with the rest of the thread. I believe your thoughts are open in later discussion threads, anyhow, and that few would notice your comment in the old thread. Also, i just set up an archive box for you at the top of this Talk page. It is one way to do manual archiving. You just cut and paste discussions you no longer want to appear here, to an archive page. Put {{archive}} at the top of any archive page, to describe the page and discourage any further editing. If you don't want it the archive box set up that way, please just delete what i added at the top here. Regards, doncram (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I had already set up User:Jameslwoodward/Archive1 (no space between Archive and 1), but didn't have the archive box, so you didn't find it.... This is better.
No problem on the Project talk page. Is it generally true, though, that adding comments to old threads is a bad idea? I should think that anyone watching the page would see it and that it would be better than opening a new thread/section on a topic that might have had discussion six months or a year ago...
As a relative newbie, I hesitate to comment on your Wiki markup, but isn't {{archive}} -- that is {{tl|archive}} -- better than <nowiki>{{archive}}</nowiki> both because I could click on {{archive}} to get an explanation and because I was briefly confused by the latter in the edit box, as it suggested, at first glance, that that is what I should have typed at the top of my archive page. It's also a lot faster to type.

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong by commenting in the old thread, except risk your comment not being noticed there. I think the Wikiproject talk page should not have had the old thread, and many others, still open. The only other thing possibly wrong was my archiving your recent comment in that thread, which is why i came to mention it to you. Ah, yes, i forget about the {{tl|___}} construction.... doncram (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I note, BTW, that the first message on my talk page in my new archive after the Welcome was from you.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette Harbor Light

I'm pleased with this article. In any event, the stuff on the DCB36 Aerobeacon might be of some use in your articles. Do you think it should have a picture gallery from Commons -- there are some nice pics there that don't appear in the article? Best you you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Is Marquette Harbor Light (now) what you had in mind? It's easy to do.

{{image gallery
| lines = X where X is the largest number of lines that a caption will take. If you set it too small, you get a box with scroll bars over longer captions; if you set it too large, it leaves blank space. 2 or 3 usually works, unless you write a long caption.
|imagename1.jpg||Caption1
|imagename2.jpg||Caption2
|imagename3.jpg||Caption3 for up to thirty images
}} close it off

The space between the two pipes, which I leave blank, is for an alt description of the image -- for people who can't see it. I suppose I should write them, but I don't.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did not mean to set you up for trouble; was only trying ot capitalize on your suggestion that we use galleries. I think gaalleries can help give perspective. Ofcourse, I also liked the pretty pictures -- I thought the Marquette Harbor LIght in winter was a really good image. I know that this ain't a book of photolgraphy, but I think there could be some art in how its displayed and put together. Anyways, Barek is a good person to know, and he can give a lot of consructive guidance. He is a good person to work withi. TTFN. 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

If you each feel strongly that the Marquette Harbor Light article should have the gallery, feel free to start a discussion about it on the article talk page. On that article, I don't think that there were enough to make the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY policy applicable in this case - that was an argument I used on a different article.

In this case, my take is that the additional two images did not add to the understanding of the article (essentially same angle as an existing image, just a lower elevation, so same parts of the structure and surrounding area were visible). The winter one is artistic, but does it help in the understanding of the subject? Still, it's personal opinion on my part, and if I'm the only one who feels that way on that article, I'll give in to the consensus of opinion. There are no policy reasons (that I can see) not to add them. It's an article content issue, which can be more flexible depending on consensus from discussion.

The main issues to keep in mind, I think, are outlined at MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP#Image galleries. From those, it appears that it's recommended in most cases to spread images throughout the article, rather than in a gallery - but galleries are permitted and used throughout Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, I think Barek's right in this case about the two images that I added to the page. "Picture 088mlight.jpg" is fuzzy and "Marquette Harbor Lighthouse.jpg" (the winter scene) is pretty, but the same angle as the aerial shot.

Anyway, my comment was more directed at page layout. If I had done the page, I would have put the color aerial shot in the lighthouse infobox and the two others -- the old B&W photo and the front view up the stairs -- in a gallery rather than in the NRHP infobox and on the left side. That's partly personal style, partly because I thought having a gallery encourages anyone who has a new, different view (inside, the other side of the building, whatever) to add it.

Now Barek points out that policy prefers spreading the images out. While I generally defer to policy (although sometimes I chafe under it), I think that a peculiarity of lighthouse pages weighs in favor of galleries -- that is, the fact that we always have a lighthouse infobox and in 70% of the cases we have a NRHP infobox, means that the text has to set in a narrower space than usual for all or most of the article. Putting an image on the left kind of crowds things; the gallery avoids that. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about the large infoboxes. The guidelines are often from the perspective of allowing a page to still be readable even on the smaller displays that are often available at public locations such as libraries. As budgets are small, so are the screen resolutions. For those users, having an image on the left, and an infobox on the right, can leave very little room left in between for actual text. The Marquette article somewhat minimizes this because it only has one image on the left, and that image uses the "upright" tag, which effectively makes an image narrower than normal (that tag is for images that are taller than they are wide). But in general, I can see a strong argument for a preference to use galleries for lighthouse articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Church (Ruxton, Maryland)

OMG what gorgeous pictures of this church!! Thank you so much for taking and contributing. Today I visited Howard county and snapped a few new places (I'm in Gorgeous Prince George's), including Christ Church Guilford and Trinity Church (Elkridge, Maryland). Wish my pics had come out as nice as yours! Best wishes.--Pubdog (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind, thank you. It was a good day for it, very crisp. We were down from Boston visiting relatives and did three sites -- the other two will be along in the morning. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brookwood Farm

Nice additions to the Brookwood Farm NRHP article. Swampyank (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshment Pavillion

Per what you say, I've moved it back to "Pavilion". Thanks for demonstrating the actual state of things and correcting my error. Just curious: have you been adding photos to many of these articles? If so, please add them to the town list :-) About the lists in general — we often include a little notice about properties/districts that are shown on multiple lists (I always do), but it's definitely not an error not to include it. Finally, you're correct about removing the |link=off parameter and the zeroes. I believe that the parameter is a holdover from when dates were generally linked, and as it's not normal now to link dates, the template defaults to linkless, so there's no visible change; it's simply reducing the size of the page a little bit. Zeroes are visible, but there's not really a good reason to include them. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got distracted while in the middle of writing this, and I didn't realise that you'd left a comment until after I posted this, so don't assume that any of it is a response to your second comment. That's what this comment is for :-) First off, as far as the names: where has he said this? I'd rather offer an opinion in the same place, lest the discussion be split between several pages. Finally, as far as the HDs: I myself would go with this time of year, as I much prefer aesthetically the look of a street in summer. Although they're not contributing properties to the district, the trees lining a street can contribute to its historic nature; after all, in a new subdivision, you don't find large trees streetside. My favorite collection of HD pictures are those that Denverjeffrey has added to the subpages of National Register of Historic Places listings in Denver, Colorado. Denver has many parkways on the Register, and of his photos of Denver (e.g. File:East Sixth Avenue Parkway.JPG), these and those like them (e.g. File:9thstreethistoricpark.JPG) these are my favorites. Still, this is just my opinion, and bear in mind that I don't know too much of photography :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's tilted. I don't mind being told that I'm better than I think I am :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. Since you insist, I'll stop telling you that I'm not good :-) I've contributed so many because I find photography an easier way to contribute content than writing articles. A large number of my images, by the way, are simple maps, such as File:OHMap-doton-Middleburg.png; they're not all photos. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also — nothing wrong with having both images here. Since the tiltless one is a derivative of mine, it helps for attribution reasons (aside from anything else) to have both. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Valley Parkway

Just wanted to note — although the Mystic Valley Parkway article of course doesn't need to have the "Metropolitan Park System of Boston MRA" (or whatever it is) in the name, it needs to be shown at the list, because that's the NPS name for the parkway. It's not an issue of naming conventions, since I've piped the link to the title to which you've moved it. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I should have checked the name before assuming that someone had incorrectly added the MPS to it. Also, I note that I looked too quickly at the Elkman results -- NRIS has all four towns. Thanks . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question — you changed the community given for the Nahant Beach Boulevard. Is it only in Nahant, or is it split between municipalities? It's quite common to give multiple municipalities for a listing that is split between communities; see the Valley Railway HD in Cuyahoga County, Ohio for an extreme example. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a good boy and did what you and Doncram taught me -- posted a comment WP:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRIS_information_issues. I'm almost positive it's only in Nahant -- it ends at a traffic circle, the Nahant-Lynn border goes across the circle, so for it to be in both localities, the traffic circle would have to be half maintained by the DCR and half by the City of Lynn, which is absurd, even for Massachusetts. My educated guess is that it ends where it hits the traffic circle, which is clearly (see topo) still Nahant. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! You know, it's really hard for one to know the little details when one is 800 miles away. Given Polaron's explanation, I've already added the Charles River Reservation Parkways to the Boston list. If you get the chance, could you try to get a different picture for the parkways for each list? Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governor's ha-ha

Thanks for researching what a ha-ha was; I'd always assumed that the governor's ha-ha was some sort of building constructed as a joke. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No research here -- I just followed the link. I had assumed it was some sort of gazebo. This one's kind of disappointing, though -- only about knee high -- and in the middle of a church complex, nothing of its original use is obvious. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused...what did I do? Have you just visited the Suffolk County portion of the Boston Islands archaeological district? I can't remember adding any other pictures to NRHP lists in your area. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, no this hasn't much happened to me. Most of my pictures are of out-of-the-way spots where there's almost no chance that other Wikipedians have visited, and the exceptions are mostly black-and-white HABS images that really should be superseded by color images anyway. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue for photos of plaques

Hi, i notice your nice development of the Governor Hutchinson's Field article including adding pictures. However i notice that you include two photos of plaques or other descriptive display that is technically not permissible in wikipedia / wikimedia due to copyright issues. The photos are File:Governor Hutchinsons Haha Milton MA 02.jpg and File:Governor Hutchinsons Field Milton MA 02.jpg. They actually must be deleted. This is an issue that numerous previous historic sites editors have run into, and is naturally disappointing at first, since photos of historic plaques would indeed add nicely to the articles.

The problem is that the text is, by default, copyrighted, in these cases seemingly by the Milton Historical Commission. The pictures should not be used without permission. It is essentially the same as if you wished to take high definition pictures of pages out of a copyrighted book, to include as supporting evidence in a wikipedia article. If the plaque was a National Park Service one, it could be in the public domain like other materials of the Federal government. Technically, you could clear the problem by securing permission from the Milton Historical Commission for the text to be released. That would require your enlisting someone there in authority who would be able to release copyright, and then for you to get them started in correspondence to release it through wikipedia's wp:OTRS copyright release system. Specialized OTRS editors will handle the confidential correspondence process. But in practical terms, it is not easy to get anyone to release copyright for plaques or for photos of any kind. I myself have never succeeded, though I have corresponded with directors of organizations such as for the Fiddler's Reach Fog Signal, where i sought release of a photo or two. It just seems too complicated to explain to persons unfamiliar with copyright issues and to get them to follow through. I think often they would be willing to allow use of a photo in wikipedia, but they balk at releasing into the public domain or under GFDL or other wide license required for wikipedia.

So, it makes sense for you to take pics yourself of plaques like these, and you can use them as citable sources in articles, but these photos must actually be deleted from wikipedia/wikimedia. I hope you will understand, and not mind my starting the deletion process for these within a few days. Also, are there other plaque photos which you have uploaded? I hope I am informing you of these issues before you have uploaded many. doncram (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually as dumb as I act sometimes. I knew that there might be an issue of copyright on plaques, as the photo is a derivative work. As you say, it's an easy way to take a record of the information without a lot of writing. As for citing the information, is the sort of thing I did for Paul's Bridge enough -- or, in the case of the Ha-ha, something like "Plaque near the site, erected by the Milton Historical Commission" a good citation that will stand up to the scrutiny of our colleagues?

I completely understand your frustration with dealing with the issue. I recently asked the Turner Library, Quincy, about the photos they have (seeTalk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Quincy, Massachusetts} and had a reference librarian tell me that because they were taken with a Federal CDB Grant, they were public domain. I didn't believe that, but tried it out on Wiki and got told what I already suspected -- that it would depend on the contract with the shooter and even then the copyright would lie with the City of Quincy. I have no interest in trying to go back to the powers that be in Quincy and get a release -- I shudder at the possibility.

So, a fast glance through my uploads shows only G.H. Bent Company Factory as an OK one, as it's NPS. I've put {{copyvio}} on the other seven and removed them from the articles where they were used. Thanks for your offer to do it, but I clean up my own messes..... . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick, the photos are gone. Thanks for not minding and for taking care of it all!

About the referencing to plaques, the formality of referencing increases if you are actually trying to get an article through wp:GAR or wp:FAR. But it's easiest to do the referencing formally when you first do it. How about something like:

<ref name=mhsplaque>Milton Historical Society (undated). "Governor Thomas Hutchinson's Ha-ha". ''interpretative display on-site, viewed 10/6/2009''</ref>^[1]

References

^ Milton Historical Society (undated). "Governor Thomas Hutchinson's Ha-ha". interpretative display on-site, viewed 10/6/2009

If only i had kept a copy of the pic, anyhow, something like that is what i'd suggest. :) It's too bad we don't have some unofficial non-public area where we could keep copies of these for reference purposes. About getting more systematic feedback, you should try taking an article through the wp:PR process sometime soon. That's actually quite a friendly arena for getting feedback, either simply to improve it or to prepare it for GA or FA. doncram (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Harbor Islands

How do you feel about combining Boston Harbor Islands Archeological District with Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area? I would have merged them if they were coterminous or nearly so but it appears the archeological district is only a part (although a significant one) of the national recreation area. --Polaron | Talk 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct tells me it's a bad idea. The one wants to talk about the historic and pre-historic sites on the islands, of which there are many. The other wants to talk about current recreation opportunities, of which there are also many. There's certainly some overlap, as some of the recreation is sight-seeing at the historic sites, which should be cross-referenced, but there's also a lot of other stuff. Also, the archeology should probably be written island by island (I write this not having looked at either article), while the recreation may be largely written recreation by recreation -- you can camp at A, B & C, boat at B, D, &E, get food at A & D, etc. Finally, I think mergers are great when there's not a lot to say, but we have a whole book that barely scratches the surface of the history of the islands.... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If extensive information to compartmentalize the discussion is available for both articles, then it makes sense to separate. Glad I asked you first. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 19:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I recently moved Hull Shore Drive, Nantasket Avenue, Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS to a more simpler name but was reverted. I'm not going to challenge it even if it seems ridiculous but I remember you previously argued for simpler titles for the other DCR parkways on the NRHP. I'll propose a rename if you think it's appropriate. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hull Shore Drive, Nantasket Avenue, Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plum Island Range Lights and St. Martin Island

James, More or less done with thise. Your tweaks would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Sorry. No offense intended. I'll stop, and have moved on. Believe me, your contributions are valued, and I don't 'want to mess with the witch doctor.' Happy editing. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

When you are finished, please let me know. Looks much better. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

What is "KRW"? I assume we are not talking about the Koren Won (Korea) currency or the aviation abbreviation for Krakow, Poland. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

You didn't need "my permission" to "wipe out 13 edits." Not to mention that based on your revisions, there was only one footnote that I felt should go back in. I think its a very nice little article, albeit if somebody wants to take the time with D'Entremont, the Terry Pepper article, and the Door County Museum article, it could be fleshed out more. But it's a nice beginning, looks good, and has virtually all of the available sources. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

No, I don't need your permission, but its polite to ask and since I was blowing away your edits I wanted to make sure others who might be watching understood that I wasn't being arbitrary. KRW is the USCG code for the daymarks -- see the diagram at Leading lights. Why do you use a secondary source for the Focal Heights rather than the Light List? Much as I admire what Pepper, D'Entremont, and especially Rowlett have done, they're secondary sources and Pepper's number for one of the lights was wrong, IIRC.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Terry has made mistakes. He got Sturgeon Point Light wrong, I called it ot his attention, and he corrected it. However, he uses primary sources, i.e., historical coast guard light lists. He cites to them, and they are actually posted in PDF formats at the Great Lakes Lightkeepers Assocoation, for which he is the director. If you find mistakes in his lists, BTW, he likes to hear about them. Also, the lightlists themselves have sometimes varied in the focal heights, particularly over time. If you are interested, I posted one of his notes in one of the discussions in one of the articles I've edited. Just don't remember which one. I think I even have it as an e-mail somewhere, and if you'd like it I'd be pleased to dig it out and send it. Yes, you are right, he is secondary, but he puts it in tabular form, and is consistently reliable and has reconciled the various figures from various Coast Guard light lists. But that's just my opinion. I also put back Terry Pepper's article on the Plum Island Range Lights, which you dropped. It really ought to be a line citation for something. Good looking article, I think. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

You and I have different styles -- I'm not sure either is right, but I like to see all the refs at the end of the infobox, rather than against each item. Let me encourage you to name your refs, so that you don't have to do them more than once -- see the first Pepper ref or the D'Entremont.

One time (it doesn't have to be the first use) you say

<ref name = abcd> put the ref here </ref>.

Then when you need it again you just say

~~<ref name = abcd>~~
<ref name = abcd/>

and that's it. You don't have to give it again and it appears in the reflist only once . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baileys Harbor Range Lights

Query, Would the KRW (and its image) go only on the front or both? I did both here, but may have made an error out of ignorance. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Usually they're on both -- see Plum Island or Nantucket Harbor Range Lights, but it looks like here there's only one -- both in the pix and in the Light List. The Light List calls out a "directional light", not range lights, I think. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'You can't know the players without a score card'. Or in this case, it helps to know the jargon. i would have seen the words in the lightlist and been clueless sa to their import. Context is everything. Thanks for clarifying that. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Camp Salmen House

Thank you for your help and suggestions re User:SCPS70458/Camp_Salmen_House TOC was referring to table of contents. I had been told it was in the wrong place but can find no way to move it. I am going to make a few improvements and then upload. I may be back with another question or two. It seems that all the information one needs to create articles is available IF you know how to look. I am learning how. My next project will be the Francois Cousin House, across the bayou from Camp Salmen House. Once again, thank you, Suzanne or --SCPS70458 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stuff

Regarding Talk:Hull Shore Drive, Nantasket Avenue, Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston MPS and other cases, I was going to make an off-topic comment there but will say this here instead. In my view it has been a very awkward process of "discussing" redirects/moves identified by one editor. Process has worked by that one editor identifying and implementing them, and seeing if anyone reverted, then edit-warring, and only possibly then discussing through edit summaries. And then others possibly entering in. In many of the last flurry of Polaron moves/redirects some of them are "good" in principle though unsourced, like finding a park HD in VA whose nom form (which P eventually asserted he had checked beforehand, and which i also checked later) shows it is the same as the park. In others, the reversions by me plus additional info provided has settled on the fact that the redirect/move was upfront inappropriate and would have lost information and good permanent structure. Polaron has at his talk page and/or at User talk:Elkman said he would cease this combative and has somewhat apologized. And has inquired to others about new redirects/moves he wishes to make, beforehand, and acceded to several editors requests then not to make some of those moves. But it still remains open how to review/settle the whole lot of already disputed / unsupported cases, and how to handle a process going forward. I would like to apologize too, for my part bringing drama to various MA NRHP articles such as the Hull Shore Drive one, in responding to the recent flurry, but I am not clear on what i should have done differently. Basically i would like to apologize for something here, anyhow. I definitely do appreciate your constructive involvement in this to date. Thanks! doncram (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have a limited understanding of your difficulties with Polaron because they have, for the most part, been in parts of the Wiki-universe that are not on my radar (while I do lighthouses nationwide, almost all of the rest of my NRHP work has been in Massachusetts).

I have seen both his frustrating changes without citation (Winter Island, where he turned out to be right but didn't post the citation until after the controversy erupted) and his cooperation (he asked me before the fact whether combining Boston Harbor Recreational and Boston Harbor Archeological HDs would be a good idea -- I counseled not, and he didn't).

As you say, your reaction on Hull Shore Drive was not the best thing you've ever done, but hopefully that sort of thing is behind us.

For the future I would counsel two things:

Accept that Wikipedia is not perfect. Among the many lighthouses on my watchlist, there are a few that I would do differently, but various editors, usually people with only one or two lighthouses on their watchlists, differ with me. There's so much to do that my view is that it's better to accept imperfection, perhaps even significant problems, and move on. Once all the 11,000 lighthouses in the world and the 80,000 NRHP sites are done, perhaps my view will change. More likely before that happens my editing days will be over.
Disengage from Polaron. You appear to be having some constructive dialogue with him, but it might be better to simply work on different things for six months or a year, grit your teeth, ignore him and back away from any article in which he takes an interest. Others on the project will keep him close to the straight and narrow and you'll spend less time battling. Leave the problematic articles for a long while and then start a review, slowly. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Austin Lighthouse

Here's one where there is a definite conflict on the focal plane. I sourced it and pointed it out. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Well, Stan, I don't agree there's a problem. I would take the current USCG Light List hands down over the Pepper's data from the 1910 Light List -- modern measurements are better, the focal height probably changed with the change in equipment, there has been some fluctuation in lake levels, and Pepper's number might be a typo. I don't even know why Pepper quotes a hundred year old number when he could use a modern figure from the same source. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jim, I put the Coast Gaurd figure (and Rowlett) in, and merely footnoted Pepper. I thought it was consistent and thorough. To be sure, mean high waters fluctuate. Indeed, I just saw a piece on the Discovery channel about the Great Lakes 'tipping' with the Norh rising and the south falling (by that I mean the land masses) over time, due to the fact tht the ice shield no longer compresses the earth. This means that the water levels conversely are 'falling' in the north and rising in the south. And levels fluctuate as you and I both know. Anyway, I just thought you might be interested in the way I sought to resolve the apparent conflict, FWIW. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Stan, you and I respectfully disagree on several aspects of citation and presentation. My feeling is that until we finish creating good articles for all 11,000 world lighthouses, I can disagree and be happy that you're doing the good work you're doing. Would I do it differently? -- yes. Do I think it's therefore bad? -- hell no!

On reflection, BTW, I figured out why Pepper uses the 1910 book -- he's compiled the list of existing and deactivated lighthouses and the 1910 Light List gives him one consistent reference for almost all of them. I suspect if you asked Pepper what number he would quote today for the focal height of the light, he'd say the modern number. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I already did ask him. This appears in the discussion of Sturgeon Point Light. I noticed that he had the tower height wrong and wrote to him.

Because of the questions I raised, I wrote to Terry Pepper, who is now the executive direct of the Great Lakes Light Keepers Association. Of course, he is the author of Terry Pepper, Seeing the Light, Lighthouses of the western Great Lakes. He was kind enough to write back with a detailed response, and he has given me permission to post this here:

Good call - that number is clearly incorrect.

As you are no doubt aware, height from water level to the focal plane was the metric of critical importance to mariners, since through triangulation the mariner could determine his distance from the light. To this end, focal height has been reported in US Light Lists since the earliest days. The physical height of the structure was of far lesser importance to mariners, and was only rarely included. For reasons I have yet been unable to determine, the 1914 issue of the Great Lakes Light List broke the mold, and included both metrics in its description of the lights. As such, I would consider that volume to be the definitive reference on the height of Great Lakes lighthouses.

According to the 1914 Great Lakes Light List, Sturgeon Point lighthouse stood 71 feet from base to top of lantern, and 69 feet from mean high water to focal plane.

Interestingly, the metric specifics used in calculating focal height changed frequently over the years, varying between low water, mean water, and high water. (The Coast Guard currently reports distance from mean high water.

I hope this helps.

NRHP Quincy photos

Without a doubt, since we both have the same plans regarding Quincy NRHP site photos, we should coordinate. Each of us otherwise might come up with an excellent photo, better to schedule it. I have in mind currently three places I want to photograph as soon as possible, basically just trying to find the right timing with lighting, traffic and my schedule. They are: Quincy Shore Drive, Quincy Police Station and Adams Academy. The last is a beautiful building, I am actually surprised it hasn't found its way here yet. Sswonk (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the time of year when I'd like to take a bunch of photos, but the weather doesn't look like it will cooperate until Tuesday. Good luck with Quincy Shore Drive -- I find roads hard to do.

If you use Excel and would like to send me your e-mail address (use the e-mail link on User:Jameslwoodward ) I will send you a spread sheet of all the sites in Quincy sorted by photo status, that you can easily paste into GPSVisualizer.com and get a map showing them. For example, it will show you that Adams Academy is one of a group of seven close by sites.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Point Light

I was working on putting in reference names as you recommended, and I seem to have a crop of errant quotation marks for reasons unknown. Your guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Maybe the footnotes aren't wrong? Not sure. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

What you did appears to be right. There seems to be a double quote in front of all {{cite web}} references now. I think it's new, but can't swear to it. It's possible someone changed the template. Why don't you hang loose for a day or two and see. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looked odd. Wasn't sure if it was just that I was working with my spectacles on (sharper) and not my contacts (monovision, sometimes fuzzy).

P.S., Don't miss my response on Terry Papper's data base above. It would be easy to miss as it was not on the bottom of this page, and might have been written by me so that it got buried in the history. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

No, I saw it, thank you. I picked it up scanning my watchlist. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Naval Hospital

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quarry

I've found some more information for you on the slate quarry — http://thomascranelibrary.org/htm/overview.htm notes that it's off Chickatawbut Road, apparently in Quincy rather than in Milton. Moreover, this document (if it doesn't download, try again; it took me three tries) says that Quincy and Milton have town dumps near NRHP-listed prehistoric quarries in the Blue Hills, and one of its sources is Duncan Ritchie's 1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Norwood Engineering Company, Inc. property near the Massachusetts Hill Hornfels/Braintree Slate Quarry, Milton, Massachusetts, a Public Archaeology Laboratory manuscript on file at "MHC". As well, this document tells me that there is a Quarry Trail; if you didn't want to try to find the sites, perhaps you could take a picture of the countryside in the hills along Chickatawbut? Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. I had run across the Chickatawbut Road reference when I read the Quincy document which you cite (SSwonk and I are also working on the Quincy list). Remember that "quarry" is a misleading word here -- there are many granite quarries in the area, mostly going back to the early nineteenth century, but my conversation with the archeologist told me that the Hornfels pits are not quarries in that sense -- they're not holes hundreds of feet across and tens of feet deep -- but rather shallow pits that are hard to see. My impression is that a non-expert could walk within five feet of one of these sites and not notice it. But, in any event, even if I knew where one or more of these pits was, I would not be inclined to photograph it. While these sites are not particularly attractive to pot-hunters, I think we should avoid any activity that might compromise archeology, erring very much on the side of caution. We are, after all, spending many of our free moments adding to historical knowledge and research; undertaking activities that might compromise it seems backwards. I'm planning on taking a south facing panorama from Chickatawbut Observation Tower when I photograph it; that should cover the subject much as your adding the aerial photo of Boston Harbor covers Boston Harbor Islands Archeological District (that comparison is a little unfair, I know -- George's Island is clearly an archeological site while the woods south of the Tower will be more general).. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your meaning better now. I did understand that these quarries were tiny holes compared to the granite quarries that I read about, so I knew to ignore a reference I found to swimmers drowning in quarries in this area. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to bug just, but just curious — did you get a picture of the area while you were at the observation tower? Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I had forgotten that, unlike the Eliot Tower at the other end of the park, the Chickatawbut tower isn't open to climb. I thought I'd wait until the leaves are off. User:Sswonk and I are just finishing up Quincy, so my photo time has been going there. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of using maps for illustrations, but I'm not going to argue that there's something wrong with doing it, or that a detailed map of the vicinity of a site — especially one that is restricted-address — doesn't count. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chickatawbut

Good entry for wikipedia. Nice job. I first had to think about this, but on doublechecking the 'a' and 'an' with 'historic' (admittedly tricky), I think you're probably right. It's a historic (although somehow that still doesn't sound quite right.... ah well, such is grammar). [1] Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I don't know whether you've seen these, but these ancient sachems often signed deeds in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and extraordinarily enough, the actual signatures survived. I've seen Chickatawbut's name on such deeds, but because the spelling of his name varied so widely, I can't put my hands on such deeds right now. But have a look at this: [2] MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem weird, but almost all NRHP articles begin, "The Joan Doe Mansion is a historic something or other on State Street in Anytown, Virginia." And, it is, conveniently, the very first entry in the NY Times Manual of Style and Usage, which has gotten me through several million words over the years with reasonable style and usage.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Times stylebook is a good one, as was the old Associated Press stylebook as well, as is Strunk & White. I've used them all, at one time or another. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP photos question/proposals

I've opened the discussion on NRHP photos at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#NRHP_nomination_photos and hope that you'll comment there. Smallbones (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Quincy photos

Glad the stubs were of use. I've always had fun creating some stub infrastructure and taking photographs too. I've been following the photos the two of you have been adding to the articles. The articles look a lot more credible with the photographs, and hopefully attractive articles might spur a bit more interest in local history from other contributors and readers. Thank you both for volunteering your time by taking such great photos for the encyclopedia. Swampyank (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]