Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 7 October 2009

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Pageviews

 :) (although I undid mine, not knowing you'd added yours, thinking mine not that funny, perhaps I should re-revert myself and then block myself for edit warring?... but I digress) That is a very odd page indeed... we actually have page titles that start with http:// ??? and whats more, that page gets views? ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually responsible for some (all?) of its views. I have my browser set up so I can type an article name in the URL box and hit ctrl-enter to go to the Misplaced Pages article. Now if I open a new window it gives me Google's main page, and if I hit ctrl-enter without typing anything it takes the URL that's already there and so goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/Http://www.google.com/. It's actually a deleted redirect that's now on the blacklist :) --NE2 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pranknet

Per the BLP discussion, would you mind editing this article yourself? NTK (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a hit-and-run guy :| --NE2 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New York & Ottawa Railway

Good day, I am the one who originally created the expanded New York & Ottawa Railway entry because others in the past put in misinformation, myths, etc. I have studied the line, had family worked it, grew up beside its abandoned r-o-w, created a web site solely about it and wrote a manuscript that is awaiting publication about the history of the entire railway from Tupper Lake to Ottawa which will include brief histories of the independant company lines that linked to it (ie - Brooklyn Cooperge Company). I watch the Wiki page often, ensuring that the entry remains correct in all ways and if something is added, I refer to my materials and fellow researchers to either see if we had missed something, which does happen, or if the new entry is false. I am writing you because I strongly disagree with your removal of the Defunct Rys of Ontario Category. The Ontario Pacific Railway and Ottawa & New York Railway were Ontario companies and later owned by the NY&O, which is why they are in the NY&O entry and not their own. I believe it would be better to keep the category with the NY&O entry because many don't go to the O&NY redirect entry, not knowing that was even an existing company. Bonfire34 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that then Category:Defunct Ontario railways includes the NY&O, which is incorrect. Would a "see also" link to List of defunct Ontario railways satisfy your objections? --NE2 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A "see also" link would be a good compromise. -- Bonfire34 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages linking to New Hyde Park (unincorporated), New York

I notice that you redirected the page New Hyde Park (unincorporated), New York to New Hyde Park (Village), New York#Greater New Hyde Park. This is a very sensible solution. Note, though, that there are dozens of pages that link to the former page. It would be helpful (though not strictly necessary) to link those pages directly to the target of the redirect. I'll start work on some of these, but if you're inclined to help out, you can see the list by going to New Hyde Park (unincorporated), New York and clicking "What links here". Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would not be helpful at all. Please read WP:R2D. --NE2 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Central Vermont Railway

If the Central Vermont Railway was standard gauge then there was, until 1873, a break-of-gauge with the Grand Trunk Railway at the Canadian border. The latter owned the former so such a break of gauge would be unlikely. See Indian Gauge#Canada. Peter Horn User talk 01:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See also

• Rail gauge in Canada
• Rail gauge in North America#United States which mentions the Maine Central. Peter Horn User talk 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NE2, old chap, Please read the Grand Trunk Railway article which states that "The GTR had three important subsidiaries during its lifetime:". The break of gauge, prior to 1973, would have been between Saint Armand, QC and Swanton, VT. Peter Horn User talk 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case both Central Vermont Railway and Grand Trunk Railway should be revised to show the date that the GT gained control, if the info is not already in those articles. I was acting in good faith and not "playing". Prior to 1873 the GT was 66 if the CV was standard gauge, so where was the break of gauge? Peter Horn User talk 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The GT bought the bankrupt CV on March 20 1896, see Central Vermont#History. The break of gauge would more likely be at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu rather than at Saint-Lambert. Peter Horn User talk 02:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Northern Railway

I withdrew the speedy requests to rename the Great Northern Railway categories after your reasonable objection. I have opened a full discussion here. Tassedethe (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:2ft

Template:2ft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your very thoughtful and helpful comment at Talk:Pit of despair. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Nice to see some recognition by other projects of your work. Well Done. Dave (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1

Per a discussion that followed your comment, the candidate page has been moved. -- Blanchardb -- timed 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

XfD discussions can get a bit heated and personal …

… but that was funny.  pablo_hablo. 13:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my most recent edits 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using[REDACTED] at my school and I think someone else is making edits at the same time sadface. 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I-10 and related users

Restored solely as redirects to talk page, any admin can check the history if needed...Skier Dude (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --NE2 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal Railway

I saw the G6 tag you placed on that page (a redirect); what's the deletion cleanup/reverse move that needs to be done? It looks like the railway's current name is PCRC, so the PCR name should remain a redirect. I see the page has been moved recently, but if anything, another move would likely not be "uncontroversial" and thus better suited for WP:RM discussion. Let me know, thanks, JamieS93 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The standard for articles about railroads is to omit the "Company". If you look through categories such as Category:Illinois railroads you'll see this; the official corporate name of almost every one of these includes "Company". --NE2 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. The page was moved from "Panama Railway" to "Panama Canal Railway ". So moving it to a normal title (with the "Canal") is a rather uncontroversial action.  Done. Cheers, JamieS93 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --NE2 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

TimberWolf Railz (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mount Jefferson

Thanks for making the contact; I'd wondered how it got classified this way, so the explanation is quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Newark and Passaic Railway

Jim Irwin (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Nice idea. I'll continue from my normal account. IMO, the main problem is that talkheader is not moved on the top due to some AWB bug. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I understood. My plan was to make all the cleanups written in WP:TPL at once. But due to bugs of AWB it's impossible right now. During this process I reported 5 (five) bugs. This replacement it was like step 1. I'll continue manually and not automatic mainly due to a serious bug and of course due to the things you just noticed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

-Sorry to edit your page. Snake Valley is a valley that has no page, but exists in both Utah and Nevada. I am working on 1) combing the links for "Snake Valley, Nevada" and "Snake Valley (Utah)" into one link, "Snake Valley (NV&UT)" and 2) actually adding information on Snake Valley to Snake Valley (NV&UT), a place I am very familiar and have worked in the last 2.5 years. Sorry about the edit! I leave it up to you whether to re-revert the edit again.

New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company

I understand the rationale for the sort order for railroad names that end in "railroad", "railway", etc, but it seemed that this one should be an exception, since the name isn't simply "New Jersey Railroad", but is "New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company". It seems more natural to use the full name in this case, without moving it to the top of the New Jersey list. It doesn't really bother me, but one of the reasons I didn't notice NJR&T in the original list was that I was looking for it between "New Jersey and Pennsylvania" and "New Jersey Shore Line". In any case, I won't bother editing it again, but think about whether the sort order rule really applies in this case.

Consider a list containing "New Jersey Canal and Railroad Transportation Co.", "New Jersey Railroad and Canal Transportation Co.", and "New Jersey Streetcar and Transportation Co.". Would it really make sense to list them as:

• New Jersey Railroad and Canal Transportation Co.
• New Jersey Canal and Railroad Transportation Co.
• New Jersey Streetcar and Transportation Co.

Thanks. -- Jim Irwin (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's really the New Jersey Railroad - and that's what I usually see it called - but in those earliest days the New Jersey legislature liked to add "and Transportation Company", possibly to indicate that the company would also be operating the trains over its railroad. --NE2 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. -- Jim Irwin (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Carreteras

hi, thanks for commenting about the proposed merger at wt:USRD regarding Carretera Central (Puerto Rico). On the side issue of whether the Carretera Central (Cuba) article can "See also" to it and vice versa, it seems to me that they may be very comparable as important historic highways in comparable places. The Puerto Rico one seems to be the most important historic highway in Puerto Rican history. If the Cuba one is the most important one in its history (which I don't know), then it would seem to be okay to link to the other one in a "See also" low-key way, as being of likely interest to readers interested in historic highways of big Caribbean islands. I see also that they are different in many ways, too (PR's was created in colonial times; Cuba's is east-west and a bit later, post its independence from Spain). I tried adding back the See also's with a bit more context. Does that work for you? If you want to remove the See also's entirely again, though, I won't revert or object. Thanks! doncram (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how they're any more "comparable" than any other two historic highways. --NE2 22:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. If there were a category of historic highways, which I can't find (I see no parents to Category:Historic trails and roads in the United States ), I would add them both, and that would provide a lesser degree of navigation btwn them, as is more appropriate. Should there be a Category:Historic highways? I don't find even a world-wide parent Category:Highways. I am not very much a Roads editor, and don't want to get started in revising whatever category hierarchy exists tho, myself. doncram (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a question then of what's "historic" enough to go in the category. --NE2 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Web.archive.org official links

At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Central Military Wagon Road

A while ago I wrote Oregon Route 58 and redirected Oregon Central Military Wagon Road there. Would you mind adding any details from OR 58 to your article, and removing some from OR 58 with a summary style link to {{main|Oregon Central Military Wagon Road}}? --NE2 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Think I did what you asked. Reduced military road info in Oregon Route 58 article to 1 para; kept 1888 NY Times reference and added 2 generic references; and inserted summary-style link. Chg'd link at Oregon Central Military Wagon Road to send readers to Stone Bridge and the Oregon Central Military Wagon Road article (vice Oregon Route 58 article). Also, incorp'd number of military wagon road details from Oregon Route 58 text into Oregon Central Military Wagon Road article. New info was very helpful in "Scandal and litigation" and "Route" sections. Please look over chgs and let me know if result is what you had in mind.--Orygun (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through it, but it looks about like what I was thinking. Good job. --NE2 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

On the following pages: Monticello Railway Museum, Indiana Transportation Museum, Infobox rail museum Infobox SG rail museum, Illinois Railway Museum You've performed a series of reverts with an ideology based upon original research and tendentious editing, and they were all appropriately re-reverted by User:Wuhwuzdat as unverified and per discussion at WP:CNB; though on multiple separate occasions within 24 hours you have reverted this information, including the references without discussion or consensus building, which constitutes as disruptive editing and a violation of WP:3RR policy. –TimberWolf Railz (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)