User talk:Morriswa/Archives/2013/February
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Morriswa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2012: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2013: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2014: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2015: January • February • March • May • June • September • October • November
2016: March • April • May • June • July • September • November • December
2017: January • February • April • June • July • August • December
2018: January • February • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December
2019: January • February • March • May • June • July • August • September • November
2020: January • March • April • July • August • September • October • November • December
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
- Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles
- News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance
- WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun
- Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes
- In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry
- Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment
Edit summaries
Hey, you might want to link to WP:USRD/STDS instead if the main wikiproject page when summarizing why/how you're expanding articles. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although it's maybe better not to use the WikiProject as justification... there are editors that oppose WikiProjects in general, treat all standards pages like USRD/STDS as just "advice" and don't think they are anything more. Using the standards page could be construed as an attempt for a project to "own" and article, with all of the negative implications that carries, when we both know that you're using an established framework that's been tested dozens of times at FAC and hundreds of times at GAN to expand an article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any links are needed at all. Simply describing what your changes are is better than trying to justify why you made the changes. For` this edit, I probably would have said "expand" for the edit description. Keep it simple! –Fredddie™ 04:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. So, are you saying that something like "Various corrections (to de-stub the article)" or "Expanded article (to de-stub the article)" would be better? Hopefully later I can edit up a storm. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, what they're saying is that you should keep summaries short, sweet, and to the point. If you're just doing general expansion to the article, your summary should be something like Expand or Expansion rather than Various WikiProject U.S. Roads corrections or something similar. –TCN7JM 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- "De-stubbing" is subjective. What USRD considers a start-class article another project may consider a stub. –Fredddie™ 23:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, what they're saying is that you should keep summaries short, sweet, and to the point. If you're just doing general expansion to the article, your summary should be something like Expand or Expansion rather than Various WikiProject U.S. Roads corrections or something similar. –TCN7JM 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. So, are you saying that something like "Various corrections (to de-stub the article)" or "Expanded article (to de-stub the article)" would be better? Hopefully later I can edit up a storm. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think any links are needed at all. Simply describing what your changes are is better than trying to justify why you made the changes. For` this edit, I probably would have said "expand" for the edit description. Keep it simple! –Fredddie™ 04:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 February 2013
- Featured content: A lousy week
- WikiProject report: Just the Facts
- In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute
- Discussion report: WebCite proposal
- Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters
Route descriptions
Hello, Morriswa. I've been watching your Cup submissions and I've been noticing one major thing in your route descriptions. You aren't citing them. The least you could do, and also the best way to cite RDs, is to use the driving directions feature on Google Maps to trace the route (set the A endpoint at one terminus and the B endpoint at the other). Then export the link and use it in {{google maps}} to reference it. –TCN7JM 00:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've been using the Google Maps template for the
length_reftag in the infobox and the major intersections "table". Is that enough, or should I also use the same reference for the route description, as well? Just let me know what I should do. I will add the reference; just (as I just said) tell me how. Thanks. - Also, what do you think of my editing since the Cup started? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You should add one reference at the end of each paragraph in the route description. Also, you've been doing pretty well compared to your editing before the Cup. Good job on the improvement. –TCN7JM 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I cite the most recent paper DOT map and use the technique above (using the satellite view). Then I pair the two footnotes at the end of each paragraph of an RD. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- GDOT has map from 1920 to the current year, the older can be used for the history section. Also Georgia State Task Force page has some other references that could be used in articles. Detcin (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM, thanks for the compliment. I told you guys that I wanted to begin improving my editing, starting with the Cup.
- Imzadi1979, how do I cite a paper map? The latest one that I have is the 2011-2012 edition. What did you mean by, "use the technique above (using the satellite view). Then I pair the two footnotes at the end of each paragraph of an RD."?
- Detcin, like I mentioned in reply to Imzadi1979, I know how to cite web resources, but I don't know how to cite paper resources. Also, how could the history section be improved with them?
- I'm sure that you guys have probably told me at least some of this, but I have forgotten. Thank you for bearing with my editing blunders and maturing. I am trying to do my best. By the way, just how long is the Cup (until December?)? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at the main Cup page, the Cup is three rounds long, but if you finish Round 1, which ends at the end of February, in the bottom half (which you currently are in), you are eliminated. You'll have to pass either myself or SounderBruce (talk · contribs) to get to Round 2. The other two are way ahead of us. Also, {{cite map}} can cite paper maps. In that template's documentation are many helpful examples that tell you how to use the template. –TCN7JM 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Almost forgot. Each round of the Cup is about a month long with a short intermission in between the rounds. The end of the Cup, regardless of who is eliminated, is April 30th. –TCN7JM 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- GDOT has map from 1920 to the current year, the older can be used for the history section. Also Georgia State Task Force page has some other references that could be used in articles. Detcin (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I cite the most recent paper DOT map and use the technique above (using the satellite view). Then I pair the two footnotes at the end of each paragraph of an RD. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You should add one reference at the end of each paragraph in the route description. Also, you've been doing pretty well compared to your editing before the Cup. Good job on the improvement. –TCN7JM 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
When using a map that is online as a references you would also use {{cite map}}. I used maps as references in Georgia State Route 278 today so you can get some kind of an idea. When using maps, for the history, you would reference the first year a change was made (if the route number changed, it was paved, route commissioned, etc.) and the year before the change. If a route is decommissioned, you would use the last year it was on the map and the next year's map. You may want to look at SR 40, SR 666, M-91, and others that use maps as references in the history and are Good Articles (GA). (Note using only maps as references the article can only be GA and below, some other type of source would be needed for A or FA class.) Detcin (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, there are As/FAs that use only maps as historical sources (see M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan) for example). It's not ideal, but absent other sources, it's all that's possible sometimes.
- To cite a paper map, it is the same as citing a map online; since you don't have a URL omit that and
|accessdate=. For example, to cite the current GDOT map I have in my collection, I used:- {{cite map |publisher= Georgia Department of Transportation |year= 2011 |title= Official Highway and Transportation Map |edition= 2011–12 |section= D4–E7 |scale= 1 in=10 mi |oclc= 770217845}}
- which outputs:
- Not every map will have an OCLC number, but if you do a little searching on http://www.worldcat.org/ they can be located for some maps. The sections I listed are the grid reference sections that SR 92 passes through. I combined this citation with a footnote to the Google Maps driving directions (in satellite mode) so that the paper map confirms the official routing, and the Google Maps link confirms the satellite imagery used to cite the physical surroundings for the highway. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Morriswa is in pool A, meaning that he has to pass up Dough4872 or Scott5114. --Rschen7754 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Roads opened in 1939
Category:Roads opened in 1939, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –TCN7JM 20:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Roads opened in 1956
Category:Roads opened in 1956, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –TCN7JM 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Roads opened in 1958
Category:Roads opened in 1958, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –TCN7JM 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Roads opened in 1959
Category:Roads opened in 1959, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –TCN7JM 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Roads opened in 1960
Category:Roads opened in 1960, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –TCN7JM 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Roads opened in 1961
Category:Roads opened in 1961, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –TCN7JM 20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 February 2013
- WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines
- Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit
- In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press
- Featured content: Featured content gets schooled
The Signpost: 25 February 2013
- Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers
- News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization
- Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'
- WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload
- Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely