User talk:Patleahy/Archive Nov 2007

Seattle to Portland

Thanks, Patleahy, for the note. It does indeed look like I deleted one link to Cascade Bicycle Club, but sure didn't mean to. I don't know how that happened—maybe it was an edit conflict with someone who gave up. I've made further changes and added that link back. Thanks, EncMstr 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Iron Horse Trail, Alberta

I just posted a move suggestion that you may be interested in at Talk:Iron Horse Trail, Alberta. Signed Jeepday 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source or spam

This is in response to your comments here. There are a number of differences between how I tag my images and how ForrestCroce tags his. In every single one of the images I've uploaded to Commons, I use the proper description template and fill out completely. This includes source information, which is where I place a link to my gallery. Images I upload to Commons appear there first and I copy them from that gallery to Commons. This is why I would consider it a proper source. In ForrestCroce's case, it appears a link is placed there for self promotion since it's worded like "image by ForrestCroce of this organization". I hope this helps explain the difference. Roguegeek (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so immediate on editing!

On the Longmire article, you went in and made an edit on what I did within a minute's time (about the National Park Service headquarters). I'm not saying anything against you at all, but WHOA, I'm amazed at how you go doing things right there! JustN5:12 02:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was just working on Mt Rainier articles at the same time. I know this is not a complaint, but I does make me think, I should not do this since when you submit a change you should have a chance to continue working on it without someone like me interrupt your thinking. -- Patleahy 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unit display templates

No, they are not obsolete and should not be deleted. I have replied in detail at Category talk:Unit display#Are these obsolete?. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Feldman

Because Marty Feldman was English, and because he has died, the information given for these dates is the same as the information for birth and death dates given (by another user) within the infobox for Graham Chapman.

I will be grateful if you are able to fix up a template for euro birth date information, and euro death date information, for Marty Feldman.

The same could be then done as for the infoboxes for other Englishmen who have died, including: Graham Chapman, Douglas Adams, Patrick Troughton and Jon Pertwee etc., and for other British people (Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) who have died — as well as for people from the Australasia area (Australians and New Zealanders), who have died (Australia and New Zealand also use the same dating method as the United Kingdom - i.e. day/month/year).

At the moment, the only euro date information available is for those people who use the euro dating system (day/month/year), and who are also still alive (and whose ages keep increasing as the years pass).

The creation of special euro date templates (for the British and Australasian people who have died) would be great, and would enable the information to be kept more uniform within Wikipedia. Thanks. Figaro 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Japan has a different dating system again - year/month/day - so possibly a special Japanese dating system should be used for Japanese people. Figaro 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason why I want to change to the euro system for British and Australasian people is because the dating system for Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), and for Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) is, as I mentioned above, (day/month/year).

There is already a (euro birth date and age) 'template' available for those people who were born in countries which use the euro dating system who are still alive — but not one, as yet, for those people who were born in countries which use the euro dating system who have died.

If you are able to create 'templates' (for euro birth dates - minus age) and (for euro death dates - plus age) for those people who were born in countries which use the euro dating system who have already died, I would be grateful and would use the templates for those people. Figaro 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following now exist:

Are there any more missing? -- Patleahy 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's great! I cannot think of anything which is missing. I have just noticed that you have already changed the information in Marty Feldman's info and, when I have the chance to do so, I will gradually change the birth dates and death date info for the other people who were born in countries using the euro dating system. All the best. Figaro 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard Stevens

I retracted my insertion, primarily because I missed your caveat in the form of the word documented. - Freechild 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up there. I trust you understand the point I was making; I defer to your obvious interest, and trust your judgment. - Freechild 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite map

You're welcome! I was needing something like it for articles I write a lot (highways), and none of the other cite templates seemed to fit. So I proposed it and everyone seemed to agree to it, and there you go, we have a useful template. :) —Scott5114 ↗ 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

49ers.

Hello: Not a big deal, bt be careful when reverting vandalism. Here [1] you accidentally reposted vandalism. Again, not a big deal...—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the message on my talk page from you. No big deal...cheers!!!—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Rainier National Park

Hi Patleahy; I read with interest your recent contribution to Mount Rainier National Park. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your help in correcting my mistakes. -- Patleahy 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure. I'm pleased to have been able to help in a small way. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Place infobox

Well spotted to remove the displaying of co-ordinates twice on pages that already have the co-ordinates in the {{Infobox Place Ireland}}. However, can the infobox be set to not display the co-ordinates only IF there is not already a coor template on the page. Cheers ww2censor 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if that is possible. I think the correct solution would be to remove the extra coordinates from the articles and only have the coordinates defined in the infobox in the article. The existing coordinates are inserted using a {{coor *}} template (e.g. {{coor dms}}) and changed infobox uses the {{coord}} template. There is a debate taking place in a number of places on which approach is the correct one (i.e. here and here). Until it is clear {{coord}} is the way to go I don't think {{coor *}} templates should not be removed from articles using this infobox. -- Patleahy 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Corrected 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed this up here and here. -- Patleahy 07:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meath on Track Campaign

So, explain to me how exactly it is not about Dunboyne, when the campaign involves Dunboyne? -- TheChrisD ™ 11:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The External links of the Manual of Style (MoS) says:

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.

This applies here. The article is about Dunboyne, the link was related to one very specific aspect of Dunboyne. If links like this were allowed then the external links section of articles about places would fill up with links to campaigns related to every local issue.

The link is also "mainly intended to promote a website" (again from the MoS). I believe this is the case here because the editor who entered this link added these links and a small amount of related text to many pages over a period of time without making any other contribution to the encyclopedia.[2] The links were often entered in an indiscriminate manor, for example the site was linked five times from Navan. [3]

Even if a link to a cite on this topic is appropriate (i.e. if this was an issue of impotence to understanding Dunboyne) the link should be to a site with a impartial discussion of the issue and not a campaign or advocacy website.

-- Patleahy 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template deletion

Well, the talk page only has a link to the old deletion discussion. I only discovered the current one clicking on the template itself. john k 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]