Talk:SS Badger

Infobox
I added the infobox. I don't know if I formatted all of it correctly, and I do know that there are attributes that can be removed from the code. I'll leave that for someone else to work on later. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

description
nice work on the history of the ferry line, the operation history of the vessel and the propulsion system. But I am missing even a high-level description of the vessel itself. Construction method - welded or riveted steel? How many decks, which partitioning? Passenger facilities (how many staterooms on which deck, how many lounges on which deck)? Changes when converted from rail car ferry to car ferry? Some inside photos would be nice (car deck / passenger lounge). Shurely someone here is using this ferry regularly and can easily compile these facts? --Himbeerkuchen (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Other ferries?
Is there a list of Lake Michigan ferries or an article about them? I was hoping to find mention of any other of these ferries at this site. I know there is at least one other, the Lake Express.Kdammers (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There aren't any more running current and the SS Badger was on the only ferries on the Great Lakes for a long time until the Lake Express. I'm not aware of an article on the topic but it does sound encyclopedic.  Royal broil  17:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Marker database
Agreed that the Marker Database is self-published, but the information sourced to it actually comes from the historical marker, a photograph of which appears at the Marker web site. So I think this source is reliable for this information, unless the marker itself (installed by the Wisconsin Historical Society) is wrong. In other words, Wisconsin Historical Society is the source of this information; Marker Database is simply reprinting it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to verify that we're only citing information from the actual marker, then we can switch it out to a cite sign-type citation using the link as a courtesy link, no more. However, if we're citing commentary from the webpage, we can't do that.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having applied for placement of historical markers in Michigan, I personally know that their verification standards are strict. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't resolve the issue. If we're citing information from the marker, then the webpage is a courtesy link to the text of that marker, and we should cite the marker itself, cite sign-style. If we're citing information from the webpage itself, and not the marker, then that source fails our guidelines as a reliable source.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed what wasn't actually in the text of the marker, and switched it to a cite sign. I didn't know about that template, thanks for the pointer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Location of the Chicago Tribune
Per Template:Cite news, the "location" parameter is an alias for "place", which is the "Geographical place of publication". In the case of the Chicago Tribune, this would be Chicago. But it hardly seems worth arguing about, so I have removed the parameter. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might add that there was no reason for 7&6=thirteen's snarky edit summary. 32.218.36.94 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One good turn deserves another.
 * If you bother to read the multiple retractions, they all say that the agency Associated Press reported and retracted this from "Ludington, Michigan."
 * But you are right. I should not have remonstrated for your snarky edit summary.  And I apologize for my conduct.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Chicago Tribune is not published in Ludington, Michigan" is a simple fact. No one in their right mind would consider it snarky. You're forgiven for your ignorance in not knowing that "location=" refers to place of publication. A lot of Wikipedia editors don't understand proper citation formatting. 32.218.36.94 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The agency reported it as being from the Associated Press in Ludington, Michigan. This article and the retraction appeared in the New York Times, so maybe we should say it was from "New York".  In fact, as reported here it and the location were reported in a great many publications.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your wise counsel. Get an account so that we will know who you are in the future.  Best regards.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I see why you're confused. Think of it this way. Everything on WP should be verifiable, per WP:V. Verifiability requires citations to reliable sources, per WP:RS. But to actually do the verification, you need to be able to find the source. So for example if something is sourced to the "Chicago Tribune", and you don't know where that's published, you would check the "location" field and get on the next train to Chicago. Once you have arrived at Chicago, you can then go directly to the offices of the Tribune and ask to see a copy of that day's paper, or head to the library and do the same.
 * But if the location field says "Ludington", you'll get on the next train to Ludington, then ask around for the Ludington office of the Chicago Tribune. Not finding it, you might conclude that the source citation is incorrect, and remove the cited material.
 * There are a number of fields in the "publisher" catagory, documented at template:cite news, all of them intended to help you find the publisher of cited material. These include "publisher", for the name of publisher, "publication-date", which is the date of publication when different from the date the work was written, and "location", which is the geographical place of publication. These fields are all there to help you find the actual publication so that you can verify the source citation. If the location field is filled in with the name of the place where the story was written, instead of the place where the publication took place, that will impede verification of the source citation. So that's why it's important for "location" to point to the publisher's location, not the place where the story originated. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

From the template instructions at Template:Cite news, "Geographical place of publication; usually not wikilinked; omit when the publication name includes place; alias of 'place'" My 2 cents is that I personally try not to use the location field unless it is needed. For example, newspaper= The Times needs to have location= London since there are numerous newspapers called the Times or daily. If the newspaper= The New York Times, then we would omit the location field. It's nothing to get excited about, but you just don't use it when the newspaper location is part of its name. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't believe we're arguing about this, but given that "location" is the publisher's location, and this was published in the Chicago Tribune, why does it say "location=Ludington"? Do we have consensus for this improper use of the "location" field? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't, and in the past, I've reminded that location is for the location of the publisher/publication and not the dateline on a news article.  Imzadi 1979   →   07:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Date of NHL listing
What's up with the contradictory dates for NHL listing? Normally I'd go with the reliable secondary sources, but the NPS web site seems like a pretty definitive source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Linking and unlinking the publication of references
In this edit reverted a link I added to a reference, with an edit summary that said "Undid revision 827166439 by Geo Swan (talk); already linked in preceding footnote"

I checked the WP:MOS. I was surprised it doesn't say, one way or another, whether the publisher should be linked. Yes, in the body of articles, we don't link every instance. We try to link only the first instance.

But, by very widespread convention, we DO make multiple links to publishers, in every reference.

Trying to link to the first instance can be problematic, as good faith editors can move paragraphs around, within articles Good faith editors can have a good faith reason to remove a paragraph. The move or excision of a paragraph can mean that the first instance of a reference to a topic we could link to is no longer the first instance.

This problem is even more acute when the link occurs in a reference. I see this as a strong justification of the usual practice -- linking the publisher in multiple references.

Do you have a reason for your unconventional unlinking? Care to explain yourself? Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not unconventional, and per the logic at WP:OVERLINK followed by dozens of FAs I've worked on, no, we don't need to link a publisher in every instance in the footnotes.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Playing cards
What date did they come out. 2600:1700:4950:1180:A13E:92D3:C701:E8D4 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)