User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 6

Westinghouse Time Capsule Photo
Doug, thanks for the Flickr message. I've uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons. Shorelander (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have added the picture to the Westinghouse Time Capsules article. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Children's Museum
No I'm sorry I don't. But if and when I go back, I'll get one for you. HoosierStateTalk 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple-hook nomination articles
I am concerned about these articles, as they are almost identical to the original sources. It appears as though articles like "the" have been added, and the numerals have been written out as words, but I don't see any other differences either in the word choice or the order of the sentences. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to change the word choices for the descriptions of the buildings as much as possible, however some are almost unavoidable to be able to describe the building as it was meant to be described. The description in many cases is short and there is not much difference I could make to still describe it to be the same description intended. The sources are from the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, a government source - which I believe would be government public domain in the first place. --Doug Coldwell talk 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lorillard
Thanks for your note, I've replied on my page, here. Xn4 ( talk ) 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar



 * Hello, Doug. Thank you very much indeed for sending one of these on to me. My effort was quite small, but I sense your relief at the outcome. Xn4  ( talk ) 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Clover Hill Tavern
--Dravecky (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sweeney-Conner Cabin
--Dravecky (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodson Law Office, etc
FYI, User:Ottava Rima has listed Woodson Law Office and Jones Law Office at Copyright problems/2009 February 3. (Ottava thinks that your block quotes might go beyond fair use, and there are a few other issues with paraphrasing that need to be sorted out.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed the issues accordingly.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug. I edited the infoboxes that were put into Jones Law Office and Woodson Law Office to show them as contributing properties.  Actually there are two kinds of contributing, please see Template:Infobox nrhp2/doc about options and how to use the NRHP2 infobox.  Maybe the infoboxes should be further refined.


 * Also I notice that there was extra stuff within the NRHP infoboxes that you set up, which I think suggests you cut and pasted the infoboxes from some other article. Like there was Virginia Historic District indications, and mixed up stuff from a reference footnote that had gotten garbled.  Anyhow, you should know that there is a neat tool for creating NRHP infoboxes, which provides a good start filled out with data from the National Register Information System, provided by Elkman.  All you do is visit http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, enter something like "Appomattox" and "VA", and it generates a filled out infobox, ready to be pasted into wikipedia.  Hope you may find it useful.  However, it does not have contributing properties / structures included.


 * Also, would you please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I'd appreciate if you would comment there.  Thanks, doncram (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

300 word limit
I used the phrase but I wanted to make a note - its not a "real" limit. Its more of a rule of thumb. The Free Republic use to quote whole news articles on their site until a court case happened. Somewhere in all of that (I was working with the Free Republic group to try and protect distribution of information on the internet at the time) it came out that a solid amount of knowing when something is "borrowing" too much from another is when you use over 300 words. Of course, there are cases when you can use more or less. The spirit is that you are not supposed to take everything that is unique from a published item, which would diminish their ability to sell that item. Sometimes, quoting can help sell the item if done right (i.e. taking part of a work dealing with an interesting view point but cutting it short), and they will allow you to use more. Anyway, I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

American Civil War task force/New articles
I placed your Conclusion article at WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/New articles. We like to put any new article relating to the war there, to keep better track of them.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  02:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Didn't know about the list. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War
I would love to help you with the article, what would you like me to add to the article? Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS AMAZING!! I was intending on adding quite a few paragraphs to the Article but your article has such a wide variety that I can't think of any other things to put in it. Great Job! Have you joined the Military History WikiProject yet we could use you. Great Job and Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I His Lordship's Court 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for compliment. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War
Noticed you have edited American Civil War articles before. Could you take a look at this article I wrote. I am working to improve it to G.A. status. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I breezed through it and think it's well written, but have a few comments:
 * I don't see why you spend as much time on the Appomattox Campaign battles as you do. There is already an article on that (which could be improved if you think more detail is required). If your premise is to document all the Confederate surrenders and actions that brought about the conclusion of the war, you could include Donelson and Vicksburg and the almost-destruction of Hood's army at Nashville, the fall of Atlanta, the burning of the Valley, the March to the Sea, etc. But if the premise is to emphasize the non-ANV actions after April 9--which is an interesting concept not well covered in other articles--not much detail of Appomattox battles is needed.
 * You should consider condensing the CSS Shenandoah section.
 * The Accomplishments section doesn't seem too useful or well-suited to this article. It is certainly not a complete list of accomplishments and that subject would be better served as a subarticle to the Victory and aftermath section of the main ACW article.
 * To match our style guide, you should have a References section that lists the sources used in your citations. In your 2 sources sections, there are many books not cited in Notes. Those should be in Further reading. And we do not double-space these book lists (no empty lines between '*' lines).
 * Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll start working on those "pointers" now.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still a work in progress - however it looks like it may take a couple of weeks before anyone will review for G.A. anyway. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Got rid of the Appomattox Campaign and associated battles - since I focused in and made the theme of the article as events that happened after the surrender of the ANV. Needed your help to see what I should be doing here and focused the theme of the article. Thanks!
 * 2) I am presently "thinking" about how to shorted the CSS Shenandoah section. Agree it should be shorten. Its such a fasinating story I got over-enthusiastic about it.
 * 3) Deleted Accomplishment section
 * 4) Corrected References sections to where any other books involved, that are not in the footnotes, are listed in Further reading. Corrected double spacing.

Shortened CSS Shenandoah section. Do you think it is O.K., or should it be shortened more?--Doug Coldwell talk 14:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm surprised to see you adopted my major suggestions. Most people don't like suggestions. :-) The article is more coherent with those changes and it's looking very good. I've looked some more, and here are a few more comments.
 * Although I do not immerse myself in the politics of Wikipedia article naming, I think you should be ready for someone to object that the article is now essentially in the format of a "list" and should be renamed as "List of ..." or "Timeline of ...". See WP:LIST. I am not saying that you should change this now, but be prepared for it.
 * The quote box templates are not working too well in conjunction with the photographs, leaving a lot of white space. (Perhaps it works well on the browser window size and thumbnail sizes that you have selected, but not on mine.) You should consider the quotation template instead. On a related note, I do not see the point of including the text of a historical marker (particularly when that marker is clearly legible in the photograph). It is essentially the equivalent of copying the descriptive text from another reference on the subject.
 * Using my personal style -- which you are free to reject, although a lot of members of the ACW task force follow it (see User:Hlj/CWediting) -- you are overusing the fully spelled out ranks of generals. Most of our ACW articles use the abbreviations, particularly after the first use (although I use them for all uses in my articles). Also, although the word "General" is often used as an honorific when addressing a general of lesser rank, I try to put the actual ranks in wherever possible: Maj. Gen., Brig. Gen., etc., particularly the first time that the individual is referred to.
 * Avoid the construction "Many historians say ..."
 * The section on Robert E. Lee should say that he surrendered on April 9, rather than simply going to meet Grant.
 * Your title for the section on April 26 implies that Johnston merely surrendered personally rather than surrendering the armies in a number of departments.
 * On CSS Shenandoah, I find it interesting that your summary is longer than the article it is referring to. My personal recommendation would be for you to expand the original article and keep this section a bit shorter. Also, since you refer to November 6 in the opening section of the article, you should name the event in addition to the date.
 * Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are excellent! I am working at it and it probably will take a couple of days to make sure I covered all your suggestions. I'm double checking everything and will again tomorrow when I am fresher. Is it O.K. to have the Historical marker to the left at May 12 with the titles (May 12 & May 13) indented (on my screen anyway)? --Doug Coldwell talk 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any constraint that would prevent the indent on the left. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I made the changes and improvements you suggested, at least that is my intention.
 * We will see what is recommended on any possible future name changes and work accordingly.
 * Quote box I changed to just "quote" which seems to work good for the Mosby letter (April 21). Took out the text for the signs that can be read clearly.
 * Used User:Hlj/CWediting styles.
 * Took out any reference of "many historians say..."
 * Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9, not met with Grant.
 * On April 26 Johnston surrendered his armies.
 * Made CSS Shenandoah longer and section of surrender of CSS Shenandoah shorter.
 * Bennett Place reference is from A Stillness at Appomattox (an article I started), which doesn't say which troops exactly.
 * Did I get everything? If you see more, let me know. FYI, User:Kresock recently made some excellent improvements.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions for an Alt hook for this article, that is at Template talk:Did you know?--Doug Coldwell talk 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't usually think about these DYK exercises. I would say that only a small minority of historians consider anything past April 26 to be anything more than a footnote, like those Japanese soldiers found years later hiding in caves in the Philippines who thought the war was still on. As to other work, the April 26 section needs attention, as I wrote in the Talk page (where a lot of this discussion should have taken place). And the two sources sections should be subsections of References. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for all your input and directions on how the article can be improved. Appreciate it. If you notice anything else, please let me know as I regard your advice highly.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Kresock had just the right information to expand the April 26 section and did a great job of it. He found in 3 of his American Civil War books exactly which departments and armies surrendered. I think that pretty much takes care of that section. I believe soon they will review for G.A. I am hoping for the best. I am glad you gave me all that advice, which I attempted to follow as I believe it to be correct and excellent. If you have any other advice, I am listening. Thanks again. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift comments
Thanks for the edits you made to improve the article. Since you are very familiar with these events related to the American Civil War, do you have any suggestions for an Alt hook for this article, that is at Template talk:Did you know?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Doug Coldwell, thanks for starting Conclusion of the American Civil War. I love anything related to the American Civil War. :-)
 * You were talking about Alt hook for this article; I'll try to help. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for the input at Template talk. I have added a Comment there and hopefully Bedford's ALT2 will be selected as I like that one best since it is the simplest and easiest to understand. I have several references at Conclusion of the American Civil War to back this up. --Doug Coldwell talk 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I look forward to working with you on WP. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Kresock comments
Thanks for the edits you made to improve the article. Since you are very familiar with these events related to the American Civil War, do you have any suggestions for an Alt hook for this article, that is at Template talk:Did you know?--Doug Coldwell talk 12:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello there Doug Coldwell! You're welcome for the small edits I did to the page. As far as Did You Know I limit my involvement in this process to questions of verifiability/clarity of something I wrote that somehow got nominated, and that's it. You've already gotten plenty of responses & suggestions from Bedford, AdjustShift, BusterD, and others. If it my advice you want, go with Bedford's 2nd and then concentrate on improving the article itself. Any help with that I'd be glad to give, just ask! Kresock (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree Bedford's ALT2 is the one to go with. I added a Comment under his ALT so that an administrator would easily find references for his. I would like to see Bedford's ALT chosen as I believe that one is the easiest for the readers to understand. Do need a little help with the April 26 section. I am looking to expand that section and so far have not been able to find the exact departments of Johnston's armies that surrendered. If I could find those then the section could be expanded. FYI, I started the article on A Stillness at Appomattox, a book by Bruce Catton. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gen. Johnston surrendered the following on April 26, 1865: the Department of Tennessee & Georgia; the Army of Tennessee; the Department of South Carolina, Georgia, & Florida; and the Department of North Carolina & Southern Virginia; combined totaling about 30,000 men. On April 17 Sherman and Johnston met, and the following day an armistice was arranged and (very generous) terms discussed. Then on April 24 Washington rejected Sherman's outlined plans, and two days later Johnston agreed to the same terms Lee got back on April 9. On April 27 his adjutant announced the terms to the Army of Tennessee (General Orders #18, text available) and on May 2 he issued his farewell address to the Army of Tennessee (General Orders # 22, text available.) I can cite all of this from three of my books if you wish to include it. Kresock (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be great. It looks like you have an excellent understanding on this and since I am not naturally a Civil War buff, if you don't mind could you put this into that section. I would really appreciate it! Thanks much.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured out what the "pinging' was about! How does it look now? Do you wish either General Order to be included? His farewell is slightly shorter in length, if that matters. Let me know. Kresock (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Yup, keeps the conversation in one place then.
 * This is outstanding work. Just the right size now, I don't think anything else should be added. Great job! I hereby dub you an accolade. I believe the article is now ready for its G.A. review, which should be coming up soon. We will see what happens and what they have to say. Thanks for your input.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An accolade! Hot damn!! Kresock (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aussie WNA is in review
Wandal' has started reviewing my Australia and the American Civil War‎ article; I wouldn't mind an additional eye. Take care.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look it over closely, however at first glance it looks great to me. If I see anything that I think could be improved I'll suggest on the article Talk page first, so that you can take it from there. As you can see by the great help I received from User:Kresock above, who is into the American Civil War, he is also an excellent helper as is User:Hlj whom gave me several "pointers" that I worked on for improvements to the ACW article I started. Cheers.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Help Desk Question
I have modified the code for the rotary telephone for your request. Here's what it looks like.  TN X Man 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell talk 18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Conclusion of the American Civil War
--Dravecky (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me Dravecky.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry
I am not the person to whom this should be address, as I have no checkuser access, and I am not very experienced in this area. Please see my reply to F&F.

I suggest you have a look at User:Fowler&fowler/Xn4-Strawless-Editing-Histories and ask advise from CHL who created the graph, or open a check user request yourself (see Sockpuppet investigations).

Please let me know if I can help further and please let me know the outcome as it will allow me to gain experience. --PBS (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, I don't see any compelling reason to suspect that they're one person or that they're using one IP address. I didn't think it was good enough to checkuser them. You should add some evidence of actual abuse (like edit warring together, tag teaming, or something similar), then it might be suggestive enough to checkuser. Right now, I don't think there's much here. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --PBS (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert vandelism "to last version by____"
How do I revert article vandelism "to last version by____" or "to last good version by _____" going back three or four edits (for example)? I assume the words "to last good version by _____ " are automatically generated (somehow) if the proper steps are done. Lets say I want to go back four edits to the last known good version before all the vandelism started. Can you tell me how to do that without just clicking on "undo" - which is only for one edit back. I assume it then generates automatically the words "to last good version by _____." You can answer HERE. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you notice the little buttons between (cur)(prev) and the date in the history, you can select two revisions to compare. If the later revision is the latest revision to the page, pressing undo while viewing the diff will undo the entire series of edits. Just make sure that no good edits were made in the meantime. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of these messages were left by people using wiki editing tools. See Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Following that procedure, if I go back more that one edit it says "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Still stumped! --Doug Coldwell talk 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what tool leaves that particular edit summary - I've seen it, too - but popups is a good one for reverting tag-team vandalism. Its 'actions' menu will let you revert to a diff from the comparison view or right from the page history.  -- Vary  Talk 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I use Twinkle, which offers me a "Restore this version" link when browsing versions of an article's edit history. I can click this to revert to old versions of an article that has since been damaged by multiple users. You can see an example of where I did this here. Basically, above the "Version as of (whenever)" on a diff page, I have a link saying "Restore this version". Does that help? Gonzonoir (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Doug Coldwell, you could also investigate asking for rollback permissions. Those would get you round the "intermediate edits" problem in cases where you were trying to undo multiple edits by the same user, because they let you revert consecutive vandalism edits by a single user. I'm not sure, but I think rollback may be necessary for the function I described in Twinkle to work as well. Gonzonoir (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Conclusion of the American Civil War
I will be reviewing this in the next couple of days and will post some comments on the GA review page. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, i have made some comments and they are on the GA review page. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for tackling those issues. I have made some more additional comments on the GA review page.  Again, give me a shout when you're done!  Thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have passed the article for GA status. Thanks for your work on making the improvements. MarquisCostello (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting a letter
In Conclusion of the American Civil War I am quoting a letter in a quote box. Is the best way to do this, or should it not have a box? Should the wording in the letter be italicized (and in or out of a box)? What is the best way to present this letter? --Doug Coldwell talk 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:QUOTE. To see examples of Wikipedia's best practices, look through the featured articles. Unfortunately I don't know a way to efficiently search the featured articles for examples of extended quotations. --Teratornis (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Double redirect + lost history
I just revisited Wikipedia and I wanted to fix the double redirect problem, as promised. But it appears that you fixed that in the meantime, correct? I'm writing this here since I'm cleaning up my talk page. If it is still an issue, please let me know by e-mail, as I'm not regularly checking Wikipedia anymore. &mdash; Sebastian 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sent you an e-mail on this. Problem not solved yet. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got it, and I tried it out here. Please note that the histories will not be neatly one after the other, but they will contain both, just sorted by date. (Note that there are e.g. two entries "created page" in the example history.) In our case, while most of the edits to Tertia Aemilia will be listed in the timeline before (or below) those to Aemilia Tertia, there will be an overlap, as in the following, where the Tertia Aemilia edit came after the Aemilia Tertia edit: Will that be OK? &mdash; Sebastian 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit to Tertia Aemilia) 12:49, March 7, 2007 Doug Coldwell (talk | contribs | block) m (←Redirected page to Aemilia Tertia)
 * (edit to Aemilia Tertia) 13:56, February 21, 2007 Doug Coldwell (talk | contribs | block) (←Redirected page to Tertia Aemilia)
 * Not sure. In the Revision history of Aemilia Tertia new history I don't see "created page" at the bottom or anywhere. I see nothing before 21 February 2007. I "Started Article" on 27 January 2007 in the Revision history of Tertia Aemilia. Can BOTH histories be merged into one history starting with 18 January 2007 and going newer to present? There is no older history than 21 February 2007 in the existing history.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried it out here. The purpose of my post was to ask you if the sorting problem is OK before I do it with the actual article. &mdash; Sebastian 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The sorting and order of these is O.K.

Hopefully now it will work as one History. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 22:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit to Tertia Aemilia) 12:49, March 7, 2007 Doug Coldwell (talk | contribs | block) m (←Redirected page to Aemilia Tertia)
 * (edit to Aemilia Tertia) 13:56, February 21, 2007 Doug Coldwell (talk | contribs | block) (←Redirected page to Tertia Aemilia)


 * Done! I think it looks OK, although the history is indeed a bit confusing if you don't know about the renaming and merge. &mdash; Sebastian 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciate it. --Doug Coldwell talk 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornelia
Hi Doug. I've seen your name around a bit and recognize you as a serious editor. Information from the past has survived haphazardly. All I can do is give you general sources. You need a login to Google, which is for free. Then search Google books for Cornelia, looking especially for Polybius, Livy, Diodorus Siculus and Pliny the Elder. Some secondary sources might mention her in passing but they might give the primary source. Another site to search is Perseus at Tufts. You can Google for the website. Their server is very slow. Then Google for Joseph Smith's works and Lempriere and Seifert. What you are looking for are the older downloadable encyclopedias. Don't download though, search online. Downloaded books can't be searched. This is a lot of work. I love it myself but younger people typically got something significant (they think) to do. I got to go now. Best of luck.Dave (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great ideas. That will keep me out of trouble for awhile researching those sources. I originally started the article on Aemilia Tertia, wife of Scipio Africanus.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cornelia maior
There seems to be precious little material about her besides the genealogical information. My (old) copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary doesn't provide any more extensive description of her life either. I am sorry that I cannot be of more help. Note however that "Cornelia Scipionis Africani filia" would be a valid form for both daughters. Those are descriptive rather than official names, and apparently the first daughter is obscure enough for the younger one to be known as "the" daughter of Scipio Africanus. If the first one did not play any major role in politics whatsoever, or in raising especially famous children, this would be understandable, and it would explain why her life is not recorded by the much later sources that we rely on to reconstruct that period of Roman history. But perhaps some information is to be found somewhere. At any rate, I'll keep an eye open. Iblardi (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Big Sable Point Light
Dear Doug, FYI, the infobox for lighthouses has recently been modified to include the NHRP data within it. That might affect your format issues. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * Sounds like a great improvement. Then we won't have to have two info boxes and the text layout should improve even more.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Lighthouse. I am somewhat confused, as I know I read that the NRHP was included in this, but now it doesn't appear to be.  Sorry for the misinformation.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Stan